18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

SPM

2655

Climate Resilient

Development Pathways

This chapter should be cited as:

Schipper, E.L.F., A. Revi, B.L. Preston, E.R. Carr, S.H. Eriksen, L.R. Fernandez-Carril, B.C. Glavovic, N.J.M. Hilmi, D. Ley,

R. Mukerji, M.S. Muylaert de Araujo, R. Perez, S.K. Rose, and P.K. Singh, 2022: Climate Resilient Development Pathways.

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 [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.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2655–2807, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.027.

Coordinating Lead Authors: E. Lisa F. Schipper (Sweden/UK), Aromar Revi (India), Benjamin L.

Preston (Australia/USA)

Lead Authors: Edward. R. Carr (USA), Siri H. Eriksen (Norway), Luis R. Fernández-Carril (Mexico),

Bruce Glavovic (South Africa/New Zealand), Nathalie J.M. Hilmi (France/Monaco), Debora Ley

(Mexico/Guatemala), Rupa Mukerji (India/Switzerland), M. Silvia Muylaert de Araujo (Brazil),

Rosa Perez (Philippines), Steven K. Rose (USA), Pramod K. Singh (India)

Contributing Authors: Paulina Aldunce (Chile), Aditya Bahadur (India), Natália Barbosa de

Carvalho (Brazil), Ritwika Basu (India), Nick Brooks (UK), Donald A. Brown (USA), Anna Carthy

(Ireland), Vanesa Castán Broto (Spain/UK), Ralph Chami (USA), John Cook (USA), Daniel de Berrêdo

Viana (Brazil), Frode Degvold (Norway), Shekoofeh Farahmend (Iran), Roger Few (UK), Gianfranco

Gianfrate (France), H. Carina Keskitalo (Sweden), Florian Krampe (Germany/Sweden), Rinchen

Lama (South Africa), Julia Leventon (Czech Republic/UK), Rebecca McNaught (New Zealand), Yu

Mo (China/UK), Marianne Mosberg (Norway), Michelle Mycoo (Trinidad and Tobago), Johanna

Nalau (Australia/Finland), Karen O’Brien (Norway), Meg Parsons (New Zealand), Alain Safa

(France), Majid Sameti (Iran), Zoha Shawoo (Pakistan/UK), Marcus Taylor (Canada/UK), Mark G.L.

Tebboth (UK), Bejoy K. Thomas (India), Kirsten Ulsrud (Norway), Saskia Werners (the Netherlands/

Germany), Keren Zhu (China), Monika Zurek (Germany/UK)

Review Editors: Diana Liverman (USA), Nobuo Mimura (Japan)

Chapter Scientists: Ritwika Basu (India/UK), Zoha Shawoo (Pakistan/UK), Yu Mo (China/UK)

2656

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Table of Contents

Executive Summary �� 2657

18.1 Ways Forward for Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2660

18.1.1 Understanding Climate Resilient Development

2660

18.1.2 Pathways for Climate Resilient Development

�� 2661

18.1.3 Policy Context for Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2666

18.1.4 Assessing Climate Resilient Development

�� 2667

18.1.5 Chapter Roadmap

�� 2667

Box18.1 | Transformations in Support of Climate

Resilient Development Pathways

�� 2668

Box18.2 | Visions of Climate Resilient

Development in Kenya

�� 2669

18.2 Linking Development and Climate Action

�� 2670

18.2.1 Implications of Current Development Trends

�� 2670

18.2.2 Understanding Development in CRD

�� 2671

18.2.3 Scenarios as a Method for Representing Future

Development Trajectories

�� 2673

18.2.4 Climate Change Risks to Development

�� 2675

18.2.5 Options for Managing Future Climate Risks to

Climate Resilient Development

�� 2676

Box18.3 | Climate Resilient Development in Small

Islands

�� 2680

Box18.4 | Adaptation and the Sustainable

Development Goals

�� 2681

18.3 Transitions to Climate Resilient Development

� 2690

18.3.1 System Transitions as a Foundation for Climate

Resilient Development

�� 2690

Box18.5 | The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2694

18.3.2 Accelerating Transitions

�� 2698

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER | Gender, Climate Justice

and Transformative Pathways

�� 2700

18.4 Agency and Empowerment for Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2705

18.4.1 Political Economy of Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2705

18.4.2 Enabling Conditions for Near-Term System

Transitions

�� 2706

Box18.6 | ‘Green’ Strategies of Institutional

Investors

�� 2710

18.4.3 Arenas of Engagement

�� 2711

Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG | The Role of Indigenous

Knowledge and Local Knowledge in Understanding

and Adapting to Climate Change

�� 2713

Box18.7 | Macroeconomic Policies in Support of Climate

Resilient Development

�� 2718

18.4.4 Frontiers of Climate Action

�� 2720

Box18.8: The Role of the Private Sector in Climate

Resilient Development via Climate Finance,

Investments and Innovation

�� 2721

18.5 Sectoral and Regional Synthesis of Climate

Resilient Development

�� 2721

18.5.1 Regional Synthesis of Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2721

18.5.2 Sectoral Synthesis of Climate Resilient

Development

�� 2724

18.5.3 Feasibility and Efﬁcacy of Options for Climate

Resilient Development

�� 2724

18.6 Conclusions and Research Needs

�� 2732

18.6.1 Knowledge Gaps

�� 2732

18.6.2 Conclusions

�� 2732

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.1 | What is a climate resilient development

pathway?

�� 2734

FAQ 18.2 | What is climate resilient development

and how can climate change adaptation (measures)

contribute to achieving this?

�� 2734

FAQ 18.3 | How can different actors across society

and levels of government be empowered to pursue

climate resilient development?

�� 2736

FAQ 18.4 | What role do transitions and transformations

in energy, urban and infrastructure, industrial,

land and ocean ecosystems, and in society, play in

climate resilient development?

�� 2736

FAQ 18.5 | What are success criteria in climate resilient

development and how can actors satisfy those

criteria?

�� 2737

References

�� 2738

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB | Feasibility Assessment of

Adaptation Options: An Update of the SR1.5

�� 2769

2657

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Executive Summary

Climate resilient development (CRD) is a process of implementing

greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation options to support

sustainable development for all {Section 18.1}. Climate action

and sustainable development are interdependent processes and

climate resilient development is possible when this interdependence is

leveraged. Pursuing these goals in an integrated manner increases their

effectiveness in enhancing human and ecological well-being. Climate

resilient development can help build capacity for climate action,

including contributing to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,

while enabling the implementation of adaptation options that enhance

social, economic and ecological resilience to climate change as the

prospect of crossing the 1.5°C global warming level in the early 2030s

approaches (WGI TableSPM1). For example, incorporating clean energy

generation, healthy diets from sustainable food systems, appropriate

urban planning and transport, universal health coverage and social

protection, can generate substantial health and well-being co-beneﬁts

(very high conﬁdence

) {Section7.4.4, Cross-Chapter BoxHEALTH in

Chapter 7}. Similarly, universal water and energy access can help to

reduce poverty and improve well-being while making populations less

vulnerable and more resilient to adverse climate impacts (very high

conﬁdence) {Section18.1, Box4.7}.

Current development pathways, combined with the observed

impacts of climate change, are leading away from, rather

than towards, sustainable development, as reported in recent

literature (moderate agreement, robust evidence). While

demonstrable progress has been made on some of the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs), signiﬁcant gains across a range of targets

are still necessary, as is enhancing synergies and balancing and

managing trade-offs. Severe risks to natural and human systems are

already observed in some places (high conﬁdence) and could occur in

many more systems worldwide before mid-century (medium conﬁdence)

and by the end of the century at all scales, from the local to the global,

and at all latitudes and altitudes (high conﬁdence). The coronavirus

disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic revealed the vulnerability of

development progress to shocks and stresses, potentially delaying the

implementation of the 2030 Agenda for all {Section8.1, Cross-Chapter

BoxCOVID in Chapter 7}. Various global trends, including rising income

inequality, continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions, land use

change, food and water insecurity, human displacement and reversals

of long-term increasing life expectancy trends in some nations, run

counter to the SDGs (very high conﬁdence), as well as efforts to

mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate

{Section 18.2}. These development trends contribute to worsening

poverty, injustice and inequity, and environmental degradation.

Climate change can exacerbate these conditions by undermining

human and ecological well-being {Section18.2}.

Social and economic inequities linked to gender, poverty, race/

ethnicity, religion, age or geographic location compound

vulnerability to climate change and have created and could further

1 In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium or high. A level of conﬁdence is

expressed using ﬁve qualiﬁers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium conﬁdence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different conﬁdence levels

can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing conﬁdence.

exacerbate injustices, as well as constrain the implementation of

CRD for all (very high conﬁdence). Climate change intensiﬁes existing

vulnerability and inequality, with adverse impacts of climate change on

the most vulnerable groups, including women and children in low-income

households, Indigenous or other minority groups, small-scale producers

and ﬁshing communities, and low-income countries (high conﬁdence).

Most vulnerable regions and population groups, such as in East, Central

and West Africa, South Asia, Micronesia and Melanesia, and Central

America, present the most urgent need for adaptation (high conﬁdence)

{Chapters 10, 12, 15}. Climate justice initiatives explicitly address

these multi-dimensional distributional issues as part of climate change

adaptation. However, adaptation strategies can worsen social inequities,

including gender, unless explicit efforts are made to change those

unequal power dynamics, including spaces to foster inclusive decision

making. Drawing upon Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge can

contribute to overcoming the combined challenges of climate change,

food security, biodiversity conservation, and combating desertiﬁcation

and land degradation. {Section 18.2; Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER; Cross-

Chapter BoxINDIG}

Opportunities for climate resilient development vary by location

(very high conﬁdence). Over 3.3billion people live in regions that are

very high and highly vulnerable to climate change, while 2billion people

live in regions with low and very low vulnerability. Response to global

greenhouse gas emissions trajectories, regional and local development

pathways, climate risk exposure, socioeconomic and ecological

vulnerability, and the local capacity to implement effective adaptation

and greenhouse gas mitigation options, differ depending on local

contexts and conditions {Table18.3}. As an example, underlying social

and economic vulnerabilities in Australasia exacerbate disadvantage

among particular social groups and there is deep under-investment

in adaptation, given current and projected risks {Chapter 11}. There

is also signiﬁcant regional heterogeneity in climate change, exposure

and vulnerability, indicating different starting points for CRD, as well

as mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development opportunities,

synergies and trade-offs {Section18.5}.

There are multiple possible pathways by which communities,

nations and the world can pursue CRD. Moving towards

different pathways involves confronting complex synergies and

trade-offs between development pathways, and the options,

contested values and interests that underpin climate mitigation

and adaptation choices (very high conﬁdence). Climate resilient

development pathways (CRDPs) are trajectories for the pursuit of CRD

and navigating its complexities. Different actors, the private sector and

civil society, inﬂuenced by science, local and Indigenous knowledges,

and the media are both active and passive in designing and navigating

CRDPs {Sections18.1, 18.4}. Increasing levels of warming may narrow

the options and choices available for local survival and sustainable

development for human societies and ecosystems. Limiting warming

to Paris Agreement goals will reduce the magnitude of climate risks

to which people, places the economy and ecosystems will have to

adapt. Reconciling the costs, beneﬁts and trade-offs associated with

2658

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions and

how they are distributed among different populations and geographies

is essential and challenging, but also creates the potential to pursue

synergies that beneﬁt human and ecological well-being. For example, in

parts of Asia, sustainable development pathways that connect climate

change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can reduce climate

vulnerability and increase resilience {Table 18.3, Section 10.6.2}.

Different actors and stakeholders have different priorities regarding

these opportunities, which can exacerbate or diminish existing social,

economic and ecological vulnerabilities and inequities. For example,

in parts of Africa, intensive irrigation contributes to the development

of agriculture but has come at a cost to ecosystem integrity and

human well-being {Table 18.3, Section9.15.2}. Careful and explicit

consideration for the ethical and equity dimensions of policies and

practices associated with a climate resilient development pathway can

help limit these negative externalities.

Prevailing development pathways are not advancing CRD

(very high conﬁdence). Societal choices in the near term will

determine future pathways. Some low-emissions pathways and

climate outcomes are unlikely

to be realised (very high conﬁdence).

Rapid climate change is affecting every region across the globe and

affecting natural and human systems relevant to the pursuit of the

SDGs {Sections 18.1, 18.2, Figure 18.1}. Even the most ambitious

greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios indicate climate change will

continue for decades to centuries {WGI, Section 18.2}. Increasing

mitigation effort across multiple sectors exhibits opportunities

for synergies with sustainable development, but also trade-offs

that increase with mitigation efforts, that need to be balanced and

managed (high conﬁdence). The uncertainty associated with achieving

speciﬁc pathways and climate outcomes is a risk factor to consider

in planning, with plausibility and transformational challenges, as well

as trade-offs and synergies, affected by technology, policy design and

societal choices {Section18.2}. For instance, restrictions on utilisation

of individual mitigation options to manage trade-offs (e.g., bioenergy

with carbon capture and storage [CCS], afforestation, nuclear power)

can also affect the mitigation cost to households (e.g., energy security,

commodity prices) and the likelihood of a desired climate outcome

being realised.Developing and transitional economies are estimated

as low-cost mitigation opportunities but are often at high riskfrom

climate change due to their regional and development context (high

conﬁdence) {Sections18.2, 18.5}. For example, in Africa, competing

uses for water such as hydropower generation, irrigation and ecosystem

requirementscancreate trade-offs among different managementand

developmentobjectives {Section9.7.3}. In Asia, intensive irrigation and

other forms of water consumption can have a negative effect on water

quality and aquatic ecosystems {Section10.6.3}.Developed countries

also face trade-offs, including in Australasia where adapting to ﬁre risk

in peri-urban zones introduces potential trade-offs among ecological

values and fuel reduction in treed landscapes {Section11.3.5}, and

in North America where new coastal and alpine developments

generate economic activity but enhance local social inequalities

{Section15.4.10}.

2 In this Report, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about

as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10% and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100% and extremely unlikely

0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely). This Report also uses the term ‘likely range’ to indicate that the assessed likelihood of an outcome

lies within the 17–83% probability range.

Systems transitions can enable CRD when accompanied by

appropriate enabling conditions and inclusive arenas of

engagement (very high conﬁdence). Five systems transitions

are considered: energy, industry, urban and infrastructure, land

and ecosystems, and societal. Advancing CRD in speciﬁc contexts

may necessitate simultaneous progress on all ﬁve transitions.

Collectively, these system transitions can widen the solution space,

and accelerate and deepen the implementation of sustainable

development, adaptation, and mitigation actions by equipping actors

and decision makers with more effective options. For example, urban

ecological infrastructure linked to an appropriate land use mix, street

connectivity, open and green spaces, and job-housing proximity

provides adaptation and mitigation beneﬁts that can aid urban

transformation. {Table 18.4, Cross-Working Group Box URBAN in

Chapter 6} These system transitions are necessary precursors for more

fundamental climate and sustainable-development transformations;

but can simultaneously be outcomes of transformative actions.

However, the way they are pursued may not necessarily be perceived

as ethical or desirable to all actors. Hence, enhancing equity and

agency are cross-cutting considerations for all ﬁve transitions. Such

transitions can generate beneﬁts across different sectors and regions,

provided they are facilitated by appropriate enabling conditions,

including effective governance, policy implementation, innovation,

and climate and development ﬁnance, which are currently insufﬁcient

{Sections18.3, 18.4}.

There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to implement

system transitions needed to enable CRD. Past choices have

already eliminated some development pathways, but other

pathways for CRD remain (very high conﬁdence). In spite of a

growth in national net-zero commitments, the current prospects of

surpassing 1.5°C global mean temperatures by the 2030s are high

{WGI TableSPM1}. There is strong evidence of the worsening of multiple

climate impact drivers in all regions, that will place additional pressures

on ecosystem services that support food and water systems, increasing

the risks of malnutrition, ill-health and poverty in many regions {WGI

Fig SPM9, Table18.4}. This implies that signiﬁcant additional adaptation

will be needed. Over the near-term, implementing such transformational

change could be disruptive to various economic and social systems.

Over the long-term, however, they could generate beneﬁts to human

well-being and planetary health. Strengthening coordinated adaptation

and mitigation actions can enhance the potential of local and regional

development pathways to support CRD. Planning for CRD can support

both adaptation and decarbonisation via effective land use, promoting

resilient and low-carbon infrastructure; protecting biodiversity and

integrating ecosystem services {Table18.4}, assuming advancing just

and equitable development processes.

Prospects for transformation towards CRD increase when key

governance actors work together in inclusive and constructive

ways to create a set of appropriate enabling conditions

{Section 18.4.2} (high conﬁdence). These enabling conditions

include effective governance and information ﬂow, policy frameworks

2659

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

that incentivise sustainability solutions; adequate ﬁnancing for

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development; institutional

capacity; science, technology and innovation; monitoring and

evaluation of climate resilient development policies, programmes

and practices; and international cooperation. Investment in social

and technological innovation could generate the knowledge and

entrepreneurship needed to catalyse system transitions and their

transfer. The implementation of policies that incentivise the deployment

of low-carbon technologies and practices within speciﬁc sectors such

as energy, buildings and agriculture could accelerate greenhouse gas

mitigation and deployment of climate-resilient infrastructure in urban

and rural areas. Civic engagement is an important element of building

societal consensus and reducing barriers to action on adaptation,

mitigation and sustainable development {Section18.4}.

CRDPs are determined through engagement in different arenas,

the degree to which the emergent pathways foster just and

CRD depends on how contending societal interests, values and

worldviews are reconciled through inclusive and participatory

interactions between governance actors in these arenas of

engagement {Section18.4.3} (high conﬁdence). These interactions

occur in many different arenas (e.g., governmental, economic and

ﬁnancial, political, knowledge, science and technology, and community)

that represent the settings, places and spaces in which societal actors

interact to inﬂuence the nature and course of development. For

instance, the Agenda 2030 highlights the importance of multi-level

adaptation governance, including non-state actors from civil society

and the private sector. This implies the need for wider arenas and

modes of engagement around adaptation that facilitate coordination,

convergence and productive contestation among these diverse actors

to collectively solve problems and to unlock the synergies between

adaptation and mitigation and sustainable development.

Regional and national differences mean different capacities

for pursuing CRDPs. Economic sectors and global regions are

exposed to different opportunities and challenges in facilitating

CRD, suggesting adaptation and mitigation options should

be aligned to local and regional context and development

pathways (very high conﬁdence). Given their current state of

development, some regions may prioritise poverty and inequality

reduction, and economic development over the near-term as a means

of building capacity for climate action and low-carbon development

over the long-term. For example, Africa, South Asia, and Central and

South America are highly exposed, vulnerable and impacted by climate

change, which is ampliﬁed by poverty, population growth, land use

change and high dependence on natural resources for commodity

production. In contrast, developed economies with mature economies

and high levels of resilience may prioritise climate action to transition

their energy systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some

interventions may be robust in that they are relevant to a broad range of

potential development trajectories and could be deployed in a ﬂexible

manner. For example, conservation of land and water could be achieved

through a variety of means and offer beneﬁts to populations in the

Global North and South alike. However, other types of interventions,

such as those that are dependent upon emerging technologies, may

require a speciﬁc set of enhanced enabling conditions or factors

including infrastructure, supply chains, international cooperation,

and education and training that currently limit their implementation

to certain settings {Section 18.5}. Notwithstanding national and

regional differences, development practices that are aligned to people,

prosperity, partnerships, peace and the planet, as deﬁned in Agenda

2030, could enable more CRD {Figure18.1}.

People, acting through enabling social, economic and political

institutions are the agents of system and societal transformations

that facilitate CRD founded on the principles of inclusion, equity,

climate justice, ecosystem health and human well-being (very

high conﬁdence). While much literature on climate action has focused

on the role of technology and policy as the factors that drive change,

recent literature has focused on the role of speciﬁc actors; citizens,

civil society, knowledge institutions (including local and Indigenous

Peoples and science), governments, investors and businesses. Greater

attention to, and transparency of, which actors’ beneﬁt, fail to beneﬁt

or are impacted by mitigation and adaptation choices actions could

better support climate-resilient and sustainable development. For

example, grounding adaptation actions in local realities could help to

ensure that adaptive actions do not worsen existing gender and other

inequities within society (e.g., leading to maladaptation practices) (high

conﬁdence). Differences in the ability of different actors to effect change

ultimately inﬂuence which interventions for sustainable development

or climate action are implemented and thus what development

outcomes are achieved. Recent literature has focused on the social,

political and economic arenas of engagement in which these different

actors interact. More focused attention on these arenas of engagement

could prove beneﬁcial to reconciling divergent views on climate action,

integrating Indigenous knowledge and local knowledges, and elevating

diverse voices that have historically been marginalised from the policy

discourse, thereby reducing vulnerability and deepening adaptive

capacity and the ability to implement CRD {Section18.4; Cross-Chapter

BoxGENDER; Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG}.

Pursuing CRD involves considering a broader range of sustainable

development priorities, policies and practices, as well as enabling

societal choices to accelerate and deepen their implementation

(very high conﬁdence). Scientiﬁc assessments of climate change

have traditionally framed solutions around the implementation of

speciﬁc adaptation and mitigation options as mechanisms for reducing

climate-related risks. They have given less attention to a fuller set of

societal priorities and the role of non-climate policies, social norms,

lifestyles, power relationships and worldviews in enabling climate

action and sustainable development. Because CRDinvolves different

actors pursuing plural development trajectories in diverse contexts, the

pursuit of solutions that are equitable for all requires opening the space

for engagement and action to a diversity of people, institutions, forms

of knowledge and worldviews. Through inclusive modes of engagement

that enhance knowledge sharing and realise the productive potential of

diverse perspectives and worldviews, societies could alter institutional

structures and arrangements, development processes, choices and

actions that have precipitated dangerous climate change, constrained

the achievement of SDGs and, thus, limited pathways to achieving CRD

{Box18.1, Section18.4}. Action over the next decade will be critical for

charting CRD pathways that catalyse the transformation of prevailing

development practices and offer the greatest promise and potential for

human well-being and planetary health.

2660

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

18.1 Ways Forward for Climate Resilient

Development

The links between climate change and development have been long

recognized by various research communities (Nagoda, 2015; Winkler

et al., 2015; Webber, 2016; Carr, 2019) and have been assessed by

Working Group II in every IPCC Assessment Report since AR3 (Smit

etal., 2001; Yohe etal., 2007; Denton etal., 2014). For the AR 1-3

reports, these links were largely framed in the context of sustainable

development, a concept that has been well described in the literature

for decades (Brundtland, 1987). The AR5 introduced the framing of

climate-resilient pathways, which narrowed the discussion around

sustainable development to speciﬁcally address the contributions

of mitigation and adaptation actions to the reduction of risk to

development and the various institutions, strategies and choices

involved in risk management (Denton etal., 2014). That assessment

concluded that identifying and implementing appropriate technical

and governance options for mitigation and adaptation as well as

development strategies and choices that contribute to climate resilience

are central to the successful implementation of such strategies. The

AR5 also recognised that transformation of current development

pathways in terms of wider political, economic and social systems may

be necessary (Denton etal., 2014).

The literature presenting research ﬁndings on climate resilient

development (CRD) and pathways and processes for successfully

achieving CRD has expanded signiﬁcantly in the several years

since the AR5 (very high conﬁdence). This includes both qualitative

studies of development as well as illustrative, quantitative analyses

of development trajectories linked to speciﬁc scenarios, such as the

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) (Section18.2.2). Furthermore,

the literature describing the role of system transitions and societal

transformation in enabling climate action (Box 18.1, Section 18.3),

compliance with the Paris Agreement (Sections 18.1.3, 18.2.1) and

achievement of the SDGs (Section 18.1.3; Box18.4) has expanded

signiﬁcantly (very high conﬁdence). This expansion is comprised of

studies spanning a broad range of disciplinary perspectives, some of

which have been underrepresented in prior IPCC assessments (high

agreement, limited evidence) (Minx etal., 2017; Pearce etal., 2018b).

This chapter therefore focuses on assessing this more recent literature

and the diverse scientiﬁc understandings of CRD and the pathways

for pursuing it. Notably, this chapter takes off where Chapters 16

and 17 end: recognising the decision-making context to address the

representative key risks and their intersections with development,

among others. This chapter therefore highlights not only how climate

risk undermines CRD, but also how current patterns of development

contribute to climate risk, both generally and in different sectoral and

regional contexts. In particular, this chapter focuses on achieving CRD

through systems transitions, discussing these in relation to societal

transformation, and how different actors engage one another in order

to pursue policy and practice consistent with CRD.

18.1.1 Understanding Climate Resilient Development

Past IPCC Assessment Reports have consistently examined extensive

literature on the links between climate change, adaptation and

sustainable development (Smit et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2007; Yohe

etal., 2007). However, studies that explicitly refer to CRDas a concept

or a guide for policy and practice remain modest (very high conﬁdence).

The concept of CRD appeared in scholarly literature and development

program documents over a decade ago (Kamal Uddin etal., 2006; Garg

and Halsnæs, 2007) and has been used in more recent IPCC assessment

reports and special reports (e.g., Denton etal., 2014; Roy etal., 2018).

Similarly, the use of the term climate resilient development pathways

(CRDPs) dates to 2009 (Ayers and Huq, 2009), but its use accelerated

after appearing in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) publications around the launch of the Green Climate

Fund (UNFCCC, 2011). While this chapter prioritises the CRD literature,

it also recognises that a broad range of literature, disciplinary expertise

and development practice is relevant to the concept of CRD.

Much of this literature is assessed in recent IPCC Special Reports

(Rogelj etal., 2018; Roy etal., 2018; Bindoff etal., 2019; Hurlbert etal.,

2019; Oppenheimer etal., 2019), but new studies have continued to

emerge. More speciﬁc uses of CRD found in the literature describe

development that seeks to achieve poverty reduction and adaptation

to climate change simultaneously without explicit mention of

mitigation (USAID, 2014), as well as mitigation and poverty reduction,

described as ‘low-carbon development’, without explicit mention of

adaptation (Alam et al., 2011; Fankhauser and McDermott, 2016).

Other similar terms include ‘climate safe’, ‘climate compatible’ and

‘climate smart’ development (Huxham etal., 2015; Kim etal., 2017b;

Ficklin etal., 2018; Mcleod etal., 2018), each with varying nuances.

Climate compatible development, coined by Mitchell and Maxwell

(2010), speciﬁcally describes a ‘triple win’ of adaptation, mitigation

and development (Antwi-Agyei etal., 2017; Favretto etal., 2018) (see

also Section 8.6). In this spirit, AR5 speciﬁcally referred to CRD as

‘development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation to

realize the goal of sustainable development’ (Denton etal., 2014). This

chapter builds on the AR5 and, for the purposes of assessment, formally

deﬁnes CRD as a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation

and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all.

This extension of the earlier deﬁnition reﬂects the emphasis in recent

literature on equity as a core element of sustainable development as

well as the objective of the SDGs to ‘create conditions for sustainable,

inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and

decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national

development and capacities’ (United Nations, 2015: 3/35).

Past, present and future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere are the direct result of both natural and anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions which are, in turn, a function of past and

current patterns of human and economic development (very high

conﬁdence, WGI SPM [IPCC, 2021b]). This includes development

processes that drive land use change, extractive industries,

manufacturing and trade, energy production, food production,

infrastructure development and transportation. These patterns of

development are therefore drivers of current and future climate risk

to speciﬁc sectors, regions and populations (Byers et al., 2018), as

2661

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

well as the demand for both mitigation and adaptation as a means of

preventing climate change from undermining development goals. The

SDGs represent targets for supporting human and ecological well-being

in a sustainable manner. Yet, while progress is being made towards a

number of the SDGs, success in achieving all of the SDGs by 2030

across all global regions remains uncertain (high agreement, medium

evidence) (United Nations, 2021). Moreover, current commitments to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not yet consistent with limiting

changes in global mean temperature elevation to well-below 2°C or

1.5°C (very high conﬁdence) (IPCC, 2018a) (see also Section18.2).

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are just one of a

number of planetary boundaries which deﬁne safe operating spaces for

humanity and therefore opportunities for achieving sustainable and CRD.

Exceeding these boundaries poses increased risk of large-scale abrupt

or irreversible environmental changes that would threaten human and

ecological well-being (very high conﬁdence) (Rockström etal., 2009a;

Rockström etal., 2009b; Butler, 2017; Schleussner etal., 2021). Other

planetary boundaries reported in the literature such as biodiversity loss,

changes in land systems and freshwater use are also directly inﬂuenced

by patterns of development as well as climate change (Sections18.2,

18.5). Current rates of species extinction, conversion of land for crop

production and exploitation of water resources exceed planetary

boundaries, thereby undermining CRD. Moreover, studies indicate that

achievement of the SDGs, while consistent with maintaining some

planetary boundaries, could undermine others (O’Neill et al., 2018;

Hickel, 2019; Randers etal., 2019) (Section18.2), suggesting signiﬁcant

shifts in current patterns of development are necessary to maintain

development within planetary boundaries.

Exceedance of planetary boundaries contributes to human and ecological

vulnerability to climate change and other shocks and stressors. People and

regions that already face high rates of natural resource use, ecosystem

degradation and poverty are more vulnerable to climate change impacts,

compounding existing development challenges in regions that are

already strained (IPCC, 2014a; Hallegatte etal., 2019). The International

Monetary Fund, for example, found that for a medium- and low-income

developing country with an annual average temperature of 25°C, the

effect of a 1°C increase in temperature is a reduction in economic

growth by 1.2% (Acevedo et al., 2018). Countries whose economies

are projected to be hard hit by an increase in temperature account for

only about 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2016, but are

home to nearly 60% of the global population. This is expected to rise

to more than 75% by the end of the century. These economic impacts

are a function of the underlying vulnerability of low- and middle-income

developing economies to the impacts of climate change (Section18.5).

Such vulnerability was also evidenced and enhanced by the COVID-19

pandemic which slowed progress on the SDGs in multiple nations

(Naidoo and Fisher, 2020; Srivastava etal., 2020; Bherwani etal., 2021).

18.1.2 Pathways for Climate Resilient Development

One approach for operationalising the concept of CRD in a decision

making context is to link the concept of CRD to that of pathways

(Figure 18.1). A pathway can be deﬁned as ‘a trajectory in time,

reﬂecting a particular sequence of actions and consequences against

a background of autonomous developments, leading to a speciﬁc

future situation’ (Haasnoot et al., 2013; Bourgeois, 2015). As such,

a pathway represents changes over time in response to policies and

practices, as well spontaneous and exogenous events. For example,

the SR1.5 report suggested that CRD pathways are ‘a conceptual and

aspirational idea for steering societies towards low-carbon, prosperous

and ecologically safe futures’ (Roy etal., 2018: 468), and a way to

highlight the complexity of decision making processes at different

levels. Here, consistent with the aforementioned deﬁnition of CRD, we

deﬁne CRD pathways as development trajectories that successfully

integrate mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development.

As illustrated in Figure18.1, the ultimate aim of CRDPs is to support

sustainable development for ensuring planetary health and human well-

being. CRD is both an outcome at a point in space and time, as observed

through SDG achievement indicators, but also a process consisting of

actions and social choices made by multiple actors—government,

industry, media, civil society, and science (Section18.4). These actions

and social choices are performed within different dimensions of

governance—politics, institutions (norms, rules), and practice, and

bounded by ethics, values and worldviews. The development outcomes

and processes pertain to political, economic, ecological, socio-cultural,

knowledge-technology and community arenas (Figure18.2). A CRDP

will, for example, aspire to achieve ecological outcomes in terms of

planetary health and achievement of Paris Agreement goals as well as

human well-being, solidarity and social justice, in addition to political,

economic and science–technology outcomes. These outcomes are

enabled by achieving progress in core system transitions that catalyse

broader societal transformations (Figure18.3).

While there are many possible successful pathways to future

development in the context of climate change, history has shown that

pathways that are positive for the vast majority often induce notable

impacts and costs, especially on marginal and vulnerable people

(Hickel, 2017; Ramalho, 2019), placing them in direct contradiction

with the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ (United Nations,

2015). Similarly, contemporary scenario analyses ﬁnd that there are

plausible development trajectories that lead towards sustainability

(Figure18.1, Section18.2.2). Yet, a number of plausible trajectories

that perpetuate or exacerbate unstainable forms of development also

appear in the literature (Figure 18.1, Section 18.2.2). A signiﬁcant

challenge lies in identifying pathways that address current climate

variability and change, while allowing for improvements in human

well-being. Furthermore, while a given pathway might lead to a set of

desired outcomes for one region or set of actors, the process of getting

there may come at high environmental, socio- and economic cost to

others (very high conﬁdence) (Raworth, 2017; Faist, 2018). Frequently,

considerations of social difference and equity are not prioritised in the

evaluation of different development choices. The assumption that a

growing economy lifts opportunity for all could, for example, further

marginalise those who are the most vulnerable to climate change

(Matin etal., 2018; Diffenbaugh and Burke, 2019; Hickel etal., 2021).

Placing pathways and climate actions within development processes

implies a broadening of enablers to include the ethical–political

quality of socio-environmental processes that are required to shift

such processes in directions that support CRD and the pursuit of

2662

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to enable climate resilient development

(a) Societal choices about adaptation,

mitigation and sustainable development

made in arenas of engagement

2022

2100 &

beyond

IPCC

AR6

Present

situation

Sustainable

Development Goals

2030

(b) Illustrative development pathways

Illustrative climatic or non-climatic shock, e.g. COVID-19, drought or ﬂoods, that disrupts the development pathway

Past conditions

(emissions,

climate change,

development)

Warming limited to below 1.5°C;

adaptation enables

sustainable development

CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT HIGHERLOWER

characterizing development pathways

Well-being

Low poverty

Ecosystem health

Equity and justice

Low global

warming levels

Low risk

Vulnerability

High poverty

Ecosystem degradation

Inequity and injustice

High global

warming levels

High risk

Narrowing window of

opportunity for higher CRD

Dimensions that enable actions towards

higher climate resilient development

Dimensions that result in actions towards

lower climate resilient development

Arenas of engagement:

Community

Socio-cultural

Political

Ecological

Knowledge + technology

Economic + ﬁnancial

Increasing warming; path dependence and adaptation limits

undermine sustainable development

Figure18.1 | Climate Resilient Development Pathways are development trajectories that successfully integrate GHG mitigation and adaptation efforts to support sustainable development for all.

2663

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

(a) Climate resilient development is a process that takes place through continuous societal choices towards higher CRD (illustrative green pathways) or lower CRD (illustrative red pathways).

(b) CRD is described by ﬁve development dimensions – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet – on which the SDGs build (18.2).

Some societal choices have mixed outcomes for CRD (illustrative orange pathways). This ﬁgure builds on ﬁgure SPM.9 in AR5 WGII depicting climate resilient pathways by describing how CRDPs emerge from societal choices about adaptation,

mitigation and sustainable development within multiple arenas – rather than solely from discrete decision points (18.4). Dimensions of CRD characterize both development outcomes as well as the interactions and societal choices that make

up the development process. Societal choices, often contested, are made in arenas of engagement through interactions between key actors in civil society, the private sector and government (see Figure18.2). The quality of interactions, such

as degree of inclusion and empowerment of diverse voices, determine whether societal choices and associated actions shift development towards or away from CRD. The ﬁve CRD dimensions underline the close interconnectedness between

the biosphere and humans, the two necessarily intertwined in interactions, actions, transitions, and futures (see Figure18.3). There is a narrow and closing window of opportunity to make transformational changes to move towards and not

away from development futures that are more climate-resilient and sustainable (Box18.1). Pathways not taken (dotted line) illustrate that opportunities have been missed for higher CRD pathways due to past societal choices and increasing

temperatures. Present societal choices determine whether we shift towards higher CRD in future or whether pathways will be limited to lower CRD.

2664

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Societal choices made in arenas of engagement shape actions and systems

(a) Societal choices away from climate resilient development

(b) Societal choices towards climate resilient development (c) Interactions between arenas of

engagement across scales

Ecological degradati

Singular knowledge

Social injustice

ity

Vulnerability

ture-so

onnecte

Soci

Equity

Inclusion

l-bei

sed

men

Empowerment

etary he

alth

idar

Civil society

Private sector

Government

Nature - society

disconnect

Consumption growth

Disempowerment and exclusion

Figure18.2 | Societal choices made in arenas of engagement shape actions and systems. The settings, places and spaces in which key actors from government, civil society and the private sector interact to inﬂuence the nature

and course of development can be called arenas of engagement, including political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology and community arenas (18.4) For instance, political arenas include formal political settings such

as voting procedures to elect local representatives as well as less formal and transparent political arenas. Streets, town squares and post-disaster landscapes can become sites of interaction and political struggle as citizens strive to have their

voices heard. Arenas of engagement can take the form of “struggle arenas” – in which power and inﬂuence are used to include/exclude, set agendas, and make and implement decisions – with inevitable winners and losers. The quality of

interactions in these arenas leads to development outcomes that can be characterized as CRD dimensions that underpin the SDGs – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet (see Figure18.1).

(a) Interactions characterized by inequitable relations and domination of some actors over others may lead to societal choices away from CRD, including mitigation and adaptation actions that exacerbate vulnerability among marginalized groups.

(b) Prospects for moving towards CRD increase when governance actors work together constructively in these different arenas. Interactions and actions that are inclusive and synchronous, as opposed to fragmented or contradictory, enable

system transitions and transformational change towards CRD (see Figure18.3). Most societal choices and associated decisions are characterized by a mix of the dimensions shown in (a) and (b), with mixed outcomes for CRD.

(c) Arenas exist across scales from the local to national level, and beyond. Community arenas of engagement constitute the many interactions between governance actors and the political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology

arenas, reﬂecting emergent societal choices across scales. Together, the decisions made by multiple actors within and across these arenas of engagement form societal choices. Unlocking the potential of these societal choices and associated

mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development actions is central to advancing human well-being and planetary health.

2665

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Energy system

Land, water &

ecosystem

Industrial system transition

Urban &

infrastructural

system

Transformative actions and system transitions

(a) Societal choices that generate fragmented climate action or inaction and

unsustainable development perpetuate business as usual development

(b) Societal choices that support CRD involve transformative actions

that drive five systems transitions

emissi

Energy system

transition

Industrial system

transition

Urban & infrastructural

system transition

Land, water &

ecosystem

transition

Figure18.3 | Transformative actions and system transitions characterize Climate Resilient Development Pathways

(a) Societal choices that generate fragmented climate action or inaction and unsustainable development perpetuate business as usual and entrenched systems.

(b) Societal choices that support CRD involve transformative adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions that drive ﬁve systems transitions (energy, land and other ecosystems, urban and infrastructure, industrial and societal).

There is close interdependence between these systems. The system transition framework allows for a comprehensive assessment of the synergies and trade-offs between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. For example, land

and water use in one system impacts the other systems and their surrounding ecosystems, thus reﬂecting how agricultural practices can have an impact on energy usage in urban centers. Finally, societal system transitions within each of the

other systems enable the transitions to occur (18.3, Box18.1).

2666

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

sustainability outcomes. This chapter therefore departs from the AR5s

alignment of CRD with adaptation pathways and the emphasis on

decision points that enable one to manage (or fail to manage) climate

risk, towards a framing that integrates a range of possible futures each

offering different opportunities, risks and trade-offs to different actors

and stakeholders (see WGII AR5, IPCC, 2014b, FigureSPM.9). Instead,

CRD emerges from everyday formal and informal decisions, actions,

and adaptation or mitigation policy interventions. This is inclusive of

system transitions, increased resilience, environmental integrity, social

justice, equity, and reduced poverty and vulnerability, all facets of

human well-being and planetary health. Rather than encompassing a

formula or blueprint for particular actions, sustainable development is

a process that provides a compass for the direction that these multiple

actions should take (Anders, 2016). This creates opportunities for actors

to apply a diverse toolkit of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable

development interventions, thereby opening up the solution space.

This understanding of CRD implies that different actors—governments,

businesses and civic organisations—will have to design and navigate

their own CRD pathways towards climate-resilient and sustainable

development. This includes determining the appropriate balance of

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions and

investments that are consistent with individual actors’ development

circumstances and goals, while also ensuring that the collective actions

remain consistent with global agreements and goals (such as the SDGs,

Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement; Section18.1.3), planetary

boundaries and other principles of CRD including social justice and

equity (Roy etal., 2018). Empowering individual actors to pursue CRD

in a context-speciﬁc manner while coordinating action among actors

and a diversity of scales, local to global, is a key challenge associated

with achieving CRD (high agreement, limited evidence).

18.1.3 Policy Context for Climate Resilient Development

As reﬂected in Chapter 1 of the AR6 WGII report, CRD is emerging as one

of the guiding principles for climate policy, both at the international level

(Denton etal., 2014; Segger, 2016), as reﬂected in the Paris Agreement

(Article 2, UNFCCC, 2015), and within speciﬁc countries (Simonet and

Jobbins, 2016; Kim et al., 2017b; Vincent and Colenbrander, 2018;

Yalew, 2020). This framing of development recognises the risks posed

by climate change to development objectives (Section18.2; see also

Chapter 16); the opportunities, constraints and limits associated with

reducing risk through adaptation; synergies and trade-offs between

mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development (Sections18.2.5,

18.5, Box18.4); and the role of system transitions in enabling large-

scale transformations that limit future global warming to less than

1.5°C, while boosting resilience (IPCC, 2018a) (Section18.3, Box18.1).

Since the AR5, the volume of research at the nexus of climate action and

sustainable development has changed markedly (very high conﬁdence).

A rapidly growing, multi-disciplinary literature has emerged on CRD

(Mitchell etal., 2015; Clapp and Sillmann, 2019; Hardoy etal., 2019;

Yalew, 2020) and associated pathways (Naess et al., 2015; Winkler

and Dubash, 2016; Brechin and Espinoza, 2017; Solecki etal., 2017;

Ellis and Tschakert, 2019) (Section18.2.2). Nevertheless, the concept

of resilience generally, and CRD speciﬁcally, has come under increasing

criticism in recent years (very high conﬁdence) (Joakim etal., 2015;

Schlosberg etal., 2017; Mikulewicz, 2018; Mikulewicz, 2019; Moser

etal., 2019), suggesting the need to enhance understanding of how

resilience is being operationalised at the programme and project level

and the net implications for human and ecological well-being.

This expansion of research has been accompanied by a shift in the

policy context for climate action including an increasingly strong link

between climate actions and sustainable development. In particular,

the SDGs represent a near-term framework linking sustainability

and human development in a manner that not only addresses

planetary health and human well-being, but also help better plan

and implement mitigation and adaptation actions to achieve these

linked goals (Conway etal., 2015; Griscom etal., 2017; Allen etal.,

2018b; Roy etal., 2018; P.R. Shukla E. Calvo Buendia, 2019). The SDGs

explicitly identify climate action (SDG 13) among the goals needed

to achieve sustainable development. Meanwhile, the text of the Paris

Agreement makes explicit mention of the importance of considering

climate ‘in the context of sustainable development’ (Articles 2, 4, 6)

or as ‘contributing to sustainable development’ (Article 7) (Article

7, UNFCCC, 2015). Similarly, sustainable development appears

prominently within the text of the Sendai Framework for Disaster

Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015) and the Global Assessment Reports on

Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2019). At the local- or household-

level, a growing literature recognises that climate impacts tend to

exacerbate existing inequalities within societies, even at the level of

gender inequalities within households (Sultana, 2010; Arora-Jonsson,

2011; Carr, 2013). Thus, climate change impacts threaten even short-

term gains in sustainable development (18.2, Box18.4), which could

be rolled back over longer adaptation and mitigation horizons. For

example, the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to have reversed gains

over the past several years in terms of global poverty reduction (very

high conﬁdence) (Phillips etal., 2020; Sultana, 2021; Wilhelmi etal.,

2021) (Cross-Chapter Box COVID in Chapter 7), reﬂecting the risks

posed by global, systemic threats to development.

The WGII AR5 Report noted that adapting to the risks associated with

climate change becomes more challenging at higher levels of global

warming (IPCC, 2014a). This was evidenced by contrasting impacts

and adaptive capacity for 2°C and 4°C of warming. This relationship

between levels of warming, climate risk and reasons for concern (see

Chapter 16) is also relevant to the concept of CRD. For example, recent

literature on CRD emphasises the urgency of climate action that achieve

signiﬁcant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the

implementation of adaptation options that result in signiﬁcant gains

in human and natural system resilience (very high conﬁdence) (Haines

etal., 2017; Shindell etal., 2017; Xu and Ramanathan, 2017; Fuso Nerini

etal., 2018). This was explored extensively in the IPCC’s SR1.5 report

in its comparison of impacts associated with 1.5°C versus 2°C climate

objectives and synergies and trade-offs with the SDGs (IPCC, 2018a).

However, the SR1.5 report and other literature also identiﬁed potential

trade-offs between aggressive mitigation and the SDGs (see also Frank

etal., 2017; Hasegawa etal., 2018). This indicates that while future

magnitudes of warming are a fundamental consideration in CRD, such

development involves more than just achieving temperature targets.

Rather, CRD considers the possible transitions that enable those targets

to be achieved, including the evaluation of different adaptation and

2667

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

mitigation options and how the implementation of these strategies

interacts with broader sustainable development efforts and goals. This

interdependence between patterns of development, climate risk and

the demand for mitigation and adaptation action is fundamental to the

concept of CRD (Fankhauser and McDermott, 2016). Therefore, climate

change and sustainable development cannot be assessed or planned

in isolation of one another.

18.1.4 Assessing Climate Resilient Development

In operationalising the aforementioned deﬁnitions of CRD and

CRDP, this chapter builds its assessment around ﬁve core elements

that provide insights relevant to policymakers actively pursuing the

integration of climate resilience into development. First, as noted

above, climate change poses a potential risk to the achievement of

development goals, including global goals such as the SDGs, as well as

nationally or locally speciﬁc goals. Accordingly, Chapter 16’s discussion

of key risks, their implications for the SDGs and the options for risk

management are fundamental to the pursuit of CRD. This includes

the opportunities for implementing adaptation, mitigation or other

risk management options. Yet the management of climate risk must

be accompanied by interventions that address social and ecological

vulnerabilities that enhance climate risk.

Second, CRD is dependent on achieving transitions in key systems

including energy, land and ecosystem, urban and infrastructure, and

industrial systems (very high conﬁdence) (Box18.1, Figure 18.3). In

this context, CRD links to the discussion of system transitions in the

SR1.5 report (IPCC, 2018b; IPCC, 2018a). However, in building on the

SR1.5, here the assessment of CRD also recognises the importance of

transitions in societal systems that drive innovation, preferences for

alternative patterns of consumption and development, and the power

relationships among different actors that engage in CRD. In particular,

the rate at which actors can achieve system transitions has important

implications for the pursuit of CRD. Transitions that are slow to evolve

or that are more incremental in nature may not be sufﬁcient to enable

CRD in comparison with faster transitions that contribute to more

fundamental system transformations.

Third, equity and social justice are consistently identiﬁed in the literature

as being central to CRD (very high conﬁdence; Sections18.1.1, 18.3.1.5,

18.4, 18.5). This includes designing and implementing adaptation,

resilience and climate risk management options in a manner that

promotes equity in the allocation of the costs and beneﬁts of those

options. Similarly, the literature on CRD emphasises equity should

be pursued in the implementation of options for greenhouse gas

mitigation, transitions in energy systems and low-carbon development.

This emphasis on equity is consistent with the SDGs which place

an emphasis on reducing inequality and achieving sustainable

development for all.

Fourth, success in CRD and alignment of development interventions to

CRDPs is contingent on the presence of multiple enabling conditions

(very high conﬁdence, Section18.4.2), that operate at different scales

ranging from those that provide capacity to implement speciﬁc

adaptation options to those that enable large-scale transformational

change (Box18.1). The qualities that describe sustainable development

processes (e.g., social justice, alternative development models, equity

and solidarity, as described above and in Figure18.1) lead to short-

term outcomes and conditions, such as those represented by SDGs,

that in an iterative fashion enable or constraint subsequent efforts

towards CRD. For example, success or failure in achieving the SDGs or

the Paris Agreement would shape future efforts in pursuit of CRD and

the options available to different actors.

Fifth, CRD involves processes involving diverse actors, at different scales

operating within an environmental, developmental, socioeconomic,

cultural and political context, as typiﬁed in the SDG and the Paris

Agreement negotiations (very high conﬁdence) (Kamau etal., 2018)

(Section18.4). The dependence of CRD on processes of negotiation

and reconciliation among diverse actors and interests leads to the

dismissal of the notion that there is a single, optimal pathway that

captures the objectives, values and development contexts of all actors,

even for a particular sector, country or region. Rather, preferences for

different pathways and speciﬁc actions in pursuit of those pathways

will be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate among diverse actors

within various arenas of engagement (Section 18.4), meaning the

settings, places and spaces in which key actors from government, civil

society and the private sector interact to inﬂuence the nature and

course of development.

18.1.5 Chapter Roadmap

This chapter engages with understanding CRD and the pathways to

achieving it by building on the concepts introduced in Chapter 1 of this

Working Group II report, as well as the regional and sectoral context

presented in other chapters (Section18.5). Notably, this chapter takes

off where Chapters 16 and 17 end: recognising the signiﬁcance of

the representative key risks for CRD and the decision making context

of different actors who are implementing policies and practices to

pursue different CRD pathways and manage climate risk. Therefore,

this chapter assesses options for pursuing CRD and the broader system

transitions and enabling conditions in support of CRD.

This chapter hosts three Cross-Chapter Boxes, which have their natural

home here. The Cross-Chapter Box on Gender, Justice and Transformative

Pathways (Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER) assesses literature speciﬁcally

on gender and climate change to uncover the importance of a justice

focus to facilitate transformative pathways, both towards CRD, as well

as a means to achieving gender equity and social justice. The Cross-

Chapter Box on The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Understanding

and Adapting to Climate Change (Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG) highlights

that achieving CRD requires confronting the uncertainty of a climate

change future. There are many perspectives about what future is

desired and how to reach it. Integrating multiple forms of knowledge

is a strategy to build resilience and develop institutional arrangements

that provide temporary solutions able to satisfy competing interests

(Grove, 2018). Indigenous knowledge is proven to enhance resilience in

multiple contexts (e.g., Chowdhooree, 2019; Inaotombi and Mahanta,

2019). Meanwhile, Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB acts as an appendix to

the WGII report, synthesising information on the feasibility associated

with different adaptation options for reducing risk.

2668

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

In assessing the opportunities and constraints associated with

the pursuit of sustainable development, this chapter proceeds in

Section 18.2 to assess the links between sustainable development

and climate action, including examination of current patterns of

development and consideration for synergies and trade-offs among

different strategies and options. Then, in Section 18.3, the chapter

assesses ﬁve systems transitions to identify the shifts in development

that would enable CRD. Section 18.4 assesses the role of different

actors in the pursuit of CRD as well as the public and private arenas

in which they engage. Section18.5 synthesises CRD assessments from

different WGII sectoral and regional chapters to identify commonalities

and differences. The chapter concludes in Section18.6 with a summary

of key opportunities for enhancing the knowledge needed to enable

different actors to pursue CRD.

Box18.1 | Transformations in Support of Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Transformational changes in the pursuit of climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) involve interactions between individual,

collective and systems change (Figures18.1–18.3). There are complex interconnections between transformation and transition (Feola,

2015; Hölscher etal., 2018), and they are sometimes used as synonyms in the literature (Hölscher etal., 2018). Much of the transitions

literature focuses on how societal change occurs within existing political and economic systems. Transformations are often considered to

involve deeper and more fundamental changes than transitions, including changes to underlying values, worldviews, ideologies, structures

and power relationships (Göpel, 2016; O’Brien, 2016; Kuenkel, 2019; Waddock, 2019). Systems transitions alone are insufﬁcient to achieve

the rapid, fundamental and comprehensive changes required for humanity and planetary health in the face of climate change (high

conﬁdence). Transformative action is increasingly urgent across all sectors, systems and scales to avert dangerous climate change and

meet the SDGs (Pelling etal., 2015; IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2021b; Shi and Moser, 2021; Vogel and O’Brien, 2021) (high conﬁdence). The SR1.5

identiﬁed transformative change as necessary to achieve transitions within land, water and ecosystems systems; urban and infrastructural

systems; energy systems; and industrial systems. This box summarises key points in the transformations literature relevant to CRD.

Transformative actions aimed at ‘deliberately and fundamentally changing systems to achieve more just and equitable outcomes’, (Shi and

Moser, 2021: 2) shift pathways towards climate resilient development (CRD) (high conﬁdence). Transformative action in the context of CRD

speciﬁcally concerns leveraging change in the ﬁve dimensions of development (people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet) that drive

societal choices and climate actions towards sustainability (Section18.2.2; Figure18.1). Climate actions that support CRD are embedded in

these dimensions of development; for example, social cohesion and equity, individual and collective agency, and democratising knowledge

processes have been identiﬁed as steps to transform practices and governance systems for increased resilience (Ziervogel etal., 2016b;

Nightingale etal., 2020; Colloff etal., 2021; Vogel and O’Brien, 2021) (high conﬁdence). Transformative actions towards sustainability and

increased well-being, which are dominant components of CRD, include those that explicitly redress social drivers of vulnerability, shift

dominant worldviews, decolonialise knowledge systems, activate human agency, contest political arrangements, and insert a plurality of

knowledges and ways of knowing (Görg etal., 2017; Fazey etal., 2018a; Brand etal., 2020; Gram-Hanssen etal., 2021; Shi and Moser,

2021). They alter the governance and political economic arrangements through which unsustainable and unjust development logics and

knowledges are implemented (Patterson etal., 2017; Shi and Moser, 2021) by shifting the goals of a system or altering the mindset or

paradigm from which a system arises, for example, from individualism and nature-society disconnect to solidarity and nature-society

connectedness along the CRD dimensions in Figure18.1, and connecting inner and external dimensions of sustainability (Göpel, 2016;

Abson etal., 2017; Wamsler and Brink, 2018; Fischer and Riechers, 2019; Horcea-Milcu etal., 2019; Wamsler, 2019).

There is no blueprint for how transformation is generated. An expanding literature suggests that transformation takes place through

diverse modalities and context-dependent actions (O’Brien, 2021). Transformation may require actions that disrupt moral or social

boundaries and structures that are perpetuating unsustainable systems and pathways (Vogel and O’Brien, 2021) (high conﬁdence).

Extreme events and long-term climatic changes can trigger a realigning of practices, politics and knowledge (Carr, 2019; Schipper etal.,

2020b) (high conﬁdence). While some see opportunities for generating social and political conditions needed for CRD in such actions and

events (Beck, 2015; Han, 2015; Shim, 2015; Mythen and Walklate, 2016; Domingo, 2018), this is not guaranteed. Climate shocks, when

managed within socio-political systems in ways that safeguard rather than alter practices and structures, can also reinforce rather than

shift the status quo (Mosberg etal., 2017; Carr, 2019; Marmot and Allen, 2020; Arifeen and Nyborg, 2021) (high conﬁdence). Further, in

the absence of equitable and inclusive decision making and planning, realignments resulting from disruptive actions and events can limit

inclusiveness and lead to poor or coercive decision-making processes that undermine the equity and justice foundations of sustainable

development (Orlove etal., 2020; Shi and Moser, 2021) and lead to adverse socio-environmental outcomes that generate transformations

away from CRD (Vogel and O’Brien, 2021) (high conﬁdence, see also CROSS-CHAPTER BOX 2).

Evidence for transformative actions largely exists at the community or city level. While identifying how to rapidly and equitably generate

transformations at a global scale has remained elusive, there is high agreement but limited evidence from studies of ecosystem services

that suggest facilitating a wide range of locally appropriate management decisions and actions can bring about positive global-scale

outcomes (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Diverse local efforts to transform towards sustainability in the face of climate

2669

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

change have been observed, such as community mobilisation for equitable and just adaptation actions and alternative visions of societal

well-being (Shi, 2020b) and farmer-led shifts in agricultural production systems (Rosenberg, 2021). There has been an increase in

transformative actions taking place through city-level resilience building aimed at shifting inequitable relations and opening up space for

a plurality of actors (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2018; Ziervogel etal., 2021) (high conﬁdence).

Prospects for transformation towards CRD increase when key governance actors work together in inclusive and constructive ways through

engagement in political, knowledge-technology, ecological, economic and socio-cultural arenas (high conﬁdence, Section18.4.3). Yet the

interactions between key governance actors involve struggles and negotiations in addition to collaborations (Kakenmaster, 2019; Muok

etal., 2021). Transformative actions meet resistance by precisely the political, social, knowledge and technical systems and structures

they are attempting to transform (Blythe etal., 2018; Shi and Moser, 2021) (high conﬁdence). There is expanding evidence that many

adaptation efforts have failed to be transformative, but instead entrenched inequities, exacerbated power imbalances and reinforced

vulnerability among marginalised groups and that, instead, marginalised groups and future trends in vulnerability need to be placed

at the centre of adaptation planning (Atteridge and Remling, 2018; Mikulewicz, 2019; Owen, 2020; Eriksen etal., 2021a; Eriksen etal.,

2021b; Garschagen etal., 2021) (high conﬁdence). Beyond the enablers, drivers or modalities, another question tackled in the literature

is how to evaluate transformation by establishing criteria for transformation assessments (Oﬁr, 2021; Patton, 2021; Williams etal., 2021),

experience-based lessons on managing transformative adaptation processes (Vermeulen etal., 2018), climate policy integration (Plank

etal., 2021), investment criteria (Kasdan etal., 2021) and political economy analysis frameworks for climate governance (Price, 2021).

Box18.1 (continued)

Box18.2 | Visions of Climate Resilient Development in Kenya

The government of Kenya’s (GoK) ambition through Vision 2030 is to create a globally competitive and prosperous country with a high

quality of life by 2030. It aims to transform Kenya into a newly-industrialising, middle-income country providing a high quality of life to

all its citizens in a clean and secure environment.

(Government of Kenya, 2008). Dryland regions in Kenya occupy 80–90% of the land mass, are home to 36% of the population (Government

of Kenya, 2012) and contribute about 10% of Kenya’s gross domestic product (GDP) (Government of Kenya, 2012), which includes half

of its agricultural GDP (Kabubo-Mariara, 2009). In dryland regions, pastoralism has long been the predominant form of livelihood and

subsistence (Catley etal., 2013; Nyariki and Amwata, 2019). The GoK seeks to improve connectivity and communication infrastructure

within the drylands to better exploit and develop livestock, agriculture, tourism, energy and extractive sectors (Government of Kenya,

2018). It argues that the transformation of dryland regions is crucial to enhance the development outcomes for the more than 15million

people who inhabit these areas (Government of Kenya, 2016: 17) and to help the country to realise its wider national ambitions including

a 10% year on year growth in GDP (Government of Kenya, 2012). A key element within this vision is the promotion and implementation of

the Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia (LAPSSET) project. The LAPSSET Corridor consists of two elements: the 500 meter wide Infrastructure

Corridor where the road, railway, pipelines, power transmission and other projects will be located and the Economic Corridor of 50 km

on either sides of the infrastructure corridor which will be contain other industrial investments (Enns, 2018). Supporters of the LAPSSET

project argue that it will help achieve priorities laid out in the Vision 2030 by opening up poorly connected regions, enabling the

development of pertinent economic sectors such as agriculture, livestock and energy, and supporting the attainment of a range of social

goals made possible as the economy grows (Stein and Kalina, 2019).

However, the development narrative surrounding LAPSSET remains controversial in its assumptions, not least because it is being promoted

in the context of a highly complex and dynamic social, economic and biophysical setting (Cervigni and Morris, 2016; Atsiaya etal., 2019;

Chome, 2020; Lesutis, 2020). Some of the key trends driving contemporary and likely future change in dryland regions are changing

household organisation, evolving customary rules and institutions at local and community levels, and shifting cultures and aspirations

(Catley etal., 2013; Washington-Ottombre and Pijanowski, 2013; Tari and Pattison, 2014; Cormack, 2016; Rao, 2019). Dryland regions are

also witnessing demographic growth and change in land use patterns linked to shifts in the composition of livestock (for example from

grazers to browsers), a decrease in nomadic and increase in semi-nomadic pastoralism, and transition to more urban and sedentary

livelihoods (Mganga etal., 2015; Cervigni etal., 2016; Greiner, 2016; Watson etal., 2016). At a landscape level, land is becoming more

fragmented and enclosed, often associated with increases in subsistence and commercial agriculture and the establishment of

conservancies and other group or private land holdings (Reid etal., 2014; Carabine etal., 2015; Nyberg etal., 2015; Greiner, 2016; Mosley

and Watson, 2016). In addition, there are political dynamics associated with Kenya Vision 2030 and decentralisation, the inﬂuence of

2670

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

international capital, foreign investors and incorporation into global markets (Cormack, 2016; Kochore, 2016; Mosley and Watson, 2016;

Enns and Bersaglio, 2020), as well as increasing militarisation and conﬂict in the drylands (Lind, 2018). Allied to these social and political

dynamics are ongoing processes of habitat modiﬁcation and degradation and biophysical changes linked in part to climate variability

(Galvin, 2009; Mganga etal., 2015). The interconnected nature of these drivers will intersect with LAPSSET in myriad ways. For example,

the implementation of LAPSSET may accentuate some trends, such as increases in land enclosure and a shift towards more urban and

sedentary livelihoods (Lesutis, 2020). Conversely, the perceived threat LAPSSET could pose to pastoral lifestyles may lead to greater

visibility, solidarity and strength of pastoralist institutions (Cormack, 2016).

There is a recognised need to adapt and chose development pathways that are resilient to climate change while addressing key

developmental challenges within dryland regions, notably, poverty, water and food insecurity, and a highly dispersed population with

poor access to services (Government of Kenya, 2012; Bizikova etal., 2015; Herrero etal., 2016). The current vision for development of

dryland regions comes with both opportunities and threats to achieve a more climate-resilient future. For example, the growth in and

exploitation of renewable energy resources, made possible through increased connectivity, brings climate mitigation gains but also risks.

These risks include the uneven distribution of costs in terms of where the industry is sited compared with where beneﬁts primarily accrue,

and may exacerbate issues around water and food insecurity as strategic areas of land become harder to access (Opiyo etal., 2016;

Cormack and Kurewa, 2018; Enns, 2018; Lind, 2018). While LAPSSET will bring greater freedom of movement for commodities, beneﬁtting

investors, improving access to markets and urban centres, supporting trade or ease of movement for tourists supporting economic

goals, it can also result in the relocation of people and impede access to certain locations for the resident populations. Mobility is a key

adaptation behaviour employed in the short and long term to address issues linked with climatic variability (Opiyo etal., 2014; Muricho

etal., 2019). With modelled changes in the climate suggesting decreases in income associated with agricultural staples and livestock-

dependent livelihoods, development that constrains mobility of local populations could retard resilience gains (Ochieng etal., 2017;

ASSAR, 2018; Enns, 2018; Nkemelang etal., 2018). The likely increase in urban populations and the growth in tourism and agriculture

may lead to increases in water demand at a time when water availability could become more constrained owing to the reliance on

surface water sources and the modelled increases in evapotranspiration due to rising mean temperature, more heatwave days and

greater percentage of precipitation falling as storms (ASSAR, 2018; Nkemelang etal., 2018; USAID, 2018). These pressures could make it

harder to meet basic health and sanitation goals for rural and poorer urban populations, issues compounded further by likely increases

in child malnutrition and diarrheal deaths linked to climate change (WHO, 2016; ASSAR, 2018; Hirpa etal., 2018; Nkemelang etal., 2018;

Lesutis, 2020). Development must pay adequate attention to these interconnections to ensure that costs and beneﬁts of achieving climate

mitigation and adaptation goals are distributed fairly within a population.

Box18.2 (continued)

18.2 Linking Development and Climate Action

The AR5 examined the relationship between climate and sustainable

development in Chapter 13 (Olsson et al., 2014) and Chapter 20

(Denton etal., 2014) in Working Group II and Chapter 4 (Fleurbaey

etal., 2014) in Working Group III. It concluded that dangerous levels

of climate change would limit efforts to reduce poverty (Denton

etal., 2014; Fleurbaey etal., 2014). Since the AR5, the adoption of

the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030 have demonstrated increased

international consensus regarding the need to pursue climate change

as a component of sustainable development. For example, climate

change impacts ‘undermine the ability of all countries to achieve

sustainable development’ (United Nations, 2015) and can reverse or

erase improvements in living conditions and decades of development

(Hallegatte and Rozenberg, 2017). However, recent analysis shows that

actions to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement can undermine progress

towards some SDGs (high agreement, medium evidence) (Pearce

etal., 2018b; Liu etal., 2019; Hegre etal., 2020) (Section18.2.5.3).

Meanwhile efforts to achieve the SDGs can contribute to worsening

climate change (high agreement, medium evidence) (Fuso Nerini

etal., 2018). These ﬁndings in the literature highlight the importance

of identifying clear goals and priorities for both climate action and

sustainable development as well as mechanisms for capitalising on

potential synergies between them and for managing trade-offs. In

assessing literature relevant to the intersection between climate

action and development, we ﬁrst explore the implications of different

patterns of development and development trajectories followed by

more focused assessment of the links between development and

climate risk.

18.2.1 Implications of Current Development Trends

Understanding the interactions between climate change, climate

action and sustainable development necessitates consideration for the

current development context in which different communities, nations

and regions ﬁnd themselves. For example, wealthy economies of the

Global North will encounter different opportunities and challenges vis-

à-vis climate change and sustainable development than developing

economies of the Global South. Moreover, all economies are already

following an existing development trajectory that has implications

for the type and scale of interventions associated with pursuing CRD

and managing climate risk. Some nations may experience particular

challenges with reducing greenhouse gas emissions owing to the

2671

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

carbon-intensive nature of their energy systems (very high conﬁdence)

(Section 18.3.1.1). Others may experience acute challenges with

adaptation due to existing vulnerability associated with poverty and

social inequality (very high conﬁdence) (Section18.2.5.1). Overcoming

such challenges is fundamental to the pursuit of CRD.

While demonstrable progress has been made towards the SDGs and

improving human well-being, globally and in speciﬁc nations, some

observed patterns of development are inconsistent with sustainable

development and the principles of CRD (very high conﬁdence) (van

Dooren etal., 2018; Eisenmenger etal., 2020; Leal Filho etal., 2020).

A signiﬁcant literature, for example, links development to the loss of

biodiversity and the extinction crisis (Ceballos etal., 2017; Gonçalves-

Souza etal., 2020; Oke etal., 2021). Meanwhile, in human systems,

indicators such as the limited convergence in income, life expectancy

and other measures of well-being between poor and wealthy countries

(with notable outliers such as China) (Bangura, 2019), and the increase

in income inequality and the decline in life expectancy and well-

being in rich countries (Rougoor and van Marrewijk, 2015; Alvaredo

etal., 2017; Goda etal., 2017; Harper etal., 2017; Goldman etal.,

2018), suggest limitations of the current development paradigm to

successfully deliver universal human and ecological well-being by the

2030s or even mid-century (TWI, 2019).

18.2.2 Understanding Development in CRD

Development in this report is deﬁned as efforts, both formal and

informal, to improve standards of human well-being, particularly in

places historically disadvantaged by colonialism and other features

of early global integration. Development is not limited to the SDGs,

however these represent an internationally agreed sub-set of goals.

Prior IPCC reports employed development as a typological framing

of the current state of a given country or population (IPCC, 2014a)

(Section 1.1.4). Such framings frequently rest upon measures of

economic activity, using them as proxies for the wider well-being of

the population whose activity is measured. For example, the level of

GDP is often equated with levels of social welfare, even though as a

measure of market output, it can be an inadequate metric for gauging

well-being over time, particularly in its environmental and social

dimensions (Van den Bergh, 2007; Stiglitz etal., 2009).

The result of this broad framing linking economic growth to human well-

being has been decades of policies, programmes and projects aimed at

growing economies at scales from the household to regional and global.

However, linking development to past and current modes of economic

growth creates signiﬁcant challenges for CRD, as it implies that the very

processes that have contributed to current climate challenges, including

economic growth and the resource use and energy regimes it relies

upon, are also the pathways to improvements in human well-being. This

places climate resilience and development in opposition to one another.

While there are many possible successful pathways to future development

in the context of climate change, history shows that pathways positive

for the vast majority of people typically induce signiﬁcant impacts and

costs, especially on marginal and vulnerable people (high conﬁdence)

(Hickel, 2017). Frequently, considerations for social difference and equity

are side-lined in these processes, for example through the assumption

that a growing economy lifts opportunity for all, further marginalising

those who are the most vulnerable to climate change (Matin etal.,

2018; Diffenbaugh and Burke, 2019).

The Agenda 2030 and its 17 SDGs and 169 targets seeks to ‘leave no

one behind’ through ﬁve pillars (5Ps): People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace

and Partnership (United Nations, 2015). The ﬁve pillars align with the

dimensions of development that inﬂuence motion towards or away from

CRD. The focus on people refers to inclusion rather than exclusion, and

the extent to which people are empowered or disempowered to make

decisions about their well-being, determine their futures and be in a

position to assert their rights. This means being able to make decisions

that determine whether people are on a pathway towards or away

from CRD (Figure18.1–18.3). The focus on planet refers to protecting

the planet, ensuring a balance of ecosystems, biodiversity and human

activities, and giving equal space and respect for its integrity. The focus

on prosperity refers to equity in well-being grounded in unanimity over

shared goals and resources, rather than individualism, and economic,

social and technological progress grounded in stewardship and care,

rather than exploitation. The focus on partnership refers to mutual

respect embedded in solidarity that recognises multiple worldviews

and their respective knowledges, rather than singular or hierarchy of

knowledge, and acknowledges inherent nature-society connections,

rather than posing nature as opposites or competitors. The focus on

peace emphasises the need for just and equitable societies. These

ﬁve pillars are inter-related but local and national contexts situate

current status differently around the world. Successful achievement of

Agenda 2030 is aligned with a safe climate with adequate mitigation

and adaptation, and effective and inclusive systems transitions. With

these conditions, a high CRD world can be attained, noting that when

approached individually, the transformative potential of the SDGs is

limited (Veland etal., 2021).

The need for transformational changes across sectors and scales to

address the urgency and scope of action needed to enable a climate-

resilient future in which goals such as the SDGs might be realised

requires attention to the speciﬁc ways in which development action is

deﬁned and enacted (Box18.1).

18.2.2.1 Development Perspectives

Development is about ‘improvement’. However there have been

different and often conﬂicting viewpoints on the improvement of

‘what’ and ‘how’ to improve. The diversity of positions has resulted

in a multitude of metrics to track development, some more inﬂuential

than others on policy. Alternative measures of development, while

numerous, generally seek to nuance the connection between economic

growth and human well-being. Because they maintain core notions of

progress and, in some cases, economic growth seen in more mainstream

models of development, they are less vehicles for transformation than

continuations of thinking and action fundamentally at odds with

the needs of CRD. These include the Measure of Economic Welfare

(Nordhaus and Tobin, 1973), the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare

(Cobb and Daly, 1989), the Genuine Progress Indicator (Escobar, 1995),

the Adjusted Net Saving Index or the Genuine Savings Index (GSI), The

Human Development Index (HDI), the Inequality-Adjusted Human

2672

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Development Index (UNDP, 2016a), the Gender Development Index,

the Gender Inequality Index, the Multidimensional Poverty Index,

the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) (Daly and Cobb,

1989), the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) (Kubiszewski etal., 2013),

Gross National Happiness (GNH) (Ura and Galay, 2004), Measures of

Australia’s Progress (MAP) (Trewin and Hall, 2004), the OECD Better

Life Index (OECD, 2019a) and the Happy Planet Index (NEF, 2016).

In terms of their historical trajectory, different perspectives on

development can be broadly divided into ﬁve categories.

i) Development as economic growth (1950s onwards): Equating

development with economic growth was a natural outcome of the

dominance of economics as the major discipline to study problems

of newly independent countries in the 1950s (Escobar, 1995),

measured through GDP. Environment was not a policy concern in

the immediate period after decolonisation. The GDP measure has

withstood the test of time, in spite of being an inexact measure of

human well-being, and is the widely used metric globally to track

development. Recent improvements to GDP have tried to account

for environmental factors (Gundimeda etal., 2007; United Nations,

2021).

ii) Development as distributional improvements (1970s onwards):

That economic growth does not automatically result in decline in

poverty and improved distribution of income became apparent in

the 1970s. Welfare measures were thus promoted that involved

‘redistribution with growth’ (Chenery, 1974). These distributional

concerns have re-emerged in the last two decades with the

widening gap between the richer and poorer groups of the

population (Chancel and Piketty, 2019) and also the increased

attention to ‘ecological distribution conﬂicts’ (Martinez-Alier,

2021). The political economy perspective, highlighting continued

dependencies of countries in the Global South on the Global North,

now evolved into political ecology highlighting environmental

concerns between and within countries. Environment was not

yet a policy priority, despite the links between development and

environment becoming clearer.

iii) Development as participation (1980s onwards): Bottom-up

responses emphasising sustainable livelihoods and local-level

development emerged in the 1980s. The movement, which

involved independent and uncoordinated efforts by grassroots

activists, social movements and non-governmental organisations

(NGOs), became ‘mainstreamed’ into development in the 1990s

(Chambers, 2012). The multi-dimensional nature of poverty was

acknowledged at the global policy level (World Bank, 2000) and

there was wider acceptance of the role of non-economics social

sciences as well as critical approaches in research on development

and poverty (Thomas, 2008). Participatory development involved

decentralisation and local planning, emphasising protection of

local natural resources in addition to improving living standards.

iv) Development as expansion of human capabilities (1980s onwards):

The human development and capabilities approach was the ﬁrst

formidable response to the GDP-centric view of development

(Sen, 2000; Deneulin and Shahani, 2009). Studies showed that

improvements in income did not necessarily improve human

well-being in other dimensions such as health and education, or

more broadly put, ‘freedoms’ (Ruggeri Laderchi etal., 2003). The

capabilities idea was inﬂuential in global policy making through

Human Development Reports and metrics such as Human

Development Index (HDI) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI).

However, environmental sustainability was not a major component

in this approach until much later (Alkire and Jahan, 2018). Recent

improvements to HDI such as the planetary pressures-adjusted HDI

(United Nations, 2020) is a step in this direction.

v) Development as post-growth (2010 onwards): The late 1980s saw a

big push towards taking the environment to the centre of the global

policy agenda (World Commission on Environment and Development,

1987). However, progress in addressing environmental questions

has been slow. As compared with Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), SDGs aim to tackle environmental concerns by explicitly

tracking progress on multiple indicators. Nevertheless, the approach

in these policy propositions sits largely within the economic growth

framework itself. The climate change challenge and the ﬁnancial crisis

of 2008 led many scholars, ecological economists and environmental

social scientists in particular, to argue for a post-growth world.

Post-growth (Jackson, 2021), degrowth (Kallis, 2018; Hickel et al.,

2021) and other environmentalist scholarship takes inspiration from

critiques of development such as post-development (Escobar, 1995).

The argument here is not for better metrics but for imagining and

working towards systemic change in the wake of the climate crisis.

The challenge however is how to account for historical differences

in economic growth and living standards between the Global North

and the Global South and to protect the interests of Global South in

the spirit of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ to climate

change adaptation and mitigation. As empirical studies in the Global

South have demonstrated (Lele etal., 2018), developing countries

face multiple stressors, climate change being just one among them,

and there are multiple normative concerns in developing country

contexts, such as equity and justice, and not merely resilience (very

high conﬁdence).

Achieving CRD requires framings of development that move away

from linear paradigms of development as material progress by

focusing on diversity and heterogeneity, well-being and equality, not

only in contemporary practices, but also pathways of change over

time (Gibson-Graham, 2005; Gibson-Graham, 2006). Such approaches,

which are fundamentally aligned with ecological and ecosystem-

based environmental assessments that identiﬁed heterogeneity of

approaches and actions as the most effective path to a sustainable

world (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), emphasise the

importance of cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, not merely as

alternative sources of information about the world, but as different

paradigms of well-being (Kallis, 2018). These include Indigenous and

local knowledge that provide alternatives to these framings of the

world (Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG). This broad reframing of development

includes a focus on visions such as ‘buen vivir’ (Cubillo-Guevara etal.,

2014; Walsh, 2018; Acosta et al., 2019), ecological Swaraj (Kothari

et al., 2014; Demaria and Kothari, 2017; Shiva, 2017) and Ubuntu

(Dreyer, 2015; Ewuoso and Hall, 2019), among others. All are linked

by relationships with nature radically different from the Western

mechanistic vision, presenting not only framings of development

and the environment that yield locally appropriate CRDPs, but serve

as examples of alternative ways of living in balance with nature that

might inform similar thinking in other places.

2673

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

18.2.2.2. Complexity of Development and Climate Action

Differing perspectives on development are in part determined by the

multiple diverse priorities held by different actors and nations. Another

reason is that development is not a linear process with a single goal,

and active development planning requires simultaneously taking

multiple processes and factors into account. This is well illustrated by

growing attention to climate security. The AR5 delivered conﬂicting

messages regarding climate change and security (Gleditsch and

Nordås, 2014), yet the understanding of climate-related security

risks has made substantial progress in recent years (von Uexkull and

Buhaug, 2021). Although there remains considerable research gaps in

certain regions (Adams etal., 2018), a large body of qualitative and

quantitative studies from different disciplines provides new insight

into the relationship of climate change and security (Buhaug, 2015;

De Juan, 2015; Brzoska and Fröhlich, 2016; Abrahams and Carr,

2017; Sakaguchi et al., 2017; Moran et al, 2018; Scheffran, 2020).

Though not the only cause (Sakaguchi etal., 2017; Mach etal., 2019),

climate change undermines human livelihoods and security, because

it increases the populations vulnerabilities, grievances and political

tensions through an array of indirect—at times nonlinear—pathways,

thereby increasing human insecurity and the risk of violent conﬂict

(van Baalen and Mobjörk, 2018; Koubi, 2019; von Uexkull and Buhaug,

2021). Indeed, context, as well as timing and spatial distribution,

matter and need to be accounted for (Abrahams, 2020).

In line with this better understanding, climate change and security

have been reframed in the political space, to focus more on human

security. The solutions to climate-related security risks cannot be

military, but are linked to development and people’s vulnerabilities

in complex social and politically fragile settings (Abrahams, 2020).

This has resulted in integration of climate-related security risk into

institutional and national frameworks (Dellmuth et al., 2018; Scott

and Ku, 2018; Aminga and Krampe, 2020), including several Nationally

Determined Contributions (NDCs) (Jernnäs and Linnér, 2019; Remling,

2021). One example is the UN Climate Security Mechanism—set up

in 2018 between UNDP, UNEP and UN DPPA to help the UN more

systematically address climate-related security risks and devise

prevention and management strategies. Yet work remains in bridging

these concerns with practical responses on the ground (Busby, 2021).

Especially since emerging research building on the maladaptation

literature shows that this practice cannot just mean adding adaptation

and mitigation to the mix of development strategies in a given

location, as this may have unintended and unanticipated effects and

might even backﬁre completely (Dabelko etal., 2013; Magnan etal.,

2020; Mirumachi etal., 2020; Schipper, 2020; Swatuk etal., 2021). In

extremely underdeveloped, fragile contexts such as Afghanistan, the

local-level side effects of climate adaptation and mitigation projects

might result in different development outcomes and question the

potential for sustainable peace (Krampe et al., 2021). Given the

clearer understanding of the intertwined nature of climate change,

security and development—especially in fragile and conﬂict affected

regions—a rethinking of how to transfer this knowledge into policy

solutions is necessary for the formulation of CRD.

18.2.3 Scenarios as a Method for Representing Future

Development Trajectories

Sustainable development represents speciﬁc development processes

and priorities that can affect climate risk. As a result, sustainable

development both shapes the context in which different actors

experience climate change and represents a potential opportunity,

particularly by reducing climate risk by addressing vulnerability,

inequity and shifting development towards more sustainable

trajectories (IPCC, 2012; Denton etal., 2014; IPCC, 2014b; IPCC, 2014a;

IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2019b). As assessed in past IPCC special reports

and assessment reports, this same literature has also illustrated how

different socioeconomic conditions affect mitigation options and costs.

For example, variations in future economic growth, population size

and composition, technology availability and cost, energy efﬁciency,

resource availability, demand for goods and services, and non-climate-

related policies (e.g., air quality, trade), individually and collectively

have all been shown to result in different climates and contexts for

mitigation and adaptation.

One common approach for exploring the implications of different

development trajectories is the use of scenarios of future socioeconomic

conditions, such as the SSPs (O’Neill etal., 2017). The SSPs represent

sets of future global societal assumptions based on different societal,

technological and economic assumptions that result in different

development trajectories. Such scenarios often correspond to a small

set of scenario archetypes (Harrison et al., 2019; Sitas et al., 2019;

Fergnani and Song, 2020) in that they reﬂect core themes regarding

the future of development such as sustainability versus rapid growth.

Scenarios with assumptions more closely aligned with sustainability

agendas (e.g., SSP1-Sustainability) commonly imply lower greenhouse

gas emissions and projected climate change (Riahi etal., 2022), lower

mitigation costs for ambitious climate goals (Riahi etal., 2022), lower

climate exposure due in large part to the size of society (see Chapter

16) and greater adaptive capacity (Roy etal., 2018) (see also Chapter

16). In contrast, scenarios with rapid global economic and fossil energy

growth (e.g., SSP5 Fossil-Fueled Development) imply higher emissions

and project climate change and higher mitigation costs, as well as

greater social and economic capacity to adapt to climate change

impacts (Hunt etal., 2012) (Table18.1).

The SSPs incorporate various assumptions regarding population,

GDP and greenhouse gas emissions, for example, that are relevant to

development and climate resilience. In addition, the SSPs have been

used to explore a broad range of development outcomes for human and

ecological systems (Table 18.1), including multiple studies exploring

futures for food systems, water resources, human health and income

inequality. Limited, top-down modelling studies have used the SSPs

to explore issues such as societal resilience (Schleussner etal., 2021)

or gender equity (Andrijevic etal., 2020a). Such studies indicate that

different development trajectories have different implications for future

development outcomes, but results vary signiﬁcantly among different

climate (e.g., representative concentration pathways [RCPs]) and

development contexts, resulting in limited agreement among different

SSPs (Table18.1). Nevertheless, for some outcomes, SSPs are associated

with generally similar outcomes. Over the near-term (e.g., 2030), those

outcomes are strongly inﬂuenced by development inertia and path

2674

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Table18.1 | Implications of different socioeconomic development pathways for CRD indicators. Studies presented in the above table include qualitative storylines and quantitative

scenarios for two or more SSPs. Arrows and colour coding reﬂect thepositive or negative impacts on sustainability based on aggregation of results for the 2030–2050 time horizon

across the identiﬁed studies. Conﬁdence language reﬂects the number of studies upon which results are based (evidence) and the agreement among studies regarding the direction

of change (agreement).

Development indicator

Relevant

SDG

Shared Socioeconomic Pathway

Conﬁdence

Evidence/

Agreement

References

Sustaina-

bility

(SSP1)

Middle of

the road

(SSP2)

Regional

rivalry

(SSP3)

Inequality

(SSP4)

Fossil-fuelled

development

(SSP5)

Agriculture, food and

forestry

– Agriculture production

– Forestry production

– Food security

– Hunger

SDG 2

↗ ↔ ↘ ↘ ↘

Low agreement/

robust evidence

(Hasegawa etal., 2015;

Palazzo etal., 2017; Riahi

etal., 2017; Duku etal., 2018;

Chen etal., 2019; Daigneault

etal., 2019; Mitter etal., 2020;

Mora etal., 2020)

Health and well-being

– Excess mortality

– Air quality

– Vector-borne disease

– Life Satisfaction

SDG 3

↔ ↔ ↔ ↘ ↘

Medium

agreement/

robust evidence

(Chen etal., 2017; Mora etal.,

2017; Aleluia Reis etal., 2018;

Aseﬁ-Najafabady etal., 2018;

Chen etal., 2018; Harrington

and Otto, 2018; Marsha etal.,

2018; Sellers and Ebi, 2018;

Ikeda and Managi, 2019;

Rohat etal., 2019; Wang etal.,

2019; Chae etal., 2020)

Water and sanitation

– Water use

– Sanitation access

– Sewage discharge

SDG 6

↗ ↘ ↘ ↔ ↔

High agreement/

medium

evidence

(Wada etal., 2016); (van

Puijenbroek etal., 2014; Yao

etal., 2017); (Mouratiadou

etal., 2016; Graham etal.,

2018)

Inequality

– Gini coefﬁcient

SDG 10

↗ ↗ ↗ ↔ ↗

Medium

agreement/

limited evidence

(Rao etal., 2019b; Emmerling

and Tavoni, 2021; Gazzotti

etal., 2021)

Ecosystems and ecosystem

services

– Aquatic resources

– Urban expansion

– Habitat provision

– Carbon sequestration

– Biodiversity

SDG 14

SDG 15

↘ ↘ ↘ ↘ ↘

High agreement/

medium

evidence

(Li etal., 2017; Chen etal.,

2019; Li etal., 2019b; Chen

etal., 2020b; Song etal.,

2020b; McManamay etal.,

2021; Pinnegar etal., 2021)

Legend

↑ Balance of studies suggest large increasing threat to sustainable development

↗ Balance of studies suggest moderate increasing threat to sustainable development

↔ Studies suggest both threats and beneﬁts to sustainable development

↘ Balance of studies suggest moderate increasing beneﬁt to sustainable development

↓ Balance of studies suggest large increasing beneﬁt to sustainable development

Studies presented in the above table include qualitative storylines and quantitative scenarios for two or more SSPs. Arrows and colour coding reﬂect the positive or negative impacts

on sustainability based on aggregation of results for the 2030–2050 time horizon across the identiﬁed studies. Conﬁdence language reﬂects the number of studies upon which

results are based (evidence) and the agreement among studies regarding the direction of change (agreement).

dependence, reducing differences among SSPs. Outcomes diverge later in

the century, but fewer studies explore futures beyond 2050. Collectively,

the scenarios reﬂect trade-offs associated with different development

trajectories (Roy etal., 2018), with some SSPs foreshadowing outcomes

that are positive in some contexts, but negative in others (Table18.1).

For example, pathways that lead to poverty reduction can have synergies

with food security, water, gender, terrestrial and ocean ecosystems that

support climate risk management, but also poverty alleviation projects

with unintended negative consequences that increase vulnerability

(e.g., Ley, 2017; Ley etal., 2020).

While the scenarios literature is useful for characterising the potential

climate risk implications of different global societal futures, important

limitations impact their use in climate risk management planning(very

high conﬁdence). The ﬁrst is the often highly geographically

aggregated nature of the SSPs and other scenarios, which, in the

absence of application of nesting or downscaling methods, often

lack regional, national, or sub-national context, particularly regarding

social and cultural determinants of vulnerability (van Ruijven etal.,

2014). Furthermore, there is limited understanding of the cost

and process associated with transforming from today into each

2675

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

assumed socioeconomic future, or the opportunity to shift from one

pathway to another (Section 18.3). Furthermore, the characteristics

of the pathways suggest that they are not equally likely, there are

relationships implied in assumptions that are uncertainties to consider

(e.g., land productivity improvements are land saving), it is difﬁcult

to identify the role of different development characteristics, and

policy implementation is stylised. In general, global assessments are

not designed to inform local planning, given that there are many

local circumstances consistent with a global future and unique local

development context and uncertainties to manage—demographic,

economic, technological, cultural and policy.

Overall, pursuing sustainable development in the future is shown to

have synergies and trade-offs in its relationships with every element

of climate risk: the emissions and mitigation determining hazard; the

size, location and composition of development determining exposure;

and the adaptive capacity determining vulnerability. Importantly, the

scenarios literature overall has found trade-offs such that none of the

global societal projections achieve all the SDGs (very high conﬁdence)

(Roy et al., 2018) (Section 18.2.5.3). Historical evidence supports

this as well, for example, ﬁnding low-cost energy and food access

is historically associated with higher emissions but greater adaptive

capacity, and energy efﬁciency innovation contributing to lower

emissions and greater adaptive capacity (e.g., Blanford etal., 2012;

Blanco etal., 2014; Mbow etal., 2019; USEPA, 2019). The literature

suggests that trade-offs in the pursuit of sustainable development

are inevitable. Managing those trade-offs, as well as capitalising on

the synergies, will be important for CRD, particularly given trade-offs

have distributional implications that could contribute to inequities

(Section18.2.5.3).

18.2.4 Climate Change Risks to Development

In the near-term, additional climate change is expected regardless of

the scale of greenhouse gas mitigation efforts (IPCC, 2021a). Across

the global scenarios analysed in the AR6, global average temperature

changes relative to the reference period 1850–1900 range from 1.2°C

to 1.9°C for the period 2021–2040 and 1.2°C to 3.0°C for the period

2041–2060 (WGI AR6 SPM [IPCC, 2021b], very likely range). However,

the feasibility of emissions pathways (particularly RCP8.5) affect the

plausibility of the associated climate projections, potentially lowering

the upper end of these ranges because the likelihood of the higher

warming levels is a function of the likelihood of the higher emissions

scenarios (Riahi et al., 2022) . There is signiﬁcant overlap between

climate scenario ensemble ranges from different emissions scenarios

through 2050, more so than through 2100 (Lee etal., 2021). There is

also overlap between emissions scenario ensembles consistent with

different temperature outcomes (Riahi etal., 2022) . Emissions pathway

ranges represent uncertainties for policymakers and organisations to

consider and manage (Rose and Scott, 2018, 2020) regarding, among

other things, economic growth and structure, available technologies,

markets, behavioural dynamics, policies and non-CO

climate forcings

(Riahi etal., 2022), while climate pathway ranges represent bio-physical

climate systems and carbon cycle uncertainties (Lee etal., 2021). For

all climate projections and variables, there is signiﬁcant regional

heterogeneity and uncertainty in projected climate change (very high

conﬁdence) (IPCC, 2021a). Figure18.4 apresents examples for average

and extreme temperature precipitation change (see also Section18.5

and Tables18.4–18.5 for more regional detail and ranges of climate

outcomes). Higher global warming levels also can affect geographic

patterns of change and probability distributions of regional climate

outcomes (Ahmad, 2019). Similarly, for all emissions projections, there

is signiﬁcant regional, sectoral and local heterogeneity and uncertainty

regarding potential pathways for climate action (Lecocq etal., 2022;

Riahi etal., 2022). Not all uncertainties are represented in projected

emissions pathway ensembles, such as policy timing and design (e.g.,

Rose and Scott, 2018) or climate projection ensembles.

The projected ranges for near- and mid-term global average warming

levels are estimated to result in increasing key risks and reasons for

concern (Chapter 16). Chapter 16 developed aggregate ‘Representative

Key Risks’ (RKRs) as indicators for subsets of approximately 100

sectoral and regional key risks indicators. The RKRs include risks to

coastal socio-ecological systems, terrestrial and ocean ecosystems,

critical physical infrastructure, networks and services, living standards

and equity, human health, food security, water security, and peace and

migration. The majority of these risks are directly linked to sustainable

development priorities and the SDGs (Chapters 2 to 16; (Roy etal.,

2018; IPCC, 2019d; IPCC, 2019b). Therefore, climate risks represent a

potential additional challenge to pursuing sustainable development

priorities, but also potential opportunities due to geographic variation

in climate impacts. In addition, positive synergies have been found

between sustainable development and adaptation, but trade-offs are

also possible (e.g., Roy etal., 2018).

For all RKRs, additional global average warming is expected to increase

risk. However, the increases vary signiﬁcantly by RKR, and across the

underlying key risks represented within each RKR. Geographic variation

in key risk implications is only partially assessed in Chapter 16, but

evidence can be drawn from the WGII individual regional chapters.

Regionally, key risks are found to be potentially greatest in developing

and transition economies (Chapter 16 and sectoral chapters), which is

also where the least-cost emissions reductions globally are projected

to be (Riahi etal., 2022).See Figure18.4 for an example of key risk

geographic heterogeneity (see also Section18.5 for regional detail).

Chapter 16 also maps the RKRs to an updated aggregate ‘Reasons

for Concern’ (RFC) framing. Thus, increasing RKR implies increasing

RFC associated with unique and threatened systems, extreme weather

events, distribution of impacts, global aggregate impacts and large-

scale singular events.

Climate risks are found to vary with future warming levels, the

development context and trajectory, as well as by the level of investment

in adaptation. Together, these three dimensions deﬁne risk—with

projected climate changes deﬁning the hazard, development deﬁning

the exposure, and development and adaptation deﬁning vulnerability.

However, how these different dimensions interact and the level of

scientiﬁc understanding vary signiﬁcantly among different types of

risk. For human systems, in general, the poor and marginalised are

found to have greater vulnerability for a given hazard and exposure

level. With some level of global average warming expected regardless

of mitigation efforts, human and natural systems will be exposed to

new conditions, but some level of adaptation should also be expected.

2676

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

18.2.5 Options for Managing Future Climate Risks to

Climate Resilient Development

The pursuit of CRD requires not only the implementation of individual

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development initiatives, but

also their careful coordination and integration. This section assesses the

literature on CRD in the context of key climate change risks (Chapter

16); gaps in adaptation that contribute to risk; potential synergies and

trade-offs among mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development;

and the mechanisms for managing those trade-offs.

18.2.5.1 Adaptation

18.2.5.1.1 Adaptation and Climate Resilient Development

Given that adaptation is recognised as a key element of addressing

climate risk and CRD, the capacity for adaptation implementation is an

important consideration for CRD. The AR5 noted a signiﬁcant overlap

between indicators of sustainable development and the determinants

of adaptive capacity, and suggested that adaptation presents an

opportunity to reduce stresses on development processes and the socio-

ecological foundations upon which they depend (Denton etal., 2014).

At the same time, it also noted that building adaptive capacity for

sustainable development might require transformational changes that

shift impacted systems to new patterns, dynamics or places (Denton

etal., 2014). Thus, adaptation interventions and pathways can further

the achievement of development goals such as food security (Campbell

etal., 2016; Douxchamps etal., 2016; Richardson etal., 2018; Bezner

Kerr etal., 2019) and improvements in human health (Watts etal., 2019)

including in systems where animals and humans live in close proximity

(very high conﬁdence) (Zinsstag etal., 2018). However, to do so requires

not only the avoidance of incremental adaptation actions that extend

current unsustainable practices, but also the ability to manage and

overcome the barriers which arise when the limits of incremental

adaptation are reached (high agreement, medium evidence) (Few etal.,

2017; Vermeulen etal., 2018; Fedele etal., 2019).

Since AR5, the scientiﬁc community has deepened its understanding

of the relationship between adaptation and sustainable development

(very high conﬁdence), particularly with regard to the place of

resilience at the intersection of these two arenas. The literature has

moved forward in its identiﬁcation of speciﬁc overlaps in sustainable

development indicators and determinants of adaptive capacity,

how adaptation might reduce stress on development processes

and their socio-ecological foundation, and how building adaptive

capacity might facilitate needed transformative changes. Broadly

speaking, work on these topics comes from one of two perspectives.

One perspective speaks to adaptation practices that might further

sustainable development outcomes, while another perspective draws

on deeper understandings of the socio-ecological dynamics of the

systems in which we live, and which we may have to transform in the

face of climate change impacts. These two literatures are not yet well

integrated, leaving gaps in our knowledge of how best to implement

adaptation in a manner that achieves sustainable development.

The literature considering adaptation and development in practice

since AR5 suggests that efforts to connect adaptation to sustainable

development should address proximate and systemic drivers of

vulnerability (Wise etal., 2016), while remaining ﬂexible and reversable

to avoid the lock-in of undesirable or maladaptive trajectories (Cannon

and Müller-Mahn, 2010; Wise etal., 2016). Such goals require critical

reﬂection on processes for decision making and learning. In the AR5,

more inclusive, participatory adaptation processes were presumed to

beneﬁt development planning by including a wider set of actors in

discussions of future goals (Denton etal., 2014). The post-AR5 literature

expands on these critical perspectives to provide context regarding

when participation is most effective. For example, (Eriksen etal., 2015)

emphasise the need to build participatory adaptation processes to

avoid subsuming adaptation goals to development-as-usual, while

(Kim etal., 2017b) argues that this practice is most effective when it is

focused on development efforts and considers how climate change will

challenge the goals of those efforts. Adaptation, while presenting an

opportunity to foster transformations needed to address the impacts of

climate change on human well-being, is also a contested process that

is inherently political (medium agreement, medium evidence) (Eriksen

etal., 2015; Mikulewicz, 2019; Nightingale Böhler, 2019; Eriksen etal.,

2021b). How adaptation can challenge development and create a

situation where CRD effectively becomes transformative adaptation,

adaptation that generates transformation of broader aspects of

development, remains unclear (medium agreement, limited evidence)

(Few etal., 2017; Schipper etal., 2020c).

The critical literature on socio-ecological resilience, which has grown

substantially since the last AR (very high conﬁdence), speaks to some

of these questions. Since AR5, the IPCC and the wider literature on

socio-ecological resilience have shifted their use of the term to reﬂect

not only the capacity to cope with a hazardous event or trend or

disturbance, but also the ability to adapt, learn and transform in ways

that maintains socio-ecology’s essential function, identity and structure

(Chapter 1; Glossary, Annex II). This change in usage is signiﬁcant in

that it shifts resilience from an emergent property of complex socio-

ecological systems to a deeply human product of efforts to manage

ecology, economy and society to speciﬁc ends. This deﬁnition of

resilience recognises the need to deﬁne what is an essential identity,

function and structure for a given system, questions rooted not in

ecological dynamics, but in politics, agency, difference and power that

emerge around the management of ecological dynamics (Cote and

Nightingale, 2011; Brown, 2013; Cretney, 2014; Forsyth, 2018; Matin

etal., 2018; Carr, 2019).

By connecting this framing of socio-ecological dynamics to the literature

on the principles for adaptation efforts that meet development goals,

new work has begun to identify 1) how adaptation can reduce stress

on development processes, 2) how it might facilitate transformative

change and 3) where adaptation interventions might either drive

system rigidity and precarity, or otherwise challenge development goals

(Castells-Quintana etal., 2018; Carr, 2020). For example, Jordan (2019)

draws upon these contemporary framings of resilience to highlight the

ways in which coping strategies perpetuate the gendered norms and

practices at the heart of women’s vulnerability in Bangladesh. Forsyth

(2018) draws upon this work to highlight the ways in which the theory

of change processes used by development organisations tend to

exclude local experiences and sources of risk, and thus foreclose the

need for transformative pathways to achieve development goals. Carr

2677

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

(a) Physical climate change indicators

Regional projected select climate change and sustainable development-related climate impact indicators

by global warming level

Global Warming Level 1.5°C Global Warming Level 2.0°C Global Warming Level 3.0°C

0 2°C 3°C 4°C 6°C1°C 5°C-2°C-3°C-4°C-6°C -1°C-5°C

Change in

annual mean

temperature

from

1850–1900

(°C)

0 20 60 100

Number of

days with

maximum

temperature

above 35°C

(days)

Change in

annual

maximum

1-day

precipitation

amount

from 1850–1900

(%)

-40 10 20 30 40

Change in

consecutive

dry days

from

1850–1900

(days)

30 40 50 70 80 9010

-55% -40% 20% 55%-10% 0 10% 30% 40% 50%-50% -20%-30%

0-10-20-30

2678

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

(b) Sustainable development related climate impacts indicators

Global Warming Level ≈ 1.7°C Global Warming Level ≈ 2.5°C Global Warming Level ≈ 4.4°C

Days per year

population at

risk of death

from extreme

heat

(Chapter 6)

Days per year

with physical

work capacity

less than 40%

SSP8.5 2081–2100

(Chapter 5)

No days

1 day 365 days

Low (0 days) High (365 days)

Global Warming Level ≈ 5.0°C

40%30%-30% -10% 0 10%-40% -20% 20%

Global Warming Level ≈ 2.0°C Global Warming Level ≈ 5.3°C

Change in total

animal fish biomass

from 1990–1999

(Chapter 3)

Return period

for 100-year

river flood

(years)

relative to

1970–2000

(Chapter 4)

Global Warming Level ≈ 2.1°C Global Warming Level ≈ 2.9°C Global Warming Level ≈ 4.7°C

1,00050050 95

105 12525 75 25052

Flood

frequency

DecreaseIncrease

High model

agreement

Figure18.4 | Regional projected select climate change and sustainable-development-related climate impact indicators by global warming level. Sources: WGI

AR6 Interactive Atlas (https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/) and WGII Figures3.21, 4.17, 5.19, and 6.3. The GWLs shown are multi-model means derived from Hauser etal. (2019) for

the respective RCP and SSP and time periods associated with each ﬁgure.

2679

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

(Carr, 2019; 2020) draws upon evidence from sub-Saharan Africa to

develop more nuanced understandings of the ways in which different

stressors and interventions either facilitate or foreclose transformative

pathways, while pointing to the existence of yet poorly understood

thresholds for transformation in systems that can be identiﬁed and

targeted by interventions.

18.2.5.1.2 Adaptation gaps

Adaptation gaps are deﬁned as ‘the difference between actually

implemented adaptation and a societally set goal, determined

largely by preferences related to tolerated climate change impacts

and reﬂecting resource limitations and competing priorities’ (UNEP,

2014; UNEP, 2018a). Adaptation deﬁcit is a similar concept, described

as an inadequate or insufﬁcient adaptation to current conditions

(Chapter 1). Adaptation gaps or deﬁcits arise from a lack of adequate

technological, ﬁnancial, social, and institutional capacities to adapt

effectively to climate change and extreme weather events, which are

in turn linked to development (very high conﬁdence) (Fankhauser and

McDermott, 2014; Milman and Arsano, 2014; Chen etal., 2016; Asfaw

etal., 2018) (Section18.2.2).

Currently, there is no consensus around approaches to assess the

effectiveness of adaptation actions across contexts and therefore

measure adaptation gaps at a global scale (Singh etal., 2021a). UNEP

(2021) suggests that comprehensiveness, inclusiveness, implementability,

integration and monitoring, and evaluation can be used to assess them

(see also Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB). However, limited information

is available about future trends in national-level adaptation and the

development of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Despite the

challenges of measurement associated with adaptation gaps, available

evidence from smaller scales across several regions, communities and

businesses suggest that signiﬁcant adaptation gaps have existed in

historical contexts of climate change, while expectations of extreme heat,

increasing storm intensity and rising sea levels will create the context

for the emergence of new gaps (very high conﬁdence) (Hallegatte etal.,

2018; UNEP, 2018a; Dellink etal., 2019; UNEP, 2021). These adaptation

gaps create risks to well-being, economic growth, equity, the health of

natural systems and other societal goals. The negative impacts of these

gaps can be compounded by adaptation efforts that are considered

maladaptive or by development actions that are labelled as adaptation

(see Chapter 16).

A higher level of adaptation ﬁnance is critical to enhance adaptation

planning and implementation and reduce adaptation gaps, particularly

in developing countries (very high conﬁdence) (UNEP, 2021) (Cross-

Chapter Box FINANCE in Chapter 17, Section 18.4.2.2). However,

adaptation ﬁnance is not keeping pace with the rising adaptation

costs in the context of increasing and accelerating climate change, as

‘annual adaptation costs in developing countries alone are currently

estimated to be in the range of US$70billion, with the expectation of

reaching US$140–300billion in 2030 and US$280–500billion in 2050’

(UNEP, 2021). Investment in attaining SDGs helps bridge adaptation

gaps (Birkmann et al., 2021), but care needs to be taken to avoid

maladaptation through mislabelling. Integration of the Indigenous and

local knowledge systems is anticipated to reduce existing adaptation

gaps and secure livelihood transitions.

Analysis of investments by four major climate and development

funds (the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund,

the Adaptation Fund and the International Climate Initiative) by

UNEP (2021) suggests that support for green and hybrid adaptation

solutions has been increasing over the past two decades. These could

be effective at reducing climate risks and bridging adaptation gaps

while simultaneously bringing important additional beneﬁts for the

economy, environment and livelihoods (UNEP, 2021) (see also Cross-

Chapter BoxNATURAL in Chapter 2).

Lately, the evidence of adaptation activity in the health sector has

been increasing (Watts etal., 2019), yet substantial adaptation gaps

persist (UNEP, 2018a; UNEP, 2021), including gaps in humanitarian

response to climate-related disasters (Watts et al., 2019). It is the

under-investment in climate and health research in general and health

adaptation in particular that has led to adaptation gaps in the health

sector (Ebi etal., 2017).

Costs of implementing efﬁcient adaptation measures and water-

related infrastructure in water-deﬁcient regions have received

attention at the global and regional level to bridge the ‘adaptation

gap’ (Hallegatte etal., 2018; UNEP, 2018a; Dellink etal., 2019; UNEP,

2021). Livelihood sustainability in the drylands, which cover more

than 40% of the land surface area, are home to roughly 2.5billion

people, and support approximately 50% of the livestock and 45%

of the food production, is threatened by a complex and inter-related

range of social, economic and environmental changes that present

signiﬁcant challenges to rural communities, especially women (Abu-

Rabia-Queder and Morris, 2018; Gaur and Squires, 2018). Adaptation

deﬁcits in arid and semi-arid regions are of high order (see CROSS-

CHAPTER BOX 3). To reduce adaptation deﬁcit in arid and semi-

arid regions, comprehensive and efﬁcient adaptation interventions

integrating better water management, use of non-traditional water

sources, changes in reservoir operations, soil ecosystem rejuvenation

and enhanced institutional effectiveness are needed (Section 18.5)

(Makuvaro etal., 2017; Mohammed and Scholz, 2017; Morote etal.,

2019). Communities facing the lack of adequate technological,

ﬁnancial, human and institutional capacities to adapt effectively to

current and future climate change often encounter adaptation deﬁcits.

To address current adaptation barriers and adaptation deﬁcits, there

is a need to promote efﬁcient adaptation measures, coupled with

inclusive and adaptive governance involving marginalised groups such

as Indigenous communities and women.

Although unevenly distributed urban adaptation gaps exist in all world

regions (see Chapter 6). Such gaps are higher in the urban centres

of the poorer nations. Chapter 6 identiﬁed that the critical capacity

gaps at city and community levels responsible for adaptation gaps are

the ‘ability to identify social vulnerability and community strengths,

and to plan in integrated ways to protect communities, alongside the

ability to access innovative funding arrangements and manage ﬁnance

and commercial insurance; and locally accountable decision making

with sufﬁcient access to science, technology and local knowledge to

support the application of adaptation solutions at scale’.

Insufﬁcient ﬁnancial resources are the main reasons for the coastal

adaptation gap, particularly in the Global South (see CROSS-CHAPTER

2680

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

BOX 2). Engaging the private sector with a range of ﬁnancial tools is

crucial to address such gaps (see CROSS-CHAPTER BOX 2). An urgent

and transformative action to institutionalise locally relevant integrative

adaptation pathways is crucial for closing coastal adaptation gaps.

Additional efforts are in place for assessing global adaptation progress

(see Cross-Chapter BoxPROGRESS in Chapter 17).

18.2.5.1.3 Adaptation implementation

As discussed in Chapter 16, adaptation is a key mechanism for

managing climate risks, and therefore for pursuing CRD. The lower

estimates in Table18.2 are associated with higher levels of adaptation

and more conducive development conditions. Furthermore, additional

adaptation demand is associated with greater levels of climate change.

Adaptation is a broad term referring to many different levels of response

and options for natural and human systems, from individuals, speciﬁc

locations and speciﬁc technologies, to nations, markets, global dynamics

and strategies at the system level. Adaptation also includes endogenous

reﬂexive and exogenous policy responses. Perspectives on limits to

adaptation, synergies, trade-offs and feasibility therefore depend on

where the boundaries are drawn and the objective. Overall, there are

a broad range of adaptation options relevant to reducing risks posed

by climate change to development. However, current understanding

of how such options are implemented in practice, their effectiveness

across a range of possible climate futures and their potential limits, is

modest.

The IPCC’s SR1.5 report evaluated individual adaptation options in terms

of economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental/

ecological and geophysical feasibility (de Coninck etal., 2018). This

analysis has been updated for AR6 (Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB). These

assessments identify types of barriers that could affect an option’s

feasibility. Among other things, this work ﬁnds that every adaptation

option evaluated had at least one feasibility dimension that represented

a barrier or obstacle. The barriers also imply that there are trade-offs

in these feasibility dimensions to consider. Overall, insights from this

work are high-level and difﬁcult to apply to a speciﬁc adaptation

context. The feasibility and ranking of adaptation opportunities, as

well as the list of opportunities themselves, for a given location will

vary from location to location, with different criteria and weighting

of criteria that reﬂect the priorities of society and decision-makers

as well as differences in markets, technology options and policies for

managing risks and trade-offs. Integrated evaluation of criteria and

options is needed, that accounts for the relevant geographic context

and interactions between options and systems (Section18.5).

Sustainable development is regarded as generally consistent with

climate change adaptation, helping build adaptive capacity by

addressing poverty and inequalities and improving inclusion and

institutions (Roy et al., 2018). Some sustainable development

strategies could facilitate adaptation effectiveness by addressing

wider socioeconomic barriers, addressing social inequalities and

promoting livelihood security (Roy etal., 2018). With a common goal of

reducing risks, sustainable development and adaptation are relatively

synergistic. For example, “low-regrets” adaptation strategies have

been identiﬁed, such as improvements in health systems that reduce

climate health impacts in cities (Barata, 2018). However, trade-offs

also have been found and are important to consider and potentially

address. Synergies have been found between adaptation and poverty

reduction, hunger reduction, clean water access and health; while,

trade-offs have also been found, particularly when adaptation

strategies prioritise one development objective (e.g., food security or

heat-stress risk reduction) or promote high-cost solutions with budget

allocation and equity implications (Roy etal., 2018) (Sections18.2.5.3,

18.5, Box18.4). There are also opportunities for addressing the trade-

offs, in particular distributional effects—by recognising that there are

trade-offs and considering alternatives and complementary strategies

to address those trade-offs (Section18.2.5.3).

Box18.3 | Climate Resilient Development in Small Islands

Small islands are particularly vulnerable to climate change and many are already pursuing climate resilient development pathways

that enable integrated responses (Allen etal., 2018a; Mycoo, 2018; Hay etal., 2019; Robinson etal., 2021). Countries such as Belize

have opted for a systems approach and are working across the sustainable development goals (SDGs) to increase integration (Allen

etal., 2018a). This includes rethinking disaster reconstruction mechanisms in the Caribbean and introducing more diversiﬁed and

sustainable tourism economies that can better withstand external shocks such as disruptions and loss of markets from COVID-19

(Sheller, 2021). In the Seychelles, various government and tourism industry initiatives are focused on the promotion of sustainable

tourism ventures that lower emissions, protect and promote biodiversity conservation (e.g., new marine protected areas with

mitigation and adaptation beneﬁts), and are climate resilient (Robinson etal., 2021). In 2016, the Seychelles signed the world’s ﬁrst

nature-for-debt swap, wherein a non-governmental organisation (NGO; The Nature Conservancy) agreed to pay off Seychelles’ public

debt to the Paris Club (foreign creditors) in return for the Seychelles government establishing marine conservation areas (Silver and

Campbell, 2018).

One key area where enhanced climate risk integration is critical is infrastructure-related decisions, especially on coastal areas (World

Bank, 2017). However, despite increasing awareness of climate risks and experienced impacts, decisions on, for example, infrastructure

locations still reﬂect cultural preferences. For example, Hay etal. (2019) report that, despite recommendations to relocate the redevelopment

site of the Parliamentary Complex in Samoa away from the coast, multiple cultural and historical factors inﬂuenced the decisions to

redevelop at the original site. In the Solomon Islands, however, emerging evidence suggests that adaptation efforts to enhance the

2681

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Box18.4 | Adaptation and the Sustainable Development Goals

The achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represents near-term positive sustainability as well as indicating the

quality of development processes and actions (inclusion and social justice, alternative development models, planetary health, well-

being, equity, solidary, different forms of knowledge and human–nature connectivity) that enable climate resilient development (CRD)

in the long term (Sections18.2.2.2, 18.2.5.3). A key question is the extent to which adaptation actions (or non-action) may contribute

to (or undermine) SDG achievement and, in particular, shift the quality of development processes and engagement within the political,

economic, ecological, socio-ethical and knowledge-technology arenas, and hence contribute to climate resilient development pathways

(CRDPs).

Table Box18.4.1 (below) provides a set of examples of how adaptation actions can either contribute to or undermine SDG achievement

for SDGs 2, 3, 6, 11 and 16. In general, formal adaptation policies as well as household and community-based adaptation strategies can

generate positive outcomes, particularly if they are responsive to the local context and needs, with real participation and leadership by

target populations (Remling and Veitayaki, 2016; Buckwell etal., 2020; McNamara etal., 2020; Owen, 2020). For example, integrated

adaptation approaches to the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus aiming to build resilience in those sectors can lead to increased

resource use efﬁciency and coherent strategies for managing the complex interactions and trade-offs among the water, energy

and food SDGs (Mpandeli etal., 2018; Nhamo etal., 2020). One such approach could involve cultivating indigenous crops suited to

harsh growing conditions, which would allow for agricultural expansion for food and energy without increased water withdrawals

(Mpandeli etal., 2018). Overall, adaptation commitments aiming to build resilience of vulnerable populations have typically shown to

contribute to SDGs focused on ending extreme poverty (SDG 1), improving food security (SDG 2), improving access to water (SDG 6),

ensuring clean energy (SDG 7), tackling climate change (SDG 13) and halting land degradation and deforestation (SDG 15) (Antwi-

Agyei etal., 2018).

resilience of infrastructure are also serving to help urban areas address problems associated with rapid urbanisation and provide new

opportunities for sustainable development (Robinson etal., 2021).

Energy system transitions in small islands can produce synergies with SDG implementation and can lead to transformational outcomes.

The Paciﬁc Island territory of Tokelau has demonstrated a nationwide energy transition, sourcing 100% of their energy needs from solar

power (Michalena and Hills, 2018), and many other countries such as Fiji, Niue, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Cook Islands also

have 100% renewable energy targets. Beneﬁts of small island distributed energy systems (such as solar photovoltaic [PV] systems)

include less need for large, centralised infrastructure; reduced reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets; enhanced international climate

negotiations power; and enhanced local job markets/skills (Dornan, 2015; Cole and Banks, 2017; Weir, 2018). Additionally, renewable

systems can enhance resilience to hydro-meteorological disasters (Weir and Kumar, 2020). For example, well-secured ground-based PV

systems withstood cyclones in the Paciﬁc Island of Tonga during cyclone Gita and across the Caribbean during Hurricane Maria, with

power restored in days rather than weeks associated with more centralised systems (Weir and Kumar, 2020). Yet a multitude of challenges

remain. In the Paciﬁc islands region, these include: the high up front capital investment of renewables; lack of private sector investment;

limited renewable energy data for policymaking; land tenure/rent costs; ongoing infrastructure maintenance skills and requirements;

political turnover; failed experimentation; difﬁculty in obtaining and transporting replacement parts; and a highly corrosive environment

for equipment (Dornan, 2015; Cole and Banks, 2017; Lucas etal., 2017; Weir, 2018; Weir and Kumar, 2020). The example of Paciﬁc energy

transitions demonstrates that a nuanced and context speciﬁc analysis of synergies and trade-offs for energy transitions is required to

lessen the impact on fragile economies and maximise beneﬁts for remote populations.

Labour migration is increasingly recognised as a signiﬁcant factor that can contribute to climate resilient development pathways for

small islands. In the Paciﬁc islands region, labour mobility schemes are already allowing for climate change adaptation and economic

development to occur in labour migrants’ countries of origin (Smith and McNamara, 2015; Klepp and Herbeck, 2016; Dun etal., 2020).

Dun etal. (2020) demonstrates that temporary or circular migrants from the Solomon Islands, working in Australia under its Seasonal

Worker Programme (similar programmes operate in other developed countries), are using the money they earn to invest in adaptation

and development activities back home. Similarly, labour migrants from Vanuatu, Kiribati and Samoa contribute to development and in

situ climate change adaptation (at a household, village and regional level) that enable discussions about more resilient futures for their

countries (Barnett and McMichael, 2018; Parsons etal., 2018).

Box18.3 (continued)

2682

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

However, evidence also suggests limitations of adaptation actions, with the objectives and actions often being too narrow to address

social justice and enable CRD. As such, adaptation actions can sometimes undermine SDG achievement through exacerbating social

vulnerability, inequity and uneven power relations (Antwi-Agyei etal., 2018; Atteridge and Remling, 2018; Paprocki, 2018; Mikulewicz,

2019; Satyal etal., 2020; Scoville-Simonds etal., 2020). This is due to adaptation practices often not accounting for the differentiated

ways in which minority groups are especially vulnerable. For example, designs of emergency shelters should consider the fear of social

stigma or abuse faced by women and girls (Pelling and Garschagen, 2019).

Such maladaptive adaptation practices can undermine SDG achievement through increasing vulnerability of marginalised groups by

failing to address the underlying root causes of vulnerability and poverty that are related to political economy, power dynamics and

vested interests more broadly, instead treating the symptoms as the cause (Magnan etal., 2016; Ajibade and Egge, 2019; Schipper,

2020). For example, evidence exists of ﬂood defence measures through large-scale infrastructure development leading to the violent

displacement of poor communities, forcibly resettling people in areas far from their employment or pushing up land and housing costs

without providing compensation (Fuso Nerini etal., 2018; Reckien etal., 2018). Moreover, sectoral approaches to adaptation that fail

to acknowledge the linkages between SDGs can counter development efforts and generate further trade-offs (Terry, 2009; Rasul and

Sharma, 2016; von Stechow etal., 2016; Klinsky etal., 2017; Hallegatte etal., 2019).

The literature recommends a set of strategies for ensuring that adaptation actions are aligned with SDG achievement and do not further

perpetuate poverty and inequality. These include ensuring that marginalised voices are central to adaptation decision making, with

participatory approaches that empower and compensate affected communities (Moser and Ekstrom, 2011; Broto etal., 2015; Pelling

and Garschagen, 2019; Palermo and Hernandez, 2020). Gender mainstreaming and gender transformative approaches within climate

policies can also help ensure gender-sensitive design of adaptation projects, with appropriate equity analyses of policy (Klinsky etal.,

2017) decisions to identify the actual implications of trade-offs for vulnerable groups (Beuchelt and Badstue, 2013; Alston, 2014; Bowen

etal., 2017; Fuso Nerini etal., 2018).

In addition, a substantial literature also argues for policy coherence measures that adopt whole-of-government approaches and

mainstream and nationalise SDG targets within national climate policies (Nilsson etal., 2012; Le Blanc, 2015; Ari, 2017; Collste etal.,

2017; Dzebo etal., 2017; Nilsson and Weitz, 2019). Institutional coordination mechanisms that aim to break down silos between different

agencies and actors at the national level are suggested as beneﬁcial for avoiding trade-offs between adaptation actions and SDGs

(Mirzabaev etal., 2015; Howlett and Saguin, 2018; Scherer etal., 2018). However, these need to be paired with an investigation of the

deep-seated ideologies and vested interests that are creating goal conﬂicts and negatively impacting marginalised groups to begin with

(Purdon, 2014; Bocquillon, 2018). Ultimately, adaptation measures need to acknowledge and address the underlying drivers that make

certain groups particularly vulnerable, such as social disenfranchisement, unequal power dynamics and historical legacies of colonialism

and exploitation (Magnan etal., 2016; Schipper, 2020)

TableBox18.4.1 | Examples of linkages between adaptation and the SDGs. For several key SDGs aligned with the concept of CRD, the table below identiﬁes evidence

from the literature where adaptation policies and practices contribute to achievement of the SDG, as well as where they undermine achievement of the SDG.

SDG Evidence of adaptation contributing to SDG Evidence of adaptation undermining SDG

SDG 2: Zero

Hunger

Adaptation measures implemented by smallholder farmers (e.g., adjustments

in farm operations timing, on-farm diversiﬁcation, soil–water management)

exhibit higher levels of productivity and technical efﬁciency in food

production (Bai etal., 2019; Sloat etal., 2020; Khanal etal., 2021)

Some climate smart agriculture measures (e.g., intercropping) can

signiﬁcantly increase yields and contribute to zero hunger (Lipper etal., 2014;

Arslan etal., 2015; Saj etal., 2017)

Some adaptation policies can increase land and food prices, negatively

impacting smallholder farmers (Fuso Nerini etal., 2018; Zavaleta etal., 2018;

Albizua etal., 2019)

Potential trade-offs for food production through adaptation actions within

the water or energy sector, if integrated approaches not taken (Howells etal.,

2013; FAO, 2014; Biswas and Tortajada, 2016)

SDG 3: Good

Health and

Wellbeing

Increased resilience of societies and reduced vulnerability through

investments in public health care and access (Marmot, 2020; Mullins and

White, 2020)

Adaptation measures that leverage solidarity, equity and nature

connectedness contribute to physical and psychological health and

well-being (Gambrel and Cafaro, 2009; Capaldi etal., 2015; Soga and

Gaston, 2016; Woiwode, 2020)

Societal measures beyond adaptation required to address underlying causes

of inequities that drive poor health and well-being, including cuts in public

spending and neoliberalisation and commodiﬁcation of healthcare (Hall,

2020; Walsh and Dillard-Wright, 2020)

Box18.4 (continued)

2683

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

SDG Evidence of adaptation contributing to SDG Evidence of adaptation undermining SDG

SDG 6: Clean

Water and

Sanitation

Integrated water resources management as an adaptation strategy (Tan and

Foo, 2018; Sadoff etal., 2020)

Potential trade-offs for water security through adaptation actions within

the food or energy sector, if integrated approaches not taken (Howells etal.,

2013; Rasul and Sharma, 2016; Mpandeli etal., 2018)

Local, regional or national ‘grabs’ for water from shared resources with

poorly deﬁned property rights (Olmstead, 2014)

SDG 11:

Sustainable

Cities and

Communities

Vulnerability reducing adaptation measures that aim to upgrade informal

settlements, create affordable housing and protect populations living in

disaster prone areas (Major etal., 2018; Sanchez Rodriguez etal., 2018;

Ajibade and Egge, 2019)

Need to ensure that adaptation measures understand how power dynamics

and cultural norms shape urban form and communities’ vulnerability and

adaptive capacity (Sanchez Rodriguez etal., 2018)

Risk of built infrastructure aiming to increase resilience ignoring local

population needs and creating low-skilled jobs that concentrate land, capital

and resources in the hands of the elite (Ajibade and Egge, 2019)

SDG 16:

Peace, Justice

and Strong

Institutions

Potential for adaptation projects to support livelihood incomes and

resource management, and thereby reduce tensions and the risk of conﬂicts

(Matthew, 2014; Dresse etal., 2018; Barnett, 2019)

Studies from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal found that climate change

adaptation-related policies and projects were an underlying cause of natural

resource-based conﬂicts, as well as land dispossession and exclusion,

entrenchment of dependency relations, elite capture and inequity (Sovacool,

2018; Sultana etal., 2019)

Adaptation projects can reinforce top-down knowledge and decision-making

processes, asymmetric power relations and elite capture of adaptation

resources (Nightingale, 2017; Eriksen etal., 2021b)

Need for conﬂict-sensitive adaptation approaches that aim to ‘do no harm’

(Babcicky, 2013; Ide, 2020)

18.2.5.2 Mitigation

Mitigation, including greenhouse gas emissions reductions, avoidance,

and removal and sequestration, as well as management of other

climate forcing factors (WGIII AR6), is a key element of addressing

climate risk and pursuing CRD. There are numerous individual and

system mitigation options throughout the economy and within human

and natural systems (very high conﬁdence) (Chapter 16; Section18.5).

Limiting global average warming has been found to reduce climate

risks (IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2019b), and limiting global average warming

to any temperature level has also been found to be associated with

broad ranges of potential global emissions pathways that represent

future uncertainty in the evolution of socioeconomic, technological,

market and physical systems (very high conﬁdence) (Rose and Scott,

2018; Rose and Scott, 2020). Pathways consistent with limiting

warming to 2°C and below have been found to require signiﬁcant

deployment of mitigation options spanning energy, land use and

societal transformation ((Lecocq et al., 2022; Riahi et al., 2022);

Section18.3). and substantial economic, energy, land use, policy and

societal transformation (Lecocq etal., 2022; Riahi etal., 2022). Such

emissions pathways would represent deviations from current trends

that raise issues about their feasibility and therefore plausibility (Rose

and Scott, 2018; Rose and Scott, 2020).

The technical and economic challenge of limiting warming has been

found to increase nonlinearly with greater ambition, fewer mitigation

options, less than global cooperative policy designs and delayed

mitigation action ((Riahi etal., 2022); Table18.2). Table18.2 provides

a high-level summary of pathway characteristic ranges based on the

WGIII AR6 assessment. Global pathways ﬁnd large regional differences

in mitigation potential, as well as the degree of regional nonlinearity

with greater mitigation ambition. These represent opportunities for

mitigation, but how this effort and cost would be facilitated and

distributed respectively is a policy question.

Table 18.2 illustrates that greater climate ambition implies more

aggressive emissions reductions in each region, and earlier regional

peaking of emissions (if they have not peaked to date). Near-term

regional emissions increases are possible, even for 1.5°C compatible

pathways, but signiﬁcantly lower emissions than today are shown in

all regions by 2050. Increases in total regional energy consumption

and fossil energy are observed for many pathways, even in the most

ambitious where energy consumption growth is potentially slower

compared with less ambitious pathways. By 2050, regional fossil

energy declines, but is not eliminated in any region. Regional growth in

electricity use is substantial in all pathways, even the most ambitious,

with the growth continuing and accelerating with time and regional

dependence on electricity (share of total energy consumption) also

growing signiﬁcantly. The broad ranges are an indication of uncertainty

and risk for regional transitions, noting that full uncertainty is likely

broader than what is captured by emissions scenario databases

(Rose and Scott, 2018; Rose and Scott, 2020). Among other things,

pathways commonly assume idealised climate policies with immediate

implementation, and model infeasibilities (i.e., models unable to

solve) increase with climate ambition and pessimism about mitigation

technologies (e.g., Clarke etal., 2014; Bauer etal., 2018; Rogelj etal.,

2018; Muratori et al., 2020), highlighting the increasing challenge

and potential for actual infeasibility with lower global warming

targets. Together, Table 18.2 provides insights into the increasingly

demanding system and development transitions associated with lower

global warming levels, as well as some of the low-carbon transition

uncertainties and risks (see also Figure18.5).

Box18.4 (continued)

2684

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Past assessment has evaluated representative mitigation strategies

in terms of economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural,

environmental/ecological and geophysical viability, as well as

relationships to SDGs (de Coninck et al., 2018). The strategies

assessment analysis has been updated for AR6 (Cross-Chapter

BoxFEASIB). These assessments identify types of barriers that could

affect an option’s feasibility. Among other things, this work ﬁnds that,

other than public transport and non-motorised transport, every other

mitigation option evaluated had at least one feasibility dimension that

represented a barrier or obstacle. The barriers also imply that there are

trade-offs in these feasibility dimensions to consider. The assessment

of mitigation option-sustainable development relationships identiﬁes

related literature and derives aggregate characterisations. Concerns

about the potential sustainable development implications of some

mitigation technologies may be motivation for precluding the use

of some mitigation options. For instance, the potential food security

and environmental quality implications of bioenergy have received

signiﬁcant attention in the literature (e.g., Smith etal., 2013). However,

constraining or precluding the use of bioenergy without or with CCS

could have signiﬁcant implications for the cost of pursuing ambitious

climate goals, and potentially the attainability of those goals (e.g.,

Clarke etal., 2014; Bauer etal., 2018; Rogelj etal., 2018; Muratori etal.,

2020). Bioenergy is not unique in this regard. Social, environmental,

and sustainability concerns have also been raised about the large-

scale deployment of many low-carbon technologies, for example,

REDD+, wind, solar, nuclear, fossil with CCS and batteries. See WGIII

Chapter 3 (Riahi etal., 2022) for examples of the potential implications

of limiting or precluding different low-carbon technologies.

Overall, as with adaptation options, insights from this aggregate

feasibility and sustainable development mapping work are high level

and difﬁcult to apply to a speciﬁc mitigation context. The feasibility,

ranking and sustainable development implications of mitigation

options, as well as the list of options themselves, for a given location

will vary from location to location, with different criteria and weighting

of criteria that reﬂect the relevant social priorities and differences

in markets, technology options and policies for managing risks and

trade-offs. Integrated evaluation of criteria and options is needed

here as well, that accounts for the relevant geographic context and

interactions between options, systems and implications.

Analyses of the potential implications of mitigation on sustainable

development has various strands of literature—studies exploring

general greenhouse gas mitigation feedbacks to society, assessments

of mitigation implications on speciﬁc societal objectives other than

climate and literature evaluating mitigation implications speciﬁcally

for sustainable development objectives (Denton et al., 2022; Lecocq

etal., 2022; Riahi etal., 2022). In general, mitigation alters development

opportunities by constraining the emissions future society can produce,

which affects markets, resource allocation, economic structure, income

distribution, consumers and the environment (besides climate) (very

high conﬁdence). Examples of general development feedbacks from

mitigation include estimated price changes, macroeconomic costs,

and low carbon energy and land system transformations (Fisher etal.,

2007; Clarke etal., 2014; Popp etal., 2014; Rose etal., 2014; Weyant

and Kriegler, 2014; Bauer etal., 2018; Rogelj etal., 2018). Examples of

mitigation implications for other speciﬁc variables of societal interest

include evaluating potential effects on air pollutant emissions, crop

prices, water and land use change (e.g., McCollum etal., 2018b; Roy

et al., 2018), while the literature evaluating mitigation implications

speciﬁcally for sustainable development objectives includes evaluations

on energy access, food security and income equality (e.g., Roy etal., 2018;

Arneth etal., 2019; Mbow etal., 2019). Proxy indicators are frequently

used to represent whether there might be implications for a sustainable

development objective. For example, changes in energy prices are used

as a proxy for effects on energy security (e.g., Roy etal., 2018). This is

common with aggregate modelling studies, such as those associated

with global or regional emissions scenarios and energy systems.

Figure 18.5, derived from WGIII scenarios data, illustrates estimated

relationships between mitigation and various sustainable development

proxy variables for different global regions. Figure 18.5 illustrates

synergies and trade-offs with mitigation, as well as regional

heterogeneity, that can intensify with the level of climate ambition—

synergies in air pollutants, such as black carbon, NOx and SO

; and

trade-offs in overall economic development, household consumption,

food crop prices and energy prices for electricity and natural gas. For

comparison, recent IPCC assessments also observed similar synergies

and trade-offs but did not directly make comparisons regarding overall

development nor evaluate potential climates above 2°C (Rogelj etal.,

2018; Roy etal., 2018; Mbow etal., 2019). Regional nonlinearity in the

economic costs of mitigation with greater climate ambition (i.e., costs

rising at an increasing rate with lower warming goals) can be signiﬁcant

within individual models (Rose and Scott, 2018; Rose and Scott, 2020).

Figure18.5 also illustrates transition risks in the potential for signiﬁcant

synergistic and trade-off implications with, for instance, potentially large

regional commodity price implications and household consumption

losses, as well as more signiﬁcant air pollution beneﬁts. Note that

the 1.5°C results in Figure18.5 (and Table18.2) are biased by model

infeasibilities. Many models are unable to solve, especially with less

optimistic assumptions, resulting in small sample sizes and a different

representation of models compared to the 2°C and higher results.

Results such as those in Figure 18.5 illustrate that mitigation–

development trade-offs are inevitable and need to be considered

and addressed. For instance, Roy (2018) found that although limiting

warming to 1.5°C would make it markedly easier to achieve most of

the UN’s SDGs, none of the 1.5°C pathways assessed achieved all of

the SDGs. A similar conclusion follows from the results in Figure18.5

based on WGIII AR6 scenarios.. A newer literature is developing,

evaluating the potential for managing SDG trade-offs. Results like

those in Figure18.5 provide insights regarding some of the types of

strategy sets to consider. Roy etal. (2018) discuss the potential for

policies that address distributional implications, such as payments,

food support and revenue recycling, as well as education, retraining

and technology outreach, subsidies or prioritisation. Recent studies

have begun to estimate potential payments to offset trade-offs, such

as related to food, water and energy access (e.g., McCollum etal.,

2018a). These analyses estimate investments to address speciﬁc

trade-offs; however, with mitigation redirecting resources away

from other productive activities, there is a need to also evaluate the

aggregate economy-wide, distributional and welfare effects, including

the redistribution effects of managing sustainable development

trade-offs.

2685

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Table18.2 | Emissions pathway regional characteristics from WGIII scenarios database for pathways associated with different global warming levels (1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C and 4°C).

Sample sizes: n = 2, 120–126, 56, and 26 emissions pathways for 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C and 4°C global warming levels, respectively. Sample size ranges indicate that the sample size

varies by variable due to differences in model reporting. Sample size varies by warming level due to model infeasibilities and differences in model reporting.

Variable

Peak

global

warm-

ing to

2100

Asia Latin America Middle East/Africa OECD Reforming economies n

Peak CO

emissions

year

1.5°C 2020 2010 2020 2010 2015 2

2°C 2015 to 2030 2010 to 2035 2010 to 2030 2010 to 2020 2015 to 2030 126

3°C 2020 to 2080 2010 to 2100 2030 to 2100 2010 to 2020 2015 to 2100 56

4°C 2025 to 2100 2010 to 2100 2070 to 2100 2010 to 2100 2040 to 2100 26

Variable

Peak

global

warm-

ing to

2100

Asia Latin America Middle East/Africa OECD Reforming economies

2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 n

Net CO

emissions

(% change

from

2010)

1.5°C −18 to −24% −73 to −69% −61 to −57% −94 to −92% −26 to −1% −65 to −50% −50 to −46% −91 to −90% −42 to −41% −92 to −91% 2

2°C −31 to 38% −89 to −33% −62 to 31% −98 to −3% −30 to 67% −73 to −1% −51 to −13% −97 to −59% −52 to 32%

−105 to

−30%

126

3°C 10 to 50% −5 to 49% −58 to 16% −132 to 50% 7 to 84% 33 to 101% −44 to 2% −67 to −12% −18 to 33% −37 to 41% 56

4°C 26 to 76% 37 to 103% −49 to 5% −41 to 22% 19 to 121% 78 to 225% −34 to −8% −53 to −7% −13 to 38% 0 to 53% 26

Energy

con-

sumption

growth

(% change

from

2010)

1.5°C 48 to 48% 49 to 62% 23 to 27% 26 to 39% 40 to 46% 55 to 62% −15 to −12% −43 to −28 −21 to −15% −41 to −34% 2

2°C 17 to 90% 16 to 130% 3 to 72% 12 to 160% 18 to 82% 43 to 145% −16 to 10% −35 to 11% −15 to 37% −33 to 29% 125

3°C 43 to 80% 70 to 129% −9 to 74% 17 to 170% 21 to 82% 79 to 174% −16 to 13% −29 to 21% −3 to 37% −15 to 86% 56

4°C 47 to 91% 73 to 175% 19 to 65% 34 to 137% 46 to 95% 91 to 197% −9 to 3% −21 to 18% −8 to 18% −4 to 27% 26

Fossil

energy use

growth (%

change

from 2010

1.5°C 7 to 8% −34 to 34% −9 to −6% −53 to −46% 15 to 25% −23 to −20% −42 to −38% −81 to −76% −38 to −34% −81 to −80% 2

2°C −33 to 64% −73 to 14% −20 to 65% −78 to 61% −6 to 71% −78 to 61% −47 to −8% −81 to −32% −51 to 31% −85 to −5% 121

3°C 15 to 70% 29 to 89% −20 to 65% 3 to 124% 7 to 79% 31 to 158% −37 to 3% −57 to 3% −24 to 32% −30 to 43% 56

4°C 38 to 88% 59 to 149% 10 to 63% 21 to 149% 41 to 115% 103 to 247% −26 to −5% −45 to −1% 14 to 18% −5 to 32% 26

Elec-

tricity con-

sumption

growth

(% change

from

2010)

1.5°C 159 to 165% 330 to 417% 91 to 93% 275 to 338% 119 to 132% 500 to 588% 3 to 12% 32 to 86% 28 to 30% 67 to 116% 2

2°C 41 to 231% 120 to 580% 34 to 127% 140 to 489% 64 to 172% 177 to 801% −2 to 33% 18 to 143% −1 to 112% 36 to 187% 120

3°C 57 to 198% 126 to 472% 34 to 129% 140 to 348% 75 to 175% 260 to 600% −3 to 39% 10 to 128% 3 to 112% 38 to 221% 56

4°C 107 to 208% 203 to 478% 47 to 123% 156 to 320% 84 to 200% 332 to 586% 1 to 33% 20 to 88% 36 to 83% 78 to 143% 26

Growth in

electricity

share of

energy

consump-

tion (%

change

from

2010)

1.5°C 76 to ‘79% 188 to 219% 53 to 56% 198 to 215% 56 to 60% 288 to 324% 22 to 27% 132 to 160% 54 to 61% 182 to228% 2

2°C −6 to 79% 13 to 240% 9 to 85% 43 to 238% 13 to 94% 77 to 386% −7 to 42% 22 to 182% −8 to 75% 7 to 262% 120

3°C −2 to 76% 6 to 158% 7 to 85% 37 to 180% 13 to 94% 70 to 204% 14 to 39% 8 to 112% −4 to 57% 7 to 127% 56

4°C 29 to 72% 41 to 150% 20 to 46% 37 to 103% 26 to 57% 70 to 149% 9 to 33% 22 to 79% 26 to 58% 43 to 102% 26

2686

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Regional implications of climate mitigation pathways in 2050

for various development and sustainable development proxy variables for different global mean peak temperature outcomes (during

the century

)

Asia Latin America

Middle East/

Africa OECD

Reforming

Economies

1.5 234

Price:

Natural gas

% change

Price:

Electricity

% change

Price:

Food/feed

crops

% change

Fraction

of reference

Fraction

of reference

Black carbon

Fraction

of reference

Consumption

% change

GDP

% change

200%

400%

600%

800%

-70%

-10%

50%

110%

170%

230%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

10%

20%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

°C 1.5 234 1.5 234 1.5 234 1.5 234

Sustainable

Development

Goals

Figure18.5 | Regional implications of climate mitigation pathways in 2050 for different global mean peak temperature outcomes (during the century)

for various development and sustainable development proxy variables. Each row reports results for a different variable for each of the ﬁve global regions (columns)

used by WGIII, and SDG associated with each variable is noted. Blue dots represent individual emissions scenario results from each of the respective WGIII climate outcome

scenario categories, with red bars the median results. All results are changes (percentage or fraction) relative to each WGIII scenario’s reference scenario. In some circumstances

the reference case emissions are below those from the scenario consistent with a global warming level, which can produce results that appear counter-intuitive (e.g., increases in

GDP or consumption). Data sample sizes vary substantially across temperature levels for a given variable and across variables due to model infeasibilities and model differences in

reporting. Model infeasibilities, in particular, result in signiﬁcantly fewer data points for 1.5°C compatible emissions pathways compared to 2°C pathways (i.e., models are more

often unable to solve for a 1.5°C consistent pathway, than a 2°C pathway, with a given set of assumptions). Food/feed crop price results were not available for 1.5°C and 4°C

warming levels. Sample sizes for each variable and warming level respectively—1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C, and 4°C—are as follows (and apply to all regions): GDP (n = 2, 93, 29, 12);

Consumption (2, 93, 30, 13); Black Carbon (2, 100, 39, 16), NOx (2, 100, 39, 15), SO2 (2, 100, 39, 16), price food/feed crops (0, 44, 23, 0); price electricity (2, 94, 38, 15); price

2687

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

natural gas (10, 86, 44, 10). The sample sizes are very small for the 1.5°C and 4°C results; therefore, the medians for these warming levels are statistically unreliable, which should

be considered in comparing across warming levels. Individual values in the samples exceed y-axis’ ranges in a few cases: black carbon 2°C Latin America minimum equals 0.08,

food/feed price change 3°C minimums in Asia, Latin America, Middle East/Africa, OECD, and Reforming Economies equal respectively -33%, -28%, -28%, -29%, and -29%, natural

gas price change 2°C maximums in Asia, Latin America, Middle East/Africa, OECD, and Reforming Economies equal respectively 962%, 1240%, 2768%, 917%, and 3588%. Figure

developed from the WGIII AR6 scenarios database, with scenarios ﬁltered according to WGIII exclusions and regional vetting.

There are a wide range of mitigation options and systems to consider,

with assessment suggesting that a diverse portfolio is practical for

pursing climate policy ambitions. However, local context will impact

mitigation choices, with unique sustainable development priorities,

available mitigation options, sustainable development synergies and

trade-offs, and policy design and implementation possibilities.

18.2.5.3 Combining Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable

Development Options

In practice, adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development

interventions are likely to be implemented in portfolio packages rather

than as individual discrete options in isolation (high agreement, limited

evidence). However, there is a dearth of literature estimating optimal

portfolios of global adaptation and mitigation strategies. This is not

surprising given the geographic-speciﬁc nature of climate impacts

and adaptation and the information and computational complexity of

representing that detail, as well as mitigation options and interactions.

There are, however, different literatures relevant to considering potential

combinations of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development.

At the most aggregate level, there is a long-standing literature

exploring economically optimal global trade-offs between climate

risks and mitigation (e.g., Manne and Richels, 1992; Nordhaus, 2017;

Rose, 2017), as well as global stochastic analysis exploring global

risk hedging for a small number of uncertainties (e.g., (Lemoine and

Traeger, 2014). Recent work has found optimal global emissions and

climate pathways to be highly sensitive to uncertainties and plausible

alternative assumptions, with uncertainties throughout the causal chain

from society to emissions to climate to climate damages shown to imply

a wide range of different possible economically optimal pathways (Rose,

2017). Among other things, this work identiﬁes assumptions consistent

with limiting warming to different temperature levels. For example, the

combination of potential annual climate damages of 15% of global GDP

at 4°C of warming and a less sensitive climate system were consistent

with an economically efﬁcient global pathway limiting warming to

2°C. In addition, this work highlights the importance of characterising

and managing uncertainties. These types of global aggregate analyses

inform discussions regarding long-run global pathways and goals but

are not designed to inform local planning.

As discussed in Section18.2.5.3.1, there are synergies and trade-offs

in mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. For instance,

the literature on the global cost-effectiveness of mitigation pathways

provides insights regarding aggregate synergies and trade-offs

between mitigation and sustainable development (e.g., Figure18.5).

Furthermore, linkages between mitigation and adaptation options

have been shown, such as expected changes in energy demand due

to climate change interacting with energy system development and

mitigation options, changes in future agricultural production practices

to manage the risks of potential changes in weather patterns affecting

land-based emissions and mitigation strategies, or mitigation strategies

placing additional demands on resources and markets. This increases

pressure on and costs for adaptation, or ecosystem restoration that

provides carbon sequestration and natural and managed ecosystem

resiliency beneﬁts, but also could constrain mitigation and impact

consumer welfare (WGIII AR6).

Nonlinearities are an important consideration in evaluating risk

management combinations. Nonlinearities have been estimated in

global and regional mitigation costs and potential economic damages

from climate change (very high conﬁdence) ((Riahi etal., 2022); (Clarke

etal., 2014; Burke etal., 2015; Rose, 2017). Nonlinear mitigation costs

mean increasingly higher costs for each additional incremental reduction

in emissions (or incremental reduction in global average temperature).

Nonlinear increases in estimated economic climate damage means

increasingly higher damages for each additional incremental increase

in climate change (e.g., global average temperature). However, the

evidence on whether damages increase at an increasing or decreasing

rate is mixed (Chapter 16 CWGB: ECONOMIC). Nonlinearities are also

suggested in estimated changes in key risks and adaptation costs

(Chapters 2 to 16). However, to date, they have not been as explicitly

characterised. These nonlinearities imply nonlinearities in climate risk

management synergies and trade-offs with sustainable development.

Not only do trade-offs vary by climate level, as do synergies, but they

increase at an increasing rate and their relative importance can shift

across climate levels (very high conﬁdence). Some of this is evident in

results such as those shown in Figure18.5 for mitigation (keeping in

mind differences in sample sizes across temperature levels). Uncertainty

about the degree of nonlinearity in mitigation, climate damages, key

risks and adaptation costs creates uncertainties in the strength of

the trade-offs and synergies, but also represents opportunities. For

instance, additional mitigation options and more economically efﬁcient

policy designs have been shown to reduce mitigation costs and the

nonlinearities in mitigation costs (very high conﬁdence) (Riahi etal.,

2022). The same is true for adaptation options and adaptation costs.

Infeasibilities of mitigation and adaptation options (Sections18.4.2.2.1,

18.4.2.2.2), as well as global pathways (Riahi etal., 2022) , are also

relevant to consideration of combinations of risk management options.

Infeasibility of options implies higher costs and greater cost nonlinearity

due to fewer and/or more expensive options, while infeasibility of

pathways bounds some of the uncertainty about the pathways relevant

to decision making and planning.

18.2.5.3.1 Trade-offs and synergies in adaptation, mitigation and

climate resilient development

Since AR5, a growing body of literature has emerged that frames

adaptation processes as endogenous socioeconomic dynamics,

exogenous driving forces and explicit decisions (Barnett etal., 2014;

Maru et al., 2014; Butler et al., 2016; Kingsborough et al., 2016;

2688

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Werners etal., 2018). Central to this framing is a shift away from

viewing adaptation as discrete sets of options that are selected and

implemented to manage risk, to thinking about adaptation as a social

process that evolves over time, includes multiple decision points, and

requires dynamic adjustments in response to new information about

climate risk, socioeconomic conditions and the value of potential

adaptation responses (very high conﬁdence) (Haasnoot etal., 2013;

Wise etal., 2016). This aligns adaptation with aspects of development

thinking, including questions around the capacity and agency of

different actors to effect change, the governance of adaptation, and

the contingent nature of adaptation needs and effectiveness on the

future evolution of society and climate change risk.

While ensuring development and adaptation produce synergies

that allow for the achievement of sustainable development is

challenging, modelling exercises suggest that there are pathways

where synergies among the SDGs are realised (very high conﬁdence)

(Roy etal., 2018; Van Vuuren etal., 2019) (Section18.5), particularly

if longer time horizons are used. These pathways require progress on

multiple social, economic, technological, institutional and governance

aspects of development, including building human capacity,

managing consumption behaviour, decarbonisation of the global

economy, improving food and water security, modernising cities and

infrastructure, and innovations in science and technology (Van Vuuren

etal., 2019) (Section18.3). In addition, Olsson et al, (Olsson etal.,

2014) and Roy etal. (2018) emphasise the importance of integrating

considerations for social justice and equity in the pursuit of sustainable

development (Gupta and Pouw, 2017).

The signiﬁcant overlaps and linkages between development and

adaptation practice and a lack of conceptual clarity about adaptation

pose a conundrum for scholars (e.g., Bassett and Fogelman, 2013;

Webber, 2016), who raise concerns that this potentially leads to trade-

offs or mislabelling (Few et al., 2017). This framing of adaptation

and development can result in competition between attainment

of sustainable development and policies to reduce the impacts of

climate change (Ribot, 2011). Such trade-offs are illustrated by (Moyer

and Bohl, 2019) who use a baseline development trajectory based

on current trends to project progress on SDGs by 2030. This work

concluded that only marginal gains are likely to be achieved under

that pathway over the next decade (Barnes etal., 2019).

Emerging evidence also suggests that many adaptation-labelled strategies

may exacerbate existing poverty and vulnerability or introduce new

inequalities, for example by affecting certain disadvantaged groups more

than others, even to the point of protecting the wealthy elite at the expense

of the most vulnerable (Eriksen etal., 2019). Pelling etal. (2016) ﬁnd that

adaptation has been conceived and implemented in such a manner that

most projects preserve rather than challenge the status quo. Speciﬁcally,

the potential for knowledge and the goals of adaptation to be contested

by different actors and stakeholders and the need to sustain progress over

extended periods of time can constrain the ability to effectively implement

actions that lead to sustainable development outcomes that are protected

from the impacts of climate change while also delivering climate mitigation

outcomes, that is, for CRD (Bosomworth et al., 2017; Bloemen et al.,

2019). This creates the possibility for speciﬁc adaptation actions to result

in outcomes that undermine greenhouse gas mitigation and/or broader

development goals (Fazey etal., 2016; Wise etal., 2016; Magnan etal.,

2020). For example, a study in Bangladesh revealed how local elites and

donors used adaptation projects as a lever to push vulnerable populations

away from their agrarian livelihoods and into uncertain urban wage labour

(Paprocki, 2018). These types of outcomes are categorised as maladaptation,

interventions that increase rather than decrease vulnerability, and/

or undermine or eradicate future opportunities for adaptation and

development (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010; Juhola etal., 2015; Magnan etal.,

2016; Antwi-Agyei etal., 2017; Schipper, 2020). This inadvertent impact on

equity appears to fundamentally contradict a benevolent understanding

of transformative adaptation that also champions social justice (Patterson

et al., 2018), thus posing long-term maladaptation in opposition to

transformative adaptation (Magnan etal., 2020).

Similarly, mitigation efforts, while reducing emissions, can also increase

climate impacts vulnerability and undermine adaptation efforts.

The same can be said for some poverty alleviation and sustainable

development efforts that increase vulnerability for speciﬁc segments of

the population. For example, in Central America, an evaluation of 12 rural

renewable energy projects (either forthe clean development mechanism,

early warning systems or rural electriﬁcation goals) found that some

mitigation and poverty alleviation projects increased vulnerability to

families—by excluding them, not adhering to local safety and quality

codes and standards, or signiﬁcantly altering community power dynamics

and contributing to conﬂict (Ley, 2017; Ley etal., 2020).

Synergies between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development

might be promoted by prioritising those CRD strategies most likely to

generate synergies (very high conﬁdence) (Roy etal., 2018; Karlsson

etal., 2020). This could include focusing on poverty alleviation that

improves adaptive capacity (e.g., Kaya and Chinsamy, 2016; Kuper

etal., 2017; Ley, 2017; Sánchez and Izzo, 2017; Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek

etal., 2018; Ley etal., 2020); renewable energy systems that improve

water management and preservation of river ecological integrity

(e.g., Berga, 2016; Rasul and Sharma, 2016); or internalising positive

externalities, such as subsidies for mitigation options thought to also

improve water use efﬁciency (e.g., Roy etal., 2018). Similarly, trade-

offs might be managed by prioritising strategies such as disqualifying

mitigation options thought to have negative social implications

(Section18.2.5.3.1), internalising externalities, such as placing a fee or

constraint on a negative externality or related activity (Dubash etal.,

2022) (Bistline and Rose, 2018), or using complementary policies,

such as transfer payments to offset negative mitigation, adaptation or

sustainable development strategy implications (very high conﬁdence)

(e.g., McCollum etal., 2018b). Roy etal. (2018) discusses the latter,

noting, for instance, the possibility of complementary sustainable

development payments to avoid global energy access, food security

and clean water trade-offs (Box4.7).

SR1.5 and AR6 assessments of system transitions also ﬁnd opportunities

for synergies and managing trade-offs (Section 18.3; Cross-Chapter

BoxFEASIB). Within each system, mitigation and adaptation options

are assessed for their speciﬁc beneﬁts and the impacts they can have

on one another, as well as with sustainable development. For example,

within energy system transitions, the three adaptation options (power

infrastructure resilience, reliability of power systems, efﬁcient water

use management) have strong synergies with mitigation. While not

2689

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

all mitigation options have strong synergies, the trade-offs can be

managed when adaptation and SDGs are also considered. Under

land and other ecosystems system transitions, the main trade-off is

the competition for land use between potential alternative uses, for

example, sustainable agriculture, afforestation/reforestation, purpose-

grown biomass for energy. On the other hand, assessment of urban

and infrastructure system transitions ﬁnds mainly synergies between

mitigation and adaptation options with trade-offs that are considered

manageable, and there is growing evidence of rural landscape

infrastructure beneﬁts to adaptation.

Overall, this literature is relatively new and still developing. It highlights

the importance of societal priorities and policy design for realizing

synergies. However, the literature is not well developed in terms of

how to optimize mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development

interventions to achieve multiple priorities.

18.2.5.3.2 Risk management combinations with lower to higher

climate change

Given the global climate system is committed to additional future

warming, different portfolios of adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable

development interventions are relevant for climate risk management.

The different strands of literature discussed above can be integrated to

help inform thinking about combinations of approaches to climate risk

management. Globally, low climate change projections, versus higher

climate change projections, imply greater mitigation, lower climate

risks and less adaptation. This implies greater mitigation trade-offs

in terms of overall economic development, food crop prices, energy

prices and overall household consumption, but lower climate risk, with

sustainable development synergies such as human health and lower

adaptation trade-offs, and an uneven distribution of effects (very high

conﬁdence) (Roy etal., 2018).

Sustainable development considerations could be used to prioritise

mitigation options, but as noted earlier, there are trade-offs, with a

potentially signiﬁcant impact on the economic cost of mitigation, as

well as a potential trade-off in terms of the climate outcomes that are

still viable (Riahi etal., 2022). For instance, all of the 1.5°C scenarios

used in IPCC (2018a) deploy carbon dioxide removal technologies

(Rogelj etal., 2018). Without these technologies, most models cannot

generate pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C, and those that are

able to adopt strong assumptions about global policy development and

socioeconomic changes. Sustainable development might also affect

the design of policies by prioritising speciﬁc sustainable development

objectives. However, there are trade-offs here as well, with costs and

the distribution of costs varying with alternative policy designs. For

instance, prioritising air quality has climate co-beneﬁts but does not

ensure the lowest cost climate strategy (Arneth etal., 2009; Kandlikar

etal., 2009). Similarly, prioritising land protection has a variety of co-

beneﬁts but could increase food prices signiﬁcantly, as well as the

overall cost of climate mitigation (IPCC, 2019b). In this context, with

lower climate risk and adaptation levels and larger mitigation effort,

managing mitigation trade-offs could be a sustainable development

priority. Furthermore, sustainable development could also be tailored

to facilitate adaptation and manage mitigation costs.

Globally, high climate change projections imply lower mitigation

effort, higher climate risks and greater adaptation. This implies lower

mitigation trade-offs, but greater climate risk with greater demand of

adaptation and potential for trade-offs in terms of competing sustainable

development priorities. Sustainable development considerations could

affect adaptation options. For instance, constraining options such as

relocation or facilitating adaptation capacity and community resilience.

Sustainable development might also be tailored to affect the climate

outcome by shaping the development of emissions. In this context,

with greater climate risk and adaptation levels and less mitigation

effort, facilitating adaptation addressing adaptation costs and trade-

offs could be a sustainable development priority.

Locally, there are many qualitative similarities to the global perspective

in thinking about risk management combinations across lower versus

higher levels of warming. However, there is one very important difference.

Local decision makers are confronted with uncertainty about what others

will do beyond their local jurisdiction. With future climate a function of

the sum of global decisions, sustainable development planning needs

to consider the possibility of more and less emissions reduction action

globally and the potential associated climates. This implies the need for

sustainable development to manage for the possibility of higher levels

of warming by further facilitating adaptation and managing adaptation

trade-offs. Prioritising sustainable development locally is also supported

by the insight that the impacts on poverty depend at least as much or

more on development than on the level of climate change (very high

conﬁdence) (Wiebe etal., 2015; Hallegatte and Rozenberg, 2017).

With surpassing 1.5°C a distinct possibility, considering higher levels

of warming is a necessity. CRD could be pursued with additional

adaptation, recognizing increasing challenges for adaptation and

sustainable development with higher warming, just as there are

increasing challenges for mitigation and sustainable development with

limiting warming to lower levels. There are many possible pathways for

pursuing climate resilient development, though our understanding of

the possibilities with different levels of warming is currently limited

(e.g., David Tàbara etal., 2018; O’Brien, 2018). The current literature

suggests that different mixes of adaptation and mitigation strategies,

and sustainable development and trade-off management priorities,

measures and reallocations (Section 18.5.3.1), will be appropriate

for different expected climates and locations (Section18.1.2); while

trade-offs between climates will be dictated by relative nonlinearities,

feasibilities, shifts in priorities, and trade-off and reallocation options

across future climates.

Finally, it is important to note that there is currently limited information

available regarding the following: (1) local implications of 1.5°C versus

warmer futures with respect to local climate outcomes, avoided impacts

and sustainable development implications and interactions, given that

applying global conclusions to local, national and regional settings

can be misleading; (2) local context-speciﬁc synergies and trade-offs

with respect to adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development

for 1.5°C futures; and (3) standard indicators for monitoring factors

related to CRD (Roy etal., 2018).

2690

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

18.3 Transitions to Climate Resilient

Development

A key ﬁnding emerging from the IPCC SR1.5 is the critical role that

system transitions play in enabling mitigation pathways consistent

with a 1.5°C or less world (IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2019b).Such transitions

are similarly critical for the broader pursuit of CRD, and the various AR6

special reports as well as subsequent literature provide new evidence

of why such transitions are needed for CRD, as well as both the

opportunities for accelerating system transitions and their limitations

for delivering on the goals of CRD.

18.3.1 System Transitions as a Foundation for Climate

Resilient Development

In the AR6, system transitions are deﬁned as ‘the process of changing

(the system in focus) from one state or condition to another in a

given period of time’ (IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2019b). In the climate

change solution space, system transitions represent an important

mechanism for linking and enabling mitigation, adaptation and

sustainable development options and actions (very high conﬁdence).

SR1.5C identiﬁed the need for rapid and far-reaching transitions in

four systems—energy, land and terrestrial ecosystems, urban and

infrastructure, and industrial systems (IPCC, 2018b; IPCC, 2018a)

(Sections1.5.1 and 18.1). The SRCCL expanded on this with a focus

on terrestrial systems, while SROCC added additional evidence from

ocean and cryosphere systems. This section assesses the four system

transitions discussed in the SR1.5C assessment in the context of CRD,

while also extending the assessment to consider societal transitions as

a cross-cutting, ﬁfth transition important for CRD. Literature to support

this assessment is also drawn from AR6 regional and sectoral chapters,

which is synthesised later in this chapter (Section18.5).

As discussed in Box18.3 (Hölscher etal., 2018), system transitions are

linked to system transformation, which is deﬁned as ‘a change in the

fundamental attributes of a system including altered goals or values’

(Figure18.1) (IPCC, 2018a). In a systems context, transitions focus on

‘complex adaptive systems; social, institutional and technological change

in societal sub-systems’, while transformations are ‘large scale societal

change processes … involving social-ecological interactions’ (IPCC,

2018a) (Box18.1). Although system transitions are often identiﬁed in the

literature as being necessary processes for large-scale transformations

(Roggema etal., 2012; Hölscher etal., 2018), thereby making them a core

enabler of CRD, they are not necessarily transformative in themselves.

18.3.1.1 Energy Systems

Recent observed changes in global energy systems include continued

growth in energy demand, led by increased demand for electricity

by industry and buildings (very high conﬁdence)(Dhakal et al.,

2022) . Growth in energy demand has also been driven by increased

demand for industrial products, materials, building energy services,

ﬂoor space and all modes of transportation. This growth in demand,

however, has been moderated by improvements in energy efﬁciency

in industry, buildings and transportation sectors (very high conﬁdence)

(Dhakal etal., 2022). There is also a trend of moving away from coal

towards cleaner fuels, owing to lower natural gas prices and lower

cost renewable technologies, and structural changes away from more

energy-intensive industry.

Features of sustainable development, such as enhanced energy access,

energy security, reductions in air pollution and economic growth,

continue to be the dominant inﬂuence on the evolution of energy systems

and decision making regarding energy investments and portfolios

(very high conﬁdence) (Clarke etal., 2022) . To date, climate policy

has been comparatively less inﬂuential in driving energy transitions

globally. Yet there are examples at the local, regional and national

level of policy incentivising rapid changes in energy systems (very

high conﬁdence) (Clarke etal., 2022) . Many sustainable development

priorities have co-beneﬁts in terms of climate mitigation, such as air

pollution and conservation policies reducing short-lived climate forcers

and sequestering carbon respectively, as well adaptation beneﬁts,

such as improved energy access and environmental quality enhancing

adaptive capacity (very high conﬁdence) (Clarke et al., 2022) (de

Coninck etal., 2018). Alternatively, sustainable development projects

can have negative climate implications with, for instance, hydroelectric

projects shut down by droughts or ﬂoods resulting in greater use of

bunker and fuel oil, as well as natural gas.

In addition to sustainable development priorities driving change in

energy systems, observed energy system trends have implications for

sustainable development (e.g., IEA etal., 2019). Observed changes in

energy system size, rate of growth, composition and operations impact

energy access, equity, environmental quality and well-being, with both

synergies and trade-offs, including recent improvements in global

access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services. For instance,

in some countries, such as the USA, there has been a signiﬁcant shift

away from coal as a fuel source for electricity generation in favour

of natural gas. More recently, however, renewables have emerged

as the dominant form of new electricity generation (Gielen et al.,

2019). Similarly, for energy access in developing countries, renewable

energy or hybrid distributed generation systems are increasingly

being prioritised because of challenges associated with access, costs

and environmental impacts from traditional fossil fuel-based energy

technologies (Mulugetta etal., 2019).

Energy systems have been a historical driver of climate change, but

are also adversely affected by climate change impacts, including short-

term shocks and stressors from extreme weather as well as long-term

shifts in climatic conditions (very high conﬁdence). The potential for

such factors is often incorporated into local system designs, operations

and response strategies. There have been changes in observed weather

and extreme event hazards for the energy system, but to date, many

are not attributable solely to anthropogenic climate change (USGCRP,

2017; IPCC, 2021a). Nevertheless, with observed extremes shifting

outside of what has been observed historically, existing design criteria

and operations may not be optimal for future climate conditions and

contingencies (Chapters 2 to 16). Overall, there is limited historical

evidence on the efﬁcacy of adaptation responses in reducing

vulnerability of energy systems (high agreement, limited evidence).

However, sustainable development trends, such as improving incomes,

reducing poverty, and improving health and education have reduced

vulnerability (Chapter 16), and improvements in system resiliency

2691

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

to extreme weather events and more efﬁcient water management

have occurred that have synergies with adaptation and sustainable

development in general.

Available literature indicates that greenhouse gas emissions reductions

have been achieved in response to climate actions including ﬁnancial

incentives to promote renewable energy, carbon taxes and emissions

trading, removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and promotion of energy

efﬁciency standards (very high conﬁdence) (Clarke et al., 2022).

Such policies tend to lead to a lower carbon intensity of GDP, due

to structural changes in the use of energy and the adoption of new

energy technologies. However, other drivers of change are also present

and thus ongoing energy transitions and their future evolution are

a response to both climatic and non-climatic considerations, with

broader sustainable development priorities being a signiﬁcant driver

of change {Clarke, 2022 #4316.

18.3.1.2 Urban and Infrastructure Systems

Urban areas and their associated infrastructure are critical targets for

CRD processes. This is a function of urban areas being the dominant

settlement pattern, with over 55% of the global population living in

cities (World Bank, 2021). As a consequence, urban areas are also the

focal point for energy use, land use change and consumption of natural

resources, thereby making them responsible for an estimated 70% of

global CO

emissions (Johansson etal., 2012; Ribeiro etal., 2019). The

trend towards increasing urbanisation is anticipated to create both

challenges and opportunities for sustainable development, as well as

climate action (Güneralp etal., 2017; Li etal., 2019a).

The built environment is increasingly exposed to climate stresses and

more frequent co-occurrences of climate shocks than in the past.

This has the potential to increase rates of building and infrastructure

degradation and increase damage from extreme weather events.

The existing adaptation gaps and everyday risks within many cities,

particularly those of the Global South, combined with escalating

risk from climate change, makes rapid progress in enhancing urban

resilience a high priority for CRD (Pelling etal., 2018; Davidson etal.,

2019; Lenzholzer etal., 2020). Strategic investments in disaster risk

reduction, including climate-resilient green infrastructure, updated

building codes and land use planning can provide signiﬁcant long-

term cost savings and social beneﬁts. Moreover, evaluating the relative

merits of ‘fail safe’ versus ‘safe to fail’ approaches to infrastructure

planning can help to identify more design principles that are more

robust to the uncertainties of climate change and urbanisation (Kim

etal., 2017a; Kim etal., 2019).

Much of the literature on urban resilience and sustainability focuses

on addressing discrete challenges for urban infrastructure subsystems.

Climate change has the potential to enhance stress on lifeline

infrastructure services such as the provision of electricity, water and

wastewater, communications and transportation—subsystems which

are often underdeveloped in many regions of the world (Arku and

Marais, 2021; Sitas etal., 2021). For example, a warming and more

variable climate can increase stress on electricity grids by reducing

transmission efﬁciency, increasing cooling demand requirements, and

by increasing exposure to climate shocks such as heatwaves, ﬂoods

and storms (Bartos and Chester, 2015; Auffhammer etal., 2017; Perera

etal., 2020). Accordingly, a signiﬁcant focus on the energy transition

is on achieving the dual goals of reducing the carbon footprint of

energy while also increasing resilience of energy supply to current and

future threats. For example, renewable energy generation and storage

technologies that are modular and distributed and provide enhanced

resilience to shocks and stresses from climate change (Venema and

Temmer, 2017a).

Similarly, building and maintaining urban water systems that are

resilient to climate shocks requires signiﬁcant changes in water demand,

infrastructure and management. Enhancing redundancy in water

supply and the ﬂexibility to shift between surface and groundwater

options aids adaptation. Decentralised water supply and sanitation

options are now feasible and can provide greater resilience than

most centralised systems (Parry, 2017), provided they have adequate

supply (Leigh and Lee, 2019; Rabaey etal., 2020). Water conservation

and green infrastructure options for stormwater management are

proven approaches for reducing climate risks (Venema and Temmer,

2017b), with adaptation and mitigation co-beneﬁts. Water demand

management and rainwater harvesting contribute to climate change

mitigation and increase adaptive capacity by increasing resilience

to climate change impacts such as drought and ﬂooding (Paton

et al., 2014; Berry et al., 2015). In addition, they can contribute to

restoring urban ecosystems that offer multiple ecosystem services

to citizens (Berry et al., 2015) {Lwasa, 2022 #4317}. The context-

appropriate development of green spaces, protecting ecosystem

services and developing nature-based solutions, can increase the set

of available urban adaptation options (IPCC, 2018b), while creating

opportunities for more complex and dynamic approaches to urban

water management (Franco-Torres et al., 2020). For example, the

Netherlands’ ‘Room for the River’ policy focuses on not only achieving

higher ﬂood resilience, but also improving the quality of riverine areas

for human and ecological well-being (Busscher etal., 2019).

An overarching focus of urban sustainability is the reversal of long-

standing trends of ecosystem fragmentation and degradation that

have resulted in growing separation between human and natural

systems within urban environments (IPBES, 2019) (Lwasa etal., 2022).

Urban ecosystems and the integration of nature-based solutions and

green infrastructure into urban areas can yield beneﬁts that facilitate

achievement of the SDGs. There has been growing recognition of urban

ecosystems as social, cultural and economic assets that can support

economic development while also enhancing resilience to extreme

weather events and improving air and water quality (Shaneyfelt

etal., 2017; Matos etal., 2019). Investing in urban ecosystems and

green infrastructure can provide lower-cost solutions to multiple

urban development challenges when compared with traditional

infrastructure systems (Terton, 2017). Relatedly, agriculture, while

largely a rural system, is increasingly expanding within urban areas.

Urban agriculture enables citizens to fulﬁl some of their food needs,

improving urban resilience to food shortages, enhancing biodiversity

and increasing coping capacity during disasters (Demuzere et al.,

2014; Clucas etal., 2018) (Lwasa etal., 2022). Strengthening urban

agroecosystems therefore increases resilience to supply shocks from

climate change impacts and can contribute to community cohesion

(Temmer, 2017a).

2692

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Overall, the discourse in the literature regarding the future of cities

emphasises the importance of viewing cities as more than just their

physical infrastructure that can be made more resilient through

engineering solutions (Davidson et al., 2019). Rather, urban areas

are increasingly conceptualised as complex socio-ecological or socio-

technical systems (very high conﬁdence) (Patorniti etal., 2017; Patorniti

etal., 2018; Visvizi etal., 2018; Savaget etal., 2019). Such frameworks

integrate physical, cyber, social and ecological elements of cities in

pursuit of resilience and sustainability transitions, and they recognise

the role of governance and engagement processes as being central

to system change (Temmer, 2017b). Nevertheless, some authors have

cautioned that urban transitions will be associated with synergies as

well as trade-offs with respect to sustainable development (very high

conﬁdence) (Maes etal., 2019; Shariﬁ, 2020).

18.3.1.3 Land, Oceans and Ecosystems

Land, oceans and terrestrial ecosystems are in transition globally, with

anthropogenic factors including climate change being a major driving

force (very high conﬁdence) (IPBES, 2019) (Box6). Seventy-ﬁve percent

of the land surface has been signiﬁcantly altered, 66% of the ocean

area is experiencing increasing cumulative impacts and over 85% of

wetland areas have been lost (IPBES, 2019). Since 1970, only four out

of eighteen recognised ecosystem services assessed have improved

in their functioning: agricultural production, ﬁsh harvest, bioenergy

production and material harvests. The other 14 ecosystem services

have declined (IPBES, 2019), raising concerns about the capacity of

ecosystems and their services to support sustainable and CRD.

Given the pressures on land, oceans and ecosystems, enhancing

resilience to climate change and other pressures of human development

is a core priority of transition in these systems. Yet there are a few

recorded initiatives that provide evidence of successful improvement

in ecosystem resilience (high agreement, limited evidence). Similarly,

although there is signiﬁcant evidence that a broad range of adaptation

initiatives have been pursued across global regions and sectors,

including a rapid expansion of nature- or ecosystem-based solutions

(Mainali etal., 2020), there is limited evidence of how these planned

climate adaptation efforts have contributed to enhanced ecosystem

resilience. Additional research is necessary to evaluate these efforts in

terms of their performance and also to identify mechanisms for scaling

them up in different contexts. As an example, Paik etal. (Paik etal.,

2020) record the increased diffusion of salt tolerant rice varieties in the

Mekong River Delta, which is at risk of sea level rise and an associated

saline intrusion. This is a low-cost adaption to saline ingress, that

increases food productivity and reduces the risk of outmigration for

this vulnerable agricultural region.

Evidence of the interactions between ecosystems and resilience come

from a range of sources including both regional and sectoral examples

(Box18.2; Tables18.7–18.8. For example, regional examples suggest

that the use of land to produce biofuels could increase the resilience

of production systems and address mitigation needs (Box 2.2).

Nevertheless, the potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and

storage (BECCS) to induce maladaptation needs deeper analysis

(Hoegh-Guldberg etal., 2019). Climate Smart Forestry (CSF) in Europe

provides an example of the use of sustainable forest management

to unlock the EU’s forest sector potential (Nabuurs etal., 2017). This

is in response to diverse climate impacts ranging from pressure on

spruce stocks in Norway and the Baltics, on regional biodiversity in

the Mediterranean region, and the opportunity to use afforestation

and reforestation to store carbon in forests (Nabuurs etal., 2019). CSF

considers the full value chain from forest to wood products and energy

and uses a wide range of measures to provide positive incentives

to ﬁrmly integrate climate objectives into the forestry sector. CSF

has three main objectives; (i) reducing and/or removing greenhouse

gas emissions; (ii) adapting and building forest resilience to climate

change; and (iii) sustainably increasing forest productivity and incomes

(Verkerk etal., 2020).

Other solutions focus on speciﬁc subsectors. Mutually supportive

climate and land policies have the potential to save resources, amplify

social resilience, support ecological restoration, and foster engagement

and collaboration between multiple stakeholders (IPCC, 2019 f, C.1).

Land-based solutions can combat desertiﬁcation in speciﬁc contexts:

water harvesting and micro-irrigation, restoring degraded lands using

drought-resilient ecologically appropriate plants, agroforestry and

other agroecological and ecosystem-based adaptation practices (IPCC,

2019 f, B.4.1). Reducing dust, sandstorms and sand dune movement

can lessen the negative effects of wind erosion and improve air quality

and health. Depending on water availability and soil conditions,

afforestation, tree planting and ecosystem restoration programmes

using native and other climate-resilient tree species with low water

needs, can reduce sand storms, avert wind erosion and contribute to

carbon sinks, while improving micro-climates, soil nutrients and water

retention (IPCC, 2019 f, B.4.2).

Coastal blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves, salt marshes

and seagrasses, can help reduce the risks and impacts of climate

change, with multiple co-beneﬁts. Over 150countries contain at least

one of these coastal blue carbon ecosystems and over 70 contain

all three. Successful implementation of measures of carbon storage

in coastal ecosystems could assist several countries in achieving a

balance between emissions and removal of greenhouse gases. Carbon

storage in marine habitats can be up to 1,000 tC ha

–1

, higher than

most terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation of these habitats would

also sustain a wide range of ecosystem services, assist with climate

adaptation by improving critical habitats for biodiversity, enhance local

ﬁshery production and protect coastal communities from sea level rise

(SLR) and storm events (IPCC, 2019b). Ecosystem-based adaptation is

a cost-effective coastal protection tool that can have many co-beneﬁts,

including supporting livelihoods, contributing to carbon sequestration

and the provision of a range of other valuable ecosystem services

(IPCC, 2019b).

Diversiﬁcation of food systems is another component of land, ocean

and ecosystem transitions that are consistent with CRD. Balanced

diets, featuring plant-based foods such as those based on coarse

grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-

sourced food produced in a resilient, sustainable and low-greenhouse

gas (GHG) emission manner, are major opportunities for adaptation

and mitigation and improving human health. By 2050, dietary changes

could free several million km

of land and provide a mitigation potential

of 0.7–8.0 Gt CO

-eq yr

-1

, relative to Business-As-Usual projections.

2693

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

For coastal systems, many frameworks for climate resilience and

adaptation have been developed since the AR5 (Hoegh-Guldberg

etal., 2014; Settele etal., 2014) with substantial variations in approach

between and within countries and across development status. Few

studies have assessed the success of implementing these frameworks

owing to the time-lag between implementation, monitoring, evaluation

and reporting (IPCC, 2019g). As an example, the Nature-Based Climate

Solutions for Oceans initiative has the potential to restore, protect

and manage coastal and marine ecosystems, adapt to climate change,

improve coastal resilience, and enhance their ability to sequester and

store carbon (Hoegh-Guldberg etal., 2019).

Polar regions will be profoundly different in the future. The degree

and nature of that difference will depend strongly on the rate and

magnitude of global climate change, which will inﬂuence adaptation

responses regionally and worldwide. Future climate-induced changes

in the polar oceans, sea ice, snow and permafrost will drive habitat and

biome shifts, with associated changes in the ranges and abundance

of ecologically important species (IPCC, 2019g). Innovative tools and

practices in polar resource management and planning show strong

potential in improving society’s capacity to respond to climate change.

Networks of protected areas, participatory scenario analysis, decision

support systems and community-based ecological monitoring that

draws on local and Indigenous knowledge and self-assessments of

community resilience contribute to strategic plans for sustaining

biodiversity and limit risk to human livelihoods and well-being.

Experimenting, assessing and continually reﬁning practices while

strengthening links with decision making has the potential to ready

society for the expected and unexpected impacts of climate change

(IPCC, 2019g).

18.3.1.4 Industrial Systems

Industrial emissions have been growing faster since 2000 compared

with emissions in any other sector, driven by increased extraction and

production of basic materials (Crippa etal., 2019; IEA, 2019) (very high

conﬁdence). About one-third of the total emissions are contributed

by the industry sector, if indirect emissions from energy use are

considered (Crippa etal., 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic has caused

a signiﬁcant decrease in demand for fuels, oil, coal, gas and nuclear

energy (IEA, 2020). However, there is concern that the rebound in the

crisis will reverse this trend (IEA, 2020). Accordingly, the literature

suggests a combined set of measures is beneﬁcial for facilitation a

transition of industrial systems in support of CRD. This includes (i)

dematerialisation and decarbonisation of industrial systems, (ii)

establishment of supportive governance, policies and regulations, and

(iii) implementation of enabling corporate strategies.

Decarbonisation and dematerialisation strategies have been proposed

as key drivers for the transition of industrial systems (Fischedick

et al., 2014; Worrell et al., 2016). The former involves limiting

carbon emissions from industrial processes (IEA, 2017; Hildingsson

etal., 2019), while the latter involves improving material efﬁciency,

developing circular economies, raw material demand management,

environmentally friendly product and process innovations, and

environmentally friendly supply chain management (Worrell et al.,

2016; Petrides etal., 2018).

Recent modelling suggests that stocks of manufactured capital, including

buildings, infrastructure, machinery and equipment, stabilise as countries

develop and decouple from GDP (high agreement, medium evidence).

For instance, Bleischwitz et al. (2018) conﬁrmed the occurrence of a

saturation effect for materials in four energy-intensive sectors (steel,

cement, aluminum and copper) in ﬁve industrialised countries (Germany,

Japan, the UK, the USA and China). High growth in the supply of materials

may still drive global demand for new products in the coming years for

developing countries that are still far from saturation levels. Therefore,

accelerating industrial transitions to drive the decoupling of industrial

emissions from economic growth and facilitate broader transformation

in industrial systems can be one component of CRD.

Continued transitions in the industrial sector will be contingent

on technological innovation. Although technologies exist to drive

emissions in industrial sectors to very low or zero emissions, they

require 5–15 years of innovation, commercialisation and intensive

policies to ensure uptake (Åhman et al., 2017) (high agreement,

medium evidence). For instance, several options exist to reduce GHG

emissions related to steel production process including increasing the

share of the secondary route (Pauliuk et al., 2013), hydrogen-based

direct reduced iron (Vogl et al., 2018), aqueous electrolysis rout

(Cavaliere, 2019) and plasma process (Quader etal., 2016).

Industrial transitions are also contingent upon consumer behaviour

in terms of preferences for, and rates of, consumption of industrial

products. Sustainable consumption can play an important role in

sustainable production (Allwood etal., 2013; Allwood etal., 2019). This

suggests feedbacks between industrial production and consumption

in driving industrial transitions. For example, sustainable consumption

could be triggered and/or enabled through sustainable production

processes that provide more sustainable options to consumers as

well as public or private promotional campaigns that promote those

options. Meanwhile, demand from consumers for more sustainable

options could help to drive the expansion of markets and innovation

among industrial producers to meet that demand. However, some

have argued that such promotional campaigns that target consumers

do little to incentivize sustainable development and climate action

(Farrell, 2015; Grydehøj and Kelman, 2017).

18.3.1.5 Societal Systems

This chapter contributes a ﬁfth system transition in addition to the

four which have already been introduced by SR1.5: the societal

systems transition. While society and people also feature in the

other systems transitions, the purpose of deﬁning a ﬁfth transition

is to explicitly highlight the challenges associated with changes in

behaviour, attitudes, values and consciousness required to achieve

CRD. One caveat of considering transitions in societal systems is the

limit to which the nature of change is known: transitions accomplish

reconﬁgurations towards a relatively known destination. Historical and

current differences between and within nations translate to a multitude

of equally valid but diverse priorities for development, for example the

understanding of development towards progress as linear has been

challenged as being a Western concept by scholars of colonialisation

(Sultana etal., 2019). Thus, societal transitions are understood as being

intrinsically diverse for the purpose of achieving CRD.

2694

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Box18.5 | The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Resilient Development

Ecosystems and their services closely relate to climate resilient development (CRD). Climate change has impacted ecosystems across a

range of scales, and those impacts have been exacerbated by other ecological impacts associated with human activities. Ecosystem-based

adaptation strategies have been developed and are crucial to CRD. However, knowledge and evidence still missing, and cultural services—

in contrast to provision and regulation services as main beneﬁts and supporting services as co-beneﬁts—are less well addressed in the

literature.

Ecosystems Play a Key Role in CRD

A key element of CRD is ensuring that actions taken to mitigate climate change do not compromise adaptation, biodiversity and

human needs. Maintaining ecosystem health, linked to planetary health, is an integral part of the goals of CRD. The 2005 Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) deﬁned ecosystem services as ‘the beneﬁts people obtain from ecosystems’, and categorised the services

in to provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; IPBES, 2019). The 2019

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) broadened the deﬁnition to ‘the contributions,

both positive and negative, of living nature to the quality of life for people’, and developed a classiﬁcation of 18 categories (IPBES, 2019).

Table Box18.5.1 demonstrates how ecosystem services connect to sustainable development goals (SDGs) and CRD. MEA’s provisioning

service generally connects to the IPBES’ material services, mostly contributing to the SDG cluster associated with nature’s contribution

to people (NCP) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; IPBES, 2019) and to ‘Development’ in CRD. MEA’s regulating and supporting

services connect to IPBES’ non-material services, contributing to SDG clusters of Nature and Driver of change in nature and NCP and to

‘Resilience’ in CRD. MEA’s cultural services connect to IPBES’ non-material services, contributing to SDG clusters of good quality of lift

(GQL) and to Enabling conditions for CRD.

TableBox18.5.1 | Ecosystem services (based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services [IPBES] classiﬁcations) and their connections to sustainable development goals (SDGs) and climate resilient development (CRD) (Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005; IPBES, 2019).

Ecosystem services

SDGs CRD

MEA IPBES

Provisioning services

11 Energy

12 Food and feed

13 Materials and assistance

14 Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources

1 No poverty

2 Zero hunger

3 Good health and well-being

11 Sustainable cities communities

7 Affordable clean energy

8 Decent work and economic growth

9 Industry, innovation and infrastructure

12 Responsible consumption and production

Development

Regulating services

3 Regulation of air quality

4 Regulation of climate

5 Regulation of ocean acidiﬁcation

6 Regulation of freshwater quantity, location and timing

7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality

9 Regulation of hazards and extreme events

10 Regulation of organisms detrimental to humans

6 Clean water and sanitation

13 Climate action

Climate adaptation

and mitigation

Supporting services

1 Habitat creation and maintenance

2 Pollination and dispersal of seeds

8 Formation, protection and decontamination of soils and sediments

18 Maintenance of options

14 Life below water

15 Life on land

Cultural services

15 Learning and inspiration

16 Physical and psychological experiences

17 Supporting identities

4 Quality education

5 Gender equality

10 Reduce inequality

16 Peace, justice and strong institutions

17 Partnerships for the goals

Enabling conditions

2695

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems and their Services

Climate change connects to ecosystem services through two links: climate change and its inﬂuence on ecosystems as well as its inﬂuence

on services (Section2.2). The key climatic drivers are changes in temperature, precipitation and extreme events, which are unprecedented

over millennia and highly variable by regions (Sections2.3, 3.2; Cross-Chapter BoxEXTREMES in Chapter 2). These climatic drivers

inﬂuence physical and chemical conditions of the environment and worsen the impacts of non-climate anthropogenic drivers including

eutrophication, hypoxia and sedimentation (Section 3.4). Such changes have led to changes in terrestrial, freshwater, oceanic and coastal

ecosystems at all different levels, from species shifts and extinctions, to biome migration, and to ecosystem structure and processes

changes (Sections 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, Cross-Chapter BoxMOVING PLATE in Chapter 5). Changes in ecosystems leads to changes in ecosystem

services including food and limber prevision, air and water quality regulation, biodiversity and habitat conservation, and cultural and

mental support (Sections 2.4, 3.5). Table Box18.5.2 presents examples of climate change’s impact on ecosystems and their services from

other chapters in the WGII report. The degradation of ecosystem services is felt disproportionately by people who are already vulnerable

because of historical and systemic injustices, including women and children in low-income households, Indigenous or other minority

groups, small-scale producers and ﬁshing communities, and low-income countries (Sections3.5, 4.3, 5.13).

TableBox18.5.2 | Examples of key risks to ecosystems from climate change and their connections to ecosystem services (ES) in the WGII report and cross-chapter

papers (CCPs). (See Table1 for the description of the categories of ES)

Climate factors Key risk

P R S C

Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (Chapters 2, 4, 5; CCP 1; CCP 7; CCP 3; CCP 5)

– Increase in average and extreme temperatures

– Changes in precipitation amount and timing

– Increase in aridity

– Increase in frequency and severity of drought

– Increased atmospheric CO

Species extinction and range shifts X X X

Ecosystem structure and process change X X

Ecosystem carbon loss X X

Wildﬁre X X

Water cycle and scarcity X X

Ocean and coastal (Chapter 3; CCP 1; CCP 6)

– Ocean warming

– Marine heatwaves

– Ocean acidiﬁcation

– Loss of oxygen

– Sea level rise

– Increased atmospheric CO

– Extreme events

Species extinction and range shifts X X X

Ecosystem structure and process change X X

Habitat loss X X

Ocean carbon sink less effective X

Erosion and land loss X X

Food, ﬁbre and other ecosystem products (Chapter 5)

– Global warming

– Water stress

– Extreme events

– Ocean acidiﬁcation

– Salt intrusion

Species distribution X

Timing of key biological events change X

Corp productivity and quality decrease X

Diseases and insect X

Adaptation Practices and Enabling Conditions for CRD

Ecosystem protection and restoration, ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA), and nature-based solutions (NBS) can lower climate risk

to people and achieve multiple beneﬁts including food and material provision, climate mitigation and social beneﬁts (Sections2.6,

3.6, 4.6, 5.13, 6.3, 8.6). Table Box18.5.3 presents some examples of ecosystem adaptation practices reported in WGII sectoral and

regional chapters and CCPs, as well as their co-beneﬁts, potential for maladaptation and enabling conditions. Many of the strategies

focus on integrated systems (managing for multiple objectives and trade-offs) as well as the fair use of resources. However, there is

limited evidence of the extent to which adaptation is taking place and virtually no evaluation of the effectiveness of adaptation in the

scientiﬁc literature (Sections2.6, 3.5). Enabling conditions for the successful implementation ecosystem-based practice include regional

and community-based based approaches, multi-stakeholder and multi-level governance approaches, Integration of local knowledge and

Indigenous knowledge, ﬁnance and social equity (Sections2.6, 3.6).

Box18.5 (continued)

2696

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

TableBox18.5.3 | Examples of adaptation practices and their connections to ecosystem services (ES) and climate resilient development pathways (CRDP) in the WGII

sectoral and regional chapters and cross-chapter papers (CCPs). (See Table1 for the description of the categories of ES and CRDP)

Adaptation practices (and – examples)

Main beneﬁt (and & co-beneﬁt; – trade off; + enabling

conditions; X barrier and potential maladaptation)

P R S C

Agroforestry (Table2.7; Table5 ES; Section5.10.4;

Section 5.12.5.2; Box5.10; Table16.2)

– Climate Adaptation and Maladaptation in Cocoa

and Coffee Production (Box5.7)

Food provision

& Fuel (wood) provision, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and ecosystem

conservation, diversiﬁcation and improved economic incomes, water and

soil conservation, and aesthetics

+ Secure tenure arrangements, supporting Indigenous knowledge,

inclusive networks and socio-cultural values, access to information and

management skill

X Higher water demand; disruption of hydrology; loss of native biodiversity;

reduced resilience of certain plants; degraded soil and water quality;

improper and increased use of agrochemicals, pesticides and fertilizers

*** ** **

Forest maintenance and restoration (Box2.2;

Table16.2; Table Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in

Chapter 2)

– Protected Area Planning in Thailand

(Section2.6.5.3)

– Conserving Joshua trees in the Joshua National

Park (Section2.6.5.6)

– Addressing Vulnerability of Peat Swamp Forests in

Southeast Asia (Section2.6.5.10)

– Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (REDD+) (Section5.6.3.3; Table16.2)

Ecosystem conservation

& Food provision, fuel provision, job creation, carbon sequestration,

biodiversity conservation, air quality regulation, water and soil

conservation, vector-borne disease control, improved mental health,

cultural beneﬁts, natural resources relative conﬂict prevention

+ Cooperation of Indigenous peoples and other local communities

X Planting large-scale non-native monocultures leads to loss of biodiversity

and poor climate change resilience, increased vulnerability to landslide,

increased sensitivity of new tree species, reduced resilience of certain

plants, high water demand, trees planted damaged buildings during

heavy storms, lack of carbon rights in national legislations

** ** *** **

Traditional practices/Indigenous knowledge and

local knowledge (IKLK) (Table2.7; Section5.6.3;

Section5.14.2.2; Table16.2)

– Crop and Livestock Farmers on Observed Changes

in Climate in the Sahel (Box5.6)

– Karuk Tribe in Northern California (Section5.6.3.2)

Food and material provision

& Carbon sequestration

+ Partnerships between key stakeholders such as researchers, forest

managers and local actors, Indigenous and local knowledge

*** **

Restoring natural ﬁre regimes (Table2.7)

– Protecting Gondwanan wildﬁre refugia in

Tasmania, Australia (Section2.6.5.8)

Fire regulation

& Biodiversity conservation

***

Natural ﬂood risk management (Table2.7)

– Natural Flood Management (NFM) in England, UK

(Section2.6.5.2)

Water security, ﬂood regulation, sediment retention

& Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation

*** **

Coastal ecosystem conservation (Table

Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in Chapter 2)

(Tables16.2, 2.7)

– African Penguin On-Site Adaptation

(Section2.6.5.5)

Coastal protection against sea level rise and storm surges

& Fisheries, carbon sequestration, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation,

ﬂood regulation, water puriﬁcation, recreation and cultural beneﬁts

X NH

emissions, digging channels and sand walls around homes, loss of

recreational value of beaches, shifted the ﬂood impacts to poor informal

urban settlers, erosion and degraded coastal lands

** *** **

Eco-tourism within protected areas (Table2.7)

Tourism

& Habitat protection

*** **

Aquaculture (Section5.9.4; Table16.2; Table

Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in Chapter 2)

Food provision

& Biodiversity conservation

+ Farmer incentives, participatory adaptation to context

X Lack of ﬁnancial, technical or institutional capacity; short value chains;

productivity varies by system; over-fertilising; deforestation of mangroves;

salt intrusion; increased ﬂood vulnerability

*** *

Water–energy–food (WEF) nexus (Box4.7)

– Food Water Energy Nexus in Asia (Section 10.6.3)

– New Zealand’s Land, Water and People Nexus

under a Changing Climate (Box11.7)

Water, energy and food provision

X Insufﬁcient data, information, and knowledge in understanding the WEF

inter-linkages; lack of systematic tools to address trade-offs involved in

the nexus

***

Box18.5 (continued)

2697

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Adaptation practices (and – examples)

Main beneﬁt (and & co-beneﬁt; – trade off; + enabling

conditions; X barrier and potential maladaptation)

P R S C

Urban greening (Tables2.7, 16.2; Table

Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in Chapter 2)

– Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Durban, South

Africa (Section2.6.5.7)

Urban ﬂood management, water savings, urban heat island mitigation

& Reduced carbon emissions, air and noise regulation, improved mental

health, energy savings, recreation and aesthetics

+ Meaningful partnerships, long-term ﬁnancial commitments and

signiﬁcant political and administrative

X Storage of large quantities of water in the home; water contamination;

increased breeding sites for mosquitoes and ﬂies; vectors and diseases;

intensiﬁed cultivation of marginal lands; clearing of virgin forests for

farmland; frequent weeding; increased competition for water and

nutrients; reduced soil fertility, invasive species

*** **

The four systems transitions identiﬁed in SR1.5 already include a

component of societal change—for example, attitude change is

part of public acceptance that facilitates shifts in energy including

changing electricity to renewables (Chapter 4 SR1.5, Section4.3.1.1)

and developing nuclear power (Section 4.3.1.3), and behavioural

change is a part of shifting irrigation practices to drive required

land and ecosystems transitions (Section4.3.2.1). Extracting societal

transitions also allows for a detailed examination of other societal

dimensions that facilitate systems transitions, for example justice

issues relating to water and energy access and distribution, and land

use. Societal transition, sometimes known as ‘societal transformation’,

is an established concept in different literatures, as described below.

Transformation and transition are terms often used as synonyms

(Hölscher et al., 2018), although different schools of thought

understand them as sub-components of each other, for example

transition driving transformation, or transformation driving transition.

For a more detailed discussion on the differences between transition

and transformation represented in the literature, see Box18.1.

Societal transitions for the purpose of this report are understood as the

collection of shifts in attitudes, values, consciousness and behaviour

required to move towards CRD. This builds on the SR1.5 (IPCC, 2018a:

599) deﬁnition of societal (social) transformation: ‘A profound and

often deliberate shift initiated by communities towards sustainability,

facilitated by changes in individual and collective values and

behaviours, and a fairer balance of political, cultural, and institutional

power in society’. This includes accepting Indigenous knowledge

and local knowledge (IKLK) as an equally valid form of knowledge

as compared with Western, scientiﬁc knowledge (see Cross-Chapter

Box INDIG) and recognition of the role of shifting gender norms to

achieve climate resilience (see Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER). Changes

associated with societal transitions are not speciﬁc to deﬁned systems

(e.g., energy, industry, land/ecosystems or urban/infrastructure). Rather,

these sectoral systems are embedded within broader societal systems,

including for example political systems, economic systems, knowledge

systems and cultural systems (Davelaar, 2021; Turnhout et al., 2021;

Visseren-Hamakers etal., 2021). Changes that happen in these broader

social systems can therefore prompt changes in all systems embedded

within them, meaning that societal transition is key to transforming

across a range of sectors and topics (Leventon etal., 2021). Furthermore,

societal transition requires changes in individual behaviours, but also

in the broader conditions that shape these behaviours. These broader

conditions are largely related to questions of power, in enforcing

dominant political economies and social-technological mindsets

(Stoddard etal., 2021). This section also brieﬂy describes the various

trains of research on societal transitions and transformation.

Because of the multiple sectors, interests and scales that are involved

in societal transitions, understanding and creating evidence on

transitions requires shifting across system boundaries and ﬁnding ways

to transcend disciplinary silos. Relevant research includes work within

the topic of transformation and transitions (Hölscher et al., 2018).

Transformations literature can be split into multiple sub-concepts and

requires engagement with multiple schools of thought (Feola, 2015;

Feola et al., 2021). Much focus within transformations research is

currently related to biodiversity conservation (Massarella etal., 2021),

and transitions work tends towards a focus in urban areas (Loorbach

etal., 2017). Though there is also work in both that is more broadly

labelled as sustainability transformations or transitions (Luederitz etal.,

2017). Furthermore, there is likely to be much relevant literature that

does not explicitly label itself as transformations or transitions (Feola

etal., 2021). For example, we could look to political science theories

on policy change (Leventon etal., 2021) and historical perspectives on

social change. Bridging these divides will require a deeper rethinking

in the research community to undo power structures that marginalise

diverse knowledge (Caniglia etal., 2021; Lahsen and Turnhout, 2021).

There are a number of concepts proposed as pathways to creating societal

transitions; usually centred around the idea of working with individuals

and communities to change their mindsets as a way to change the

way they manage their local environments or behave. Transformations

work explores how values are pathways towards sustainability, for

example by changing values, through making values explicit, through

negotiation and by eliciting values (Horcea-Milcu etal., 2019). Human

nature connections is a further concept that is identiﬁed as a way to

shift values and behaviours across a range of disciplines (Ives etal.,

2017). The role of learning and Indigenous knowledge is also explored

(Lam etal., 2020). These three concepts have had particular salience in

discussions around transformations for biodiversity conservation and

restoration, related to the IPBES assessment on Values (Pascual etal.,

Box18.5 (continued)

2698

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

2017; Peterson etal., 2018). They largely focus on the need to engage

with people’s values, connections and knowledge to better manage the

social–ecological system they are in.

Focusing on bottom-up and community-led transformations, there is

emphasis on the role of grassroots organisations in transformations.

Community actions around speciﬁc locations or topics have parallels to

the idea of transformative spaces. They are sites of innovative activity

(Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Grassroots organisations can bridge the

local and the political scales by politicising actors and creating new

interactions between individuals and political processes (Novák,

2021). They are a collective approach to pushing for both individual

and societal change (Sage etal., 2021).

Despite a current lack of empirical evidence, there are numerous

frameworks emerging for exploring societal transitions across levels.

There is focus on pathways for sustainability transitions, which tends

to look at projected, normative scenarios for the future, and explore

or back-cast the institutional and societal changes that are required

to get there (Westley etal., 2011; Sharpe etal., 2016). There is also

work that looks at scaling up of smaller sustainability initiatives,

through processes of scaling up, scaling out and scaling deep (Moore

etal., 2015; Lam etal., 2020). In particular, systems thinking provides

an organising framework for bringing together multiple disciplines

and perspectives, to understand problem framings, and normative

and design aspects of social systems and behaviours (Foster-

Fishman et al., 2007). Within this, Meadows (1999) framework of

leverage points for systems transformation has been operationalised

within the sustainability transformations debate (Abson et al.,

2017). Here, system properties relating to system paradigms and

design are leverage points where interventions can create greatest

system change; shallower leverage points relate to materials and

processes. This framework is increasingly being used across a range

of sustainability problems as boundary objects for cross-disciplinary,

critical research (Fischer and Riechers, 2019; Leventon et al., 2021;

Riechers etal., 2021).

Analyses of societal transitions have had limited engagement with

adaptation questions. The focus of the sub-ﬁeld of sustainability

transitions on a few industrialised nations, mostly in North America

and Europe, limited the ﬁeld’s development to assumptions born from

the experiences in those areas. More recent studies have sought to

understand sustainability transitions in other countries, especially

emerging economies (Wieczorek, 2018; Köhler et al., 2019). In

particular, China has received attention from scholars on sustainability

transitions (Huang etal., 2018; Lo and Castán Broto, 2019; Castán

Broto etal., 2020; Huang and Sun, 2020). As a result, some pressing

issues related to societal transitions for adaptation have received

limited attention compared with that paid to other system transitions.

However, more recently, scholarship has begun examining transitions

that have turned to nature and nature-based solutions. Adaptive

transitions are an intermediary step towards sustainability transitions,

whereby multiple actions at material and institutional levels are

combined towards improving adaptation outcomes (Pant etal., 2015;

Scarano, 2017).

18.3.2 Accelerating Transitions

Successfully implementing climate actions and managing trade-

offs between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development

(Section 18.2.4) has important time considerations that imply

signiﬁcant urgency, making substantive progress in system transitions

critical for CRD. Both the SDGs and the Sendai Framework, for

example, have target dates of 2030. Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement

sets speciﬁc time horizons for NDCs and the SR1.5 indicated that

limiting warming to 1.5°C would similarly require substantial climate

action by 2030 (IPCC, 2018a). While the literature is unambiguous

regarding the need for signiﬁcant system transitions to achieve CRD

(Section 18.1.3), the current pace of global emissions reductions,

poverty alleviation and development of equitable systems of

governance is incommensurate with these policy time tables (Rogelj

etal., 2010; Burke etal., 2016; Oleribe and Taylor-Robinson, 2016;

Kriegler etal., 2018; Frank etal., 2019; Sadoff etal., 2020). As noted

previously in the AR5, ‘delaying action in the present may reduce

options for climate-resilient pathways in the future’ (Denton etal.,

2014: 1123). Accordingly, signiﬁcant acceleration in the pace of system

transitions is necessary to enable the implementation of mitigation,

adaptation and sustainable development initiatives consistent with

CRD (very high conﬁdence).

Studies since the AR5 directly address the issue of how to accelerate

transitions within the broader system transitions, sustainability

transitions and socio-technical transitions literature (Frantzeskaki

etal., 2017; Gliedt etal., 2018; Gorissen etal., 2018; Johnstone and

Newell, 2018; Kuokkanen et al., 2019; Markard et al., 2020). Such

literature explores several core themes to facilitate acceleration,

which are aligned with the discussion later in this chapter on arenas

of engagement for CRD (Section 18.4.3). One dominant theme is

accelerating the implementation of sustainability or low-carbon policies

that target speciﬁc sectors or industries (Bhamidipati etal., 2019). For

example, Altenburg and Rodrik (Altenburg and Rodrik, 2017) discuss

green industrial polices including taxes, mandated technology phase

outs and the removal of subsidies as means of constraining polluting

industries. Kivimaa etal. (Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018; Kivimaa

etal., 2019a; Kivimaa etal., 2019b; Kivimaa etal., 2020) and Vihemäki

et al. (2020) discuss low-carbon transitions in buildings, noting the

important role that intermediaries play in facilitating policy reform.

Nikulina etal. (2019) identify mechanisms for facilitating policy change

in personal mobility including political leadership, combining carrots

and sticks to incentivise behavioural change and challenging current

policy frameworks. These various examples reﬂect a fragmented

approach to system transitions, suggesting a large portfolio of such

transition initiatives would be required to accelerate change or

more fundamental and cross-cutting policy drivers are needed (high

agreement, limited evidence). Policies that seek to promote social

justice and equity, for example, could ultimately catalyse a broader

range of sustainability and climate actions than policies designed to

address a speciﬁc sector or class of technology (Delina and Sovacool,

2018; White, 2020).

In contrast with formal government policies, a second theme

in accelerating transitions is that of civic engagement (see also

Section18.4.3), which is reported to be an important opportunity for

2699

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Table18.3 | Speciﬁc options for facilitating the ﬁve system transitions that can support CRD

Transition Examples Reference

Energy systems

Fuel switching from coal to natural gas

Expansion of renewable energy technologies

Financial incentives to promote renewable energy

Reduced energy intensity of industry

Improvements in power system resilience and reliability

Increased water use efﬁciency in electricity generation

Energy demand management strategies

(Gielen etal., 2019); (Mulugetta etal., 2019); (IEA etal., 2019);

AR6 WGIII Chapter 2

Urban and

infrastructure systems

Increased investment in physical and social infrastructure

Enhance urban and regional planning

Enhanced governance and institutional capacity supports post-disaster recovery and

reconstruction (Kull, 2016)

(IPCC, 2018b): D3.1)

Land, oceans and

ecosystems

Expanding access to agricultural and climate services

Strengthening land tenure security and access to land

Empowering women farmers

Improved access to markets

Facilitating payments for ecosystem services

Promotion of healthy and sustainable diets

Enhancing multi-level governance by supporting local management of natural resources

Strengthening cooperation between institutions and actors

Building on local, indigenous and scientiﬁc knowledge funding, and institutional support

Monitoring and forecasting

Education and climate literacy and social learning and participation

(IPCC, 2019 f): C2.1; (IPCC, 2019 f): C4.5; (IPCC, 2019 f): C4

Industrial systems

Promote material efﬁciency and high-quality circularity

Materials demand management (IEA 2019, 2020)

Application of new processes and technologies for GHG emission reduction

Carbon pricing or regulations with provisions on competitiveness to drive innovation and

systemic carbon efﬁciency

Low-cost, long-term ﬁnancing mechanisms to enable investment and reduce risk

Better planning of transport infrastructure

Labour market training and transition support

Electricity market reform

Regulations—standards and labelling, material efﬁciency

Mandating technologies and targets

Green taxes and carbon pricing, preferential loans and subsidies

Voluntary action agreements, expanded producer responsibilities

Information programmes: monitoring, evaluation, partnerships, and research and

development

Government provisioning of services—government procurements, technology push and

market-pull

(Åhman etal., 2017; Bataille etal., 2018; Material, 2019); (Tanaka,

2011; Schwarz etal., 2020); (Ciwmb, 2003); (Romero Mosquera,

2019); (Tanaka, 2011); (Ryan etal., 2011; Boyce, 2018); (Taylor,

2008); (UNEP, 2018b); (Kaza etal., 2018); (Söderholm and Tilton,

2012); (Bataille etal., 2018); (Ghisetti etal., 2017); (Taylor, 2008;

Fischedick etal., 2014; Hansen and Lema, 2019); (Crippa etal.,

2019; IEA, 2019); (Cavaliere, 2019; IEA, 2020); Vogl etal. (2018);

(Pauliuk etal., 2013; Quader etal., 2016)

Societal systems

Inclusive governance

Empowerment of excluded stakeholders, especially women and youth

Transforming economies

Finance and technology aligned with local needs

Overcoming uneven consumption and production patterns

Allowing people to live a life in dignity and enhancing their capabilities

Involving local governments, enterprises and civil society organisations across different

scales

Reconceptualising development around well-being rather than economic growth (Gupta

and Pouw, 2017),

Rethinking, prevailing values, ethics and behaviour

Improving decision making processes that incorporate diverse values and world views

Creating space for negotiating diverse interests and preferences

(Fazey etal., 2018b; O’Brien, 2018; Patterson etal., 2018); (MRFCJ,

2015; Dumont etal., 2019); (Popescu etal., 2017; David Tàbara

etal., 2018); (de Coninck and Sagar, 2015; IEA, 2015; Parikh etal.,

2018); (Dearing etal., 2014; Häyhä etal., 2016; Raworth, 2017);

(Klinsky and Winkler, 2018); (Hajer etal., 2015; Labriet etal.,

2015; Hale, 2016; Pelling etal., 2016; Kalafatis, 2017; Lyon, 2018);

(Holden etal., 2017); (Cundill etal., 2014; Butler etal., 2016;

Ensor, 2016; Fazey etal., 2016; Gorddard etal., 2016; Aipira etal.,

2017; Chung Tiam Fook, 2017; Maor etal., 2017); (O’Brien and

Selboe, 2015; Gillard etal., 2016; DeCaro etal., 2017; Harris etal.,

2018; Lahn, 2018; Roy etal., 2018); Sections5.6.1 and 5.5.3.1

driving transitions forward (high agreement, medium evidence). Ehnert

et al. (2018) describe local organisations and civic engagement in

policy processes as an important engine for sustainability activities in

European states. Similarly, Ruggiero etal. (2021) note the potential to

use civic organisations to appeal to local identities in order to mobilise

citizens to pursue energy transition initiatives among communities in

the Baltic Sea region. Gernert etal. (2018) attribute such inﬂuence

to the ability of grassroots movements to bypass traditional social

and political norms and thereby experiment with new behaviours

and processes. Moreover, civic engagement is also the foundation for

collective action including protest and civil disobedience (Welch and

Yates, 2018, Section 18.5.3.7). However, Haukkala (2018) observes

that while green-transition coalitions in Finland could be an agent of

change driving energy transitions, the diversity of views among the

various grassroots actors could make consensus building difﬁcult,

thereby slowing transition initiatives.

2700

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER | Gender, Climate Justice and Transformative Pathways

Authors: Anjal Prakash (India), Cecilia Conde (Mexico), Ayansina Ayanlade (Nigeria), Rachel Bezner Kerr (Canada/USA), Emily Boyd

(Sweden), Martina A Caretta (Sweden), Susan Clayton (USA), Marta G. Rivera Ferre (Spain), Laura Ramajo Gallardo (Chile), Sharina Abdul

Halim (Malaysia), Nina Lansbury (Australia), Oksana Lipka (Russia), Ruth Morgan (Australia), Joyashree Roy (India), Diana Reckien (the

Netherlands/Germany), E. Lisa F. Schipper (Sweden/UK), Chandni Singh (India), Maria Cristina Tirado von der Pahlen (Spain/USA), Edmond

Totin (Benin), Kripa Vasant (India), Morgan Wairiu (Solomon Islands), Zelina Zaiton Ibrahim (Malaysia).

Contributing Authors: Seema Arora-Jonsson (Sweden/India), Emily Baker (USA), Graeme Dean (Ireland), Emily Hillenbrand (USA), Alison

Irvine (Canada), Farjana Islam (Bangladesh/ UK), Katriona McGlade (UK/Germany), Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong (Ghana), Nitya Rao

(UK/India), Federica Ravera (Italy), Emilia Reyes (Mexico), Diana Hinge Salili (Fiji), Corinne Schuster-Wallace (Canada), Alcade C. Segnon

(Benin), Divya Solomon (India), Shreya Some (India), Indrakshi Tandon (India), Sumit Vij (India), Katharine Vincent (UK/South Africa),

Margreet Zwarteveen (the Netherlands)

Key Messages

• Gender and other social inequities (e.g., racial, ethnic, age, income, geographic location) compound vulnerability to climate change

impacts (high conﬁdence). Climate justice initiatives explicitly address these multi-dimensional inequalities as part of a climate

change adaptation strategy (Box9.2: Vulnerability Synthesis: Differential Vulnerability by Gender and Age in Chapter 9).

• Addressing inequities in access to resources, assets and services, as well as participation in decision making and leadership is

essential to achieving gender and climate justice (high conﬁdence).

• Intentional long-term policy and programme measures and investments to support shifts in social rules, norms and behaviours are

essential to address structural inequalities and support an enabling environment for marginalised groups to effectively adapt to

climate change (very high conﬁdence) (Equity and Justice box in Chapter 17).

• Climate adaptation actions are grounded in local realities so understanding links with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5

is important to ensure that adaptive actions do not worsen existing gender and other inequities within society (e.g., leading to

maladaptation practices) (high conﬁdence). [Section17.5.1]

• Adaptation actions do not automatically have positive outcomes for gender equality. Understanding the positive and negative links

of adaptation actions with gender equality goals, (i.e., SDG 5), is important to ensure that adaptive actions do not exacerbate existing

gender-based and other social inequalities [Section16.1.4.4]. Efforts are needed to change unequal power dynamics and to foster

inclusive decision making for climate adaptation to have a positive impact for gender equality (high conﬁdence).

• There are very few examples of successful integration of gender and other social inequities in climate policies to address climate

change vulnerabilities and questions of social justice (very high conﬁdence).

Gender, Climate Justice and Climate Change

This Cross-Chapter Box highlights the intersecting issues of gender, climate change adaptation, climate justice and transformative

pathways. A gender perspective does not centre only on women or men but examines structures, processes and relationships of power

between and among groups of men and women and how gender, particularly in its non-binary form, intersects with other social

categories such as race, class, socioeconomic status, nationality or education to create multi-dimensional inequalities (Hopkins, 2019). A

gender transformative approach aims to change structural inequalities. Attention to gender in climate change adaptation is thus central

to questions of climate justice that aim for a radically different future (Bhavnani etal., 2019). As a normative concept highlighting the

unequal distribution of climate change impacts and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation, climate justice (Wood, 2017; Jafry etal.,

2018; Chu and Michael, 2019; Shi, 2020a) calls for transformative pathways for human and ecological well-being. These address the

concentration of wealth, unsustainable extraction and distribution of resources (Schipper etal., 2020a; Vander Stichele, 2020) as well as

the importance of equitable participation in environmental decision making for climate justice (Arora-Jonsson, 2019).

Research on gender and climate change demonstrates that an understanding of gendered relations is central to addressing the issue of

climate change. This is because gender relations mediate experiences with climate change, whether in relation to water (Köhler etal.,

2019) (see also Sections4.7, 4.3.3, 4.6.4, 5.3), forests (Arora-Jonsson, 2019), agriculture (Carr and Thompson, 2014; Balehey etal., 2018;

Garcia etal., 2020) (see also Chapter 4, Section5.4), marine systems (Mcleod etal., 2018; Garcia etal., 2020) (see also Section5.9) or

urban environments (Reckien etal., 2018; Susan Solomon etal., 2021) (see also Chapter 6). Climate change has direct negative impacts

on women’s livelihoods due to their unequal control over and access to resources (e.g., land, credit) and because they are often the ones

with the least formal protection (Eastin, 2018) (see also Box9.2 in Chapter 9). Women represent 43% of the agricultural labour force

globally, but only 15% of agricultural landholders (OECD, 2019b). Gendered and other social inequities also exist with non-land assets

and ﬁnancial services (OECD, 2019b) often due to social norms, local institutions and inadequate social protection (Collins etal., 2019b).

Men may experience different adverse impacts due to gender roles and expectations (Bryant and Garnham, 2015; Gonda, 2017). These

impacts can lead to irreversible losses and damages from climate change across vulnerability hotspots (Section8.3).

2701

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Participation in environmental decision making tends to favour certain social groups of men, whether in local environmental committees,

international climate negotiations (Gay-Antaki and Liverman, 2018) or the IPCC (Nhamo and Nhamo, 2018). Addressing climate justice

reinforces the importance of considering the legacy of colonialism on developing regional and local adaptation strategies. Scholars have

criticised climate programmes for setting aside forestland that poor people rely on and appropriating the labour of women in the Global

South without compensatory social policy or rights; where women are expected to work with non-timber forest products to compensate

for the lack of logging and for global climate goals, but where their work of social reproduction and care is paid little attention (Westholm

and Arora-Jonsson, 2015; Arora-Jonsson etal., 2016). A global ecologically unequal exchange, biopiracy, damage from toxic exports or

the disproportionate use of carbon sinks and reservoirs by high-income countries enhance the negative impacts of climate change.

Women in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) also endure the harshest impacts of the debt crisis

due to imposed debt measures in their countries (Appiah and Gbeddy, 2018; Fresnillo Sallan, 2020). The austerity measures derived as

conditionalities for ﬁscal consolidation in public services increases gender-based violence (Castañeda Carney etal., 2020) and brings

additional burdens for women in the form of increasing unpaid care and domestic work (Bohoslavsky, 2019).

Gendered Vulnerability

Land, ecosystem and urban transitions to climate resilient development need to address gender and other social inequities to meet

sustainability and equity goals, otherwise, marginalised groups may continue to be excluded from climate change adaptation. In the

water sector, increasing ﬂoods and droughts and diminishing groundwater and runoff have gendered effects on both production systems

and domestic use (Sections4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.5.3). Climate change is reducing the quantity and quality of safe water available in many

regions of the world and increasing domestic water management responsibilities (high conﬁdence). In regions with poor drinking water

infrastructure, it is forcing, primarily women and girls, to walk long distances to access water, and limiting time available for other

activities, including education and income generation (Eakin etal., 2014; Kookana etal., 2016; Yadav and Lal, 2018). Water insecurity

and the lack of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure have resulted in psychosocial distress and gender-based violence,

as well as poor maternal and child health and nutrition (Collins etal., 2019a; Wilson etal., 2019; Geere and Hunter, 2020; Islam etal.,

2020; Mainali etal., 2020) (Sections4.3.3 and 4.6.4.4) (high conﬁdence). Climate-related extreme events also affect women’s health—by

increasing the risk of maternal and infant mortality, disrupting access to family planning and prevention of mother to child transmission

regimens for human immunodeﬁciency virus (HIV) positive pregnant women (UNDRR, 2019) (see also Section7.2). Women and the

elderly are also disproportionately affected by heat events (Sections7.1.7.2.1, 7.1.7.2.3, 13.7.1).

Extreme events impact food prices and reduce food availability and quality, especially affecting vulnerable groups, including low-income

urban consumers, wage labourers and low-income rural households who are net food buyers (Green etal., 2013; Fao, 2016) (Section5.12).

Low-income women, ethnic minorities and Indigenous communities are often more vulnerable to food insecurity and malnutrition from

climate change impacts, as poverty, discrimination and marginalisation intersect in their cases (Vinyeta etal., 2016; Clay etal., 2018)

(Section5.12). Increased domestic responsibilities of women and youth, due to migration of men, can increase their vulnerability due to

their reduced capacity for investment in off-farm activities and reduced access to information (Sugden etal., 2014; O’Neil etal., 2017)

(Sections4.3, 4.6) (high conﬁdence).

In the forest sector, the increased frequency and severity of drought, ﬁres, pests and diseases, and changes to growing seasons, has

led to reduced harvest revenues, ﬂuctuations in timber supply and availability of wood (Lamsal etal., 2017; Fadrique et al., 2018;

Esquivel-Muelbert etal., 2019). Climate programmes in the Global South such as REDD+ have led to greater social insecurity and the

conservation of the forests have led to more pressure on women to contribute to household incomes, but without enough supporting

market access mechanisms or social policy (Westholm and Arora-Jonsson, 2015; Arora-Jonsson etal., 2016). In countries in the Global

North, reduced harvestable wood and revenues have led to employment restructuring that has important gendered effects and negatively

affects community transition opportunities (Reed etal., 2014).

Integrating Gender in Climate Policy and Practice

Climate change policies and programmes across regions reveal wide variation in the degree and approach to addressing gender inequities

(see TableSMCCB GENDER.2). In most regions where there are climate change policies that consider gender, they inadequately address

structural inequalities resulting from climate change impacts, or how gender and other social inequalities can compound risk (high conﬁdence).

Experiences show that it is more frequent to address speciﬁc gender inequality gaps in access to resources. Regionally, Central and South

American countries (Section12.5.8) have a range of gender-sensitive or gender-speciﬁc policies such as the intersectoral coordination

initiative Gender and Climate Change Action Plans (PAGcc), adopted in Perú, Cuba, Costa Rica and Panamá (Casas Varez, 2017), or the

Gender Environmental policy in Guatemala that has a focus on climate change (Bárcena-Martín etal., 2021). However, countries often have

limited commitment and capacity to evaluate the impact of such policies (Tramutola, 2019). In North and South America, policies have failed

to address how climate change vulnerability is compounded by the intersection of race, ethnicity and gender (Radcliffe, 2014; Vinyeta etal.,

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER (continued)

2702

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

2016) (see also Section14.6.3). Gender is rarely discussed in African national policies or programmes beyond the initial consultation stage

(Holvoet and Inberg, 2014; Mersha and van Laerhoven, 2019), although there are gender and climate change action strategies in countries

such as Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia (Mozambique and IUCN, 2014; Zambia and IUCN, 2017). European climate change

adaptation strategies and policies are weak on gender and other social equity issues (Allwood, 2014; Boeckmann and Zeeb, 2014; Allwood,

2020), while in Australasia, there is a lack of gender-responsive climate change policies. In Asia, there are several countries that recognise

gendered vulnerability to climate change (Jafry, 2016; Singh etal., 2021b), but policies tend to be gender-speciﬁc, with a focus on targeting

women, for example in the national action plan on climate change as in India (Roy etal., 2018) or in national climate change plan as in

Malaysia (Susskind etal., 2020).

Potential for Change and Solutions

The sexual division of labour, systemic racism and other social structural inequities lead to increased vulnerabilities and climate change impacts

for social groups such as women, youth, Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. Their marginal positions not only affect their lives negatively

but their work in maintaining healthy environments is ignored and invisible in policy affecting their ability to work towards sustainable

adaptation and aspirations in the SDGs (Arora-Jonsson, 2019). However, attention to the following has the potential to bring about change:

Creation of new, deliberative policymaking spaces that support inclusive decision making processes and opportunities to (re)negotiate

pervasive gender and other social inequalities in the context of climate change for transformation (Tschakert etal., 2016; Harris etal.,

2018; Ziervogel, 2019; Garcia etal., 2020) (high conﬁdence).

Increased access to reproductive health and family planning services, which contributes to climate change resilience and socioeconomic

development through improved health and well-being of women and their children, including increased access to education, gender equity

and economic status (Onarheim etal., 2016; Starbird etal., 2016; Lopez-Carr, 2017; Hardee etal., 2018) (Section7.4) (high conﬁdence).

Engagement with women’s collectives is important for sustainable environments and better climate decision making whether at the

global, national or local levels (Westholm and Arora-Jonsson, 2018; Agarwal, 2020). The work of such collectives in maintaining their

societies and environments and in resisting gendered and community violence is unacknowledged (Jenkins, 2017; Arora-Jonsson, 2019)

but is indispensable especially when combined with good leadership, community acceptance and long-term economic sustainability

(Chu, 2018; Singh, 2019) (Section4.6.4). Networking by gender experts in environmental organisations and bureaucracies has also been

important for ensuring questions of social justice (Arora-Jonsson and Sijapati, 2018).

Investment in appropriate reliable water supplies, storage techniques and climate-proofed WASH infrastructure as key adaptation

strategies that reduce both burdens and impacts on women and girls (Alam etal., 2011; Woroniecki, 2019) (Sections4.3.3, 4.6.44).

Improved gender-sensitive early warning system design and vulnerability assessments to reduce vulnerabilities, prioritising effective

adaptation pathways to women and marginalised groups (Mustafa etal., 2019; Tanner etal., 2019; Werners etal., 2021).

Established effective social protection, including both cash and food transfers, such as the universal public distribution system (PDS)

for cereals in India, or pensions and social grants in Namibia, that have been demonstrated to contribute towards relieving immediate

pressures on survival and support processes at the community level, including climate effects (Kattumuri etal., 2017; Lindoso etal., 2018;

Rao etal., 2019a; Carr, 2020).

Strengthened adaptive capacity and resilience through integrated approaches to adaptation that include social protection measures,

disaster risk management and ecosystem-based climate change adaptation (high conﬁdence), particularly when undertaken within a

gender-transformative framework (Gumucio etal., 2018; Bezner Kerr etal., 2019; Deaconu etal., 2019) (Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL in

Chapter 2, Sections5.12, 5.14).

For example, gender-transformative and nutrition-sensitive agroecological approaches strengthen adaptive capacities and enable more

resilient food systemsby increasing leadership for women and their participation in decision making and a gender-equitable domestic

work (high conﬁdence) (Gumucio etal., 2018; Bezner Kerr etal., 2019; Deaconu etal., 2019) (Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL in Chapter 2,

Sections5.12, 5.14)

New initiatives, such as the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program, represent an integrated approach to resilience that promotes

coordination among social protection, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Accompanying measures include health,

education, nutrition and family planning, among others (Daron etal., 2021).

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER (continued)

2703

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Climate Change Adaptation and SDG 5

Adaptation actions may reinforce social inequities, including gender, unless explicit efforts are made to change (Nagoda and Nightingale,

2017; Garcia etal., 2020) (robust evidence, high agreement). Participation in climate action increases if it is inclusive and fair (Huntjens

and Zhang, 2016). Roy etal. (2018) assessed links among various SDGs and mitigation options. Adaptation actions are grounded in local

realities, especially in terms of their impacts, so understanding links with the goals of SDG 5 becomes more important to make sure that

adaptive actions do not worsen prevalent gender and other social inequities within society (robust evidence, high agreement). In the

IPCC 1.5°C Special Report, Roy etal. (2018) assessed links between various SDGs and mitigation options, adaptation options were not

considered. The current SDG 13 climate action targets do not speciﬁcally mention gender as a component for action, which makes it

even more imperative to link SDG 5 targets and other gender-related targets to adaptive actions under SDG 13 to ensure that adaptation

projects are synergistic rather than maladaptive (Section16.3.2.6, Table16.6) (Susan Solomon etal., 2021; Roy etal., Submitted).

This assessment is based on a systematic rapid review of scientiﬁc publications (McCartney etal., 2017; Liem etal., 2020) published on

adaptation actions in nine sectors from 2014 to 2020 (see TableSMCCB GENDER.1) (Roy etal., Submitted)(Roy etal., Submitted)(Roy

etal., Submitted)and how they integrated gender perspectives impacting gender equity. The assessment is based on over 17,000 titles

and abstracts that were initially found through keyword search and were reviewed. Finally, 319 relevant papers on case studies, regional

assessments and meta-reviews were assessed. Gender impact was classiﬁed by various targets under SDG 5. Following the approach

taken in Roy etal. (2018) and (Hoegh-Guldberg etal., 2019), the linkages were classiﬁed into synergies (positive impacts or co-beneﬁts)

and trade-offs (negative impacts) based on the evidence obtained from the literature review which is ﬁnally used to develop net impact

(positive or negative) scores (see Table Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER.1 and Supplementary Material).

TableCross-ChapterBoxGENDER.1 | Inter-relations between SDG5 (gender equality) and adaptation initiatives in nine major sectors

Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem

Ocean and coastal ecosystem

Mountain ecosystem

Food, fibre and others

Urban water and sanitation

Poverty, livelihood and sustainable development

Cities, settlements and key infrastructure

Health, well-being, and changing communities’ structure

Sector

Industrial system transition

Adaptation categories

Ecosystem-

basedInstitutional

Technological/

infrastructure/

information

Behavioural/

cultural

All net positive links

no literature/options/

All net negative links

Net positive links > net negative links

Net negative links > net positive links

Confidence level

Very low

Low

High

Medium

/ /

Links with Sustainable

Development Goal 5:

Gender Equality

Potential net synergies and trade-offs between a sectoral portfolio of adaptation actions and SDG 5 are shown. Colour codes showing the

relative strength of net positive and net negative impacts and conﬁdence levels. The strength of net positive and net negative connections

across all adaptation actions within a sector are aggregated to show sector-speciﬁc links. The links are only one-sided on how adaptation

action is linked to gender equality (SDG 5) targets and not vice versa. 22 adaptation options were assessed in ecosystem-based actions,

10 options in technological/infrastructure/information, 17 in institutional and 13 in behavioural/cultural. The assessment presented here is

based on literature presenting impacts on gender equality and equity of various adaptation actions implemented in various local contexts

and in regional climate change policies (TableSMCCB GENDER.2).

Adaptation actions being implemented in each sector in different local contexts can have positive (synergies) or negative (trade-offs)

effects with SDG 5. This can potentially lead to net positive or net negative connections at an aggregate level. How they are ﬁnally realised

depends on how they are implemented, managed and combined with various other interventions, in particular, place-based circumstances.

Ecosystem-based adaptation actions and terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have higher potential for net positive connections (Roy

etal., 2018) (Table Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER.1 and Supplementary Material). Adaptation in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems has

the strongest net positive links with all SDG 5 targets (medium evidence, low agreement). For example, community-based natural

resource management increases the participation of women, especially when they are organised into women’s groups (Pineda-López

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER (continued)

2704

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

etal., 2015; de la Torre-Castro etal., 2017) (Supplementary Material). For poverty, livelihood and sustainable development sectors,

adaptation actions have generated more net negative scores (limited evidence, low agreement) (Table Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER.1). For

example, patriarchal institutions and structural discriminations curtail access to services or economic resources as compared with men,

including less control over income, fewer productive assets and lack of property rights, as well as less access to credit, irrigation, climate

information and seeds which devaluate women’s farm-related adaptation options (Adzawla etal., 2019; Friedman etal., 2019; Ullah

etal., 2019) (Supplementary Material).

Among the adaptation actions, ecosystem-based actions have the strongest net positive links with SDG 5 targets (Table Cross-Chapter

BoxGENDER.1, TableSMCCB GENDER.1). In the health, well-being and changing communities’ sector, this is with robust evidence and

medium agreement, while in all other sectors there is medium evidence and low agreement. Net negative links are most prominent in

institutional adaptation actions (Table Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER.1). For example, in mountain ecosystems, changes in gender roles

in response to climatic and socioeconomic stressors is not supported by institutional practices, mechanisms and policies that remain

patriarchal (Goodrich etal., 2019). Additionally, women often have less access to credit for climate change adaptation practices, including

post-disaster relief, for example, to deal with salinisation of water or ﬂooding impacts (Hossain and Zaman 2018). Lack of coordination

among different city authorities can also limit women’s contribution in informal settlements towards adaptation. Women are typically

under-represented in decision making on home construction and planning and home-design decisions in informal settlements, but

examples from Bangladesh show they play a signiﬁcant role in adopting climate-resilient measures (e.g., the use of corrugated metal

roofs and partitions which is important in protection from heat) (Jabeen, 2014; Jabeen and Guy, 2015; Araos etal., 2017; Susan Solomon

etal., 2021).

Towards Climate-Resilient, Gender-Responsive Transformative Pathways

The climate change adaptation and gender literature call for research and adaptation interventions that are ‘gender-sensitive’ (Jost etal.,

2016; Thompson-Hall etal., 2016; Kristjanson etal., 2017; Pearce etal., 2018a) and ‘gender-responsive’, as established in Article 7 of the

Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015). In addition, attention is drawn to the importance of ‘mainstreaming’ gender in climate/development

policy (Alston, 2014; Rochette, 2016; Mcleod etal., 2018; Westholm and Arora-Jonsson, 2018). Many calls have been made to consider

gender in policy and practice (Ford etal., 2015; Jost etal., 2016; Rochette, 2016; Thompson-Hall etal., 2016; Kristjanson etal., 2017;

Mcleod etal., 2018; Lau etal., 2021; Singh etal., 2021b). Rather than merely emphasising the inclusion of women in patriarchal systems,

transforming systems that perpetuate inequality can help to address broader structural inequalities not only in relation to gender, but

also other dimensions such as race and ethnicity (Djoudi etal., 2016; Pearse, 2017; Gay-Antaki, 2020). Adaptation researchers and

practitioners play a critical role here and can enable gender-transformative processes by creating new, deliberative spaces that foster

inclusive decision making and opportunities for renegotiating inequitable power relations (Tschakert etal., 2016; Ziervogel, 2019; Garcia

etal., 2020).

To date, empirical evidence on such transformational change is sparse, although there is some evidence of incremental change (e.g.,

increasing women’s participation in speciﬁc adaptation projects, mainstreaming gender in national climate policies). Even when national

policies attempt to be more gendered, there is criticism that they use gender-neutral language or include gender analysis without

proposing how to alter differential vulnerability (Mersha and van Laerhoven, 2019; Singh etal., 2021b). More importantly, the mere

inclusion of women and men in planning does not necessarily translate to substantial gender-transformative action, for example in

National Adaptation Programmes of Action across sub-Saharan Africa (Holvoet and Inberg, 2014; Nyasimi etal., 2018) and national and

sub-national climate action plans in India (Singh etal., 2021b). Importantly, there is often an overemphasis on the gender binary (and

household headship as an entry point), which masks complex ways in which marginalisation and oppression can be augmented due to

the interaction of gender with other social factors and intra-household dynamics (Djoudi etal., 2016; Thompson-Hall etal., 2016; Rao

etal., 2019a; Lau etal., 2021; Singh etal., 2021b).

Climate justice and gender transformative adaptation can provide multiple beneﬁcial impacts that align with sustainable development.

Addressing poverty (SDG 1), energy poverty (SDG 7), WaSH (SDG 6), health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4) and hunger (SDG 2)––along with

inequalities (SDG 5 and SDG 10)—improves resilience to climate impacts for those groups that are disproportionately affected (women,

low-income and marginalised groups). Inclusive and fair decision making can enhance resilience (SDG 16; Section13.4.4), although

adaptation measures may also lead to resource conﬂicts (SDG 16; Section13.7). Nature-based solutions attentive to gender equity also

support ecosystem health (SDGs 14 and 15) (Dzebo etal., 2019). Gender and climate justice will be achieved when the root causes of

global and structural issues are addressed, challenging unethical and unacceptable use of power for the beneﬁt of the powerful and

elites (MacGregor, 2014; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019; Vander Stichele, 2020). Justice and equality need to be at the centre of climate

adaptation decision-making processes. A transformative pathway needs to include the voice of the disenfranchised (MacGregor, 2020;

Schipper etal., 2020a).

Cross-Chapter BoxGENDER (continued)

2705

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

A third theme is that of innovation, generally, and sustainability-oriented

innovation, speciﬁcally (de Vries etal., 2016; Geradts and Bocken, 2019;

Loorbach et al., 2020), which creates opportunities for overcoming

existing transition barriers (very high conﬁdence). For example, Valta

(2020) describes the role of innovation ecosystems—partnerships

among companies, investors, governments and academics—in

accelerating innovation (see also World Economic Forum, 2019). Burch

etal. (Burch etal., 2016) describe the role of small- and medium-sized

business entrepreneurship in promoting rapid innovation. Innovation

extends beyond pure technology considerations to consider innovation

in practices and social organisation (Li et al., 2018; Psaltoglou and

Calle, 2018; Repo and Matschoss, 2020). Zivkovic (2018), for example,

discusses ‘innovation labs’ as accelerators for addressing so-called

wicked problems such as climate change through multi-stakeholder

groups. Meanwhile, Chaminade and Randelli (2020) describe a case

study where structural preconditions and place-based agency were

important drivers of transitions to organic viticulture in Tuscany, Italy.

The fourth theme is that of transition management (Goddard and

Farrelly, 2018), particularly vis-à-vis, disruptive technologies (Iñigo and

Albareda, 2016; Kuokkanen etal., 2019) or broader societal disruptions

(Brundiers, 2020; Davidsson, 2020; Hepburn et al., 2020; Schipper

etal., 2020b). Recent literature has given attention to how actors can

use disruptive events, such as disasters, as a window of opportunity

for accelerating changes in policies, practices and behaviours (high

agreement, medium evidence) (Brundiers, 2018; Brundiers and Eakin,

2018). This is consistent with concepts in resilience thinking around

‘building back better’ after disasters (Fernandez and Ahmed, 2019).

For example, Hepburn et al. discuss ﬁscal recovery packages for

COVID-19 as a means of accelerating climate action, with a particular

inﬂuence on clean physical infrastructure, building efﬁciency retroﬁts,

investment in education and training, natural capital investment, and

clean research and development (Andrijevic etal., 2020b).

18.4 Agency and Empowerment for Climate

Resilient Development

As reﬂected in the discussion of societal transitions (Section18.3),

people and their values and choices play an instrumental role in CRD.

The agency of people to act on CRD is grounded in their worldviews,

beliefs, values and consciousness (Woiwode, 2020), and is shaped

through social and political processes including how policies and

decision making recognise the voices, knowledges and rights of

particular actors over others (very high conﬁdence) (Harris and

Clarke, 2017; Nightingale, 2017; Bond and Barth, 2020; Muok etal.,

2021). Since the AR5, evidence on diverse forms of engagement by

and among social, political and economic actors to support CRD and

sustainability outcomes, has increased. New forms of decision making

and engagement are emerging within the formal policymaking

and planning sphere, including co-production of knowledge,

interventions grounded in the arts and humanities, civil participation

and partnerships with business (Ziervogel et al., 2016a; Roberts

et al., 2020). In addition, the set of actors that drive climate and

development actions are recognised to extend beyond government

and formal policy actors to include civil society, education, industry,

media, science and art (Ojwang et al., 2017; Solecki et al., 2018;

Heinrichs, 2020; Omukuti, 2020). This makes the power dynamics

among actors and institutions critical for understanding the role of

actors in CRD (Buggy and McNamara, 2016; Camargo and Ojeda,

2017; Silva Rodríguez de San Miguel, 2018).

The formal space for national, sub-national and international

adaptation governance emerged at COP 16 (UNFCCC, 2010) when

adaptation was recognised as a similar level of priority as GHG

mitigation. The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) built on this and the

2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (United Nations, 2015) to link

adaptation to development and climate justice. It also highlighted the

importance of multi-level adaptation governance, including new non-

state voices and climate actors that widen the scope of adaptation

governance beyond formal government institutions. For example,

individuals can act as agents of changes in their own behaviour, such

as via change in their consumption patterns, but also generate change

within organisations, ﬁelds of practice and the political landscape

of governance. Accordingly, these interactions among actors across

different scales implies the need for wider modes of, and arena for,

engagement around adaptation to accommodate a diversity of

perspectives (high agreement, medium evidence) (Chung Tiam Fook,

2017; Lesnikowski etal., 2017; IPCC, 2018a).

In most regions, such new institutional and informal arrangements are

at an early stage of development (high agreement, limited evidence).

Further clariﬁcation and strengthening are needed to enable the fair

sharing of resources, responsibilities and authorities to enable climate

action to enable CRD (Wood etal., 2017; IPCC, 2018a; Reckien etal.,

2018). These are strongly linked to contested and complementary

worldviews of climate change and the actors that use these worldviews

to justify, direct, accelerate and deepen transformational adaptation

and climate action.

18.4.1 Political Economy of Climate Resilient

Development

Political economy studies (i.e., the origins, nature and distribution of

wealth, and the ideologies, interests and institutions that shape it)

explicitly addressing CRD are quite limited. Yet there is an extensive

post-AR5 literature on political economy associated with various

elements relevant to CRD including climate change and development

(Naess et al., 2015); vulnerability, adaptation, and climate risk

(Sovacool etal., 2015; Sovacool etal., 2017; Barnett, 2020); energy,

decarbonisation and negative emissions technologies (Kuzemko etal.,

2019; Newell, 2019); degrowth and low-carbon economies (Perkins,

2019; Newell and Lane, 2020); solar radiation management (Ott, 2018);

planetary health and sustainability transitions and transformation

(Kohler etal., 2019) (Gill and Benatar, 2020). Review and assessment of

this literature reveals our key insights about the relationship between

the political economy and CRD.

First, the political economy drives coupled development–climate

change trajectories and determines vulnerability, thereby potentially

subjecting those least responsible for climate change to the greatest

risk (Sovacool et al., 2015; Barnett, 2020). The legitimacy, viability

and sustainability of the prevailing political economy is being called

2706

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

into question because of its role in driving vulnerability in a changing

climate (Barnett, 2020), thus undermining the prospects for CRD.As

underpinning political economy ideologies, interests and institutions

change, the cause of the vulnerable is being appropriated, the drivers of

vulnerability and the adaptation agenda are depoliticised, and market-

based solutions advocated in ways that sustain the prevailing political

economy at the expense of those most at risk. Political economy

interests and institutions that drive vulnerability are thus themselves

at risk because worsening climate change raises questions about their

legitimacy and political and economic viability (Barnett, 2020).

Second, assessment of this literature suggests four attributes of the

political economy of adaptation inﬂuence development trajectories

in diverse settings, from Australia to Honduras and the Maldives

(Sovacool etal., 2015), as delivered through the Global Environment

Facility’s Least Developed Countries Fund (Sovacool etal., 2017). These

include enclosure (public resources or authority captured by private

interests); exclusion (stakeholders are marginalised from decision

making); encroachment (natural systems and ecosystem services

compromised); and entrenchment (inequality exacerbated). These

attributes hamper adaptation efforts, and reveal the political nature

of adaptation (Dolšak and Prakash, 2018) and, by extension, CRD.

Paradoxically, development initiatives labelled as ‘risk’ reduction or

resilience building or ‘equitable and environmentally sustainable’,

such as coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana, USA, can compound

inequity and climate risk, and perpetuate unsustainable development

(Gotham, 2016; Eriksen etal., 2021b).

Third, a long-held view is that the effects of mitigation are global,

while those of adaptation are local. A political economy perspective,

however, underscores cross-scale linkages, and shows that local

adaptation efforts, vulnerability and climate resilience are manifest in

development trajectories that are shaped by both local and trans-local

drivers, and deﬁned by unequal power relations that cross scales and

levels (Sovacool etal., 2015; Barnett, 2020; Newell, 2020), including in

key sectors such as energy (Baker etal., 2014) and agriculture (Houser

etal., 2019), as well as emergent blocs such as Brazil, Russia, India,

China and South Africa (BRICS) (Power etal., 2016; Schmitz, 2017); and

sub-national constellations such as cities (Fragkias and Boone, 2016;

Béné etal., 2018).

Fourth, transitions towards CRD may be technically and economically

feasible but are ‘saturated’ with power and politics (Tanner and

Allouche, 2011) (Section 18.3), necessitating focused attention to

political barriers and enablers of CRD (Newell, 2019). With a narrow

window of time to contain dangerous levels of global warming,

political economy research calls for CRD trajectories that counter the

tendency of the prevailing political economy to compound climate

change impacts and risk (Newell and Lane, 2020), especially given the

opportunity to realise co-beneﬁts through pandemic recovery efforts

that take into account vulnerability and the intersection of economic

power and public health, environmental quality, climate change, and

human and indigenous rights (Bernauer and Slowey, 2020; Schipper

etal., 2020b).

Given these insights, CRD can be understood as the sum of complex

multi-dimensional processes consisting of large numbers of actions

and societal choices made by multiple actors from government, the

private sector and civil society, with important inﬂuences by science

and the media (very high conﬁdence). These actions and social choices

are determined by the available solution space and options, along

with a range of enabling conditions (Section18.4.2) that are largely

bounded by individual and collective worldviews, and related ethics

and values. This view is consistent with sustainable development being

a process constituted by multiple inter-related societal choices and

actions that are often contested as the needs and interests of current

and future generations are addressed. Development choices have

path dependencies and context-sensitive synergies and trade-offs

with natural and embedded human systems, and they are bounded by

multiple and contested knowledges and worldviews (Goldman etal.,

2018; Heinrichs, 2020; Nightingale etal., 2020; Schipper etal., 2020b).

Consequently, societal choices about the political economy underpin

prospects for moving towards or away from CRD.

18.4.2 Enabling Conditions for Near-Term System

Transitions

Given actors, institutions and their engagement is fundamental to

supporting system transitions needed for CRD (Section 18.3), this

section assesses recent literature with respect to how the values,

choices and behaviours of those actors enable or constrain speciﬁc

enabling conditions. Such enabling conditions represent opportunities

for policymakers to pursue actions that contribute to CRD beyond

direct risk management options such as climate adaptation and GHG

mitigation(Sections18.2.5.1, 18.2.5.2).

18.4.2.1 Governance and Policy

An overarching enabling condition for achieving system transitions and

transformations is the presence of enabling governance systems (very

high conﬁdence). Recent literature on the translation of governance

into system transitions in practice suggests four key actions are

important. The ﬁrst is the critical reﬂection on so-called ‘development

solutions’, alternatively framed by some as ‘empty promises’,

that worsen climate risk, inequity, injustice and ultimately lead to

unsustainable development (Mikulewicz, 2018; Mikulewicz and Taylor,

2020). Examples include development aid (Scoville-Simonds et al.,

2020), large-scale development projects such as biofuel production in

Ethiopia (Tufa etal., 2018) and urban growth management in Vietnam

(DiGregorio, 2015). The second is the recognition that while the power of

different actors and institutions is often tied to access to resources and

the ability to constrain the actions of others, other dimensions of power

such as its ability to produce knowledge as well as its contingency on

circumstances and relationships are also important in enabling energy

transitions (Avelino etal., 2016; Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016; Lockwood

et al., 2016; Ahlborg, 2017; Avelino and Grin, 2017; Partzsch, 2017;

Smith and Stirling, 2018). Third, governance systems can help to develop

productive interactions between formal government institutions, the

private sector and civil society including the provision ‘safe arenas’ for

social actors to deliberate and pursue transitional and transformational

change (Haukkala, 2018; Törnberg, 2018; Strazds; Ferragina etal., 2020;

Koch, 2020) (Section18.3.1, Box18.1). Fourth, governance can address

challenges such as climate change from a systems perspective and

2707

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

pursue interventions that address the interactions among development,

climate change, equity and justice, and planetary health (Harvey etal.,

2019; Hölscher et al., 2019). This is evidenced by recent experience

with the COVID-19 pandemic response as well as ongoing escalation

of disaster risk associated with extreme weather events (Walch, 2019;

Cohen, 2020; Schipper etal., 2020b; Wells etal., 2020).

One output from systems of governance is formal policy frameworks and

policies that inﬂuence processes and outcomes of system transitions

that support CRD (Section18.1.3). The Paris Agreement, for example,

provides a framework for CRD by deﬁning a mitigation-centric goal

of ‘limiting warming to well below 2°C and enabling a transition to

1.5°C’ (UNFCCC, 2015).It also provides for a broadly deﬁned global

adaptation goal (UNFCCC, 2015: Art. 7.1). The NDCs are the core

mechanism for achieving and enhancing climate ambitions under the

Paris Agreement. However, the pursuit of a given NDC within a speciﬁc

country will likely necessitate a range of other policy interventions

that have more immediate impact on technologies and behaviour,

implicating transitions in energy, industry, land and infrastructure

(very high conﬁdence) (Section 18.3.1). SDG-relevant activities are

increasingly incorporated into climate commitments in the NDCs (at

last count 94 NDCs also addressed SDGs), contributing to several (154

out of the 169) SDG targets (Brandi and Dzebo; Pauw etal., 2018).

This reﬂects the potential of the NDCs as near-term policy instruments

and signposts for progress towards CRD (medium agreement, limited

evidence) (McCollum etal., 2018b).

As reﬂected by the SDGs (and SDG 13 speciﬁcally), the mainstreaming

of climate change concerns into development policies is one mechanism

for pursuing sustainable development and CRD (very high conﬁdence).

However, such mainstreaming has also been critiqued for perpetuating

‘development as usual’, reinforcing established development logics,

structures and worldviews that are themselves contributing to climate

change and vulnerability (O’Brien etal., 2015) and for obscuring and

depoliticising adaptation choices into technocratic choices (Murtinho,

2016; Webber and Donner, 2017; Benjaminsen and Kaarhus, 2018; Khatri,

2018; Scoville-Simonds etal., 2020). The coordinated implementation

of sustainable development policy and climate action is nonetheless

crucial for ensuring that the attainment of one does not come at the

expense of others (Stafford-Smith etal., 2017). For example, aggressive

pursuit of climate policies that facilitate transitions in energy systems

can undermine efforts to secure sustainability transitions in other

systems (Sections18.3.1.1, 18.2.5.3, Table18.7).

Several non-climate international policy agreements provide context

for CRD such as the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Hjerpe etal.,

2015) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; UNFCCC,

1992), the UN Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation (UN, 1994), as

well as the more recent Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

(UNDRR, 2015) and the ‘new humanitarianisms’ which seeks to reduce

the gap between emergency assistance and longer term development

(Marin and Naess, 2017). Collectively they provide a global policy

framework that protects people’s rights that are potentially threatened

by climate change (Olsson etal., 2014). These policies are relevant to

transitions across multiple systems, particularly in societal systems

towards more equitable and just development.

18.4.2.2 Economics and Sustainable Finance

18.4.2.2.1 Economics

System transitions towards CRD is contingent on reducing the costs

of current climate variability on society while making investments that

prepare for the future effects of climate change. Climate change and

responses to climate change will affect many different economic sectors

both directly and indirectly (Stern, 2007; IPCC, 2014a; Hilmi etal., 2017).

As a consequence, the characteristics of economic systems will play an

important role in determining their resilience (very high conﬁdence).

These effects will occur within the context of other developments,

such as a growing world population, which increases environmental

pressures and pollution. This impact is higher for developing countries

than for high-income countries (Liobikienė and Butkus, 2018). While

looking for sustainable climate-resilient policies, many complex and

interconnected systems, including economic development, must be

considered in the face of global-scale changes (Hilmi and Safa, 2010).

Miller (2017) discusses some of the planning for, and application

of, adaptation measures that improve sustainability, noting the

importance of considering a range of factors including complexities

of interconnected systems, the inherent uncertainties associated with

projections of climate change impacts and the effects of global-scale

changes such as technological and economic development for decision

makers.For example, addressing climate impacts in isolation is unlikely

to achieve equitable, efﬁcient or effective adaptation outcomes(very

high conﬁdence). Instead, integrating climate resilience into growth

and development planning allows decision makers to identify what

sustainable development policies can support climate-resilient growth

and poverty reduction and understand better how patterns and trends

of economic development affect vulnerability and exposure to climate

impacts across sectors and populations, including distributional

effects (Doczi, 2015). Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi (2019) highlighted

that climate change mitigation policy can inﬂuence inequality both

positively and negatively. Although higher levels of poverty, corruption,

and economic and social inequalities can increase the risk of negative

outcomes, these potential negative effects would be mitigated if

inequality impacts were taken into consideration in all stages of policy

making (very high conﬁdence).

The primary objective of economic and ﬁnancial incentives around

carbon emissions is to redirect investment from high to low carbon

technologies (Komendantova et al., 2016). Recent years have seen

policy interventions to incentivise transitions in energy, land and

industrial systems to address climate change and sustainability

focus on price-based, as opposed to quantity based, interventions.

Price-based interventions aim at leveraging market mechanisms to

achieve greater efﬁciency in the allocation of resources and costs

of mitigating climate change. For example, carbon pricing initiatives

around the world today cover approximately 8 gigatons of carbon

dioxide emissions, equivalent to about 20% of global fossil energy

fuel emissions and 15% of total carbon dioxide GHG emissions(Boyce,

2018). Meanwhile, environmental taxes and green public procurement

push producers to eliminate the negative environmental effects

of production (Danilina and Trionfetti, 2019). There are several

advantages for environmental taxation including environmental

2708

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

effectiveness, economic efﬁciency, the ability to raise public revenue,

and transparency (very high conﬁdence). These gains can provide

more resource-efﬁcient production technologies and positively affect

economic competitiveness (Costantini etal., 2018).

Policies encouraging eco-innovation, deﬁned as ‘new ideas, behaviour,

products, and processes that contribute to a decreased environmental

burden’ (Yurdakul and Kazan, 2020), can positively affect economic

competitiveness. By implementing policies to encourage eco-

innovation, countries enhance their energy efﬁciency. These gains can

provide more resource-efﬁcient production technologies and positively

affect economic competitiveness (very high conﬁdence) (Costantini

etal., 2018; Liobikienė and Butkus, 2018). Other than eco-innovation,

it is important to also consider exnovation, meaning the phasing out

of old technologies, as otherwise the expansion of supply could lead

to a rebound owing to cheaper prices for carbon-based products (Arne

Heyen et al., 2017; David, 2017). Hence, decarbonisation strategies

that set limits to carbon-based trajectories can be beneﬁcial. Quantity-

based interventions—or so-called ‘command-and-control’ policies—

involve constraints on the quantity of energy consumption or GHG

emissions through laws, regulations, standards and enforcement, with

a focus on effectiveness rather than efﬁciency.

For a transition from dirty (more advanced) technologies to clean (less

advanced) ones, market-based instruments such as carbon taxes should

be considered alongside subsidies and other incentives that stimulate

innovation (Acemoglu etal., 2016). Research and development in energy

technologies, for example, can help reduce costs of deployment and

therefore the costs of operating in a carbon-constrained world. Hémous

(2016) indicates that a unilateral environmental policy which includes

both clean research subsidies and trade tax can ensure sustainable

growth, but unilateral carbon taxes alone might increase innovation in

polluting sectors and would not generally lead to sustainable growth.

18.4.2.2.2 Climate Finance

Achieving progress on system transitions will be contingent on the

ability of actors and institutions to access the ﬁnancing they need to

invest in innovation, adaptation and mitigation, and broader system

change (very high conﬁdence). By greening their investment portfolios,

investors can support reduction in vulnerability to the consequences

of climate change and the reduction of GHG emissions. Finance can

contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, for example, by efﬁciently

pricing the social cost of carbon, by reﬂecting the transition risks in

the valuation of ﬁnancial assets, and by channelling investments in

low-carbon technologies (OECD, 2017). At the same time, there is a

growing need to spur greater public and private capital into climate

adaptation and resilience including climate-resilient infrastructure

and nature-based solutions to climate change. For instance, the Green

Climate Fund, established within the framework of the UNFCCC, is

assisting developing countries in adaptation and mitigation initiatives

to counter climate change.

Recent evidence sheds light on the magnitude and pervasiveness

of climate risk exposure for global banks and ﬁnancial institutions.

According to Dietz etal. (2016), up to about 17% of global ﬁnancial

assets are directly exposed to climate risks, particularly the impacts of

extreme weather events on assets and their outputs. However, when

indirect exposures via ﬁnancial counterparts are considered, the share

of assets subject to climate risks is much larger (40–54%) (Battiston

etal., 2017). Hence, the magnitude of climate change-related risks is

substantial, and similar to those that started the 2008 ﬁnancial crisis

(high agreement, limited evidence).

Financial actors increasingly recognise that the generation of long-term,

sustainable ﬁnancial returns is dependent on stable, well-functioning

and well-governed social, environmental and economic systems (very

high conﬁdence) (Shiller, 2012; Schoenmaker and Schramade, 2020).

Institutional approaches to a variety of environmental domains (Krueger

etal., 2019) which seek to integrate the pursuit of green strategies

with ﬁnancial returns include targeted investments in green assets (e.g.,

green bonds, clean energy public equity) and specialised funds/vehicles

for renewable energy infrastructure (Tolliver etal., 2019; Gibon etal.,

2020); cleantech venture capital and alternative ﬁnance (Gianfrate and

Peri, 2019); investment screening to steer capital to green industries

(Nielsen and Skov, 2019; Ambrosio etal., 2020); and active ownership

to inﬂuence organisational behaviour (Silvola and Landau, 2021).

Despite the expansion of green mandates across the investment chain,

deﬁnitions of some of the asset classes associated with green investing

are ambiguous and poorly deﬁned. The EU taxonomy for sustainable

activities is a promising step in the right direction. For example, a

‘green’ label for bonds is often stretched to encompass ﬁnancing

facilities of issuers that misrepresent the actual environmental

footprint of their operations (the so-called risk of ‘greenwashing’).

Even in cases where the bonds’ proceeds are actually used to ﬁnance

green projects, investors often remain exposed to both the green and

‘brown’ assets of the issuers (Gianfrate and Peri, 2019; Flammer, 2020).

The heterogeneity of metrics and rating methodologies (along with

inherent conﬂict of interests between issuers, investors and score/

rating providers) results in inconsistent and unreliable quantiﬁcation

of the actual environmental footprint of corporate and sovereign

issuers (Battiston etal., 2017; Busch etal.).

In order to promote ﬁnancial climate-related disclosures for companies

and ﬁnancial intermediaries, the ﬁnancial system could play a key

role in pricing carbon and in allocating capital towards low-carbon

emission companies (Aldy and Gianfrate, 2019; Bento and Gianfrate,

2020; Aldy etal., 2021). Stable and predictable carbon-pricing regimes

would signiﬁcantly contribute to fostering ﬁnancial innovation

that can help further accelerate the decarbonisation of the global

economy, even in jurisdictions which are more lenient in implementing

climate mitigation actions (very high conﬁdence) (Baranzini et al.,

2017). A growing number of ﬁnancial regulators are intensifying

efforts to enhance climate-related disclosure of ﬁnancial actors.

In particular, the Financial Stability Board created the Task Force on

Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) to improve and increase

reporting of climate-related ﬁnancial information. Several countries

are considering implementing mandatory climate risk disclosure in

line with TCFD’s recommendations. Central Banks are also considering

mandatory disclosure and climate stress testing for banks. For instance,

in November 2020 the European Central Bank (ECB) published a guide

on climate-related and environmental risks explaining how the ECB

expects banks to prudently manage and transparently disclose such

2709

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

risks under current prudential rules. The ECB also announced that

banks in the Euro-zone will be stress tested on their ability to withstand

climate change-related risks. In addition to disclosure requirements

and stress testing, some Central Banks are considering the possibility

of steering or tilting the allocation of their assets to favour the less

polluting issuers (Schoenmaker, 2019). This, in turn, would translate

into lower cost of capital for cleaner sectors, signiﬁcantly accelerating

the greening of the real economy.

18.4.2.3 Institutional Capacity

Institutional capacity for system transitions refers to the capacity

of structures and processes, rules, norms and cultures to shape

development expectations and actions aimed at durable improvements

in human well-being. The AR5 highlighted the need for strong

institutions to create enabling environments for adaptation and GHG

mitigation action (Denton etal., 2014). Institutions stand within the

social and political practices and broader systems of governance

that ultimately drive adaptation and development processes and

outcomes. They are thus produced by them and can become tools by

which some actors constrain the actions of others (Gebreyes, 2018). As

a consequence, they and can become a signiﬁcant barrier to change,

whether incremental or more transformational (very high conﬁdence).

The post-AR5 focus on transformational adaptation and resilience

present in the literature suggests that institutions that enable system

transitions towards CRD are secure enough to facilitate a wide range

of voices, and legitimate enough to change goals or processes over

time, without reducing conﬁdence in their efﬁcacy.

The limited literature on institutions and pathways relevant to system

transitions and CRD suggests that institutions are most effective when

taking a development-ﬁrst approach to adaptation. This is consistent

with the principles of CRD which emphasise not simply reducing

climate risk, but rather making development processes resilient to

the changing climate. There is agreement in this literature that such

an approach allows for the effective integration of climate challenges

into existing policy and planning processes (very high conﬁdence)

(Pervin et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2017b; Mogelgaard et al., 2018).

However, this approach generally rests on an incremental framing of

institutional change (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009) based on two critical

assumptions. The ﬁrst is that existing processes and institutions are

capable of bringing about system transitions that generate desired

development outcomes and thus can be considered appropriate

vehicles for the achievement of CRD. A large critical literature questions

the efﬁcacy of formal state and multilateral institutions. The evidence

for the ability of local, informal institutions to achieve development

goals remains uneven, with robust evidence of positive impacts on

public service delivery, but more ambiguous evidence on behaviour

changes associated with strengthened institutions (Berkhout et al.,

2018). The second is that the mainstreaming of adaptation will bring

about changes to currently unsustainable development practices and

pathways, instead of merely strengthening development as usual by

subsuming adaptation to existing development pathways and allowing

them to endure in the face of growing stresses (Eriksen etal., 2015;

Godfrey-Wood and Otto Naess, 2016; Scoville-Simonds etal., 2020).

There is evidence that countries with poor governance have limited

adaptation planning or action at the national level, even when other

determinants of adaptive capacity are present (Berrang-Ford et al.,

2014). This suggests that, in these contexts, adaptation efforts are

likely to be subsumed to existing government goals and actions, rather

than having transformational impact.

18.4.2.4 Science, Technology and Innovation

Ongoing innovations in technology, ﬁnance and policy have enabled

more ambitious climate action over the past decade, including

signiﬁcant growth in renewable energy, electrical vehicles and energy

efﬁciency. However, access to, and the beneﬁts of, that innovation have

not been evenly distributed among global regions and communities,

and continued innovation is needed to facilitate climate action and

sustainable development (very high conﬁdence). Policymakers need

useful science and information (Cornell etal., 2013; Kirchhoff etal.,

2013; Calkins, 2015; IPCC, 2019 f; Guido etal., 2020) to make informed

decisions about possible risks, and the beneﬁts, costs and trade-offs

of available adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development

solutions (i.e., Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement; UNFCCC, 2015).

Moreover, recent literature has emphasised the need for deep

technological, as well social, changes to avert the risks of conventional

development trajectories (Gerst etal., 2013; IPCC, 2014a).

An effective and innovative technological regime is one that is

integrated with local social entities across different modes of life, local

governance processes (Pereira, 2018; Nightingale et al., 2020) and

local knowledge(s), which increasingly support adaptation to socio-

environmental drivers of vulnerability (Schipper etal., 2014; Nalau etal.,

2018; IPCC, 2019 f). These actors and their knowledge are often ignored

in favour of knowledge held by experts and policymakers, exacerbating

uneven power relations (Naess, 2013; Nightingale et al., 2020). For

example, achieving sustainability and shifting towards a low carbon

energy system (e.g., hydropower dams, wind farms) remains a contested

space with divergent interests, values and future prospects (Bradley and

Hedrén, 2014; Avila, 2018; Mikulewicz, 2019), and potential impacts

on human rights as embodied by the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC,

2015). A number of studies have emphasised the limits of relying upon

technology innovation and deployment (e.g., expansion of renewable

energy systems and/or carbon capture) as a solution to challenges of

climate change and sustainable development (Section18.3.1.2). This is

because such solutions may fail to consider the local historical contexts

and barriers to participation of vulnerable communities, restricting their

access to land, food, energy and resources for their livelihoods.

18.4.2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks

Enabling system transitions towards CRD is dependent in part on

the ability to monitor and evaluate system transitions and broader

development pathways to identify effective interventions and

barriers to their implementation (very high conﬁdence). However, the

monitoring and evaluation of individual system transitions, much less

CRD, remains highly challenging for multiple reasons (Persson, 2019).

The highly contextual nature of resilience, adaptation and sustainable

development means that, unlike climate mitigation, it is difﬁcult to

deﬁne universal metrics or targets for adaptation and resilience

(Pringle and Leiter, 2018); (Brooks etal., 2014). This is demonstrated

by the Paris Agreement’s global goal for adaptation, The mismatch

2710

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Box18.6 | ‘Green’ Strategies of Institutional Investors

Negative and Positive Screening. Investors assess the carbon footprint of issuers and identify the best and worst performers (Boermans

and Galema, 2019). The issuers with excessive carbon footprint are divested and fall into the ‘exclusion lists’ (negative screening).

Alternatively, the investors commit to pick only the best in class (positive screening). As a bare minimum, screening approaches force

more transparent environmental reporting from issuers. In the most optimistic scenario, to avoid exclusion lists issuers may progressively

divest their non-green operations. In the long term, the combination of positive and negative screening will reward sustainable issuers

relative to non-green sectors, thus reducing the cost of capital for less polluting entities.

Active Ownership. Equity investors can exercise the voting rights at shareholders’ meetings in relation to governance and business

strategy, including the environmental performance. In addition, institutional investors engage with the management and the boards

of directors of investee companies. Active ownership is therefore deﬁned as the full exercise of the rights that accrue to the ‘owners’

of the securities issued by companies (Dimson etal., 2015; Dimson etal., 2020). Active owners are entitled to question and challenge

the robustness of ﬁnancial analyses and the risk assessment behind strategic decisions including the environmental footprint ones. For

instance, since fossil fuel businesses face the prospect of dramatic business decline (Ansar etal., 2013) and must revisit their business

model to survive, active ownership by institutional investors may foster the transition to cleaner production and supply chain. Companies

more exposed to carbon risks particularly need the active support of long-term shareholders. In turn, investors adopting an active

ownership approach can manage their holdings’ exposure to climate change risks, thus protecting the value of their investments on a

long-term horizon (Krueger etal., 2019).

Specialized Financial Instruments and Investors.New asset classes have been created to address the climate change challenge.

Also, specialised investment funds and vehicles came to life with the primary objective of addressing climate issues. While these ﬁnancial

instruments and funds prioritise the achievement of climate objectives, they do not sacriﬁce ﬁnancial returns and are able to attract

private capital. To mention a few examples:

• Green bonds are typically issued by companies, banks, municipalities and governments with the commitment to use the proceeds

exclusively to ﬁnance or reﬁnance green projects, assets or business activities. These bonds are equivalent to any other bond issued

by the same entity except for the label of ‘greenness’ that ideally is veriﬁed ex ante at the launch and ex post when the proceeds

are actually used by the issuer. Early evidence show that green bonds do not penalise ﬁnancially issuers (Gianfrate and Peri, 2019;

Flammer, 2020).

• Carbon fundsare designed to help countries achieve long-term sustainability typicallyﬁnancingforest conservation. They are intended

to reduce climate change impacts from forest loss and degradation.

• Project ﬁnance. New renewable energy initiatives are likely to recur more and more to project ﬁnance. Project ﬁnance relies on the

creation of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), which is legally and commercially self-contained and serves only to run the renewable

energy project. The SPV is ﬁnanced without (or very limited) guarantees from the sponsors (typically energy companies: investors are

therefore paid back on the basis only of SPV’s future cash ﬂows only and cannot recourse on the sponsors’ assets) (Steffen, 2018).

• Cleantech venture capital. These funds invest exclusively in early-stage companies working on innovative, but not yet fully tested,

clean technologies. The risk proﬁle of such investments is usually very high. The extent to which this segment of the ﬁnancial

industry can successfully support ‘deep’ energy innovations is still debated (Gaddy etal., 2017). When cleantech start-ups develop

hardware requiring a high upfront investment, support from the public sector seems necessary to attract further investments from

large corporations and patient institutional investors.

• Crowdfunding and alternative ﬁnance are emerging as a channel to both ﬁnance small-scale clean energy projects as well as fund

early-stage innovative clean technologies (Cumming etal., 2017; Bento etal., 2019).

between timescales associated with resilience and adaptation

interventions and those over which the results of such interventions

are expected to become apparent tends to result in a focus on the

measurement of spending, outputs and short-term outcomes, rather

than longer-term impacts (Brooks etal., 2014; Pringle and Leiter, 2018).

The need to assess resilience and adaptation against a background of

evolving climate hazards, and to link resilience and adaptation with

development outcomes, present further methodological challenges

(very high conﬁdence) (Brooks etal., 2014).

Currently, the ability to monitor different components of CRD are in

various stages of maturity (very high conﬁdence). Monitoring of the

SDGs, for example, is a routine established practice at global and

regional levels, and UNDP publishes annual updates on progress

towards the SDGs (United Nations, 2021). For resilience, Brooks etal.

(2014) identify three broad approaches to its measurement, each of

which could offer potential mechanisms for monitoring progress

towards CRD. One is a ‘hazards’ approach, in which resilience is

described in terms of the magnitude of a particular hazard that can

be accommodated by a system, useful in contexts where thresholds

2711

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

in climate and related parameters can be identiﬁed and linked with

adverse impacts on human populations, infrastructure and other

systems (Naylor etal., 2020). An ‘impacts’ approach is one in which

resilience is measured in terms of actual or avoided impacts and is

suited for tracking adaptation success in delivering CRD over longer

timescales, for example at the national level (Brooks et al., 2014).

Finally, a ‘systems’ approach is one where resilience is described in

terms of the characteristics of a system using quantitative or qualitative

indicators which are often associated with different ‘dimensions’ of

resilience (Serﬁlippi and Ramnath, 2018; Saja etal., 2019). This allows

measurement of key indicators that are proxies for resilience at regular

intervals, even in the absence of signiﬁcant climate hazards and

associated disruptions (very high conﬁdence) (Brooks etal., 2014) (see

also Cross-Chapter BoxADAPT in Chapter 1). Similar criteria could be

applied to evaluating adaptation options and their implementation as

well as various interventions in pursuit of SDGs.

18.4.3 Arenas of Engagement

Much of the enabling conditions for system transitions discussed

in Section18.4.2 are inherently linked to actors and their agency in

pursuing system change. Yet a signiﬁcant literature has developed

since the AR5, exploring not only the role of different actors in pursuing

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development options, but also

how those actors interact with one another to drive outcomes. CRDPs are

determined by the interactions between societal actors and networks,

including government, civil society and the private sector, as well as

science and the media. The resultant social choices and cumulative

private and public actions (and inactions) are institutionalised through

both formal and informal institutions that evolve over time and seek to

provide societal stability in the face of change. The degree to which the

emergent pathways foster just and CRD depends on how contending

societal interests, values and worldviews are reconciled through these

interactions. These interactions occur in many different arenas of

engagement, that is, the settings, places and spaces in which societal

actors interact to inﬂuence the nature and course of development,

including political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge–

technology and community arenas (Figures18.1, 18.2).

For example, political arenas range from formalised election and voting

procedures to more informal and less transparent practices, such as

special interest lobbying. Town squares and streets can become sites

of political struggle and dissent, including protests against climate

inaction. As a more speciﬁc case in point, the formal space for national,

sub-national and international adaptation governance emerged at

COP 16 (UNFCCC, 2010) when adaptation was recognised as having

a similar level of priority as mitigation. The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC,

2015) built on this and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda

(United Nations, 2015) to link adaptation to development and climate

justice, widening the scope of adaptation governance beyond formal

government institutions. It also highlighted the importance of multi-

level adaptation governance, including non-state voices from civil

society and the private sector. This implied the need for wider arenas

and modes of engagement around adaptation (Chung Tiam Fook, 2017;

Lesnikowski etal., 2017; IPCC, 2018a) that facilitate coordination and

convergence among these diverse actors including individual citizens

to collectively solve problems and unlock the synergies between

adaptation and mitigation and sustainable development (IPCC, 2018a;

Romero-Lankao etal., 2018).

There are many other visible and less visible arenas of engagement

in the other interconnected spheres of societal interaction spanning

scales from the local to international level. The metaphor of arenas

derives from diverse social and political theory, with applications

in studies of, among other things, governance transformation and

transitions (Healey, 2006; Jørgensen, 2012; Jørgensen et al., 2017).

It underscores that these arenas can be enduring or temporary in

nature, are historically situated and often spatially bounded, and

signiﬁes the many different mechanisms by which societal actors

interact in dynamic and emergent ways. Power and politics impact

access and inﬂuence in these arenas of engagement—with varying

levels of inclusion and exclusion shaping the nature and trajectory of

development. In practice, some arenas of engagement are ‘struggle

arenas’ as different societal actors strive to inﬂuence the trajectory of

development, with inevitable winners and losers.

Institutional arrangements to foster CRD are at an early stage of

development in most regions (medium agreement, limited evidence).

They need to be further clariﬁed and strengthened to enable a sharing of

resources and responsibilities that facilitate climate actions embracing

climate resilience, equity, justice, poverty alleviation and sustainable

development (Wood etal., 2017; IPCC, 2018a; Reckien etal., 2018).

These endeavours are strongly inﬂuenced by how contested and

complementary worldviews about climate change and development

are mobilised by societal actors to justify, direct, accelerate and deepen

transformational climate action or entrench maladaptive business as

usual practices (Section18.4.3.1).

18.4.3.1 Worldviews

Worldviews are overarching systems of meaning and meaning-making

that inform how people interpret, enact and co-create reality (De Witt

etal., 2016). Worldviews shape the vision, beliefs, attitudes, values,

emotions, actions and even political and institutional arrangements.

As such, they can promote holistic, egalitarian approaches to enable,

accelerate and deepen climate action and environmental care

(Ramkissoon and Smith, 2014; De Witt etal., 2016; Lacroix and Gifford,

2017; Sanganyado etal., 2018; Brink and Wamsler, 2019). Alternatively,

they can also serve as signiﬁcant barriers to system transitions

and transformation, based on anthropocentric, mechanistic and

materialistic worldviews and the utilitarian, individualist or skeptical

values and attitudes they often promote (very high conﬁdence)

(Beddoe etal., 2009; van Egmond and de Vries, 2011; Stevenson etal.,

2014; Zummo etal., 2020).

Traditional, modern and post-modern worldviews have different, and in

many ways, complementary potentials for enabling diverse approaches

to climate action and sustainable development. They can also shift

societal values and societal concern for climate change (Shi et al.,

2015), resulting in changes in behaviour and acceptance of climate

change policies (van Egmond and de Vries, 2011; Van Opstal and Hugé,

2013; De Witt etal., 2016; Shaw, 2016) which are predictors of concern.

Among the challenges of strongly different climate-related worldviews,

2712

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

is that they rarely co-exist. Some worldviews become incompatible or

hostile to other worldviews, openly seeking to dominate, eliminate

or segregate competing perspectives (medium agreement, medium

evidence) (de Witt, 2015; Jackson, 2016; Nightingale, 2016; Xue etal.,

2016; Goldman etal., 2018).

To address these difﬁcult contests, worldviews regarding climate and

global environmental change are often expressed in scientiﬁc language

and themes (Parsons etal., 2016; Goldman etal., 2018). This can exclude

other worldviews grounded in other forms of knowledge or ways of

knowing which ultimately narrows understanding of climate change

and the solution space. Hence, the post-AR5 literature on worldviews

focuses on the numerous meanings, associations, narratives and

frames of climate change and how these shape perceptions, attitudes

and values (Morton, 2013; Boulton, 2016; Hulme, 2018; Nightingale

Böhler, 2019). The recognition of the diversity of interpretations and

meanings has led to multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research

that incorporates the humanities and the arts (Murphy, 2011; Elliott

and Cullis, 2017; Steelman etal., 2019; Tauginienė etal., 2020), feminist

studies (MacGregor, 2003; Demeritt etal., 2011; Bell, 2013; Brink and

Wamsler, 2019; Plesa, 2019) and religious studies (Sachdeva, 2016;

McPhetres and Zuckerman, 2018) to examine diverse understandings

of reality and knowledge possibilities around climate change. In

addition, literature on cultural cognition, epistemological plurality and

relational ontologies draws on non-Western worldviews and forms of

knowledge (Goldman etal., 2018)); .

On the other hand, the tendency for certain worldviews to dominate

the policy discourse has the potential to exacerbate social, economic

and political inequities as well as ontological, epistemic and procedural

injustices (very high conﬁdence). Research aimed at exploring the

existing political ontology and knowledge politics of exclusion that

marginalise certain communities and actors originated in academic or

scientiﬁc perspectives. This includes institutions such as the IPCC and is

subsequently replicated in social representations, including the media,

public policy and the development agenda, narrowing possibilities

for social transformation (Jackson, 2014; Luton, 2015; Escobar, 2016;

Burman, 2017; Newman etal., 2018; Sanganyado etal., 2018; Wilson

and Inkster, 2018).

18.4.3.2 Political and Government Arenas

CRD is embedded in social systems, in the political economy and its

underlying ideologies, interests and institutions (Section 18.4.1).

The pursuit of CRD, and shifting development pathways away from

prevailing trends, unfolds in an array of political arenas, from the

ofﬁces of bureaucrats to parliament buildings, sidewalks and streets,

to discursive arenas in which governance actors interact—from the

village level to global forums (Jørgensen etal., 2017; Montoute etal.,

2019; Sørensen and Torﬁng, 2019; Pasquini, 2020). Paradoxically, the

post-AR5 literature suggests that political arenas are often used to

shut down efforts to explore the solution space for climate change

and sustainable development (medium agreement, robust evidence)

(e.g., Kenis and Mathijs, 2012; Kenis and Mathijs, 2014; Beveridge and

Koch, 2016; Kenis and Lievens, 2016; Driver etal., 2018; Meriluoto,

2018; Swyngedouw, 2018; Mocca and Osborne, 2019). Power

relationships among different actors create opportunities for people to

be included or excluded in collective action (Siméant-Germanos, 2019)

(Sections18.3.1.6, 18.4.3.5). Therefore, as evidenced by examples from

the UK (MacGregor, 2019) and China (Huang and Sun, 2020), small-

scale collective environmental action has transformative potential

in part owing to its ability to increase levels of cooperation among

different actors (medium agreement, limited evidence) (Green etal.,

2020; Blühdorn and Deﬂorian, 2021).

In addition to the ‘arm’s length’ acts of voting, social mobilisation,

protest and dissent can be critical catalysts for transformative change

(Porta, 2020). These are competitions for recognition, power and

authority (Nightingale, 2017) that take place in settings. This is evidenced

by experiences from the energy sector in Bangladesh which became

a contested national policy domain and where social movements

eventually transformed the nation’s energy politics (Faruque, 2017).

Similarly, in Germany, the nation’s energy transition led to marked

changes in agency and legal frameworks, and energy markets drove

the proliferation of so-called municipalisations of energy systems—a

reversal of years of system privatisation (Becker et al., 2016).

Meanwhile, experience in Bolivia demonstrate that the transformative

potential of political conﬂict depends on transcending narrow issues

to form broad coalitions with a collective identity that challenge

prevailing development objectives and trajectories (Andreucci, 2019).

Such examples illustrate the power of the communities as a vanguard

against environmentally destructive practices (Villamayor-Tomas

and García-López, 2018). Social movements have been successful at

countering fossil fuel extraction (Piggot, 2018) and open up political

opportunities in the face of increasing efforts to capture natural

resources (Tramel, 2018) and are bolstered by resistance from within

some corporations and/or their shareholders (Fougère and Bond, 2016;

Swafﬁeld, 2017; Walton, 2018a; Walton, 2018b).

Coincident with these social movements targeting climate change and

sustainability has been a rise of political conservatism and populism as

well as growth in misinformation (high agreement, medium evidence)

(Mahony and Hulme, 2016; Swyngedouw, 2019). This reﬂects efforts

to maintain the status quo by actors in positions of power in the face

of rising social inertia for climate action (Brulle and Norgaard, 2019).

Political arenas of the future could include a new body politic that

integrates non-humans and a new geo-spatial politics (Latour etal.,

2018).

As introduced in the discussion of governance as an enabling condition

(Section18.4.2.1), a wide range of actors are involved in successful

adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability policy and practice

including national, regional and local governments, communities and

international agencies (Lwasa, 2015). As of 2018, 197countries had

between them over 1500 laws and policies addressing climate change

as compared with 60countries with such legislation in 1997 when the

Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon (Nachmany etal., 2017; Nachmany

and Setzer, 2018). In judicial branches, climate change litigation is

increasingly becoming an important inﬂuence on policy and corporate

behaviour among investors, activists and local and state governments

(Setzer and Byrnes, 2019). There is enhanced action on climate change

at both national and sub-national levels, even in cases where national

policies are inimical, as in the USA (Carmin etal., 2012; Hansen etal.,

2013).

2713

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG | The Role of Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge in

Understanding and Adapting to Climate Change

Authors: Tero Mustonen (Finland), Sherilee Harper (Canada), Gretta Pecl (Australia), Vanesa Castán Broto (Spain), Nina Lansbury

(Australia), Andrew Okem (Nigeria/South Africa), Ayansina Ayanlade (Nigeria), Jackie Dawson (Canada), Pauline Harris (Aotearoa-New

Zealand), Pauliina Feodoroff (Finland), Deborah McGregor (Canada)

Indigenous knowledge refers to the understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction

with their natural surroundings (UNESCO, 2018; IPCC, 2019a). Local knowledge refers to the understandings and skills developed by

individuals and populations, speciﬁc to the places where they live (UNESCO, 2018; IPCC, 2019a). Indigenous knowledge and local

knowledge are inherently valuable but have only recently begun to be appreciated and in western scientiﬁc assessment processes in their

own right (Ford etal., 2016). In the past these often endangered ways of knowing have been suppressed or attacked (Mustonen, 2014).

Yet these knowledge systems represent a range of cultural practices, wisdom, traditions and ways of knowing the world that provide

accurate and useful climate change information, observations and solutions (very high conﬁdence) (Table Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG.1).

Rooted in their own contextual and relative embedded locations, some of these knowledges represent unbroken engagement with the

earth, nature and weather for many tens of thousands of years, with an understanding of the ecosystem and climatic changes over

longer-term timescales that is held both as knowledge by Indigenous Peoples and local peoples, as well as in the archaeological record

(Barnhardt and Angayuqaq, 2005; UNESCO, 2018).

Indigenous Peoples around the world often hold unique worldviews that link today’s generations with past generations. In particular,

many Indigenous Peoples consider concepts of responsibility through intergenerational equity, thereby honouring both past and future

generations (Matsui, 2015; McGregor etal., 2020). This can often be in sharp contrast to environmental valuing and decision making that

occurs in Western societies (Barnhardt and Angayuqaq, 2005). Therefore, consideration of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge

needs to be a priority in the assessment of adaptation futures (Nakashima etal., 2012); Ford etal., 2016) (Chapter 1), although adequate

indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights require legal and non-legal measures for recognition and protection (Janke, 2018).

Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge are crucial to address environmental impacts, such as climate change, where the uncertainty

of outcome is high and a range of responses are required (Mackey and Claudie, 2015). However, working with this knowledge in an

appropriate and ethically acceptable way can be challenging. For instance, questions of data ‘validity’ and the requirement to communicate

such knowledge in the dominant language can lead to inaccurate portrayals of Indigenous knowledge as inferior to science. This may

overlook the uniqueness of Indigenous knowledge and then lead to the overall devaluation of indigenous political economies, cultural

ecologies, languages, educational systems and spiritual practices (Smith, 2013; Sillitoe, 2016; Naude, 2019; Barker and Pickerill, 2020).

Furthermore, Indigenous knowledge is too often only sought superﬁcially—focusing only on the ‘what’, rather than the ‘how’ of climate

change adaptation and/or seen through the lenses of ‘romantic gloriﬁcation’ leaving little room for the knowledge to be expressed as

authored by the communities and knowledge holders themselves (Yunkaporta, 2019).

Multiple knowledge systems and frameworks

Indigenous knowledge systems include not only the speciﬁc narratives and practices to make sense of the world, but also profound

sources of ethics and wisdom. They are networks of actors and institutions that organise the production, transfer and use of knowledge

(Löfmarck and Lidskog, 2017). There is a pluralism of forms of knowledge that emerge from oral traditions, local engagement with

multiple spaces, and Indigenous cultures (Peterson etal., 2018). Recognising such multiplicity of forms of knowledge has long been

an important concern within sustainability science (Folke etal., 2016). Less dominant forms of knowledge should not be put aside

because they are not comparable or complementary with scientiﬁc knowledge (Brattland and Mustonen, 2018; Mustonen, 2018; Ford

etal., 2020; Ogar etal., 2020). Instead, Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge can shape how climate change risk is understood

and experienced, the possibility of developing climate change solutions grounded in place-based experiences, and the development of

governance systems that match the expectations of different Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge holders (very high conﬁdence).

Different frameworks that enable the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge have emerged from efforts to utilise more than one knowledge

system (robust evidence, high agreement). For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES) has developed a ‘nature’s contribution to peoples’ framework that provides a common conceptual vocabulary and

structural analysis (Díaz etal., 2015; Tengö etal., 2017; Díaz etal., 2018; Peterson etal., 2018). The IPBES approach complements other

efforts to study areas of intersection between scientiﬁc and indigenous worldviews (Barnhardt and Angayuqaq, 2005; Huaman and

Sriraman, 2015) or ‘boundaries’ that illustrate ‘blind spots’ in scientiﬁc knowledge (Cash etal., 2003; Clark etal., 2016; Brattland and

Mustonen, 2018). These frameworks highlight areas of collaboration but provide less guidance in areas where sources of evidence

conﬂict across different knowledge systems (Löfmarck and Lidskog, 2017). These experiences suggest that the inclusion of Indigenous

knowledge and local knowledge in international assessments may transform the process of assessment of scientiﬁc, technical and

2714

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

socioeconomic evidence (medium evidence, high agreement). These knowledge systems also point to novel discoveries that may be still

unknown to the scientiﬁc world but have been known by communities for millennia (Mustonen and Feodoroff, 2020).

The importance of free and prior-informed consent

Obtaining free and prior-informed consent is a necessary but not sufﬁcient condition to engage in knowledge production with Indigenous

Peoples (Sillitoe, 2016). Self-determination in climate change assessment, response and governance is critical (Chakraborty and Sherpa,

2021), and Indigenous Peoples are actively contributing to respond to climate change (Etchart, 2017). Climate change assessment and

adaptation should be self-determined and led by Indigenous Peoples, acknowledge the importance of developing genuine partnerships,

respect Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, and acknowledge Indigenous Peoples as stewards of their environment (Country

etal., 2016; Country etal., 2018; ITK, 2019; Barker and Pickerill, 2020; Chakraborty and Sherpa, 2021). Supporting Indigenous Peoples’

leadership and rights in climate adaptation options at the local, regional, national and international levels is an effective way to ensure that

such options are adapted to their living conditions and do not pose additional detrimental impacts to their lives (very high conﬁdence).

Chapter 18 shows that the transformations required to deliver climate-resilient futures will create societal disruptions, with impacts that

are most often unevenly experienced by groups with high exposure and sensitivity to climate change, including Indigenous Peoples and

local communities (Schipper etal., 2020a). Climate-resilient futures depend on ﬁnding strategies to address the causes and drivers of

deep inequities (Chapter 18). For example, climate-resilient futures will depend on recognising the socioeconomic, political and health

inequities that often affect Indigenous Peoples (Mapfumo etal., 2016; Ludwig and Poliseli, 2018) (very high conﬁdence).

International conventions to support and utilise Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge

Several tools within international conventions may support instruments to develop equitable processes that facilitate the inclusion of

Indigenous knowledge and leadership in climate change adaptation initiatives. The International Labour Convention 69 recognised

Indigenous People’s right to self-determination in 1989 (ILO, 1989). The United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(United Nations, 2007) includes articles on the right to development (Article 23), the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive

spiritual relationship and to uphold responsibilities to future generations (Article 25), and the right to the conservation and protection

of the environment and the productive capacity of their territories (Article 29). Article 26 upholds the right to the lands, territories and

resources, the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, and legal recognition and protection of these lands, territories and

resources. Indigenous Peoples are also recognised within the Sustainable Development Goals as a priority group (Carino and Tamayo,

2019). International events such as the ‘Resilience in a time of uncertainty: Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change’ conference brought

together Indigenous Peoples’ representatives and government leaders from around the world to discuss the role of Indigenous Peoples

in climate adaptation (UNESCO, 2015).

The value of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in climate adaptation planning

There have been increasing efforts to enable Indigenous knowledge holders to participate directly in IPCC assessment reports (Ford

etal., 2012; Nakashima etal., 2012; Ford etal., 2016). Adaptation efforts have beneﬁted from the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge

and local knowledge (IPCC, 2019e) (very high conﬁdence). Moreover, it has been recognised that including Indigenous knowledge and

local knowledge in IPCC reports can contribute to overcoming the combined challenges of climate change, food security, biodiversity

conservation, and combating desertiﬁcation and land degradation (IPCC, 2019c) (high conﬁdence). Limiting warming to 1.5°C necessitates

building the capability of formal assessment processes to respect, include and utilise Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge (IPCC,

2018a) (medium evidence, high agreement).

However, these efforts have been accompanied by a recognition that ‘integration’ of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge cannot

mean that those knowledge systems are subsumed or required to be validated through typical scientiﬁc means (Gratani etal., 2011;

Matsui, 2015). Such a critique of ‘validity’ can be inappropriate, unnecessary, can disrespect Indigenous Peoples’ own identities and

histories, limits the advancement and sharing of these perspectives in the formal literature, and overlooks the structural drivers of

oppression and endangerment that are associated with Western civilisation (Ford etal., 2016). Moreover, by underutilising Indigenous

knowledge and local knowledge systems, opportunities that could otherwise facilitate effective and feasible adaptation action can be

overlooked. We should also reserve space for the understanding that each cultural knowledge system, building on linguistic-cultural

endemicity, is unique and inherently valuable.

Indigenous Peoples have often constructed their ways of knowing using oral histories as one of the vehicles of mind and memory,

observance, governance and maintenance of customary law (Table Cross-Chapter Box INDIG.2). These ways of knowing can also

incorporate the relationships between multiple factors simultaneously which adds particular value towards understanding complex

systems that is in contrast to the dominant reductionist, Western approach, noting that non-reductionist approaches also exist (Ludwig

etal., 2014; Hoagland, 2017).

Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG (continued)Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG (continued)

2715

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

For climate research, the role of oral histories as a part of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge is extremely relevant. For example,

ocean adaptation initiatives can be guided by oral historians and keepers of knowledge who can convey new knowledge and baselines of

ecosystem change over long-time frames (Nunn and Reid, 2016). Oral histories can also convey cultural indicators and linguistic devices

of species identiﬁcation as a part of a local dialect matrix, and changes in ecosystems and species using interlinkages not available to

science (Mustonen, 2013; Frainer etal., 2020). Oral histories attached to maritime place names, especially underwater areas (Brattland

and Nilsen, 2011), can position observations relevant for understanding climate change over long ecological timeframes (Nunn and Reid,

2016). Species abundances, well-being and locations are some of the examples present in the ever-evolving oral histories as living ways

of knowing. Indigenous knowledge and oral histories may also have the potential to convey governance, moral and ethical frameworks

of sustainable livelihoods and cultures (Mustonen and Shadrin, 2020) rooted in the particular Indigenous or local contexts that are not

otherwise available in written or published forms.

Climate change research involving Indigenous Peoples and local communities has shown that the generation, innovation, transmission

and preservation of Indigenous knowledge is threatened by climate change (Kermoal and Altamirano-Jiménez, 2016; Simonee etal.,

2021). This is because Indigenous knowledge is taught, local knowledge is gained through experience, and relationships with the land

are sustained through social engagement within and among families, communities and other societies (Tobias J.K, 2014; Kermoal and

Altamirano-Jiménez, 2016). The knowledge that has traditionally been passed on in support of identity, language and purpose has been

disrupted at an intergenerational level (Lemke and Delormier, 2017). Many of these dynamics have affected local knowledge transfers

equally (Mustonen, 2013). This scenario represents a tension for Indigenous Peoples, where Indigenous knowledge in the form of land-

based life ways, languages, food security, intergenerational transmission and application are threatened by climate change, yet in parallel,

these same practices can enable adaptation and resilience (McGregor etal., 2020).

TableCross-ChapterBoxINDIG.1 | Examples of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge about climate change used in this Assessment Report

Issue Examples of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ action Context, peoples and location Source

Climate

forecasting/

early warning

Phenological cues to forecast and respond to climate change Smallholder farmers, Delta State, Nigeria

Chapter 9

Forecasting of weather and climate variation through observation of the natural

environment (e.g., changes in insects and wildlife).

Afar pastoralists, north-eastern Ethiopia

Observation of wind patterns to plan response to coastal erosion/ﬂooding Inupiat, Alaska, USA Chapter 14

Sky and moon observation to determine the onset of rainy season Maya, Guatemala Chapter 12

Fire hazards Prescribed burning

Indigenous nations in Venezuela, Brazil,

Guyana, Canada and USA

Chapter 12

Chapter 14

Crop yield/food

security

Water management, native seeds conservation and exchange, crop rotation, polyculture

and agroforestry

Mapuche, Chile Chapter 12

Crop association (milpa) agroforestry, land preparation and tillage practices, native seed

selection and exchange, adjusting planting calendars

Maya, Guatemala Chapter 12

Harvesting rainwater and the use of maize landraces by Indigenous farmers to adapt to

climate impacts and promote food security in Mexico

Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico Chapter 14

Livelihood and

well-being

Cultural values ingrained in knowledge system: reciprocity, collectiveness, equilibrium and

solidarity

Quechua, Cusco, Peru Chapter 12

Ecosystem

degradation

Ecosystem restoration including rewilding

Sámi, Nenets, and Komi, Scandinavia and

Siberia

Chapter 13

Collaboration with researchers, foresters and landowners to manage native black ash

deciduous trees against emerald ash borer

Indigenous Nations in Canada and USA Chapter 14

Selection and planting of native plants that reduce erosion

Whole-of-island approaches that embed Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in

environmental governance

Small Islands States (as deﬁned by Chapter

15)

Chapter 15

Fisheries Traditional climate-resilient ﬁshing approaches

Indigenous nations across North America

and the Arctic

Chapter 14

CCP6

Management of

urban resources

Restoration of traditional network of water tanks

Traditional communities and activists in

South Indian cities such as Bengaluru

Chapter 6

Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG (continued)

2716

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

TableCross-ChapterBoxINDIG.2 | Case study summary

Region Summary

Africa

Many rural smallholder farmers in Africa use their ingrained Indigenous knowledge systems to navigate climatic changes as many do not have access to

Western systems of weather forecasting. Instead, these farmers have been reported to use observations of clouds and thunderstorms, and migration of

local birds to determine the start of the wet season, as well as create temporary walls by rivers to store water during droughts. Indigenous knowledge

systems should be incorporated into strategic plans for climate change adaptation policies to help smallholder farmers cope with climate change

(Mapfumo etal., 2016).

Arctic

For local Inuit hunters and others who travel across Arctic land, ice and sea, there is evidence that the most accurate approach to reduce risk and enable

informed decision making for safe travel is to combine Indigenous knowledge and local observations of weather with ofﬁcial online weather and marine

services information that is available nationally (Simonee etal., 2021). Combining Inuit and local knowledge of weather, water, ice and climate information

with ofﬁcial forecasts has provided local hunters with more accurate, locally relevant information, and has on several occasions helped to avoid major

weather-related accidents.

Latin America

In Venezuela, Brazil and Guyana, Indigenous knowledge systems have led to a lower incidence of wildﬁres, reducing the risk of rising temperatures and

droughts (Mistry etal., 2016). The Mapuche Indigenous Peoples in Chile use various traditional and sustainable agricultural practices, including native

seed conservation and exchange (trafkintu), crop rotation, polyculture and tree-crop association. They also give thanks to Mother Earth through rituals

to nurture socio-ecological sustainability (Parraguez-Vergara etal., 2018). In the rural Cusco Region of Peru, ‘cultures values known in Quechua as ayni

(reciprocity), ayllu (collectiveness), yanantin (equilibrium) and chanincha (solidarity)’ have led to successful adaptation to climate change (Walshe and

Argumedo, 2016).

Māori

(Aotearoa New

Zealand)

The traditional calendar system (maramataka) used by the Māori in Aotearoa, New Zealand, incorporates ecological, environmental and celestial

Indigenous knowledge. Māori practitioners are collaborating with scientists through the Effect of Climate Change on Traditional Māori Calendars project

(Harris etal., 2017) to examine if climatic changes are impacting the use of the maramataka, which can be used as a framework to identify and explain

environmental changes. Observations are being documented across Aotearoa, New Zealand to improve understandings of environmental changes and

explore the use of Indigenous Māori knowledge in climate change assessment and adaptation.

Skolt Sámi

(Finland)

In 2011, the Skolt Sámi in Finland began the ﬁrst co-governance initiative where collaborative management and Indigenous knowledge were utilised to

effectively manage a river and Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). This species is culturally and spiritually signiﬁcant to the Skolt Sámi and has been adversely

impacted by rising water temperatures and habitat loss (Brattland and Mustonen, 2018; Feodoroff, 2020; Ogar etal., 2020) (see also CCP Polar). Using

Indigenous knowledge, they mapped changes in catchment areas and used cultural indicators to determine the severity of changes. Through collaborative

management efforts that utilised both Indigenous knowledge and science, spawning and juvenile habitat areas for trout and grayling were restored,

demonstrating the autonomous community capacity (Huntington etal., 2017) of the Indigenous Skolt Sámi and the capacity of Indigenous knowledge to

address climate change impacts and detection of very ﬁrst microplastics pollution together with science (Pecl etal., 2017; Brattland and Mustonen, 2018;

Mustonen and Feodoroff, 2020).

The strong role of governments in climate action has implications for

the nature of democracy, the relationship between the local and the

national state, and between citizens and the state (Dodman and Mitlin,

2015). More integration of government policy and interventions across

scales, accompanied by capacity building to accelerate adaptation is

needed (very high conﬁdence). Key needs include enhanced funding,

clear roles and responsibilities, increased institutional capability,

strategic approaches, community engagement and judicial integrity

(Lawrence etal., 2015). More resources, and more active involvement

of the private sector and civil society can help maintain adaptation on

the policy agenda. Multi-level adaptation approaches are also relevant

in low-income countries where local governments have limited ﬁnancial

resources and human capabilities, often leading to dependency on

national governments and donor organisations (Donner etal., 2016;

Adenle etal., 2017).

Unlike mitigation, adaptation has traditionally been viewed as a local

process, involving local authorities, communities and stakeholders

(Preston etal., 2015). The literature on the governance of adaptation

continues to emphasise that local governments have demonstrated

leadership in implementation by collaborating with the private sector

and academia. Local governments can also play a key role (Melica

et al., 2018; Romero-Lankao et al., 2018) in converging mitigation

and adaptation strategies, coordinating and developing effective

local responses, enabling community engagement and more effective

policies around exposure and vulnerability reduction (Fudge et al.,

2016). Local authorities are well-positioned to involve the wider

community in designing and implementing climate policies and

adaptation implementation (Slee, 2015; Fudge et al., 2016). Local

governments also help deliver basic services and protect their integrity

from climate impacts (Austin etal., 2015; Cloutier etal., 2015; Nalau

et al., 2015; Araos et al., 2017). However, the resource limitations

of local governments as well as their small geographic sphere of

inﬂuence suggests the need for more funding for this from higher

levels of government, particularly national governments, to address

adaptation gaps (very high conﬁdence) (Dekker, 2020). Local adaptation

implementation gaps can be linked to limited political commitment

at higher levels of government and weak cooperation between key

stakeholders (Runhaar, 2018). Incongruities and conﬂicts can exist

between adaptation agendas pursued by national governments and

the spontaneous adaptation practices of communities. There may be

grounds for re-evaluating current consultative processes integral to

policy development, if narrow technical approaches emerge as the

norm for adaptation (Smucker etal., 2015).

Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG (continued)

2717

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Therefore, the traditional view of adaptation as a local process

has now widened to recognise it as a multi-actor process that

transcends scales from the local and sub-national to national and

even international (very high conﬁdence) (Mimura etal., 2014). Many

of the impacts of climate change are both local and transboundary,

so that local, bilateral and multilateral cooperation is needed

(Nalau etal., 2015; Donner etal., 2016; Magnan and Ribera, 2016;

Tilleard and Ford, 2016; Lesnikowski etal., 2017). National policies

and transnational governance should be seen as complementary,

especially where they favour transnational engagement with sub-

and non-state actors (Andonova etal., 2017). National governments

typically act as a pivot for adaptation coordination, planning,

determining policy priorities, and distributing ﬁnancial, institutional

and sometimes knowledge resources. National governments are also

accountable to the international community through international

agreements. National governments have helped enhance adaptive

capacity through building awareness of climate impacts, encouraging

economic growth, providing incentives, establishing legislative

frameworks conducive to adaptation and communicating climate

change information (Berrang-Ford etal., 2014; Massey etal., 2014;

Austin etal., 2015; Huitema etal., 2016).

18.4.3.3 Economic and Financial Arenas

The performance of local, national and global economies is a priority

consideration shaping perceptions of climate risk and the costs and

beneﬁts of different policy responses to climate change. The most

commonly used indicator of performance is GDP (Hoekstra etal., 2017).

Traditionally, national development efforts have sought to maximise

the growth of GDP under the assumption that GDP growth equates

not only to economic prosperity (including poverty reduction) but

also to increased efﬁciency and reduced environmental externalities

(Ota, 2017). Such assumptions often employ models such as the

environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) that postulates that economic

development initially increases environmental impacts, but these

trends eventually reverse with continued economic growth. Wealthy

nations of the Global North, including for example the USA, Great

Britain, Iceland and Japan, have had success over the past decade in

reducing their GHG emissions while growing their economies (very

high conﬁdence). However, attempts to empirically test EKC in different

national contexts has yielded mixed results. Case studies in Myanmar,

China and Singapore, for example, suggest that the impacts of GDP

on environmental quality are contingent on the development context

and the environmental impact under consideration (Aung etal., 2017;

Lee and Thiel, 2017; Xu, 2018; Chen and Taylor, 2020). In addition, an

extensive literature now argues that current patterns of development,

and the economic systems underpinning that development, are

unsustainable (Washington and Twomey, 2016), and thus economic

growth may not necessarily continue indeﬁnitely in the absence of

more concerted effort to pursue sustainable development, including

reducing the impacts of climate change.

Given such criticisms of the link between development and economic

growth, a growing number of researchers argue for the need for

alternatives to GDP to guide development and evaluate the costs

and beneﬁts of different policy interventions (Hilmi etal., 2015). For

example, while GDP growth can drive growth in income, it can also

drive growth in inequality which can undermine poverty reduction

efforts (very high conﬁdence) (Fosu, 2017). Hence, recent years have

seen signiﬁcant interest in the concept of well-being as a more

robust measure for linking policy and the economy with sustainable

development for a healthy Anthropocene era (Fioramonti etal., 2019).

Another mechanism for evaluating environmental performance is

to include environmental data in the System of National Accounts

(SNA) through the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting

(SEEA) introduced by the UN. As the international statistical standard

for environmental–economic accounting (Pirmana et al., 2019), SEEA

includes natural capital resources in national accounting. A number

of recent studies conclude that failure to account for natural capital

in macroeconomic impact assessments results in overly optimistic

outcomes (Pirmana etal., 2019; Jendrzejewski, 2020; Naspolini etal.,

2020); (Banerjee etal., 2019; Kabir and Salim, 2019; Keith etal., 2019). For

example, Jendrzejewski (2020) inserted natural capital into a computable

general equilibrium model of the 2017 European windstorm on state-

owned forests in Poland. This resulted in more negative assessment of

impacts, suggesting excluding natural capital could lead to erroneous

investments, strategies or policies. Similarly, other studies rely on Quality

of life (QOL) measurements as alternatives for GDP. Estoque etal. (2018)

suggested a ‘QOL-Climate’ assessment framework, designed to capture

the social-ecological impacts of climate change and variability.

Another alternative to GDP is Green GDP which seeks to incorporate

the environmental consequences of economic growth (Boyd, 2007;

Stjepanović etal., 2017; Stjepanović etal., 2019). Green GDP is difﬁcult to

measure, because it is difﬁcult to evaluate the environmental depletion

and ecological damages of growth (Stjepanović etal., 2019). Although

there is no consensus in measuring Green GDP, attempts have been

made for select countries including the USA (Garcia and You, 2017),

Europe (Stjepanović etal., 2019), China (Chi and Rauch, 2010; Yu etal.,

2019; Wang etal., 2020), Ukraine and Thailand (Harnphatananusorn

etal., 2019), and Malaysia (Vagheﬁ etal., 2015). Le (2016) illustrated

the potential negative impacts of climate change vulnerability on green

growth. Some studies have suggested that focusing on green growth

as the only strategy to address climate change would be risky. Hickel

and Kallis (2020) argue that green growth is likely to be a misguided

goal due to the difﬁculties of separating economic growth from

resource use and, therefore, carbon emissions (see also (Antal and van

den Bergh, 2014). Therefore, alternative strategies are required (Hickel

and Kallis, 2020). In addition, green growth should also be able to

justly respond to social movements involving contestation, internal

debates and tensions (Mathai etal., 2018).

The emphasis on Green GDP is mirrored by another concept, Blue

Growth, that focuses on pursuing sustainable development through

the ecosystem services derived from ocean conservation (Mustafa

etal., 2019). Synthesis studies suggest that more intensive use of ocean

resources, such as scaling up seaweed aquaculture, can be used to

enhance CO

-eq sequestration, thereby contributing to GHG mitigation,

while also achieving other economic goals (Lillebø etal., 2017; Froehlich

et al., 2019). Similarly, Sarker et al. (2018) present a framework for

linking Blue Growth and CRD in Bangladesh, with Blue Growth

representing an opportunity for adapting to climate change. Bethel etal.

(2021) also links Blue Growth to resilience, noting that a Blue economy

2718

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

can help facilitate recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless,

consistent with earlier assessment of enabling conditions for system

transitions (Section18.4.2.1), implementation of Blue Growth initiatives

is contingent upon the successful achievement of social innovation as

well as creating an inclusive and cooperative governance structure (very

high conﬁdence) (Larik etal., 2017; Soma etal., 2018).

A potential critique of the various alternative metrics and models for

economic development is that they are all framed in the context of

growth. Over the past decade, ecological economists and political

scientists have proposed degrowth (e.g., Kallis, 2011; Demaria etal.,

2013) and managing without growth (e.g., Jackson, 2009) as a

solution for achieving environmental sustainability and socioeconomic

progress. Such concepts are a deliberate response to concerns

about ecological limits to growth and the compatibility between

growth-oriented development and sustainability (Kallis etal., 2009).

Sustainable degrowth is not the same as negative GDP growth, which

is typically referred to as a recession (Kallis, 2011). Degrowth goes

beyond criticising economic growth; it explores the intersection among

environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being (Demaria

etal., 2013). Under current economic and ﬁscal policies(see Box18.7),

degrowth has been argued as an unstable development paradigm

because declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment,

declining competitiveness and a spiral of recession (Jackson, 2009:

46). More comprehensive modelling of socioeconomic performance

understands the segments of sufﬁcient social transformation to

guarantee maintenance and rises in well-being coupled with reduced

‘footprints’ (Raworth, 2017; Hickel, 2019; D’Alessandro etal., 2020).

18.4.3.4 Knowledge–Technology and Ecological Arenas

Knowledge–technology arenas comprise the interaction in knowledge

spaces connected to technology transitions. The institutional and

political architecture through which knowledge and technology

interact is described in sustainability transitions literature (Fazey etal.,

2018b; Sengers etal., 2019l Kanger, 2020 #3709). A common theme

explored in that literature is the ability of actors to access and apply

various forms of knowledge as a means of effecting change. Different

forms of innovation are recognised as a core enabling condition for

achieving system transitions for CRD (Section18.3.3; Cross-Chapter

Box INDIG). However, while scientiﬁc and technology knowledge

may be useful, in some cases, they remain subordinate to political

agendas, or are controlled by actors in positions of power and thus

not equitably distributed (very high conﬁdence) (Mormina, 2019).

Participatory decision making, for example, assumes that multiple

actors, with differing motivations, agency and inﬂuence, engage with

climate decision making and co-produce actions. Yet some actors may

not participate in the process if the proposed actions do not align with

their motivations or if they do not have adequate agency (Roelich and

Giesekam, 2019). Hence, effectively using knowledge to inform policy

is challenging for both scientists, policymakers and civil society alike.

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policies are expected

to shape expectations of the potential for a better world based on

access to information, clean technologies, higher labour productivity,

economic growth and a healthier environment (Brasseur and Gallardo,

2016; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018; Singh et al., 2018; Mormina,

2019; Bamzai-Dodson et al., 2021). STI policies are considered as

‘social goods for development’. Hence, STI policies are often proposed

or implemented as means of addressing environmental challenges

such as climate change along with SDGs such as the reduction of

inequality, poverty and environmental pollution (Mormina, 2019).

Realising the beneﬁts of STI, however, may be contingent on building

broader STI capacity and bolstering nations’ systems of innovation

(very high conﬁdence) (Mormina, 2019). This could include building

global research partnerships to address priority STI needs as well

as long-standing gaps between the Global North and South. Such

an approach shifts the framing of STI as one focused on individual

Box18.7 | Macroeconomic Policies in Support of Climate Resilient Development

Climate change risk may differ from other economic and ﬁnancial risks in a number of ways: climate change is global; it involves long-

term impacts and a great deal of uncertainty; and it has the possibility of irreversible change (Hansen, 2021). The macroeconomic

implications will differ across countries, with less developed countries likely to suffer more relative to more advanced ones (Batten,

2018). Hence, policymakers need to understand the impact of climate change on macroeconomic issues such as potential output growth,

capital formation, productivity and long-run levels of interest rates, in order to better design policy interventions, be it monetary or ﬁscal

(Economides and Xepapadeas, 2018; Bank of England, 2019; Rudebusch, 2019). As discussed, below are a range of ﬁscal tools that can

be leveraged to mitigate the effects of climate change (Krogstrup and Oman, 2019).

Monetary Policy

Changes in climate and subsequent policy responses could increase volatility of food and energy prices, resulting in higher headline

inﬂation rates. Thus, Central Banks (CBs) have to pay careful attention to underlying inﬂationary factors to maintain their inﬂationary

targets. In response, CBs can take a number of actions. For example, they could require that collateral comprises assets that support

the move to low-carbon economy, or their reﬁnancing operations and crisis facilities could incentivise borrowers’ move to low-carbon

activities, particularly in countries where CBs’ mandate has been expanded to account for climate impact (Papoutsi etal., 2021). Other

actions that CBs could take include adoption of sustainable and responsible investment principles (Rudebusch, 2019) and requiring

ﬁnancial ﬁrms to disclose their climate-related risks (ECB, 2020; Lee, 2020). Despite these opportunities, there is ongoing debate regarding

whether CBs should actively use monetary policy to address climate change and its risks (Honohan, 2019).

2719

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Fiscal Policy

The application of green ﬁscal policies to address climate change could lead to environmental beneﬁts, including environmental revenues

that may be used for broader ﬁscal reforms (OECD, 2021). As the USA aims at becoming carbon neutral by 2050, ﬁscal policies at the

national, sectoral and international level can help to achieve this goal, along with investment, regulatory and technology policies (Parry,

2021). The effectiveness of green ﬁscal policies are through their ﬁscal potential, opportunities for efﬁciency gains, distributional and

macroeconomic impacts, and their political economy implications (Metcalf, 2016). The International Monetary Fund argues public support

for green policies may rise in response to the COVID-19 crisis (IMF, 2017). For example, Leibenluft (2020) argues that investments to

combat climate change should be an important component of the efforts to rebuild the economy in the wake of COVID-19. Such action is

justiﬁed not only on ecological and social welfare grounds, but from a long-term ﬁscal perspective. For example, climate change impacts

and/or efforts to adapt to those impacts drive increased spending in areas such as public health and disaster mitigation or response.

Preventive and corrective actions would strengthen resilience to shocks and alleviate the ﬁnancial constraints they create, particularly

for small countries (Catalano etal., 2020). For example, Mallucci (2020) found that natural disasters exacerbate ﬁscal vulnerabilities and

trigger sovereign defaults in seven Caribbean countries. Ryota (2019) illustrates how to include natural disaster and climate change in a

ﬁscal policy framework to developing countries.

Carbon Pricing

Pricing of GHGs, including carbon, is a crucial tool in any cost-effective climate change mitigation strategy, as it provides a mechanism for

linking climate action to economic development (IMF/OECD, 2021). By 2019, 57 nations around the world had implemented or scheduled

implementation of carbon pricing. These initiatives cover 11 gigatons of carbon dioxide or about 20% of GHG emissions. Carbon prices in

existing initiatives range between USD 1 and USD 127 per ton of carbon dioxide, while 51% of the emissions that are covered are priced

more than USD 10 per ton of carbon dioxide. Moreover, in 2018, Governments raised about USD 44billion in carbon pricing revenues

(World Bank, 2019). However, the carbon prices are lower than the levels required for attaining the ambitious goal of climate change

mitigation, and therefore, prices would need to increase if pricing alone is going to be used to drive compliance with the Paris Agreement.

Higher carbon prices would also be warranted if prices are based on the social cost of carbon, which represents the present value of the

marginal damage to economic output caused by carbon emissions (Cai and Lontzek, 2018). This cost needs to be considered with the

social beneﬁts of reducing carbon emissions through cost-beneﬁt analyses to make the intended regulation acceptable.

Taxes

Carbon taxes represent another ﬁnancial mechanism for addressing climate change (Metcalf, 2019), 2019b). For example, the

implementation of a carbon tax and a value-added tax on transport fuel in Sweden resulted in a reduction of CO

emissions from

transport of about 11%, of which the carbon tax had the largest share (Andersson, 2019). In the USA, for example, a carbon tax could

increase ﬁscal ﬂexibility by collecting new revenues that can be redeployed to ﬁnance reforms and help stimulate economic growth.

However, US tax-inclusive energy prices would have to be 273% higher than laissez-faire levels in 2055 in order to meet international

agreements (Casey, 2019). Similarly, limiting global warming to 2°C or less would likely require a carbon tax rate in the Asia/Paciﬁc region

to be signiﬁcantly higher than USD 25 per ton (IMF, 2021). Therefore, using tax revenues to issue payments back to taxpayers that are

disproportionately impacted, or to redistribute capital among regions, may be one of the most important features of carbon tax policies.

Although the average effect of carbon tax on welfare would be positive, some regions (56%) will gain and some regions (44%) lose

(Scobie, 2013). Therefore, large transfer payments are needed to compensate those losing from carbon tax (Krusell and Smith, 2018).

The International Monetary Fund (IMF (2019) argues that, of the various mitigation strategies to reduce fossil fuel CO

emissions, carbon

taxes are the most powerful and efﬁcient, because they allow ﬁrms and households to ﬁnd the lowest-cost ways of reducing energy use

and shifting towards cleaner alternatives.

Subsidies

The World Bank has been encouraging both developed and developing states, especially those with petroleum reserves, to use the

removal of subsidies as a mechanism for promoting energy transitions away from fossil fuels. The transition has led to social unrest in

some cases, especially where there is a culture of entitlement to low-cost energy because it is an indigenous resource. Such reforms have

been more effective when governments have been able to clearly show how savings are applied to social and health programs that

beneﬁt human well-being. Nevertheless, policymakers should not underestimate the complexity of issues involved in the removal of

subsidies that will increase the cost of carbon and hasten the transition to cleaner fuels (Scobie, 2017; Scobie etal., 2018; Chen etal.,

2020a). A crucial issue to take into account is the harmful effects some subsidies have on biodiversity. Although governments agreed in

2010 to make progress on reducing subsidies in 2010, by 2020 few governments had identiﬁed speciﬁc incentives to remove or taken

action towards their removal. Further investigation of the positive and negative effects of subsidy redirection or elimination on people

and the environment (Dempsey etal., 2020).

Box18.7 (continued)

2720

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

investigators to one comprised of building knowledge networks. It also

creates opportunities for integration of disparate forms of knowledge

and innovation, including local and Indigenous knowledge, into global

knowledge systems (Cross-Chapter BoxINDIG).

Furthermore, an extensive literature increasingly incorporates natural

and ecological systems as knowledge domains relevant to understanding

opportunities for sustainability and CRD. For example, the literature on

socio-ecological systems (SES) (Sterk etal., 2017; Holzer etal., 2018;

Avriel-Avni and Dick, 2019; Martínez-Fernández etal., 2021) as well

as social, ecological and technological systems (SETS) (McPhearson

and Wijsman, 2017; Webb etal., 2018; Ahlborg etal., 2019), explicitly

integrate ecological knowledge into sustainability, including concepts

such as planetary boundaries (Section 18.1.1), adaptation and

nature-based solutions, natural resources management, rights and

access to nature, and understanding of how humans govern society–

nature interactions in the face of climate change (Benjaminsen and

Kaarhus, 2018; Mikulewicz, 2019; Nightingale et al., 2020). Some

of these interactions are explained in Cross-Chapter Box INDIG,

including conﬂict over which knowledges are recognised as valuable

in understanding and responding to climate change and therefore

shape the nature of climate actions. Actor engagement in stewardship,

solidarity and inclusion of multiple knowledges and nature–society

connectedness can highlight the intertwined nature of ecological

change and knowledge relations, thereby supporting shifts to

sustainability (Pelling, 2010; Hulme, 2018; Ives etal., 2019; Nightingale

etal., 2020) (see also Box18.6).

The expanding deﬁnition of what constitutes credible, relevant and

legitimate knowledge is leading to the democratisation of knowledge

and efforts to address historical inequities in access to knowledge (Ott

and Kiteme, 2016; Rowell and Feldman, 2019). This is reﬂected in the

communication of science, which is increasingly focused on reducing

the distance between internal scientiﬁc and public communication

and more engagement in public science governance and knowledge

production (Waldherr, 2012; Peters, 2013). One innovative approach in

co-production of knowledge is mobilising communities through citizen

science (Heigl etal., 2019). This also presents additional opportunities

to incorporate local knowledge with scientiﬁc research, and better

match scientiﬁc capability to societal needs.

18.4.3.5 Community Arenas

Societal choices and development trajectories emerge from decisions

made in different arenas which intersect and interact across levels

and scales, in diverse institutional settings—some formal with their

associated instruments and interventions, while others are informal.

Since AR5, both formal and informal setting are increasingly arenas

of debate and contestation regarding development choices and

pathways (very high conﬁdence) (Section18.4.4, Chapters 1, 6, 8, 10

and 17). Community arenas exist from the local to the global scale

and constitute the many interactions between governance actors,

often transcending any one scale to reﬂect the emergent outcomes

of interactions in political, economic, socio-cultural, knowledge-

technology and ecological arenas of engagement. Actions within and

between these ﬁve arenas hence come together in the community

arena of engagement. While community engagement is often described

at the level of villages and cities (Ziervogel etal., 2021) (Chapter 8),

communities in terms of people interacting with each other sharing

worldviews, values and behaviours, also exist at the regional and

global levels. For example, civil society engagement in climate action

reached a peak in 2019, notably through the global youth movement

which led to large global mobilisation and street demonstrations on

all continents and in many large cities (Bandura and Cherry, 2020; Han

and Ahn, 2020; Martiskainen etal., 2020). Calling for enhanced climate

action by governments and other societal actors, the youth movement

was supported by many other societal groups and networks, including

arenas of community interaction.

While the SR1.5 (de Coninck etal., 2018) for the ﬁrst time comprehensively

assessed behavioural dimensions of climate change adaptation, most

literature still has a greater focus on what triggers mitigation behaviour

(Lorenzoni and Whitmarsh, 2014; Clayton etal., 2015). Meanwhile, with

CRD still a relatively young concept, there is little literature focused on

what motivates action in pursuit of CRD rather than its sub-components

of climate action and sustainable development. Nevertheless, a common

motivation that is emerging in the literature is clinically signiﬁcant

levels of climate distress among individuals (Bodnar, 2008), which is

experienced as a continuing distress over a changed landscape which no

longer offers solace, also known as solastalgia(high agreement, medium

evidence) (Albrecht etal., 2007). This is accompanied by a shift from

blaming natural forces for disasters to attributing it to human negligence,

which is known to lead to more acute perceptions of risk as well as more

prolonged post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than trauma arising

from non-human causes. Improving social connections, acknowledging

anxiety, reconnecting to nature and ﬁnding creative ways to re-engage

are identiﬁed as ways of managing this growing anxiety (Lertzman,

2010; Clayton etal., 2017). Climate action in communities at various

scales could fulﬁl many of these needs.

18.4.4 Frontiers of Climate Action

After decades of limited government action and social inertia to

reduce the risk of climate change, there is also increasing social dissent

towards the current political, economic and environmental policies to

address climate (Brulle and Norgaard, 2019; Carpenter etal., 2019).

Social movements are demanding radical action as the only option to

achieve the mobilisation necessary for deep societal transformation

(very high conﬁdence) (Hallam, 2019; Berglund and Schmidt, 2020).

Prompted by SR1.5, new youth movements seek to use science-based

policy to break with incremental reforms and demand radical climate

action beyond emissions reductions (Hallam, 2019; Klein, 2020;

Thackeray etal., 2020; Thew etal., 2020). Recent social movements

and climate protests embrace new modalities of action related to

political responsibility for climate injustice through disruptive collective

political action (Young, 2003; Langlois, 2014). This is complemented

by a regenerative culture and ethics of care (Westwell and Bunting,

2020). These new social movements are based on non-violent methods

of resistance, including actions classiﬁed as dutiful, disruptive and

dangerous dissent (O’Brien, 2018).

2721

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

The new climate movement mixes messages of fear and hope to propel

urgency and the need to respond to a climate emergency (Gills and

Morgan, 2020). While some consider the mix between fear and hope

as beneﬁcial to success, depending on psychological factors (Salamon,

2019) or political geography (Kleres and Wettergren, 2017), others

warn of the risks of a rhetoric of emergency and its political outcomes

(Hulme and Apollo-University Of Cambridge Repository, 2019; Slaven

and Heydon, 2020).

Research shows that new climate movements have increased public

awareness, and also stimulated unprecedented public engagement

with climate change (very high conﬁdence) (Lee etal., 2020; Thackeray

etal., 2020) and has helped rethink the role of science with society

(Isgren etal., 2019). Such movements may represent new approaches

to accelerate social transformation and have resulted in notable

political successes, such as declarations of climate emergency at the

national and local level, as well as in universities. Their methods have

also proven effective to end fossil fuel sponsorship (Piggot, 2018).

Social demands for radical action are likely to continue to grow, as

there is growing discontent with political inertia and a rejection of

reformist positions (Stuart etal., 2020).

Box18.8: The Role of the Private Sector in

Climate Resilient Development via Climate

Finance, Investments and Innovation

Climate ﬁnance broadly refers to resources that catalyse low-

carbon and climate resilient development. It covers the costs

and risks of climate action, supports an enabling environment

and capacity for adaptation and mitigation, and encourages

research and development (R&D) and deployment of new

technologies. Climate ﬁnance can be mobilised through a

range of instruments from a variety of sources, international

and domestic, public and private (Section18.4.2.2).

The private sector has particular competencies which can make

signiﬁcant contributions to adaptation, through innovative

technology, design of resilient infrastructure, development

and implementation of improved information systems, and the

management of major projects. The private sector can be seen

as a ‘supplier of innovative goods and services’ to meet the

adaptation priorities of developing countries with expertise in

technology and service delivery (Biagini and Miller, 2013).

Future investment opportunities in climate resilient development

(CRD) are in water resources, agriculture and environmental

services. Provision of clean water is another opportunity,

requiring investment in water puriﬁcation and treatment

technologies such as desalination and wastewater treatment.

Weather and climate services are a possible area for private

investment. (Hov etal., 2017; Hewitt etal., 2020).

18.5 Sectoral and Regional Synthesis of

Climate Resilient Development

Prior sections of this chapter assessed the literature relevant to

CRD inclusive of climate risk management, systems transitions and

transformation, and actors and the arenas in which they engage one

another to enable or constrain CRD. Here, this knowledge is explored in

different climatological and development contexts through a synthesis

of CRD-relevant assessments within the WGII sectoral and regional

chapters.

18.5.1 Regional Synthesis of Climate Resilient

Development

In synthesising regional knowledge relevant to the pursuit of CRD,

this section ﬁrst considers geographic heterogeneity in regional

responses of common climate variables to increases in globally

averaged temperatures. Such heterogeneity is a key driver of climate

risk in different global regions, as well as human and natural systems

within those regions. This is followed by synthesis of various national

development indicators, aggregated to the regional level, as well as

various challenges, opportunities and options supporting CRD reported

within WGII regional chapters.

18.5.1.1 Climate Change Risk for Different Global Regions

Two important elements of understanding the opportunities and

challenges associated with the pursuit of CRD in different regional

contexts are a) the geographic variability in climate conditions that

shape livelihoods, behaviours and responses of human and natural

systems; and b) how those conditions could shift in the future in

response to climate change, which determines the additional burden

that climate change could create for adaptation and sustainable

development.

The climate analyses of WGI provide information on regional differences

in temperature, rainfall and sea surface temperatures for different global

regions and how they are projected to change in response to different

levels of aggregate global warming (Table 18.4). Such data reveal

that even when aggregated to broad geographic regions, signiﬁcant

variations exist for all of these parameters, which is a function of the

baseline climatology of each region. For example, temperatures in

Africa and Australia are, on average, warmer than in Europe or North

America. Signiﬁcant variations are also observed for rainfall variables.

Such regional variation in climate conditions is part of the regional

context that shapes current patterns of development of the past present

and future. They inﬂuence biodiversity and natural resource availability

as well as exposure to climatic extremes (tropical storms, heatwaves

and drought) that contribute to disasters.

The WGI data also indicate that increases in globally averaged

temperatures will have different consequences for regional climate

change (Table 18.4), including variation in the magnitude and, for

precipitation, even the direction of change (very high conﬁdence). For

example, although average temperatures, daily minimum temperature

and the number of days over a given threshold are projected to increase

2722

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

in all regions except Antarctica, the magnitude of the change varies.

Moreover, little change is projected for daily maximum temperatures

across different regions. Nevertheless, the number of days over different

temperature thresholds such as 35°C increases markedly in most

regions, reﬂecting the disproportionate impact that global warming

has on the tails of temperature distributions. Given outcomes in many

systems including public health, agriculture, ecosystems and biodiversity,

and infrastructure are often associated with biophysical thresholds (e.g.,

physiological or design thresholds), those regions where such thresholds

are increasingly exceeded due to climate change may experience

disproportionately higher impacts (very high conﬁdence). Given such

temperatures occur more frequently in regions such as Africa and Central

and South America, this disproportionate exposure is exacerbated by

disproportionate vulnerability, adaptation gaps and development needs

(very high conﬁdence; Section18.2.4; Table18.4).

The regional response of precipitation to globally averaged temperature

increases is less clear than temperature, in part due to high intra-

region variability. Average daily precipitation remains fairly stable in

all global regions in response to higher magnitudes of global warming

(Table 18.4). However, 5-day precipitation totals provide a clearer

signal of increasing hydrologic activity in response to higher globally

averaged temperatures (Table18.4). Such data does not necessarily

reﬂect changes in rainfall extremes that could occur with downstream

consequences for hazards such as drought or ﬂooding. Similarly, while

sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are more uniform across global ocean

basins, all basins are anticipated to warm in response to higher globally

averaged temperatures (Table18.5). Unlike temperature, however, SST

increases are anticipated to be only a fraction of the globally averaged

increase in temperature, due in large part to the heat capacity of the

oceans. Nevertheless, such higher SSTs have implications not only for

ocean ecosystems and the distribution of marine species, but also for

weather patterns, such as formation and intensity of tropical cyclones

(very high conﬁdence).

The other aspect of the regional climate responses to global temperature

increases that is important for CRD is the marked differences observed

between changes in response to 1.5°C versus 4°C of warming. Higher

levels of global warming are associated with higher regional changes,

including changes in extremes of temperature. This in turn increases

climate risk to exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems,

thereby increasing demand for adaptation. If that demand is not met,

then the adaptation gap will be larger, with greater risk of loss and

damage (very high conﬁdence) (Schaeffer et al., 2015; Chen et al.,

2016; United Nations Environment Programme, 2021). This is true

not only for regions, but also at the sectoral level (Section18.5.2).

Therefore, CRD pathways must balance the demands for emissions

reductions to reduce exposure, adaptation to manage residual climate

change risks, and sustainable development to address vulnerability

and enhance capacity for sustainable development.

18.5.1.2 Regional Perspectives on Climate Resilient

Development

The various regional chapters within the AR6 WGII report each provide

insights into progress towards CRD as well as the opportunities and

challenges associated with future pursuit of different CRD pathways.

Common indicators of development reﬂect the signiﬁcant diversity

that exists across different global regions with respect to their

development context (very high conﬁdence). For example, the Human

Development Index, recently adjusted to reﬂect the effect of planetary

pressures (PPAHDI), illustrates the overall higher levels of development

of North America and European countries of the Global North as well

as Australasia compared with Asia, Africa, Central and South America

and small islands of the Global South. Generally, this reﬂects the

higher levels of vulnerability and greater need for both sustainable

developments to reduce poverty and support sustainable economies

as well as climate action to address climate risk (Table18.6).

However, even within a given region, there is signiﬁcant variation in

PPAHDI among nations. Such differences reﬂect fundamental differences

in historical patterns of development, as well as current development

needs and challenges, and they imply differences in what future

development pathways would be consistent with CRD. In addition,

nations and regions with lower PPAHDI values suggests greater capacity

challenges for both GHG mitigation and climate adaptation. However,

nations and regions with high PPAHDI values also tend to have higher

per capita CO

-e emissions production, indicating that economic

development based on fossil fuel use undermines both efforts on

climate action as well as the SDGs (very high conﬁdence) (Figure18.6).

Such challenges are also reﬂected by differential Gini coefﬁcients and

metrics of state fragility among regions, which reﬂect inequities in

income distribution and broader vulnerability of nations and regions

to shocks and stressors (Figure 18.6). In addition, high variation is

observed in CO

emissions production, even among comparatively

wealthy nations, suggesting CO

-e emissions of some nations are tightly

coupled to development, while others have pursued more carbon neutral

development trajectories. Even within regions such as Africa, Asia,

Central and South America, and Europe, large within-region variations

are observed in inequality and state fragility, suggesting high variability

among nations. Given the emphasis in the sustainable development and

CRD literature on equity and vulnerability, addressing such determinants

of vulnerability is a core design principle for CRDPs.

In addition to development indicators, the literature assessed in the

WGII regional chapters indicates that different regions experience

a range of development challenges and opportunities that affect the

pursuit of CRD (very high conﬁdence). These represent dimensions of

governance, institutions, economic development, capacity, and social

and cultural factors that shape decision making, investment and

development trajectories. For example, signiﬁcant challenges exist

within regions with respect to managing debt and the ability to fund or

ﬁnance climate action and sustainable development interventions (very

high conﬁdence). On the other hand, a broad range of opportunities

exist to pursue CRD including challenges with debt and ﬁnancing of

adaptation competing policy objectives, social protection programmes,

economic diversiﬁcation, investing in education and human capital

development, and expanding disaster risk reduction efforts (very high

conﬁdence).

There are a wide variety of more focused options for climate action

and sustainable development (very high conﬁdence). Such options

have potential for synergies and trade-offs including implications for

GHG mitigation, land use change and conservation, food and water,

2723

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Table18.4 | Projected continental level result ranges for select temperature and precipitation climate change variables by global warming level. Ranges are 5th and 95th percentiles from SSP5-8.5 WGI CMIP6 ensemble results. There is little

variation in the 5th and 95th percentile values by GWL across the SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 projections. Source: WGI AR6 Interactive Atlas (Gutiérrez et al., 2021).

Climate variable

Global warm-

ing level

All Regions North America Europe Asia

Central–South

America

Africa Australia Antarctica

Mean temperature

(°C)

4°C 12 to 15 8 to 11 5 to 9 12 to 14 24 to 27 26 to 29 24 to 27 −33 to −27

3°C 11 to 14 6 to 11 4 to 7 10 to 14 23 to 26 25 to 28 23 to 26 −35 to −26

2°C 10 to 13 5 to 9 3 to 6 8 to 12 22 to 25 24 to 27 22 to 25 −36 to −27

1.5°C 9 to 12 4 to 8 2 to 5 8 to 12 22 to 24 24 to 26 22 to 24 −36 to −27

Minimum of

daily minimum

temperatures (°C)

4°C −12 to −5 −25 to −15 −22 to −14 −18 to −9 11 to 15 10 to 14 5 to 10 −64 to −48

3°C −13 to −6 −27 to −15 −24 to −15 −20 to −11 10 to 15 8 to 14 4 to 10 −64 to −50

2°C −15 to −8 −30 to −18 −27 to −17 −22 to −13 9 to 14 7 to 13 3 to 9 −65 to −51

1.5°C −16 to −9 −32 to −20 −28 to −19 −23 to −14 8 to 14 6 to 12 3 to 9 −66 to −51

Maximum of

daily maximum

temperatures (°C)

4°C 32 to 37 32 to 38 28 to 33 35 to 40 36 to 43 40 to 47 41 to 49 −12 to −5

3°C 31 to 39 31 to 38 28 to 34 35 to 41 35 to 44 39 to 51 41 to 54 −12 to −3

2°C 30 to 37 30 to 36 26 to 33 33 to 39 34 to 43 38 to 50 39 to 53 −13 to −4

1.5°C 29 to 36 29 to 35 25 to 31 32 to 39 33 to 42 38 to 49 39 to 52 −14 to −5

Number of days

with maximum

temperature

above 35°C—bias

adjusted

4°C 81 to 106 36 to 50 11 to 22 57 to 77 138 to 194 153 to 210 140 to 168 0 to 0

3°C 66 to 87 27 to 40 6 to 15 44 to 59 100 to 153 131 to 183 124 to 147 0 to 0

2°C 52 to 68 19 to 29 4 to 8 33 to 45 61 to 106 116 to 151 102 to 124 0 to 0

1.5°C 45 to 58 16 to 24 2 to 5 30 to 39 43 to 85 107 to 133 94 to 115 0 to 0

Near-surface total

precipitation

(mm/d)

4°C 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 2 2 to 3 4 to 5 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 1

3°C 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 5 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 1

2°C 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 5 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 1

1.5°C 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 5 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 1

Maximum 5-day

precipitation

amount (mm)

4°C 79 to 99 75 to 93 53 to 71 81 to 105 118 to 168 68 to 113 81 to 124 20 to 29

3°C 66 to 99 68 to 87 48 to 68 70 to 101 97 to 165 60 to 118 76 to 129 19 to 27

2°C 64 to 93 65 to 84 47 to 65 66 to 95 93 to 162 55 to 107 73 to 122 18 to 26

1.5°C 63 to 91 63 to 83 46 to 64 64 to 93 92 to 160 52 to 105 74 to 119 18 to 25

Table18.5 | Projected sea surface temperature change ranges by global warming level and ocean biome (°C). Ranges are 5th and 95th percentiles from SSP5-8.5 WGI CMIP6 ensemble results. There is little variation in the 5th and 95th

percentile values by GWL across the SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 projections. Source: WGI AR6 Interactive Atlas (Gutiérrez etal., 2021).

Global

warming

level

All ocean

biomes

Northern Hem-

isphere; high

latitudes

Northern

Hemisphere;

Subtropics

Equatorial

Southern

Hemisphere;

Subtropics

Southern Hem-

isphere; high

latitudes

Gulf of Mexico

Eastern

Boundaries

Amazon River Arabian Sea

Indonesian

ﬂowthrough

4°C 1.9 to 2.4 2.0 to 3.3 2.2 to 2.8 2.1 to 3.0 1.8 to 2.4 1.3 to 2.0 2.1 to 2.8 2.1 to 2.7 1.7 to 2.5 2.3 to 2.9 1.9 to 2.7

3°C 1.3 to 1.7 1.2 to 2.2 1.4 to 2.4 1.4 to 2.2 1.2 to 1.7 0.7 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.3 1.4 to 2.1 1.2 to 2.0 1.6 to 2.2 1.3 to 1.9

2°C 0.6 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.4 0.7 to 1.4 0.7 to 1.3 0.5 to 1 0.3 to 0.8 0.6 to 1.4 0.6 to 1.3 0.6 to 1.3 0.6 to 1.3 0.5 to 1.2

1.5°C 0.2 to 0.7 0.1 to 0.9 0.2 to 1.0 0.2 to 0.8 0.2 to 0.6 0.1 to 0.5 0.2 to 1.0 0.2 to 0.9 0.2 to 0.9 0.2 to 0.9 0.1 to 0.8

2724

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

or social equity. Despite variation in development context, regional

assessments suggest CRD efforts will be associated with some

common features. For example, in all regions, existing vulnerability

and inequality exacerbate climate risk and therefore pose challenges

to CRD (very high conﬁdence). Furthermore, low prioritisation of

sustainability and climate action in government decision making,

low perceptions of climate risk, and path dependence in governance

systems and decision-making processes all pose barriers to system

transitions, transformation and CRD (very high conﬁdence).

18.5.2 Sectoral Synthesis of Climate Resilient

Development

The sectoral chapters of the WGII report provide insights regarding how

development processes interact with sectors to shape the potential for

CRD. Similar to global regions, each sector is associated with various

challenges, opportunities and options that enable or constrain CRD

(Table18.7). A number of challenges are common across sectors and

mirror those associated with different regions. For example, issues

associated with natural resource dependency, access to information

for decision making, access to human and ﬁnancial capital, and path

dependence of institutions represent barriers that must be overcome

if sectors are to support transitions that enable CRD. These challenges

are more acute within vulnerable communities or nations where

capacity to innovate and invest are constrained and social inequities

reinforce the status quo (very high conﬁdence). At the same time, a

number of sector-speciﬁc opportunities for mitigation, adaptation and

sustainable development can be used to integrate sectors into CRDPs.

This could include policies and planning initiatives to enhance sector

sustainability and resilience, as well as capacity building and greater

inclusion of different actors and groups in decision making including

capitalising on local and Indigenous knowledge as a mechanism for

more representative and equitable action.

In addition, the sectoral assessments identify a broad range of speciﬁc

adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development options that could

play a role in facilitating CRD. Many of these options appear initially

to be speciﬁc to a given sector. For example, options for the water

sector (Chapter 4) are assessed independently from those for health

and well-being (Chapter 7). In practice, however, evidence suggests

the importance of thinking about sectoral options as cross-cutting,

mutually supportive and synergistic packages rather than singular

options. First, each of the sectoral chapters has links to multiple SDGs

(Table18.7), implying each sector is important for achieving a range of

sustainability goals that extend beyond sectoral boundaries. Moreover,

progress across multiple sectors simultaneously creates opportunities

for synergies for achieving the SDGs, but also enhances the risk of

potential trade-offs (very high conﬁdence). Second, a number of

options are common to multiple sectors. For example, options

associated with ecosystem-based adaptation and nature-based

approaches to environmental management appear in multiple sectors

(Table 18.7). Similarly, climate-smart agriculture and agroecological

approaches to food systems create opportunities for food security, but

those same options also beneﬁt land-based ecosystems, water, poverty

and livelihoods, and human well-being.

18.5.3 Feasibility and Efﬁcacy of Options for Climate

Resilient Development

While both the sectoral and regional assessments indicate a rich toolkit

of management options is available to decision makers to facilitate

CRD, two key uncertainties undermine efforts to implement those

options. The ﬁrst is the feasibility of implementation. Options that

seem promising could nevertheless encounter implementation barriers

due to cost, absence of necessary capacity, lack of public acceptance

or competition with alternative options. Progress in the literature

since the AR5 and SR1.5 reports enables improved consideration

Relationship among development indicators relevant to climate-resilient development

120

Gini Coefficient/Fragility States Index

Planetary Pressures-Adjusted Human Development Index

100

Per Capita CO

Emissions Production (tonnes)

Fragile State Index

Gini Coefficient

Per Capita CO

emmissions Production

Figure18.6 | This ﬁgure presents National Gini coefﬁcients (most recent year available; n= 141 (World Bank, 2021), the Fragile States Index (2021; n= 163; (Fund for

Peace, 2021), and per capita CO2 emissions (2018; n= 169), Human Development Report Ofﬁce, 2020) plotted against the Planetary Pressures-Adjusted Human Development

Index (2020, n = 163 (Human Development Report Ofﬁce, 2020)

2725

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Table18.6 | Regional synthesis of dimensions of climate resilient development. For each region, quantitative information is provided on common development indicators including the planetary pressures-adjusted human development

index (PPHDI, 2020, n = 169 (Human Development Report Ofﬁce, 2020), Gini coefﬁcients (GINI, most recent year available; n = 156 (World Bank, 2021), Fragile States Index (FRAGILITY; 2021; n = 173 (Fund for Peace, 2021), and per capita

emissions production (CO

/PC, 2018; n = 169 (Human Development Report Ofﬁce, 2020). Each indicator is associated with a mean value among nations within a speciﬁc region as well as the range (minimum to maximum) value. In

addition, the table contains evidence of sustainable development challenges and opportunities as well as adaptation/sustainable development options and potential synergies and trade-offs associated with their implementation. Synergies

and trade-offs are categorised as follows: (T) Trade-off among policies and practices; (S+) Synergy among policies and practices that enhances sustainability; (S-) Synergy among policies and practices that undermines sustainability.

Region

Development indicators

mean (range)

Challenges Opportunities Options Synergies and trade-offs

Africa

PPAHDI

0.53

(0.39–0.72)

– Institutional and ﬁnancial challenges in

programming and implementing activities to support

concrete adaptation measures (Section9.14.5)

– High debt levels exacerbate ﬁscal challenges and

undermine economic resilience (Section9.14)

– Insufﬁcient development and adaptation ﬁnance

and accessibility of ﬁnance (Section9.14.5)

– Complexity of estimating the costs and beneﬁts

for adaptation measures in speciﬁc contexts

(Section9.14.2)

– Exclusions of migrants and other vulnerable

populations from social programmes (Section9.9.4)

– Mismatch between the supply of, and demand for,

climate services (Section9.5)

– Climate change literacy can

enable the mainstreaming of

climate change into national

and sub-national developmental

agendas (Section9.4.2)

– Adaptive responses can be

used as an opportunity for

comprehensive, transformative

change (Section9.6.2)

– Investments in human capital

can facilitate socioeconomic

development and poverty

reduction (Section9.9.1)

– Strengthening the participation

of women in decision making

as well as advancing traditional

and local knowledge can support

climate action and sustainable

livelihoods (Section9.9.3)

– Strengthening climate services (Section9.4.2)

– Ecosystem-based adaptation (Section9.11.4.2)

– Economic diversiﬁcation (Section9.12.3)

– Intensive irrigation (Section9.15.2)

– Agricultural and livelihood diversiﬁcation

(Section9.12.3)

– Drought-resistant crop varieties (Section9.15.2)

– Soil and water conservation (Section9.15.2)

– (T) competing uses for water

such as hydropower generation,

irrigation and ecosystem

requirements create trade-offs

among different management

objectives (Section9.7.3)

– (T) migration in response to

unfavourable environmental

conditions provides opportunities

for farmers but puts pressure

on the provision of social

services and reduces farm labour

(Section9.15.2)

– (T) intensive irrigation contributes

to the development of agriculture

but has come at a cost to

ecosystem integrity and human

well-being (Section9.15.2)

GINI

42.8

(27.6–63.4)

FRAGILITY

87.3

(57.0–110.9)

CO2/PC

1.1

(0.0–8.1)

Asia

HPAHDI

0.65

(0.47–0.78)

– Migration and displacement (Box10.6)

– Uneven economic development (Section10.4.6)

– Rapid land use change (Section10.4.6)

– Increasing inequality (Section10.4.6)

– Large, socially differentiated vulnerable populations

(Section10.4.6)

– Investing in climate-resilient and

sustainable infrastructure can be

a source of green jobs as well

as a means of reducing climate

vulnerability (Section10.6.2)

– Sustainable development

pathways that connect climate

change adaptation and disaster

risk reduction efforts can reduce

climate vulnerability and increase

resilience (Section10.6.2)

– Social protection programmes

can develop risk management

strategies to address loss and

damage from climate change

(Section10.5.6)

– Risk insurance (Section10.5.5)

– Climate-smart agriculture (10.4.5.5, Table10.6)

– Wetland protection and restoration (Table10.6)

– Aquifer storage and recovery (Table10.6)

– Integrated smart water grids (Table10.6)

– Disaster risk management (Table10.6)

– Early warning systems (Table10.6)

– Resettlement and migration (Table10.6)

– Nature-based solutions in urban areas

– Coastal green infrastructure (Table10.6)

– (S+) nature-based adaptation

solutions, wetland protection, and

climate-smart agriculture enhance

carbon sequestration (Table10.6)

– (S+) disaster risk reduction

and capacity building have

synergistic interactions with

climate adaptation when the

two are effectively integrated

(Section10.6.2)

– (S+) environmental sustainability

has beneﬁts for relieving poverty

and promoting social equity

(Section10.6.4)

– (T) intensive irrigation and other

forms of water consumption can

have a negative effect on water

quality and aquatic ecosystems

(Section10.6.3)

GINI

34.9

(26.6–43.9)

FRAGILITY

73.6

(32.3–111.7)

/PC

6.3

(0.3–38.0)

2726

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Region

Development indicators

mean (range)

Challenges Opportunities Options Synergies and trade-offs

Australasia

PPAHDI

0.75

(0.70–0.81)

– Underinvestment in adaptation, particularly in public

health systems, given current and projected risks

(Section11.3.6.3)

– Underlying social and economic vulnerabilities

exacerbate disadvantage among particular social

groups (Section11.8.2)

– Competing policy and planning objectives within

governments (Section11.7.2)

– Limits to adaptation across the region and among

neighbours (Section11.7.2)

– Fear of litigation and demands for compensation

create disincentives for climate adaptation

(Section11.7.2)

– Different climate change risk perceptions among

different groups (Section11.7.2)

– Implementation of national

policies and guidance on climate

adaptation and resilience

(Box11.5)

– Cooperation among individual

farmers for adaptation

and regional innovation

(Section11.7.1)

– Enhancing understanding of

Indigenous knowledge and

practices (Table11.11)

– Climate adaptation services, planning and tools

from government and private sector providers

(Section11.7.1)

– Enhancing governance frameworks (Table11.17)

– Building capacity for adaptation (Table11.17)

– Community partnership and collaborative

engagement (Table11.17)

– Flexible decision making (Table11.17)

– Reducing systemic vulnerabilities (Table11.17)

– Providing adaptation funding and compensation

mechanisms (Table11.17)

– Addressing social attitudes and engagement in

adaptation and climate action (Table11.17)

– (T) adapting to ﬁre risk in

peri-urban zones introduces

potential trade-offs among

ecological values and fuel

reduction in treed landscapes

(Section11.3.5)

GINI

34.4

(34.4–34.4)

FRAGILITY

20.1

(18.4–21.8)

/PC

12.1

(7.3–16.9)

Central

and South

America

PPAHDI

0.71

(0.62–0.78)

– Vulnerability of informal settlements with chronic

exposure to everyday, non-climate risks

– Limited political inﬂuence of poor and most

vulnerable groups

– Poor market access of rural households

– Little consideration of the implications of NDCs for

poverty and livelihoods

– Corruption, particularly in the construction and

infrastructure sector

– Gender inequities in labour markets

– Limits to adaptation

– Address existing development

deﬁcits, particularly the needs

of informal settlements and

economies

– Adopt collaborative approaches

to decision making that integrate

civic groups and communities as

well as the private sector

– Enhance adoption of sustainable

tourism and livelihood

diversiﬁcation

– Upgrading of informal and vulnerable settlements

– Capacity building in national and city level

government institutions

– Enhancing social protection programmes

– Integrated land use planning and risk-sensitive

zoning

– Infrastructure greening

– disaster risk mitigation and management

– Emergency medical and public health preparedness

– Improving insurance mechanisms and climate

ﬁnancing

– Ecosystem conservation, protection and restoration

– Appropriate use of climate information and

development of climate services

– (S+) conservation and restoration

of natural ecosystems have

synergies with mitigation,

adaptation and sustainable

development (Section12.7.1)

GINI

47.2

(38.6–57.9)

FRAGILITY 65.9 (35.9–92.6)

/PC

2.2

(0.9–4.8)

Europe

PPAHDI

0.76

(0.52–0.83)

– Mitigation and adaptation remain siloed around

sectoral approaches (Box13.3)

– Institutional, policy and behavioural lock-ins

constrain the rate of system transitions

(Section13.11.4)

– Legislative and decision making process constraints

on climate action (Section13.11.4)

– High adaptation costs and concerns about

effectiveness and feasibility (Section13.3.2,

Table13.A.5)

– Competition for land use among adaptation and

other uses (Section13.3.2)

– Perceptions of climate change as irrelevant or not

urgent (Section13.3.2)

– Public budget and human capital limitations

(Section13.3.2)

– Engagement in climate change

knowledge, policy and practice

networks (Box13.3)

– National policies can lead to

more ambitious and integrated

climate planning and action with

associated co-beneﬁts (Box13.3)

– System transformations

towards more adaptive and

climate-resilient systems

(Section13.11.4, Box13.3)

– Ecological restoration of habitats agroforestry and

reforestation (Section13.8.2)

– ‘Smart farming’ and knowledge training

(Section13.5.2.1)

– Soil management practices (Section13.5.2.1)

– Changing sowing dates and changes in cultivars

(Section13.5.2.1)

– Stricter enforcement of existing health regulations

(Section13.7.2)

– Integrated coastal zone management and marine

spatial planning (Section13.4.2)

– Nature-based solutions (Section13.4.2)

– Climate services (Section13.6.2.3)

– Tailored insurance products for speciﬁc physical

climate risks (Section13.6.2.5)

– Protection of world heritage sites (Section13.8.2)

– (T) wind farms support

greenhouse gas mitigation but

have ecosystem implications and

impacts (Section13.4.2)

– (T) adapting and mitigating

climate change through

afforestation and forest

management may be hampered

by biophysical and land use

trade-offs (Section13.3.2)

GINI

31.9

(24.6–41.3)

FRAGILITY 41.1 (16.2–72.9)

/PC

6.8

(1.3–21.3)

2727

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Region

Development indicators

mean (range)

Challenges Opportunities Options Synergies and trade-offs

North

America

PPAHDI

0.72

(0.72–0.73)

– Lack of representation of all groups and

communities in politics and decision making

(Section14.6.3)

– Economic and ﬁnancial constraints on adaptation

within communities (Section14.6.2)

– Persistent social vulnerability and inequities

(Sections14.6.3, 14.4.7.3)

– Adaptation actions that are maladaptive and

exacerbate existing inequities (Section14.6.2.1)

– Constraints on capacity for data collection

(Table14.8)

– Limited organisational willingness to implement

new and untested solutions (Table14.8)

– Increased focus on building

adaptive capacity in small towns

and rural areas (Section14.6.3)

– Greater use of SDGs as a

framework for equitable

adaptation measures

(Section14.6.3)

– Broader and deeper recognition of

the role of Indigenous knowledge

and local knowledge systems in

adaptation (Section14.6.3)

– Greater emphasis on participatory

governance and co-production of

knowledge in adaptation decision

making (Section14.6.2.2)

– Enhanced use of risk-based

decision analysis frameworks

and ﬂexible adaptation pathways

(Section14.6.2.2)

– Coordination of policies to

support transformational

adaptation (Section14.6.2.2)

– Indigenous knowledge-based land and resource

management (Section14.4.4)

– Adaptive co-management of agriculture and

freshwater resources (Section14.4.3)

– Ecosystem-based management and nature-based

solutions (Box14.3, Sections14.4.2, 14.4.3, 14.4.4,

Table14.9)

– Increased efﬁciency and equity of water

management and allocation (Section14.4.3.3)

– Energy conservation measures (Section14.6.1.3)

– Guidelines, codes, standards and speciﬁcations for

infrastructure (Section14.6.1.6)

– Modifying zoning and buying properties in

ﬂoodplains (Section14.6.1.3)

– Web-based tools for visualising and exploring

climate information scenario planning and risk

analyses (Section14.6.1.6)

– (S+) post-ﬁre ecosystem recovery

measures, restoration of habitat

connectivity, and managing

for carbon storage enhance

adaptation potential and

offers co-beneﬁts with carbon

mitigation (Box14.1)

– (T) REDD+ represents a trade-off

between carbon mitigation

and the ability of communities

to improve their food security

(Section14.4.7)

– (T) new coastal and alpine

developments generate economic

activity but enhance local social

inequalities (Section15.4.10)

GINI

40.0

(33.3–45.4)

FRAGILITY

45.4

(21.7–69.9)

/PC

11.9

(3.8–16.6)

Small

Islands

PPAHDI

0.68

(0.51–0.76)

– High dependence of economic activity on tourism

(Section15.3.4.5)

– Lack of coordination among government

departments (Section15.6.1)

– Limited regional cooperation (Section15.6.1)

– Absence of planning frameworks (Section15.6.1)

– Corruption and corrupt people in political and public

life (Section15.6.1)

– Insufﬁcient human capital (Section15.6.1)

– Competing development priorities (Section15.5.5)

– Lack of education and awareness around climate

change (Section15.6.4)

– Failure of externally driven adaptation

(Section15.6.5)

– Constraints on economic, legislative and technical

capacity of local governments (Section15.7)

– Increasing women’s access to

climate change funding and

support from organisations

(Section15.6.5) promoting

agroecology, food sovereignty

and regenerative economies

(Section15.7)

– Expanding sustainable tourism

economies (Section15.7)

– Integrating climate change

and disaster management

with broader development

planning and implementation

(Section15.7)

– Using climate risk insurance as

a way to support development

and adaptation processes

(Section15.7)

– Improving cross sectoral and

cross agency coordination

(Section15.7)

– Enhanced integration between

development assistance, public

ﬁnancial management, and

climate ﬁnance (Section15.5.7)

– Raising dwellings and other infrastructure

(Section15.5.2)

– Land reclamation (Section15.5.2)

– Migration and planned resettlement

(Section15.5.2)

– Ecosystem-based adaptation including Indigenous

and local knowledge (Section15.5.2)

– protected areas (Section15.5.2)

– Ecosystem restoration and improved agroforestry

practices (Sections15.5.2, 15.5.4)

– Community-based adaptation (Section15.5.5)

– Livelihood diversiﬁcation and use of improved

technologies and equipment (Section15.5.6)

– Diversifying cropping patterns, expanding or

prioritising other cash crops (Section15.5.6)

– Small-scale livestock husbandry (15.5.6)

– Irrigation technologies (Section15.5.6)

– Diversiﬁcation away from coastal tourism

– Disaster risk management (DRM) (Section15.5.7)

– Early warning systems and climate services

(Section15.5.7)

– (S+) development decisions and

outcomes are strengthened by

consideration of climate and

disaster risk (Section15.7)

– (S-) impacts of invasive alien

species on islands are projected

to increase with time due to

synergies between climate change

and other drivers (Section15.3.3)

– (S-) synergies between changing

climate and other natural and

anthropogenic stressors could

lead to disproportionate impacts

on biodiversity (Section15.3.3)

GINI

40.2

(28.7–56.3)

FRAGILITY

64.6

(38.1–97.5)

/PC

3.7

(0.3–31.3)

2728

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Table18.7 | Sectoral synthesis of dimensions of climate resilient development. For each sectoral chapter of the WGII report, this table identiﬁes those SDGs that are discussed in the relevant chapter as being particularly relevant to the

sector. In addition, the table contains evidence of sustainable development challenges and opportunities as well as adaptation/sustainable development options and potential synergies and trade-offs associated with their implementation.

Synergies and trade-offs are categorised as follows: (T) Trade-off among policies and practices; (S+) Synergy among policies and practices that enhances sustainability; (S-) Synergy among policies and practices that undermines sustainability.

Sector

Relevant

SDGs

Challenges Opportunities Options Trade-offs

Terrestrial and

freshwater

ecosystems

and their

services

SDG 1,

SDG 2,

SDG 3,

SDG 6,

SDG 7,

SDG 9,

SDG 10,

SDG 11,

SDG 12,

SDG 13,

SDG 15,

SDG 17

– Low capacity for dispersal limits range shifts

to match climate (Section2.6.1)

– Constraints on the evolution of greater stress

tolerance among species (Sections2.4.2,

2.6.1)

– Altered peatland drainage and repeated

disturbances pose barriers to restoration of

tropical peatlands (Section2.4.3)

– Demonstrating the efﬁcacy of natural ﬂood

management efforts poses challenges to its

deployment (Section2.6.5)

– Uncertainties in climate and socioeconomic

projections constrain adaptation planning

and implementation (Section2.7)

– Nature-based solutions offer the opportunity

to address climate change and biodiversity

problems in an integrated way (Section2.6)

– Adaptation can be integrated with the

protection of biodiversity and land-based climate

change mitigation initiatives (Section2.6.2)

– Habitat restoration, connectivity and creation of

protected areas (Table2.5)

– Integrated landscape management (Table

Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in Chapter 2)

– Community-based natural resource management

(Section2.6.5.7)

– Maintain or restore natural species and structural

diversity (Table Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in

Chapter 2)

– Restoration of hydrological ﬂows and catchment

vegetation (Table Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL.1 in

Chapter 2)

– Control of feral herbivores Table Cross-Chapter

BoxNATURAL.1 in Chapter 2)

– Reduce non-climatic stressors to land-based

ecosystems (Table2.6)

– (S+) ecosystem-based adaptation measures, such

as restoration of forests and wetlands for ﬂood

and erosion control help maintain freshwater

supply and quality (Section2.2.2)

– (S-) over grazing/stocking of pastures and

grasslands can result in soil erosion and the loss of

biodiversity (Table Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL1

in Chapter 2)

– (T) planting non-native monocultures for

mitigation can reduce biodiversity and resilience

– (T) inappropriate hydrological restoration can

result in increased methane emissions (Table

Cross-Chapter BoxNATURAL1 in Chapter 2)

– (T) afforestation/reforestation and bioenergy

initiatives can conﬂict with other land uses such as

food and timber production (Table Cross-Chapter

BoxBECCS, Section2.2.2, Box2.2)

Ocean and

coastal

ecosystems

and their

services

SDG 1,

SDG 2,

SDG 3,

SDG 5,

SDG 7,

SDG 8,

SDG 9,

SDG 10,

SDG 11,

SDG 12,

SDG 13,

SDG 14

– Shifts in the distribution of ﬁsh species

across exclusive economic zones present

governance, ecological and conservation

challenges (Section3.4.3)

– Resource constraints impede the

implementation of ecosystem-based and

community-based adaptation for low- to

middle-income nations (Section3.6.2)

– Governance in marine social-ecological

systems is highly complex with poorly deﬁned

legal frameworks (Section3.6.2)

– ‘Coastal squeeze’ challenges adaptation,

creating tensions between coastal

development and coastal habitat

management (Section3.6.3)

– Development assistance can help address

resource constraints associated with marine

ecosystem management (Section3.6.3)

– Improving coordination among actors and

projects will contribute to achieving SDGs

(Section3.6.3)

– Private ﬁnance can support restoration of blue

carbon systems (Section3.6.3)

– Joint implementation of coastal and marine

management initiatives can address governance

challenges across scales and sectors

(Section3.6.3)

– Ocean-based renewable energy options can

reduce reliance on imported fuel (Section3.6.3)

– Maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal

management (Section3.6.2; Figure3.2.6)

– Adaptive and sustainable ﬁsheries management

(Section3.6.2)

– Habitat restoration (Section3.6.2)

– ﬁshery mobility (Figure3.6.2)

– Assisted evolution (Figure3.2.6)

– Increase participation in management and

governance (Figure3.2.6)

– Nature-based solutions (Section3.6.2)

– Hard and soft infrastructure (Figure3.2.6)

– Livelihood diversiﬁcation (Figure3.6.2)

– Disaster mitigation and response (Figure3.2.6)

– Finance and market mechanisms (Figure3.2.6)

– (S+) adaptation in ocean and coastal systems can

be designed in ways that substantially contribute

to the SDGs and not only support but allow the

attainment of social, environmental and economic

targets (Section3.6.4)

– (S+) blue/green economies can reduce emissions

and ﬁnance adaptation pathways (Section3.6.3)

– (T) built infrastructure conﬂicts with mitigation

goals and can create potential ecological, social

and cultural impacts that undermine ecosystem

health (Section3.6.2)

2729

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Sector

Relevant

SDGs

Challenges Opportunities Options Trade-offs

Water

SDG 1,

SDG 2,

SDG 3,

SDG 6,

SDG 7,

SDG 10,

SDG 11,

SDG 13

– Uncertainty in future water availability

(Box4.1, Box4.4)

– Lack of sufﬁcient data, information and

knowledge in understanding the water–

energy–food nexus (Box4.6)

– Increasing urbanisation is creating new

and difﬁcult demands for urban water

management. (Section4.3.4)

– Barriers to adapting water-dependent

livelihoods in rural communities

(Section4.3.1)

– Mainstreaming water management across

sectors and enhancing ﬁnance for adaptation

(Section4.3.5)

– Path-dependency of institutions, (and

contingencies on decision-making processes

(Section4.5.3)

– A resilient circular economy delivers access to

water, sanitation, wastewater and ecological

ﬂows (Box4.7)

– Adaptive sanitation systems and sustainable

urban drainage contribute to a ‘one health

approach’ which can prevent water and

sanitation contamination risks during ﬂoods and

droughts. (Box4.7)

– Climate-proof infrastructure would reduce

infection risks in ﬂood-prone areas (Box4.7)

– Governance can derive legitimacy from inclusion

of multiple stakeholders, including women,

Indigenous communities and young people

(Section4.6.6)

– Indigenous and local knowledge can help ensure

solutions align with the interests of communities

(FAQ 4.5)

– Changes in crop cultivars and agronomic practices

(Section4.5)

– Changes in irrigation and water management

practices (Section4.5)

– Water and soil conservation (Section4.5)

– Migration and off-farm livelihood diversiﬁcation

(Section4.5)

– Collective action, policies and institutions

(Section4.5)

– Economic and ﬁnancial incentives (Section4.5)

– Training and capacity building (Section4.5)

– Flood risk reduction measures (Section4.5)

– Urban water management (Section4.5)

– Water, sanitation and hygiene adaptations

(Section4.5)

– Agro-forestry and forestry responses (Section4.5)

– Livestock and ﬁshery responses (Section4.5)

– Indigenous and local knowledge (Section4.5)

– Energy-related adaptations (Section4.5)

– (S+) increasing the proportion of sewerage,

treated wastewater, recycling and safe reuse

would help reach climate and water targets

(Box4.7)

– (S+) solar irrigation pumps provide for income

diversiﬁcation for small and marginal farmers

while also generating renewable energy (Box4.7)

– (T) desalination of seawater or brackish inland

water is energy intensive, with high salinity brine

and other contaminants (Section4.5.5)

– (T) negative-emission technologies, such as direct

air capture can result in a net increase in water

consumption (Section4.5.5)

Food, ﬁbre,

and other

ecosystem

products

SDG 1,

SDG 2,

SDG 3,

SDG 4,

SDG 5,

SDG 6,

SDG 7,

SDG 9,

SDG 10,

SDG 11,

SDG 12,

SDG 13,

SDG 14,

SDG 15,

SDG 16

– Increased cost and management challenges

of providing safe food (Section5.2.2)

– Warming-induced shifts of species create

resource allocation challenges among

different ﬁshing ﬂeets (Section5.2.1)

– Challenges related to REDD+ implementation

and forest use (Section5.6.3)

– Differences in perceptions about the

validity of different forms of knowledge

(Section5.8.4)

– Inequality in access to climate services

(Section5.14.1)

– Lack of support, policies and incentives for

the adoption of agro-ecological approaches

(BIOECO.1)

– Financial barriers limit implementation of

adaptation options in agriculture, ﬁsheries,

aquaculture and forestry (Section5.14.3)

– Integrated approaches to food, water, health,

biodiversity and energy that involve vulnerable

groups can help to address current and future

food security challenges, reduce vulnerability of

Indigenous People, small-scale landholders and

pastoralists, and promote resilient ecosystems.

(Sections5.12.3, 5.13.2; 5.14)

– Agro-forestry delivers beneﬁts for climate

change mitigation, adaptation, desertiﬁcation,

land degradation and food security, and is

considered to have broad adaptation and

moderate mitigation potential (Section5.10.4)

– Partnerships between key stakeholders such

as researchers, forest managers, and local

actors can lead to a shared understanding of

climate-related challenges and more effective

decisions. (Section5.6.3)

– Livelihood diversiﬁcation (Section5.4.4)

– Social protection policies and programmes

(Section5.4.4)

– Changes in crop management including irrigation,

fertilizers, planting schedules and crop varieties

(Section5.4.4.1)

– Adjusting water management for forage production

(Section5.5.4)

– Rotational grazing of livestock (Section5.5.4)

– Fire management to control woody thickening of

grass (Section5.5.4)

– Using more suitable livestock breeds or species

(Section5.5.4)

– Migratory pastoralist activities (Section5.5.4)

– Monitor and manage the spread of pests, weeds, and

diseases (Section5.5.4)

– Nature- or ecosystem-based strategies

(Section5.12.5.2)

– (S+) agricultural production systems that integrate

crops, livestock, forestry, ﬁsheries and aquaculture

can increase food production per unit of land,

reduce climatic risk and reduce emissions (Chapter

5 Executive Summary)

– (S+) integrated approaches to food, water, health,

biodiversity and energy can help address current

and future food security challenges, reduce

vulnerability of Indigenous People, small-scale

landholders and pastoralists, and promote resilient

ecosystems (Sections5.12.3, 5.13.2, 5.14)

– (T) growing biomass demand for producing

sustainable bio products competes with food

production, with potential effects on food prices

and knock-on effects related to civil unrest

(BIOECO.1)

2730

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Sector

Relevant

SDGs

Challenges Opportunities Options Trade-offs

Cities,

settlements

and key

infrastructure

SDG 11,

SDG 13,

SDG 17

– Poor municipal funding, data collection

and collaboration hinders sustainable

development initiatives, capacity building and

climate action (Sections6.1.5, 6.4.5, 6.4.9)

– High urbanisation rates pose challenges to

areas that already have high levels of poverty,

unemployment, informality and housing and

service backlogs (Section6.2.1)

– Limited capacity for early warning systems in

low-income countries (Section6.3.2)

– Lack of administrative capacities,

coordination across sectors and efforts,

transparency and accountability slows

sustainability transitions and disaster risk

reduction (Case Study 6.4)

– Urban ecological infrastructure including green,

blue, turquoise and others can be a source

of nature-based solutions that can improve

both adaptation and mitigation in urban areas

(Section6.1.2)

– Transition architecture movements can drive

urban adaptation (Section6.4.1)

– Transformative capacities support adaptation

efforts and systemic change processes

(Section6.4.4)

– Incorporating Indigenous and local knowledge

help generate more people-oriented and

place-speciﬁc adaptation policies (Section6.4.7)

– Climate ﬁnance offers the opportunity to

overcome structural impediments to climate

action (Box6.5)

– Urban ecological infrastructure can be a source

of nature-based solutions that can improve

both adaptation and mitigation in urban areas

(Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– High-density environments coupled with other

design measures can provide mitigation and

adaptation beneﬁts (Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN

in Chapter 6)

– Green infrastructure, sustainable land use and

planning, and sustainable water management

(Section6.1.2)

– Nature-based solutions (Section6.3.3)

– Insurance (Section6.3.2)

– switching to air cooling for thermal power plants

(Section6.3.4)

– Increasing the efﬁciency of hydro- and thermoelectric

power plants (Section6.3.4)

– Changing reservoir operation rules (Section6.3.4)

– Upgrading infrastructure and strengthening or

relocating (critical) assets (Section6.3.4)

– Including green, blue, turquoise and nature-based

solutions (Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– Cooling networks (Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in

Chapter 6)

– Early warning systems (Table6.4)

– Resource demand and supply side management

strategies (Table6.4)

– Enhanced monitoring of air quality in rapidly

developing cities (Table6.4)

– Investment in air pollution controls (Table6.4)

– Core and shell preservation, elevation and relocation

for heritage buildings (Section6.3.2)

– (S+) sustainable urban energy planning that

includes opportunities to avoid and reduce

the UHI effect can provide synergies for both

climate mitigation and adaptation in urban areas

(Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– (S+) natural ventilation and passive energy

strategies can capture synergies between climate

mitigation and adaptation (Cross-Chapter

BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– (S+) community-based adaptation has potential

to be better integrated to enhance well-being

and create synergies with the Sustainable

Development Goals

– (T) urban mitigation efforts can create trade-offs

with adaptation such as intensifying the

urban heat island (UHI) effect (Cross-Chapter

BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– (T) efforts aimed at increasing adaptation may

undermine mitigation objectives by increasing

investment in hard infrastructure that increases

emissions (Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

– (T) lack of open and green spaces may induce

long-distance leisure trips thereby increasing

emissions (Cross-Chapter BoxURBAN in Chapter 6)

Health, well-

being and

the changing

structure of

communities

SDG 3,

SDG 5,

SDG 8,

SDG 10,

SDG 13

– A lack of capacity for adaptation has resulted

in only moderate or low levels of adaptation

implementation across different countries

(Section7.4.2)

– Transitioning to renewable energy sources

presents opportunities for realising health

co-beneﬁts (Section7.4.4)

– Shifting to healthier plant-rich diets can

reduce GHG emissions and reduce land use

(Cross-Chapter BoxHEALTH in Chapter 7)

– Future ﬂows of migration within and between

countries are likely to respond strongly to

particular combinations of climatic hazards

and may present challenges for future

adaptation policies and programmes

– Climate change disruptions to natural

environments can be expected to disrupt

livelihood practices, stimulate higher rates

of outmigration to urban centres, and in

some instances necessitate planned or

organised relocations of exposed settlements

(Cross-Chapter BoxMIGRATE in Chapter 7)

– COVID-19 recovery investments offer an

opportunity to contribute to climate resilient

development through a green, resilient,

healthy and inclusive recovery (Cross-Chapter

BoxCOVID in Chapter 7)

– investing in basic infrastructure for all can

transform development opportunities, increase

adaptive capacity and reduce climate risk

(Cross-Chapter BoxHEALTH in Chapter 7)

– Integrated agroecological systems offer

opportunities to increase dietary diversity while

building local resilience to climate-related food

insecurity (Section7.4.2)

– Incorporating climate change and health

considerations into disaster reduction and

management strategies could potentially

improve funding opportunities (Section7.4.2)

– Adaptive urban design that provides access

to healthy natural spaces can promote social

cohesion and mitigate mental health challenges

(Section7.4.2)

– Improved building and urban design including use of

passive cooling systems (Table7.2)

– Better access to public health systems for the most

vulnerable (Table7.2)

– Deployment of renewable energy sources (Table7.2)

– Improved water, sanitation and hygiene conditions

(Table7.2)

Early warning system of vector-borne diseases,

insecticide treated bed nets and indoor spraying of

insecticide (Table7.2)

– Targeted efforts to develop vaccines for infectious

diseases exacerbated by climate change (Table7.2)

– Improved personal drinking and eating habits

(Table7.2)

– Improved food storage, food processing and food

preservation (Table7.2)

– Emergency shelters for people to escape heat

(Table7.2)

– Improved funding and access to mental health care

(Table7.2)

– Improved education for girls and women (Table7.2)

– Improved maternal and child health services

(Table7.2)

– (T) energy strategies for energy efﬁciency and

GHG emissions reductions can generate health

co-beneﬁts through improved air quality but may

slow poverty reduction efforts (Sections7.4.2,

7.4.5)

– (S+) investing in adaptation for health and

community well-being has the potential to

generate considerable co-beneﬁts in terms of

reducing impacts of non-climate health challenges

– (S+) investments in mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions will not only reduce risks associated

with dangerous climate change but will increase

population health and well-being through a

number of pathways. (Section7.4)

2731

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Sector

Relevant

SDGs

Challenges Opportunities Options Trade-offs

Poverty,

livelihoods and

sustainable

development

SDG 1,

SDG 2,

SDG 3,

SDG 5,

SDG 10,

SDG 14

– Use of political frameworks for decision

making that are unfavourable towards

adaptation and system transitions (Table8.4)

– Attitudes towards risk and other cultural

values limit responses (Table8.4)

– Psychological distress causes insecurity

and behaviours that increase vulnerability

(Table8.4)

– Limited ﬁnancial resources to support

adaptation projects (Section8.2.2, Table8.4)

– Small-holder farmers have poor access to

markets and land tenure (Section8.6.1)

– Unsuitable infrastructure may increase

exposure (Table8.4)

– Lack of access to technologies that can

support adaptation (Table8.4)

– Gender-based inequalities constrain women’s

access to resources for adaptation (Table8.7)

– Poverty constrains livelihood diversiﬁcation,

resilience or adaptive capacity (Table8.7)

– Indigenous Peoples and other populations

with strong attachments to place face

barriers to adaptation (Table8.7)

– Local institutions face ongoing challenges

in gaining support from higher governance

levels, particularly in developing countries.

(Section8.5.2)

– Polycentric governance, adaptive governance,

multi-level governance, collaborative governance

or network governance are increasingly

used to understand transitions towards

climate-compatible development (Section8.6.2)

– Well coordinated and integrated nexus

approaches to adaptation offer opportunities

to build resilient systems while harmonising

interventions, mitigating trade-offs and

improving sustainability (Section8.6.2)

– Income from new livelihood activities can

support recovery following disasters linked to

climate variability and change (Section8.4.5)

– Improving industrial processes can contribute

to the optimised use of energy, reuse of waste,

reducing GHG emissions, use of biomass and

more efﬁcient equipment (Table8.3)

– Industrialisation and technological innovation in

rural areas may assist vulnerable communities

through provision of resources, enhanced

forecast information or reuse of biowaste

(Table8.3)

– Responses to climate change can create

signiﬁcant development opportunities including

job creation and livelihood diversiﬁcation

(Section8.4.3)

– Expanded private sector activity and public–private

partnerships (Section8.6.1)

– Credit and insurance (Section8.6.1)

– Use of climate-smart agricultural practices and

technologies (Section8.6.1)

– Crop insurance (Section8.6.1)

– Conservation agriculture (Section8.6.1)

– Changing farmers’ perception and enhancing

farmers’ adaptive capacity (Section8.6.1)

– REDD+ (Section8.6.1)

– improving industrial processes (Table8.3)

– Renewable energy and energy efﬁciency (Table8.3)

– Smart electricity grids (Section8.6.1)

– Green buildings (Section8.6.1)

– Efﬁcient fuels (Section8.6.1)

– Pollution control investments (Section8.6.1)

– Public transit and non-motorised transport with

increased use of biofuels (Section8.6.1)

– Integrated natural resource management (Table8.2)

– Disaster risk management (Table8.2)

– Relocation of vulnerable communities (Table8.2)

– Education and communication (Table8.2)

– Land use planning (Table8.3)

– (S+) agriculture technologies facilitate mitigation

to climate change and adaptation such as saving

water while maintaining grain yield (Section8.6.1)

– (S+) sustainable pastoralism increases carbon

sequestration but can also contribute to

adaptation by changing grazing management,

livestock breeds, pest management and production

structures (Section8.6.1)

– (S+) REDD+ may provide adaptation beneﬁts

by enhancing households’ economic resilience

through positive livelihood impacts (Section8.6.1)

– (S+) solar energy contributes to reducing GHG

emissions and improving air quality (Section8.6.1)

– (S+) hydropower contributes to mitigation and

adaptation through water resource availability for

irrigation and drinking water (Section8.6.1)

– (S+) green roofed buildings contribute to cooler

temperatures, thereby reducing energy use for

air-conditioning (Section8.6.1)

– (T) mitigation measures such as bioenergy

may result in trade-offs with efforts to achieve

sustainable development, eradicate poverty and

reduce inequalities (Section8.6.1)

– (T) migration to urban centres can be a form of

adaptation, but can increase the vulnerability

of communities of origin or at destinations

(Section8.2.2)

2732

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

for options feasibility for both mitigation (SR1.5 ref) and adaptation

(Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB). This assessment allows the range of

available options to be considered in a more critical light, particularly

when considering opportunities for implementation over the near

term. Meanwhile, the other challenge is that of option efﬁcacy.

Signiﬁcant uncertainties remain regarding how well a given option will

perform in a speciﬁc context and whether it is capable of adequately

addressing risk (Section18.6.1). Such uncertainties can undermine the

pursuit of CRD or at least efforts to accelerate system transitions that

support CRD (medium evidence, medium agreement) (Section18.3).

Accordingly, closer examination of option implementation in the real

world, including within different sectoral and regional contexts, would

enhance the knowledge available to decision makers regarding which

options will best ﬁt the needs of a given CRD pathway.

18.6 Conclusions and Research Needs

18.6.1 Knowledge Gaps

Research to improve the understanding of CRD currently exists in a

nascent state, because, as noted in the AR5, ‘integrating climate change

mitigation, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development is

a relatively new challenge’ (Denton etal., 2014). While a large volume of

literature has emerged since the AR5 that spans the nexus of sustainable

development, CRD and climate action, the identiﬁed research gaps

in AR5 (Denton et al., 2014) continue to be priorities for informing

CRD. These include enhancing understanding of mainstreaming of

climate change into institutional decision making, managing risk

under conditions of uncertainty, catalysing system transitions and

transformation, and processes for enhancing participation, equity and

accountability in sustainable development (very high conﬁdence).

The more recent literature adds signiﬁcant context to the concept

of CRD, but also introduces broader perspectives regarding its

signiﬁcance in the arena of climate action. Hence, concepts that are

both complementary to, and competitive with, CRD, such as ‘climate

safe’, ‘climate compatible’ and ‘climate smart’ development (Huxham

etal., 2015; Kim etal., 2017b; Ficklin etal., 2018; Mcleod etal., 2019)

(Section18.1.1). These different framings of the intersection between

sustainable development and climate action are used in different

communities of research and practice, which complicates efforts to

provide clear guidance to decision makers regarding the goals of CRD

and how best to achieve it. This is attributable in part to persistent

conceptual confusion and disciplinary divides over more fundamental

concepts such as resilience and sustainability (Rogers et al., 2020;

Zaman, 2021), not to mention contested perspectives regarding

development (Lo et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020a; Morton, 2021)

(medium agreement, medium evidence).

Reconciling different perspectives on CRD is not simply a matter of

academic debate. Climate action, resilience and sustainable development

are all active areas of policy and practice with signiﬁcant economic,

social, environmental and political implications (Section18.1.3). Hence,

enhancing the role of CRD as a practical framework for development

and a guide for action may necessitate improving the science–policy

discourse regarding CRD (Winterfeldt, 2013; Jones etal., 2014; Ryan

and Bustos, 2019). This includes consideration for risk and science

communication; decision analysis and decision support systems; and

mechanisms for knowledge co-production between scientists and

public policy actors (very high conﬁdence).

In addition, the AR6 WGII report highlights a number of elements

of CRD that are associated with signiﬁcant knowledge gaps and

uncertainties. As a result, enhancing the value of CRD as a unifying

concept in development would beneﬁt from further conceptualisation

and socialisation of the concept, as well as efforts to address the

following knowledge gaps:

• The challenges posed by different levels of global warming to

achieving CRD and the magnitude and nature of the adaptation

gap (and associated ﬁnance needs) that must be addressed to

enable climate resilience.

• The efﬁcacy of different adaptation, mitigation and sustainable

development interventions in reducing climate risk and/or

enhancing opportunities for CRD in the short, medium and long

term.

• How different CRD pathways can be designed such that they

illustrate opportunities for the practical pursuit of CRD in a manner

consistent with principles of inclusion, equity and justice.

• How deliberative, participatory learning can be integrated into

approaches to CRD to enhance the representation of diverse actors,

forms of knowledge, governance regimes, economic systems and

models for decision making in CRD.

• The synergies and trade-offs associated with the implementation

of different policy packages and the design principles and

development contexts that enhance the ability to successfully

manage potential trade-offs.

• The limits of incremental system transitions to achieving CRD

on a timeline that reﬂects the urgency associated with the Paris

Agreement and the SDGs.

• The capacity of governments, social institutions and individuals to

drive large-scale social transformations that open up the solutions

space for CRD.

• Best practices for avoiding maladaptation and ensuring that

adaptation interventions are designed so they do not exacerbate

vulnerability to climate change to support CRD.

18.6.2 Conclusions

The concept of CRD presents an ambitious agenda for actors at

multiple scales—global to local, particularly in the manner in which it

reframes climate action to integrate a broader set of objectives than

simply reducing GHG emissions or adapting to the impacts of climate

change. Speciﬁcally, recent literature extends policy goals for climate

action beyond avoiding dangerous interference with the climate

system to adopt normative goals of meeting basic human needs,

eliminating poverty and enabling sustainable development in ways

that are just and equitable. This creates a policy landscape for climate

action that is not only richer, but also more complex in that it situates

responses to climate change squarely within the development arena.

Current policy goals associated with the Paris Agreement, Sendai

Framework and the SDGs imply aggressive timetables. Yet, as noted

2733

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

in the AR5 and supported by more recent literature (Section18.2.1),

the world is neither on track to achieve all of the SDGs nor fulﬁl the

Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting the increase in the global

mean temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and

pursuing efforts to limit warming 1.5°C. (Denton etal., 2014; IPCC,

2018a). This places aspirations for CRD in a precarious position.

Transitions will be necessary across multiple systems (Section18.1.3).

While some may be already underway, the pace of those transitions

must accelerate, and societal transformations may be necessary to

enable CRD (Sections18.3, 18.4, Box18.1).

Given the pace of climate change and the inherent challenge of

sustainable development, particularly in the face of inevitable

disruptions and setbacks such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Cross-

Chapter BoxCOVID in Chapter 7), the feasibility of achieving CRD is

an open question. Rapid changes will be required to shift public and

private investments, strengthen institutions and orient them towards

more sustainable policies and practices, expand the inclusiveness of

governance and the equity of decision making, and shift societal and

consumer preferences to more climate-resilient lifestyles. Nevertheless,

the collective body of recent literature on CRD, system transitions

and societal transformation, combined with the assessments within

recent IPCC Special Reports (IPCC, 2018a; IPCC, 2019b; IPCC, 2019d)

indicate that there are a broad range of opportunities for designing and

implementing adaptation and mitigation options that enable the climate

goals in the Paris Agreement to be achieved while enhancing resilience

and meeting sustainable development objectives. However, options

should be considered alongside the mechanisms by which societies can

engage to create the conditions that can support the implementation

of those options (Section18.4). This includes formal policy mechanisms

pursued by governments, the catalysation of innovation by private ﬁrms

and entrepreneurship, as well as informal, grassroots interventions by

civil society. While there is no ‘one-size-ﬁts-all’ solution for CRD that

will work for all actors at all scales, exploring different pathways by

which actors can achieve their development and climate goals can make

valuable contributions to developing effective strategies for CRD.

A fundamental challenge for achieving CRD globally is reconciling

different perspectives on CRD. As noted in the AR5, ‘as policy makers

explore what pathways to pursue, they will increasingly face questions

about managing discourses about what societal objectives to

pursue’ (Denton etal., 2014: 1124). Since the AR5, such discourses

have become prominent in policy debates over climate action and

sustainable development because of different nations, communities

and subpopulations having different understandings of what

constitutes CRD. Aggressive efforts to rapidly reduce GHG emissions or

enhance resilience to climate change, for example, could have negative

externalities for the development objectives of some actors. This

potential for trade-offs complicates efforts to build consensus regarding

what constitutes appropriate climate and development policies and

practices and by whom. The CRD pathways preferred by one actor are

likely to be contested by others. This means operationalising concepts

such as CRD in practice is likely to necessitate ongoing negotiation.

Ultimately, one of the critical developments within the literature is

the emergence of procedural and distributive justice as key criteria for

evaluating climate action and CRD more speciﬁcally. This trend not

only recognises the need to prevent vulnerable human and ecological

systems from experiencing disproportionate harm from the changing

climate, but also the need to prevent those same systems from being

harmed by mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development

policies and practices. Failure to adequately engage with equity

and justice when designing sustainability transitions could lead

to maladaptation, aggravated poverty, reinforcement of existing

inequalities, and entrenched gender bias and exclusion of Indigenous

and marginalised communities (Jenkins etal., 2018; Fisher etal., 2019;

Schipper et al., 2020b). These consequences could ultimately slow,

rather than accelerate, CRD. Hence, developing programmes and

practices for prioritising equity in effective transition risk management

is an important dimension of enabling CRD.

As indicated by the literature assessed within this chapter, keeping

windows of opportunity open for CRD will necessitate urgent action,

even under diverse assumptions regarding how future mitigation and

adaptation interventions evolve. If nations are to collectively limit

warming to well below 2°C, for example, unprecedented emissions

reductions will be necessary over the next decade (IPCC, 2018a).

These reductions would necessitate rapid progression of system

transitions (Section 18.3). If, despite the Paris Agreement, future

emissions trajectories take the world beyond 2°C, a greater demand

will be placed on adaptation as a means of enhancing the resilience

of development. Given the long-lived nature of human systems, and

the built environment in particular, signiﬁcant adaptation investments

would be needed over the near-term to meet this demand. Yet, it

is important to note that, even in the absence of consideration for

climate change, substantial development needs exist for communities

around the world at present. Hence, a robust strategy for the pursuit of

CRDPs is a near-term focus on portfolios of policies and practices that

promote human and ecological well-being.

2734

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.1 | What is a climate resilient development pathway?

A pathway is deﬁned in IPCC reports as a temporal evolution of natural and/or human systems towards a

future state. Pathways can range from sets of scenarios or narratives of potential futures to solution-oriented

decision-making processes to achieve desirable societal goals. Climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) are

therefore trajectories for the pursuit of climate resilient development (CRD) and navigating its complexities. They

involve ongoing processes that strengthen sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities

while promoting fair adaptation and mitigation across multiple scales. As the pursuit of CRDPs is contingent on

achieving larger-scale societal transformation, CRDPs invariably raise questions of ethics, equity and feasibility of

options to drastically reduce emission of greenhouse gasses (mitigation) that limit global warming (e.g., to well

below 2°C) and achieve desirable and liveable futures and well-being for all.

There in no one, correct pathway for CRD, but rather multiple pathways depending on factors such as the political,

cultural and economic contexts in which different actors ﬁnd themselves. Some development pathways are more

consistent with CRD, while others move society away from CRD. Moreover, CRDPs are not one single decision

or action. Rather, CRDPs represent a continuum of coherent, consistent decisions, actions and interventions that

evolve within individual communities, nations, and the world. Different actors, the private sector, and civil society,

inﬂuenced by science, local and Indigenous knowledges, and the media play a role in designing and navigating

CRD pathways.

While dependent on past patterns of development and their socio-ethical, political, economic, ecological and

knowledge-technology outcomes at any point in time, transformation, ecological tipping points and shocks can

create sudden shifts and unexpected nonlinear development pathways. Actions taken today can enable or foreclose

some future potential CRDPs. The differentiated impacts of hurricanes and COVID-19 on nations and communities

around the world illustrate how the character of societal development such as equity and inclusion have enabled

some societies to be more resilient than others.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.2 | What is climate resilient development and how can climate change adaptation (measures) contribute to

achieving this?

Climate resilient development (CRD) is a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation options

to support sustainable development for all in ways that support human and planetary health and well-being, equity

and justice. CRD combines adaptation and mitigation with underlying development choices and everyday actions,

carried out by multiple actors within political, economic, ecological, socio-ethical and knowledge-technology

arenas. The character of processes within these development arenas are intrinsic to how social choices are made and

they determine whether development moves society along pathways toward CRD or away. For example, inclusion,

agency and social justice are qualities within the political arena that underpin actions that enable CRD.

CRD addresses the relationship between GHG emissions, levels of warming and related climate risks. However, CRD

involves more than just achieving temperature targets. It considers the possible transitions that enable those targets

to be achieved as well as the evaluation of different adaptation strategies and how the implementation of these

strategies interact with broader sustainable development efforts and objectives. This interdependence between

patterns of development, climate risk and the demand for mitigation and adaptation action is fundamental to the

concept of CRD. Therefore, climate change and sustainable development cannot be assessed or planned in isolation

of one another.

Hence, CRD represents development that deliberately adopts mitigation and adaptation measures to secure a

safe climate on earth, meet basic needs for each human being, eliminate poverty and enable equitable, just and

sustainable development. It halts practices causing dangerous levels of global warming. CRD may involve deep

societal transformation to ensure well-being for all. CRD is now emerging as one of the guiding principles for

climate policy, both at the international level, reﬂected in the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), and within speciﬁc

countries.

2735

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Multiple intertwined climate resilient development pathways

Drought

Heat wave

Famine

Ecosystem shift

Species

extinction

Pathway not taken

Hurricanes

Covid 19

Conflict

ovid 19

Flood

INCREASINGLY CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT

PAST

PRESENT FUTURE

Energy system transition Land and ecosystem transitions Indigene knowledge Inclusion

Well-being based development Diversity Gender equalityEmpowerment

Quality education Solidarity Social justice and equity

Human and planetary health

SAFE CLIMATE.

DIGNIFIED LIVING STANDARDS

FOR ALL

DANGEROUS CLIMATE

IRRESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION.

IN AN UNEQUAL WORLD

Fossil-fuel based consumption

Emission and pollution

Individualism Exclusion

Disempowerment

Environmental degradation Exploitation Social injustice and inequity Nature-society disconnect Marginalisation and discrimination

Shock

FigureFAQ18.2.1 | Multiple intertwined climate resilient development pathways. Climate change adaptation is one of several climatic and non-climatic measures carried out through decision making by multiple

actors that may drive a pathway in a CRD or non-CRD direction. Adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions can push a society in a CRD direction, but only if these measures are just and equitable. There are

multiple simultaneous pathways in the past, present and future. Societies (illustrated as boats) move on different pathways, towards CRD and non-CRD, with some pathways more dominant than others. The direction of pathways

is emergent, taking place through contestations and social choices, through social transformation as well as through surprises and shocks (illustrated as rocks). Path dependency means it is possible but often turbulent to shift

from a non-CRD to a CRD pathway. Such a shift becomes more difﬁcult as risks/shocks increase (more rocks) and non-CRD processes and outcomes progress, limiting future options. Low CRD processes and outcomes at the

bottom are characterised by inequity, exclusion, polarisation, environmental and social exploitation, entrenchment of Business-As-Usual, with increasing risks/shocks. High CRD processes and outcomes (at the top of the ﬁgure)

are characterised by equity, solidarity, justice, human well-being, planetary health, stewardship/care and system transitions.

FAQ5.1 (continued)

2736

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.3 | How can different actors across society and levels of government be empowered to pursue climate

resilient development?

CRD entails trade-offs between different policy objectives. Governments as well as political and economic elites

may play a key role in deﬁning the direction of development at a national and sub-national scale; but in practice,

these pathways can be inﬂuenced and even resisted by local people, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and

civil society.

Given such tensions, contestation and debate are inherent to the deﬁnition and pursuit of CRD. An active civil

society and citizenship create the enabling conditions for deliberation, protest, dissent and pressure, which are

fundamental for an inclusive participatory process. These enable a multiplicity of actors to engage across multiple

arenas including governmental, economic and ﬁnancial, political, knowledge, science & technology, and community.

Decisions and actions may be inﬂuenced by uneven interactions among actors, including socio-political relations

of domination, marginalisation, contestation, compliance and resistance, with diverse and often unpredictable

outcomes.

In this way, recent social movements and climate protests reﬂect new modalities of action in response to social,

economic, and political inaction. The new climate movement, led mostly by youth, seeks science-based policy and,

more importantly, rejects a reformist stance toward climate action in favour of radical climate action. This is mostly

pursued through collective disruptive action and non-violent resistance to promote awareness, a regenerative

culture and ethics of care. These movements have resulted in notable political successes, such as declarations

of climate emergency at the national and local level, as well as in universities. Also, their methods have proven

effective to end fossil fuel sponsorship.

The success and importance of recent climate movements also suggest a need to rethink the role of science in society.

On one hand, the new climate movements demanding political action were prompted by the ﬁndings of scientiﬁc

reports, mainly the IPCC (2018a) and IPBES (2019) reports. On the other hand, these movements have increased

public awareness and stimulated public engagement with climate change at unprecedented levels beyond what the

scientiﬁc community can do alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.4 | What role do transitions and transformations in energy, urban and infrastructure, industrial, land and

ocean ecosystems, and in society, play in climate resilient development?

The IPCC SR1.5 report identiﬁed transitions in four key systems, including energy, land and ocean ecosystems, urban

and infrastructure, and industry, as being fundamental to the pursuit of CRD. In addition, this report identiﬁes

societal transitions, in terms of values and worldviews that shape aspirations, lifestyles and consumption patterns,

as another key component of CRD. Acknowledging societal transitions has implications for how one assesses options

and values different outcomes from the perspectives of ethics, equity, justice and inclusion. Collectively, these

system transitions can widen the solution space and accelerate and deepen the implementation of sustainable

development, adaptation, and mitigation actions by equipping actors and decision-makers with more effective

and more equitable options. However, the way they are pursued may not necessarily be perceived as ethical or

desirable to all actors. Moreover, system transitions are necessary precursors for more fundamental climate and

sustainable-development transformations. Yet, these transitions can themselves be outcomes of transformative

actions.

2737

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 18.5 | What are success criteria in climate resilient development and how can actors satisfy those criteria?

CRD is not a predeﬁned goal to be achieved at a certain point or stage in the future. It is a constant process of

evaluating, valuing, acting and adjusting various options for mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development,

shaped by societal values as well as contestations of those values. Any achievement or success is always a work in

progress driven by with continuous, directed, intentional actions. These actions will vary according to the priorities

and needs of each population or system; therefore, speciﬁc criteria for, and indicators of, CRD will vary according

to each speciﬁc context. This respect for context ensures the pursuit of CRD prioritizes people, planet, prosperity,

peace and partnership, per the broad goals of the Agenda 2030 on sustainable development.

If CRD is deﬁned as a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation options to support

sustainable development for all, this implies various potential criteria for success. These include the adoption of

mitigation and adaptation measures to secure a safe climate, meet basic needs, eliminate poverty and enable

equitable, just and sustainable development for all. Therefore, the 17 United Nations’ SDGs provide a good

(although limited) measure of progress toward CRD. The SDGs aim at ending poverty and hunger globally and

protect life on land and underwater until the year 2030. Although there are proven synergies between the SDGs

and mitigation, there remain synergies between the SDGs and adaptation that need to be explored further.

2738

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

References

Abrahams, D., 2020: Conﬂict in abundance and peacebuilding in scarcity:

Challenges and opportunities in addressing climate change and conﬂict.

World Dev, 132, 104998, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104998.

Abrahams, D. and E. Carr, 2017: Understanding the Connections Between

Climate Change and Conﬂict: Contributions From Geography and Political

Ecology. Curr Clim Change Rep, 3, doi:10.1007/s40641-017-0080-z.

Abson, D.J., et al., 2017: Leverage points for sustainability transformation.

Ambio, 46(1), 30–39, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

Abu-Rabia-Queder, S. and A. Morris, 2018: Women in Drylands: Barriers and

Beneﬁts for Sustainable Livelihood. J. Arid Environ., 149, 1–3, doi:10.1016/j.

jaridenv.2017.11.009.

Acemoglu, D., U. Akcigit, D. Hanley and W. Kerr, 2016: Transition to Clean

Technology. J. Polit. Econ., 124(1), 52–104, doi:10.1086/684511.

Acevedo, S., etal., 2018: The Effects of Weather Shocks on Economic Activity:

What are the Channels of Impact? Imf Work. Pap., 18(144), 1. Available at:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/06/22/The-Effects-

of-Weather-Shocks-on-Economic-Activity-What-are-the-Channels-of-

Impact-45970#: :text=IMF Working Papers&text=In these countries%2C a

rise,slower investment%2C and poorer health.

Acosta, M., etal., 2019: Discursive translations of gender mainstreaming norms:

the case of agricultural and climate change policies in Uganda. Womens

Stud. Int. Forum, 74, 9–19, doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2019.02.010.

Adams, C., T. Ide, J. Barnett and A. Detges, 2018: Sampling bias in climate–

conﬂict research. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8(3), 200–203, doi:10.1038/s41558-

018-0068-2.

Adenle, A.A., etal., 2017: Managing Climate Change Risks in Africa – A Global

Perspective. Ecol. Econ., 141, 190–201.

Adzawla, W., S.B. Azumah, P.Y. Anani and S.A. Donkoh, 2019: Gender

perspectives of climate change adaptation in two selected districts of Ghana.

Heliyon, 5(11), e2854, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02854.

Agarwal, B., 2020: Does group farming empower rural women? Lessons from

India’s experiments. JPeasant Stud, 47(4), 841–872, doi:10.1080/0306615

0.2019.1628020.

Ahlborg, H., 2017: Towards a conceptualization of power in energy transitions.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 25, 122–141, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.004.

Ahlborg, H., I. Ruiz-Mercado, S. Molander and O. Masera, 2019: Bringing

Technology into Social-Ecological Systems Research—Motivations for a

Socio-Technical-Ecological Systems Approach. Sustainability, 11(7), 2009,

doi:10.3390/su11072009.

Ahmad, B., 2019: An Analysis of Climate Change in Pakistan. Scholars’ Press,

Chisinau, Republic of Moldova. ISBN 13: 9786138512813.

Åhman, M., L.J. Nilsson and B. Johansson, 2017: Global climate policy and deep

decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. Clim. Policy, 17(5), 634–649,

doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1167009.

Aipira, C., A. Kidd and K. Morioka, 2017: Climate change adaptation in paciﬁc

countries: fostering resilience through gender equality. In: Climate Change

Adaptation in Paciﬁc Countries [Leal Filho, W.(ed.)]. Springer International

Publishing, Cham, pp. 225–239. ISBN 978-3319500935 978-3-319-50094-

2).

Ajibade, I. and M. Egge, 2019: SDGs and climate change adaptation in asian

megacities: synergies and opportunities for transformation. In: Achieving the

Sustainable Development Goals. Routledge, London. ISBN 978-0429029622.

Alam, K., etal., 2011: The political economy of climate resilient development

planning in Bangladesh. IDS Bull., 42(3), 52–61, doi:10.1111/j.1759-

5436.2011.00222.x.

Albizua, A., E. Corbera and U. Pascual, 2019: Farmers’ vulnerability to global

change in Navarre, Spain: large-scale irrigation as maladaptation. Reg.

Environ. Change, 19(4), 1147–1158, doi:10.1007/s10113-019-01462-2.

Albrecht, G., etal., 2007: Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental

change. Australas Psychiatry, doi:10.1080/10398560701701288.

Aldy, J.E., N. Bento and G. Gianfrate, 2021: National climate policies and

corporate internal carbon pricing. Energy J., 42(5), 87–98.

Aldy, J.E. and G. Gianfrate, 2019: Future-Proof Your Climate Strategy. Harvard

Business Review, Boston.

Aleluia Reis, L., L. Drouet, R. Van Dingenen and J. Emmerling, 2018: Future global

air quality indices under different socioeconomic and climate assumptions.

Sustainability, 10(10), doi:10.3390/su10103645.

Alkire, S. and S. Jahan, 2018: The New Global MPI 2018: Aligning with the

Sustainable Development Goals. UNDP Human Development Report Ofﬁce,

New York.

Allen, C., G. Metternicht and T. Wiedmann, 2018a: Initial progress in

implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a review of

evidence from countries. Sustain Sci, 13(5), 1453–1467, doi:10.1007/

s11625-018-0572-3.

Allen, M.R., O.P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys,

M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M. Wairiu, and

K. Zickfeld, 2018b: Framing and Context. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An

IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-

industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in

the context of strengthening the global response to the. 29–91 pp.

Allwood, G., 2014: Gender mainstreaming and EU climate change policy. Eur.

Integr. Online Pap. (EIoP), 18, 1–26; doi: 10.1695/2014006.

Allwood, G., 2020: Gender equality in European Union development policy in times

of crisis. Polit. Stud. Rev., 18(3), 329–345, doi:10.1177/1478929919863224.

Allwood, J., et al., 2019: Absolute Zero. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/

handle/1810/299414. Accessed 2020.

Allwood, J.M., M.F. Ashby, T.G. Gutowski and E. Worrell, 2013: Material

efﬁciency: providing material services with less material production. Philos.

Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 371(1986), doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0496.

Alston, M., 2014: Gender mainstreaming and climate change. Womens Stud Int

Forum, 47, 287–294, doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.01.016.

Altenburg, T. and D. Rodrik, 2017: Green industrial policy: Accelerating structural

change towards wealthy green economies. Green Ind. Policy. Available at:

https://j.mp/2wULvlo.

Alvaredo, F., etal., 2017: Global inequality dynamics: new ﬁndings from WID.

world. Am. Econ. Rev., 107(5), 404–409.

Ambrosio, N., Y.H. Kim, S. Swann and Z. Wang, 2020: Optimizing Community

Infrastructure. In: Chapter 7 – Addressing Climate Risk in Financial Decision

Making [Colker, R.(ed.)]. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 123–142.

ISBN 978-0128162408.

Aminga, V.M. and F. Krampe, 2020: Climate-related Security Risks and the

African Union. SIPRI. accessed 2021-08-30. Available at: https://www.sipri.

org/publications/2020/sipri-policy-briefs/climate-related-security-risks-and-

african-union

Enders, J. C., 2016: Theories of Sustainable Development. Routledge, London.

Andersson, J.J., 2019: Carbon Taxes and CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions: Sweden

as a Case Study. Am. Econ. Journal: Econ. Policy, 11(4), 1–30, doi:10.1257/

pol.20170144.

Andonova, L.B., T.N. Hale and C.B. Roger, 2017: National policy and transnational

governance of climate change: substitutes or complements? Int StudiesQ,

61(2), 253–268.

Andreucci, D., 2019: Populism, emancipation, and environmental governance:

insights from Bolivia. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 109(2), 624–633, doi:10.1080

/24694452.2018.1506696.

Andrijevic, M., etal., 2020a: Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient

development. Nat Commun, 11(1), 6261, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19856-w.

Andrijevic, M., et al., 2020b: COVID-19 recovery funds dwarf clean energy

investment needs. Science, 370(6514), 298–300, doi:10.1126/science.

abc9697.

2739

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Ansar, A., B. Caldecott and J. Tilbury, 2013: Stranded assets and the fossil fuel

divestment campaign: What does divestment mean for the valuation of

fossil fuel assets? Business. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/

paper/Stranded-assets-and-the-fossil-fuel-divestment-What-Ansar-Caldecot

t/7b3e360b303a7303e80643452d9720e50237abd4

Antal, M. and J. van den Bergh, 2014: Green growth and climate change:

conceptual and empirical considerations. Clim. Policy, 16, 1–13, doi:10.10

80/14693062.2014.992003.

Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, T.P. Agyekum and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Alignment

between nationally determined contributions and the sustainable

development goals for West Africa. Clim. Policy, 18(10), 1296–1312, doi:10.

1080/14693062.2018.1431199.

Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill and L.C. Stringer, 2017: Assessing coherence

between sector policies and climate compatible development: opportunities

for triple wins. Sustainability, 9(11), 2130, doi:10.3390/su9112130.

Appiah, D.O. and S.E.A. Gbeddy, 2018: A synthesis of the implementation

ambivalence of REDD+ in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. For. Soc.,

92–111, doi:10.24259/fs.v2i1.2918.

Araos, M., J. Ford, L. Berrang-ford and R. Biesbroek, 2017: Climate change

adaptation planning for Global South megacities : the case of Dhaka. J.

Environ. Policy Plan., 19(6), 1–15.

Ari, İ., 2017: Tthe interconnection between sustainable development goals and

the climate change negotiations: the Paris Agreement case. Altern. Polit.,

9(Special), 27–45.

Arifeen, A. and I. Nyborg, 2021: How humanitarian assistance practices

exacerbate vulnerability: Knowledges, authority and legitimacy in disaster

interventions in Baltistan, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 54, 102027,

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102027.

Arku, G. and L. Marais, 2021: Global South Urbanisms and Urban

Sustainability—Challenges and the Way Forward. Front. Sustain. Cities,

doi:10.3389/frsc.2021.692799.

Arneth, A., F. Denton, F. Agus, A. Elbehri, K. Erb, B. Osman Elasha, M. Rahimi, M.

Rounsevell, A. Spence, R. Valentini, 2019: Framing and context. In: Climate

Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertiﬁcation,

land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and

greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P. R., J. Skea, E.

Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R.

Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi,

M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M.

Belkacemi and J. Malley (eds.)], In press.

Arneth, A., N. Unger, M. Kulmala and M.O. Andreae, 2009: Clean the Air, Heat

the Planet? Science, 326(5953), 672–673, doi:10.1126/science.1181568.

Arora-Jonsson, S., 2011: Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender

and climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21(2), 744–751, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2011.01.005.

Arora-Jonsson, S., 2019: Indigeneity and Climate Justice in Northern Sweden.

Vol. 9781786997821. eBook ePub: 9781786997852 eBook Kindle:

9781786997845 Library Edition: 9781786997814.

Arora-Jonsson, S. and B.B. Sijapati, 2018: Disciplining gender in environmental

organizations: the texts and practices of gender mainstreaming. Gend. Work.

Organ., 25(3), 309–325, doi:10.1111/gwao.12195.

Arora-Jonsson, S., L. Westholm, B.J. Temu and A. Petitt, 2016: Carbon and cash

in climate assemblages: the making of a new global citizenship. Antipode,

48(1), 74–96, doi:10.1111/anti.12170.

Arslan, A., etal., 2015: Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation

implications in Zambia. J. Agric. Econ., 66(3), 753–780, doi:10.1111/1477-

9552.12107.

Aseﬁ-Najafabady, S., etal., 2018: Climate change, population, and poverty:

vulnerability and exposure to heat stress in countries bordering the Great

Lakes of Africa. Clim. Change, 148(4), 561–573, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-

2211-5.

Asfaw, S., G. Pallante and A. Palma, 2018: Diversiﬁcation strategies and

adaptation deﬁcit: evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Dev,

101, 219–234, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.004.

ASSAR, 2018: What global warming of 1.5°C and higher means for Kenya.

University of Cape Town, (ASSAR), A. a. S. i. S. A. R. Available at: https://www.

weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/ﬁles/kenya_1.5_infographic_and_climate-

by-zones_table.pdf (accessed 20/01/2022).

Atsiaya, G.O., O.I. Ayuya, L.W. Nakhone and J.K. Lagat, 2019: Drivers and

responses to climate variability by agro-pastoralists in Kenya: the case of

Laikipia County. Sn Appl. Sci., 1(8), 827.

Atteridge, A. and E. Remling, 2018: Is adaptation reducing vulnerability or

redistributing it? WIREs Clim. Chang., 9(1), e500, doi:10.1002/wcc.500.

Auffhammer, M., P. Baylis and C.H. Hausman, 2017: Climate change is projected

to have severe impacts on the frequency and intensity of peak electricity

demand across the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114(8), 1886–1891,

doi:10.1073/pnas.1613193114.

Aung, T.S., B. Saboori and E. Rasoulinezhad, 2017: Economic growth and

environmental pollution in Myanmar: an analysis of environmental Kuznets

curve. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 24(25), 20487–20501, doi:10.1007/s11356-

017-9567-3.

Austin, S., etal., 2015: Public health adaptation to climate change in Canadian

jurisdictions. IJERPH, 12(1), 623–651.

Avelino, F. and J. Grin, 2017: Beyond deconstruction. a reconstructive

perspective on sustainability transition governance. Environ. Innov. Soc.

Transit., 22, 15–25, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.07.003.

Avelino, F., J. Grin, B. Pel and S. Jhagroe, 2016: The politics of sustainability

transitions. J. Environ. Policy Plan., 18(5), 557–567, doi:10.1080/152390

8X.2016.1216782.

Avelino, F. and J.M. Wittmayer, 2016: Shifting power relations in sustainability

transitions: a multi-actor perspective. J. Environ. Policy Plan., 18(5), 628–

649, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.

Avila, S., 2018: Environmental justice and the expanding geography of wind

power conﬂicts. Sustain Sci, 13(3), 599–616, doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0547-

Avriel-Avni, N. and J. Dick, 2019: Chapter Five – Differing perceptions of

socio-ecological systems: Insights for future transdisciplinary research. In:

Advances in Ecological Research [Bohan, D.A. and A.J. Dumbrell(eds.)].

Academic Press, Cambridge, MA , pp. 153–190.

Ayers, J.M. and S. Huq, 2009: Supporting adaptation to climate change: what

role for ofﬁcial development assistance? Dev Policy Rev, 27(6), 675–692,

doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00465.x.

Babcicky, P., 2013: A conﬂict-sensitive approach to climate change adaptation.

Peace Rev., 25(4), 480–488, doi:10.1080/10402659.2013.846131.

Bai, Y., et al., 2019: Does climate adaptation of vulnerable households to

extreme events beneﬁt livestock production? JClean Prod, 210, 358–365,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.250.

Baker, L., P. Newell and J. Phillips, 2014: The political economy of energy

transitions: the case of South Africa. New Polit. Econ., 19(6), 791–818, doi:1

0.1080/13563467.2013.849674.

Balehey, S., G. Tesfay and M. Balehegn, 2018: Traditional gender inequalities

limit pastoral women’s opportunities for adaptation to climate change:

Evidence from the Afar pastoralists of Ethiopia. Pastoralism, 8(1), 23,

doi:10.1186/s13570-018-0129-1.

Bamzai-Dodson, A., A. E. Cravens, A. A. Wade and R. A. McPherson, 2021:

Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: a framework and

guidance. Weather, Climate, and Society, 13(4), 1027–1041.

Bandura, A. and L. Cherry, 2020: Enlisting the power of youth for climate

change. Am. Psychol., 75(7), 945–951, doi:10.1037/amp0000512.

Banerjee, O., M. Cicowiez, R. Vargas and M. Horridge, 2019: The SEEA-based

integrated economic-environmental modelling framework: an illustration

with Guatemala’s forest and fuelwood sector. Environ. Resour. Econ., 72(2),

539–558.

2740

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Bangura, Y., 2019: Convergence is not equality. Development & Change, 50(2),

394–409, doi:10.1111/dech.12489.

Bank of England, 2019: The 2021 biennial exploratory scenario on the ﬁnancial

risks from climate change. Available at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/

paper/2019/biennial-exploratory-scenario-climate-change-discussion-paper

Baranzini, A., et al., 2017: Carbon pricing in climate policy: seven reasons,

complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. WIREs

Clim. Chang., 8(4), e462, doi:10.1002/wcc.462.

Barata, M. M. L., P. L. Kinney, K. Dear, E. Ligeti, K. L. Ebi, J. Hess, T. Dickinson, A. K.

Quinn, M. Obermaier, D. Silva Sousa, D. Jack 2018: Urban Health. In: Climate

Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change

Research Network. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 363–398.

Bárcena-Martín, E., S. Medina-Claros and S. Pérez-Moreno, 2021: Economic

regulation, opportunity-driven entrepreneurship and gender gap: emerging

versus high-income economies. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res., 27(5),

1311–1328, doi:10.1108/IJEBR-05-2020-0321.

Barker, A.J. and J. Pickerill, 2020: Doings with the land and sea: Decolonising

geographies, Indigeneity, and enacting place-agency. Prog Hum Geogr,

44(4), 640–662, doi:10.1177/0309132519839863.

Barnes, P.W., et al., 2019: Ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation, climate

change and prospects for a sustainable future. Nat. Sustain., 2(7), 569–579,

doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0314-2.

Barnett, J., 2019: Global environmental change I: Climate resilient peace? Prog

Hum Geogr, 43(5), 927–936.

Barnett, J., 2020: Global environmental change II: Political

economies of vulnerability to climate change. Prog Hum Geogr,

doi:10.1177/0309132519898254.

Barnett, J., etal., 2014: A local coastal adaptation pathway. Nat. Clim. Chang.,

4(12), 1103–1108, doi:10.1038/nclimate2383.

Barnett, J. and C. McMichael, 2018: The effects of climate change on the

geography and timing of human mobility. Popul. Environ., 39(4), 339–356,

doi:10.1007/s11111-018-0295-5.

Barnett, J. and S. O’Neill, 2010: Maladaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20, 211–

213, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004.

Barnhardt, R. and O.K. Angayuqaq, 2005: Indigenous knowledge systems

and alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropol. Educ. Q., 36(1), 8–23,

doi:10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008.

Bartos, M.D. and M.V. Chester, 2015: Impacts of climate change on electric

power supply in the Western United States. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(8), 748–

752, doi:10.1038/nclimate2648.

Bassett, T.J. and C. Fogelman, 2013: Déjà vu or something new? The adaptation

concept in the climate change literature. Geoforum, 48, 42–53, doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2013.04.010.

Bataille, C., etal., 2018: A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization

pathway options for making energy-intensive industry production consistent

with the Paris Agreement. J Clean Prod, 187, 960–973, doi:10.1016/j.

jclepro.2018.03.107.

Batten, S., 2018: Climate change and the macro-economy: a critical review.

Staff Working Paper, Vol. 706. Bank of England.

Battiston, S., etal., 2017: A climate stress-test of the ﬁnancial system. Nat. Clim.

Chang., 7(4), 283–288, doi:10.1038/nclimate3255.

Bauer, N., etal., 2018: Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy

use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model

comparison. Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y.

Beck, U., 2015: Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean

to climate change and risk society? Curr. Sociol., 63(1), 75–88,

doi:10.1177/0011392114559951.

Becker, S., T. Blanchet and C. Kunze, 2016: Social movements and urban energy

policy: Assessing contexts, agency and outcomes of remunicipalisation

processes in Hamburg and Berlin. Util. Policy, 41, 228–236, doi:10.1016/j.

jup.2016.02.001.

Beddoe, R., etal., 2009: Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the

evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106(8), 2483–2489.

Bell, K., 2013: Post-conventional approaches to gender, climate change and

social justice. In: Research, Action and Policy: Addressing the Gendered

Impacts of Climate Change [Alston, M. and K. Whittenbury(eds.)]. Springer

Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 53–61. ISBN 978-9400755185.

Béné, C., etal., 2018: Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in

the context of urban planning. Clim. Dev., 10(2), 116–133, doi:10.1080/175

65529.2017.1301868.

Benjaminsen, G. and R. Kaarhus, 2018: Commodiﬁcation of forest carbon:

REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum, 93,

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.04.021.

Bento, N. and G. Gianfrate, 2020: Determinants of internal carbon pricing.

Energy Policy, 143, 111499, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111499.

Bento, N., G. Gianfrate and M.H. Thoni, 2019: Crowdfunding for sustainability

ventures. JClean Prod, 237, 117751, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117751.

Berga, L., 2016: The role of hydropower in climate change mitigation

and adaptation: a review. Engineering, 2(3), 313–318, doi:10.1016/J.

ENG.2016.03.004.

Berglund, O., & Schmidt, D. (2020). A Theory of Change: The Civil Resistance

Model. Extinction Rebellion and Climate Change Activism, 79–95.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48359-3_6

Berkhout, E., J. Bouma, N. Terzidis and M. Voors, 2018: Supporting local

institutions for inclusive green growth: developing an evidence gap map.

NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci., 84, 51–71, doi:10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.001.

Bernauer, W. and G. Slowey, 2020: COVID-19, extractive industries,

and indigenous communities in Canada: Notes towards a political

economy research agenda. Extr. Ind. Soc., 7(3), 844–846, doi:10.1016/j.

exis.2020.05.012.

Berrang-Ford, L., et al., 2014: What drives national adaptation? A global

assessment. Clim Change, 124(1), 441–450, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1078-

Berry, P.M., etal., 2015: Cross-sectoral interactions of adaptation and mitigation

measures. Clim Change, 128(3), 381–393, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1214-0.

Bethel, B.J., Y. Buravleva and D. Tang, 2021: Blue economy and blue activities:

opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for the Bahamas. Water,

13(10), 1399, doi:10.3390/w13101399.

Beuchelt, T.D. and L. Badstue, 2013: Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart

food production: opportunities and trade-offs. Food Sec., 5(5), 709–721,

doi:10.1007/s12571-013-0290-8.

Beveridge, R. and P. Koch, 2016: The post-political trap? Reﬂections on politics,

agency and the city. Urban Stud., doi:10.1177/0042098016671477.

Bezner Kerr, R., etal., 2019: Participatory agroecological research on climate

change adaptation improves smallholder farmer household food security

and dietary diversity in Malawi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 279, 109–121,

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.004.

Bhamidipati, P.L., J. Haselip and U. Elmer Hansen, 2019: How do energy policies

accelerate sustainable transitions? Unpacking the policy transfer process in

the case of GETFiT Uganda. Energy Policy, 132, 1320–1332, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2019.05.053.

Bhavnani, K.-K., J. Foran, P.A. Kurian and D. Munshi, 2019: Climate futures:

Re-imagining global climate justice. Zed Books Ltd., London. ISBN 978-

1786997852.

Bherwani, H., S. Gautam and A. Gupta, 2021: Qualitative and quantitative

analyses of impact of COVID-19 on sustainable development goals (SDGs) in

Indian subcontinent with a focus on air quality. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.,

18, doi:10.1007/s13762-020-03122-z.

Biagini, B. and A. Miller, 2013: Engaging the private sector in adaptation to

climate change in developing countries: importance, status, and challenges.

Clim. Dev., 5(3), 242–252.

Bindoff, N.L., W.W.L. Cheung, J.G. Kairo, J. Arístegui, V.A. Guinder, R. Hallberg,

N. Hilmi, N. Jiao, M.S. Karim, L. Levin, S. O’Donoghue, S.R. Purca Cuicapusa,

2741

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

B. Rinkevich, T. Suga, A. Tagliabue, and P. Williamson, 2019: Changing

Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities. In: IPCC Special

Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-

O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K.

Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama and N. M.

Weyer (eds.)], In press.

Birkmann, J., etal., 2021: New methods for local vulnerability scenarios to heat

stress to inform urban planning—case study City of Ludwigsburg/Germany.

Clim Change, 165(1), 37, doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03005-3.

Bistline, J.E. and S.K. Rose, 2018: Social cost of carbon pricing of power sector

CO 2 : accounting for leakage and other social implications from subnational

policies. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(1), 14027, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c89.

Biswas, A.K. and C. Tortajada, 2016: Water security, climate change and

sustainable development: an introduction. In: Water Security, Climate

Change and Sustainable Development [Biswas, A.K. and C. Tortajada(eds.)].

Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-9812879745 978-981-

287-976-9).

Bizikova, L., J.-E. Parry, J. Karami and D. Echeverria, 2015: Review of key

initiatives and approaches to adaptation planning at the national level in

semi-arid areas. Reg Environ Change, 15(5), 837–850.

Blanco G., R. Gerlagh, S. Suh, J. Barrett, H. C. de Coninck, C. F. Diaz Morejon,

R. Mathur, N. Nakicenovic, A. Ofosu Ahenkora, J. Pan, H. Pathak, J. Rice, R.

Richels, S. J. Smith, D. I. Stern, F. L. Toth, and P. Zhou, 2014: Drivers, Trends

and Mitigation. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-

Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum,

S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von

Stechow, T. Zwickel and J. C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 351–411. ISBN 9781107058217.

Blanford, G.J., S.K. Rose and M. Tavoni, 2012: Baseline projections of energy

and emissions in Asia. Energy Econ., 34, 284–S292, doi:10.1016/j.

eneco.2012.08.006.

Bleischwitz, R., etal., 2018: Extrapolation or saturation – Revisiting growth

patterns, development stages and decoupling. Glob. Environ. Chang., 48,

86–96, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.008.

Bloemen, P., M.V.D. Steen and Z.V.D. Wal, 2019: Designing a century ahead:

climate change adaptation in the Dutch Delta. Policy Soc., 38(1), 58–76, doi

:10.1080/14494035.2018.1513731.

Blühdorn, I. and M. Deﬂorian, 2021: Politicisation beyond post-politics: new

social activism and the reconﬁguration of political discourse. Soc. Mov Stud.,

20(3), 259–275, doi:10.1080/14742837.2021.1872375.

Blythe, J., et al., 2018: The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in

Contemporary Sustainability Discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206–1223,

doi:10.1111/anti.12405.

Bocquillon, P., 2018: (De-)Constructing coherence? Strategic entrepreneurs,

policy frames and the integration of climate and energy policies in the

European Union. Environ. Policy Gov., 28(5), 339–349, doi:10.1002/eet.1820.

Bodnar, S., 2008: Wasted and Bombed: Clinical Enactments of a Changing

Relationship to the Earth. Psychoanal. Dialogues., 18(4), 484–512.

Boeckmann, M. and H. Zeeb, 2014: Using a social justice and health framework

to assess European climate change adaptation strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res.

Public Health, 11(12), 12389–12411, doi:10.3390/ijerph111212389.

Boermans, M. A. and R. Galema, 2019: Are pension funds actively

decarbonizing their portfolios? Ecol. Econ., 161, 50–60, doi:10.1016/j.

ecolecon.2019.03.008.

Bohoslavsky, J.P., 2019: The impact of economic reforms and austerity measures

on women’s human rights. Center for Women’s Global Leadership – OHCHR.

Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/IEDebt/Pages/

ImpactEconomicReformPoliciesWomen.aspx

Bond, S. and J. Barth, 2020: Care-full and just: Making a difference

through climate change adaptation. Cities, 102, 102734, doi:10.1016/j.

cities.2020.102734.

Bosomworth, K., P. Leith, A. Harwood and P.J. Wallis, 2017: What’s the problem

in adaptation pathways planning? The potential of a diagnostic problem-

structuring approach. Environ. Sci. Policy, 76, 23–28, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2017.06.007.

Boulton, E., 2016: Climate change as a ‘hyperobject’: a critical review of

Timothy Morton’s reframing narrative. WIREs Clim. Chang., 7(5), 772–785,

doi:10.1002/wcc.410.

Bourgeois, R., 2015: A Glossary of Terms commonly used in Futures Studies.

Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1600.2008

Bowen, K.J., etal., 2017: Implementing the “Sustainable Development Goals”:

towards addressing three key governance challenges—collective action,

trade-offs, and accountability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 26-27, 90–96,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.002.

Boyce, J.K., 2018: Carbon pricing: effectiveness and equity. Ecol. Econ., 150,

52–61, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.030.

Boyd, J., 2007: Nonmarket beneﬁts of nature: What should be counted in green

GDP? Ecol. Econ., 61(4), 716–723.

Bradley, K. and J. Hedrén, 2014: Utopian Thought in the Making of Green

Futures. In: Green Utopianism: Perspectives, Politics and Micro-Practices

[Bradley, K. & Hedrén, J. (eds.)], pp. 1–20. ISBN 978-0415814447.

Brand, U., C. Görg and M. Wissen, 2020: Overcoming neoliberal globalization:

social-ecological transformation from a Polanyian perspective and beyond.

Globalizations, 17(1), 161–176, doi:10.1080/14747731.2019.1644708.

Brandi, C. and A. Dzebo, 2017: The case for connecting the implementation

of the Paris Climate Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. German Development Institute. Available at: https://www.

die-gdi.de/uploads/media/BP_21.2017.pdf

Brasseur, G. P. and L. Gallardo, 2016: Climate services: Lessons learned and

future prospects. Earth’s Future, 4(3), 79–89.

Brattland, C. and T. Mustonen, 2018: How traditional knowledge comes to

matter in atlantic salmon governance in Norway and Finland. Arct. Inst. N.

Am., 71(4), 375–392, doi:10.14430/arctic4751.

Brattland, C. and S. Nilsen, 2011: Reclaiming indigenous seascapes. Sami place

names in Norwegian sea charts. Polar Geogr., 34, 275–297, doi:10.1080/10

88937x.2011.644871.

Brechin, S. and M. Espinoza, 2017: A case for further reﬁnement of the Green

Climate Fund’s 50:50 ratio climate change mitigation and adaptation

allocation framework: toward a more targeted approach. Clim Change, 142,

doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1938-8.

Brink, E. and C. Wamsler, 2019: Citizen engagement in climate adaptation

surveyed: The role of values, worldviews, gender and place. JClean Prod,

209, 1342–1353, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.164.

Brooks, N., etal., 2014: Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development: a

step-by-step guide. International Institute for Environment and Development.

Available at: https://pubs.iied.org/10100iied

Broto, V.C., E. Boyd and J. Ensor, 2015: Participatory urban planning for climate

change adaptation in coastal cities: lessons from a pilot experience in

Maputo, Mozambique. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 13, 11–18, doi:10.1016/j.

cosust.2014.12.005.

Brown, K., 2013: Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience?

Prog Hum Geogr, doi:10.1177/0309132513498837.

Brulle, R.J. and K.M. Norgaard, 2019: Avoiding cultural trauma: climate change

and social inertia. Env Polit, 28(5), 886–908.

Brundiers, K., 2018: Disasters as opportunities for sustainability: the case

of Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand. Sustain Sci, 13(4), 1075–1091,

doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0523-4.

Brundiers, K., 2020: Leveraging disasters for sustainable development. Environ.

Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev., 62(1), 15–27, doi:10.1080/00139157.2020.16872

26.

Brundiers, K. and H.C. Eakin, 2018: Leveraging post-disaster windows of

opportunities for change towards sustainability: a framework. Sustainability,

10(5), 1390.

Brundtland, C., 1987: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

2742

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Bryant, L. and B. Garnham, 2015: The fallen hero: masculinity, shame and

farmer suicide in Australia. Gend. Place Cult., 22(1), 67–82, doi:10.1080/09

66369X.2013.855628.

Brzoska, M. and C. Fröhlich, 2016: Climate change, migration and violent

conﬂict: vulnerabilities, pathways and adaptation strategies. Migr. Dev., 5(2),

190–210, doi:10.1080/21632324.2015.1022973.

Buckwell, A., et al., 2020: Social beneﬁt cost analysis of ecosystem-based

climate change adaptations: a community-level case study in Tanna Island,

Vanuatu. Clim. Dev., 12(6), 495–510, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1642179.

Buggy, L. and K.E. McNamara, 2016: The need to reinterpret “community” for

climate change adaptation: a case study of Pele Island, Vanuatu. Clim. Dev.,

8(3), 270–280, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1041445.

Buhaug, H., 2015: Climate–conﬂict research: some reﬂections on the way

forward. WIREs Clim. Chang., 6(3), 269–275, doi:10.1002/wcc.336.

Burch, S., et al., 2016: Governing and accelerating transformative

entrepreneurship: exploring the potential for small business innovation on

urban sustainability transitions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 22, 26–32,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002.

Burke, M., S. Heft-Neal and E. Bendavid, 2016: Sources of variation in under-5

mortality across sub-Saharan Africa: a spatial analysis. Lancet Glob. Health,

4(12), e936–e945, doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30212-1.

Burke, M., S.M. Hsiang and E. Miguel, 2015: Global non-linear effect of

temperature on economic production. Nature, 527(7577), 235–239,

doi:10.1038/nature15725.

Burman, A., 2017: The political ontology of climate change: moral meteorology,

climate justice, and the coloniality of reality in the Bolivian Andes. J. Polit.

Ecol., 24(1), 921–930, doi:10.2458/v24i1.20974.

Busby, J.W., 2021: Beyond internal conﬂict: The emergent practice of climate

security. JPeace Res, 58(1), 186–194, doi:10.1177/0022343320971019.

Busch, T., M. Johnson and T. Pioch, 2020: Corporate carbon performance data:

Quo vadis? JInd Ecol, doi:10.1111/jiec.13008.

Busscher, T., M. v. d. Brink and S. Verweij, 2019: Strategies for integrating water

management and spatial planning: Organising for spatial quality in the

Dutch “Room for the River” program. J. Flood Risk Manag., 12(1), e12448,

doi:10.1111/jfr3.12448.

Butler, C.D., 2017: Limits to growth, planetary boundaries, and planetary health.

Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 25, 59–65, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.002.

Butler, J.R.A., etal., 2016: Priming adaptation pathways through adaptive co-

management: Design and evaluation for developing countries. Clim. Risk

Manag., 12, 1–16.

Byers, E., et al., 2018: Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector

development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(5), 55012,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf45.

Cai, Y. and T.S. Lontzek, 2018: The social cost of carbon with economic and

climate risks. J. Polit. Econ., 127(6), 2684–2734, doi:10.1086/701890.

Calkins, J., 2015: Moving forward after Sendai: how countries want to use

science, evidence and technology for disaster risk reduction. PLoS Curr, 7,

doi:10.1371/currents.dis.22247d6293d4109d09794890bcda1878.

Camargo, A. and D. Ojeda, 2017: Ambivalent desires: State formation

and dispossession in the face of climate crisis. Polit Geogr, 60, 57–65,

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.04.003.

Campbell, B.M., et al., 2016: Reducing risks to food security from climate

change. Glob Food Sec, 11, 34–43, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002.

Caniglia, G., et al., 2021: A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-

oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain., 4(2), 93–100,

doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z.

Cannon, T. and D. Müller-Mahn, 2010: Vulnerability, resilience and development

discourses in context of climate change. Nat. Hazards, 55(3), 621–635,

doi:10.1007/s11069-010-9499-4.

Capaldi, C.A., etal., 2015: Flourishing in nature: A review of the beneﬁts of

connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. Intnl.

J. Wellbeing, 5(4), doi:10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449.

Carabine, E., M. Jouanjean and J. Tsui, 2015: Kenya ending drought emergencies

policy review: Scenarios for building resilience in the ASALs. Oversees

Development Institute. Available at: https://odi.org/en/publications/

kenya-ending-drought-emergencies-policy-review-scenarios-for-building-

resilience-in-asals/

Carino, J. and L. Tamayo, 2019: Global Report on the Situation of Lands,

Territories and Resources of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples Major

Group for Sustainable Development, www.indigenouspeoples-sdg.org

(accessed 20/01/2022).

Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni and C. Rhie, 2012: Progress and challenges in urban

climate adaptation planning: results of a global. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Carpenter, S.R., C. Folke, M. Scheffer and F.R. Westley, 2019: Dancing on the

volcano: social exploration in times of discontent. Ecol. Soc., 24(1), art23.

Carr, C., 2013: Discourse yes, implementation maybe: an immobility and

paralysis of sustainable development policy. Eur. Plan. Stud., 22(9), 1824–

1840.

Carr, E., 2019: Properties and projects: reconciling resilience and transformation

for adaptation and development. World Dev, 122, 70–84, doi:10.1016/j.

worlddev.2019.05.011.

Carr, E.R., 2020: Resilient livelihoods in an era of global transformation. Glob.

Environ. Chang., 64, 102155, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102155.

Carr, E.R. and M.C. Thompson, 2014: Gender and climate change adaptation

in agrarian settings: current thinking, new directions, and research frontiers:

gender and climate change adaptation in agrarian settings. Geogr. Compass,

8(3), 182–197. Doi: 10.1111/gec3.12121

Casas Varez, M., 2017: La transversalización del enfoque de género en las

políticas públicas frente al cambio climático en América Latina. Economic

Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Available at: https://www.

cepal.org/es/publicaciones/41101-la-transversalizacion-enfoque-genero-

politicas-publicas-frente-al-cambio

Casey, G., 2019: Energy Efﬁciency and Directed Technical Change: Implications

for Climate Change Mitigation. Department of Economics, Williams

College, https://ideas.repec.org/p/wil/wileco/2019-17.html. Accessed 2020 .

(Department of Economics Working Papers).

Cash, D.W., etal., 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 100(14), 8086–8091, doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Castán Broto, V., etal., 2020: Spatiotemporal perspectives on urban energy

transitions: a comparative study of three cities in China. Urban Transform.,

2(1), 11, doi:10.1186/s42854-020-00015-9.

Castañeda Carney, I., et al., 2020: Gender-based violence and environment

linkages. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, ISBN 978-2831720340.

Castells-Quintana, D., M.P. Lopez-Uribe and T.K.J. McDermott, 2018: Adaptation

to climate change: a review through a development economics lens. World

Dev, 104I, 183–196.

Catalano, M., L. Forni and E. Pezzolla, 2020: Climate-change adaptation:

the role of ﬁscal policy. Resour. Energy Econ., 59, 101111, doi:10.1016/j.

reseneeco.2019.07.005.

Catley, A., J. Lind and I. Scoones, 2013: Pastoralism and development in Africa:

dynamic change at the margins. Routledge, London. ISBN 978-1136255854.

Cavaliere, P., 2019: Electrolysis of iron ores: most efﬁcient technologies for

greenhouse emissions abatement. In: Clean Ironmaking and Steelmaking

Processes: Efﬁcient Technologies for Greenhouse Emissions Abatement

[Cavaliere, P.(ed.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 555–576.

ISBN 978-3030212094.

Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich and R. Dirzo, 2017: Biological annihilation via the

ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses

and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114(30), E6089–E6096, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1704949114.

Cervigni, R. and M. Morris, 2016: Confronting Drought in Africa’s Drylands:

Opportunities for Enhancing Resilience. World Bank; and Agence Française

de Développement, Washington, DC, ISBN 978-1464808173.

Cervigni, R., etal., 2016: Vulnerability in Drylands Tomorrow: Business as Usual

Raising Ominous Prospects. World Bank Group.

2743

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Chae, Y., S.H. Choi and Y.J. Kim, 2020: Climate change policy implications

of sustainable development pathways in korea at sub-national scale.

Sustainability, 12(10), doi:10.3390/su12104310.

Chakraborty, R. and P.Y. Sherpa, 2021: From climate adaptation to climate

justice: critical reﬂections on the IPCC and himalayan climate knowledges.

Clim Change, 167, 49, doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03158-1.

Chambers, R., 2012: Revolutions in Development Inquiry, 1stedn., Routledge,

London. 258 pp.

Chaminade, C. and F. Randelli, 2020: The role of territorially embedded

innovation ecosystems accelerating sustainability transformations: a case

study of the transformation to organic wine production in Tuscany (Italy).

Sustainability, 12(11), 4621.

Chancel, L. and T. Piketty, 2019: Indian income inequality, 1922-2015:

from British Raj to billionaire Raj? Rev Income Wealth, 65(S1), 33–S62,

doi:10.1111/roiw.12439.

Chen, A.A., etal., 2020a: Pathways to climate change mitigation and stable

energy by 100% renewable for a small island: Jamaica as an example.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 121, 109671, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109671.

Chen, C., et al., 2016: Measuring the adaptation gap: A framework for

evaluating climate hazards and opportunities in urban areas. Environ. Sci.

Policy, 66, 403–419, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.007.

Chen, G., etal., 2020b: Global projections of future urban land expansion under

shared socioeconomic pathways. Nat Commun, 11(1), 537, doi:10.1038/

s41467-020-14386-x.

Chen, K., et al., 2018: Future ozone-related acute excess mortality under

climate and population change scenarios in China: A modeling study. PLoS

Med, 15(7), e1002598, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002598.

Chen, K., et al., 2017: Impact of climate change on heat-related mortality

in Jiangsu Province, China. Environ. Pollut., 224, 317–325, doi:10.1016/j.

envpol.2017.02.011.

Chen, Q. and D. Taylor, 2020: Economic development and pollution emissions

in Singapore: evidence in support of the environmental Kuznets curve

hypothesis and its implications for regional sustainability. JClean Prod, 243,

118637, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118637.

Chen, Y., etal., 2019: Tele-connecting China’s future urban growth to impacts

on ecosystem services under the shared socioeconomic pathways. Sci. Total.

Environ., 652, 765–779, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.283.

Chenery, H., 1974: Redistribution with growth: Policies to improve income

distribution in developing countries in the context of economic growth :

a joint stuI... of Development Studies. University of Sussex, London, ISBN

978-0199200696. 304 pp.

Chi, Y.F. and J.N. Rauch, 2010: The Plight of Green GDP in China. The Journal of

Sustainable Development, doi: 10.7916/D8FX794J

Chome, N., 2020: Land, livelihoods and belonging: negotiating change and

anticipating LAPSSET in Kenya’s Lamu county. J. East. African Stud., 14(2),

310–331.

Chowdhooree, I., 2019: Indigenous knowledge for enhancing community

resilience: An experience from the south-western coastal region of

Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 40, 101259, doi:10.1016/j.

ijdrr.2019.101259.

Chu, E. and K. Michael, 2019: Recognition in urban climate justice: marginality

and exclusion of migrants in Indian cities. environ urban, 31(1), 139–156,

doi:10.1177/0956247818814449.

Chu, E.K., 2018: Urban climate adaptation and the reshaping of state–society

relations: the politics of community knowledge and mobilisation in Indore,

India. Urban Stud., 55(8), 1766–1782.

Tiam Fook, C., 2017: Transformational processes for community-focused

adaptation and social change: a synthesis. Clim. Dev., 9(1), 5–21.

Ciwmb, 2003: Plastics White Paper—optimizing plastics use, recycling, and

disposal in California. California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1010

(accessed 20/01/2022).

Clapp, C. and J. Sillmann, 2019: Facilitating climate-smart investments. One

Earth, 1(1), 57–61, doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.009.

Clark, W.C., et al., 2016: Boundary work for sustainable development:

Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113(17), 4615–

4622, doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108.

Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C.

Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose,

P. R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B. C. C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuure, 2014:

Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of

Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O.,

R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.

Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C.

von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J. C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 413–510. ISBN 9781107058217.

Clay, L., M. Papas, K. Gill and D. Abramson, 2018: Factors associated with

continued food insecurity among households recovering from hurricane

Katrina. IJERPH, 15(8), 1647.

Clayton, S., etal., 2015: Psychological research and global climate change. Nat.

Clim. Chang., 5(7), 640–646.

Clayton, S., C. Manning, K. Krygsman and M. Speiser, 2017: Mental health and

our changing climate: impacts. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Association, and ecoAmerica. Available at: https://www.apa.org/news/

press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf (accessed 20/01/2022).

Cloutier, G., etal., 2015: Planning adaptation based on local actors’ knowledge

and participation: a climate governance experiment. Clim. Policy, 15(4),

458–474.

Clucas, B., I.D. Parker and A.M. Feldpausch-Parker, 2018: A systematic review of

the relationship between urban agriculture and biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst,

21(4), 635–643, doi:10.1007/s11252-018-0748-8.

Cobb, C.W. and H. Daly, 1989: For the common good: redirecting the economy

towards community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon

Press, Boston. 482 pp.

Cohen, M.J., 2020: Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable

consumption transition? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, 16(1), 1–3, doi:10.1080/

15487733.2020.1740472.

Cole, P. and G. Banks, 2017: Renewable energy programmes in the South

Paciﬁc – Are these a solution to dependency? Energy Policy, 110, 500–508,

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.048.

Collins, A.M., J.A. Grant and P. Ackah-Baidoo, 2019a: The glocal dynamics of

land reform in natural resource sectors: Insights from Tanzania. Land Use

Policy, 81, 889–896.

Collins, S.M., etal., 2019b: ‘I know how stressful it is to lack water!’ Exploring

the lived experiences of household water insecurity among pregnant and

postpartum women in western Kenya. Glob Public Health, 14(5), 649–662.

Colloff, M.J., etal., 2021: Adapting transformation and transforming adaptation

to climate change using a pathways approach. Environ. Sci. Policy, 124,

163–174, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.014.

Collste, D., M. Pedercini and S.E. Cornell, 2017: Policy coherence to achieve

the SDGs: using integrated simulation models to assess effective policies.

Sustain Sci, 12(6), 921–931, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0457-x.

Conway, D., etal., 2015: Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food

nexus. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5(9), 837–846, doi:10.1038/nclimate2735.

Cormack, Z., 2016: The promotion of pastoralist heritage and alternative

‘visions’ for the future of Northern Kenya. J. East. African Stud., 10(3), 548–

567.

Cormack, Z. and A. Kurewa, 2018: The changing value of land in Northern Kenya:

the case of Lake Turkana Wind Power. Crit. African Stud., 10(1), 89–107.

Cornell, S. etal., 2013: Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to

global environmental change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 28, 60–70.

Costantini, V., A. Markandya, E. Paglialunga and G. Sforna, 2018: Impact and

distribution of climatic damages: a methodological proposal with a dynamic

2744

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

CGE model applied to global climate negotiations. Econ Polit, 35(3), 809–

843, doi:10.1007/s40888-018-0129-z.

Cote, M. and A.J. Nightingale, 2011: Resilience thinking meets social theory:

Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog Hum

Geogr, doi:10.1177/0309132511425708.

Country, B., et al., 2018: Intercultural Communication Handbook. http://

bawakacollective.com/handbook/.

Country, B., et al., 2016: Co-becoming Bawaka:towards a relational

understanding of place/space. Prog Hum Geogr, 40(4), 455–475,

doi:10.1177/0309132515589437.

Cretney, R., 2014: Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of

Socio-ecological resilience. Geogr. Compass, 8(9), 627–640, doi:10.1111/

gec3.12154.

Crippa, M., etal., 2019: Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries.

Publications Ofﬁce of the European Union, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.

eu/repository/handle/111111111/57649. Accessed 2020.

Cubillo-Guevara, A.P., A.L. Hidalgo-Capitán and J.A. Domínguez-Gómez, 2014:

El pensamiento sobre el Buen Vivir. Entre el indigenismo, el socialismo y el

posdesarrollismo. Revista Del Clad Reforma Y Democr., 60, 27–58.

Cumming, D.J., G. Leboeuf and A. Schwienbacher, 2017: Crowdfunding

cleantech. Energy Econ., 65, 292–303, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.030.

Cundill, G., etal., 2014: Social Learning for Adaptation: a Descriptive Handbook

for Practitioners and Action Researchers. IDRC/Rhodes University, Ruliv.

ISBN 9780868104805.

D’Alessandro, S., A. Cieplinski, T. Distefano and K. Dittmer, 2020: Feasible

alternatives to green growth. Nat. Sustain., 3(4), 329–335, doi:10.1038/

s41893-020-0484-y.

Dabelko, G., L. Risi and S. Null, 2013: Backdraft: The Conﬂict Potential of Climate

Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Woodrow Wilson International Center

for Scholars, Washington, DC.

Daigneault, A., et al., 2019: Developing detailed shared socioeconomic

pathway (SSP) narratives for the global forest sector. J. For. Econ., 34(1-2),

7–45, doi:10.1561/112.00000441.

Daly, H. and J. Cobb, 1989: For the Common Good. Redirecting the Economy

Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon

Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Danilina, V. and Trionfetti, 2019: Green Public Procurement vs Environmental

Taxation: implications for the EU-MENA environmental policy. Available

at: https://planbleu.org/en/publications/green-public-procurement-v-s-

environmental-taxation-implications-for-the-eu-mena-environmental-

policy/ (accessed 20/01/2022).

Daron, J., et al., 2021: Integrating seasonal climate forecasts into adaptive

social protection in the Sahel. Clim. Dev., 13(6), 543–550, doi:10.1080/17

565529.2020.1825920.

Davelaar, D., 2021: Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points

approach. Sustain Sci, 16(3), 727–747, doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0.

David, M., 2017: Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting

exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 33,

138–146, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.023.

Tàbara, D., etal., 2018: Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Curr.

Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 120–129, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012.

Davidson, K., T.M.P. Nguyen, R. Beilin and J. Briggs, 2019: The emerging addition

of resilience as a component of sustainability in urban policy. Cities, 92, 1–9,

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.012.

Davidsson, Å., 2020: Disasters as an opportunity for improved environmental

conditions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 48, 101590, doi:10.1016/j.

ijdrr.2020.101590.

de Coninck, H., A. Revi, M. Babiker, P. Bertoldi, M. Buckeridge, A. Cartwright,

W. Dong, J. Ford, S. Fuss, J.-C. Hourcade, D. Ley, R. Mechler, P. Newman,

A. Revokatova, S. Schultz, L. Steg, and T. Sugiyama, 2018: Strengthening

and Implementing the Global Response. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An

IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-

industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in

the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate

change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-

Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani,

W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y.

Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor and T. Waterﬁeld

(eds.)]. In press. ISBN 9789291691517.

de Coninck, H. and A. Sagar, 2015: Making sense of policy for climate technology

development and transfer. Clim. Policy, 15(1), 1–11.

De Juan, A., 2015: Long-term environmental change and geographical patterns

of violence in Darfur, 2003–2005. Polit Geogr, 45, 22–33, doi:10.1016/j.

polgeo.2014.09.001.

de la Torre-Castro, M., et al., 2017: Gender analysis for better coastal

management – Increasing our understanding of social-ecological seascapes.

Mar. Policy., 83, 62–74, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.015.

de Vries, G.W., W.P.C. Boon and A. Peine, 2016: User-led innovation in civic

energy communities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 19, 51–65, doi:10.1016/j.

eist.2015.09.001.

de Witt, A., 2015: Climate change and the clash of Worldviews: an exploration

of how to move forward in a polarized debate. Zygon, 50(4), 906–921,

doi:10.1111/zygo.12226.

De Witt, A., J. de Boer, N. Hedlund and P. Osseweijer, 2016: A new tool to map

the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they

relate to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 63, 101–112, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2016.05.012.

Deaconu, A., G. Mercille and M. Batal, 2019: The agroecological farmer’s

pathways from agriculture to nutrition: a practice-based case from Ecuador’s

highlands. Ecol. Food. Nutr., 58(2), 142–165.

Dearing, J.A., etal., 2014: Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-

ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang., 28, 227–238.

DeCaro, D.A., C.A. Arnold, E. Frimpong Boamah and A.S. Garmestani, 2017:

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision

making in adaptive environmental governance. Ecol. Soc., 22(1), art33.

Dekker, S., 2020: Responding to climate change : the role of local government

in ireland. Irel. Clim. Crisis, 109–127. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47587-1_7.

Delina, L.L. and B.K. Sovacool, 2018: Of temporality and plurality: an epistemic

and governance agenda for accelerating just transitions for energy access

and sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 34, 1–6,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.016.

Dellink, R., E. Lanzi and J. Chateau, 2019: The sectoral and regional economic

consequences of climate change to 2060. Environ. Resour. Econ., 72(2),

309–363, doi:10.1007/s10640-017-0197-5.

Dellmuth, L.M., M.-T. Gustafsson, N. Bremberg and M. Mobjörk, 2018:

Intergovernmental organizations and climate security: advancing the

research agenda. WIREs Clim. Chang., 9(1), e496, doi:10.1002/wcc.496.

Demaria, F. and A. Kothari, 2017: The post-development dictionary agenda:

paths to the pluriverse. Third WorldQ, 38(12), 2588–2599, doi:10.1080/014

36597.2017.1350821.

Demaria, F., F. Schneider, F. Sekulova and J. Martinez-Alier, 2013: What is

degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. environ values,

22(2), 191–215, doi:10.3197/096327113X13581561725194.

Demeritt, D., et al., 2011: Pathways to Sustainability: perspectives and

provocations. Environ. Plan. A., 43(5), 1226–1237, doi:10.1068/a227sym.

Dempsey, J., T.G. Martin and U.R. Sumaila, 2020: Subsidizing extinction?

Conservation Letters, 13(1), e12705, doi:10.1111/conl.12705.

Demuzere, M., etal., 2014: Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-

functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J.

Environ. Manag., 146, 107–115, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025.

Deneulin, S. and L. Shahani, 2009: An Introduction to the Human Development

and Capability Approach: Freedom and Agency. 1st edn. Routledge, London ;

Sterling, VA : Ottawa, ON. ISBN 978-1844078066 376 pp).

Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos,

T. Masui, K.L. O’Brien, and K. Warner, 2014: Climate-Resilient Pathways:

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. In: Climate Change

2745

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D.

J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y.

O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R.

Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131. ISBN 9781107058071.

Díaz, S., etal., 2015: The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and

people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14, 1–16.

Díaz, S., et al., 2018: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science,

359(6373), 270–272, doi:10.1126/science.aap8826.

Dietz, S., A. Bowen, C. Dixon and P. Gradwell, 2016: ‘Climate value at risk’

of global ﬁnancial assets. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6(7), 676–679, doi:10.1038/

nclimate2972.

Diffenbaugh, N. and M. Burke, 2019: Global warming has increased global

economic inequality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116, 201816020, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1816020116.

DiGregorio, M., 2015: Bargaining with disaster: ﬂooding, climate change, and

Urban growth ambitions in Quy Nhon, Vietnam. pac aff, 88(3), 577–597,

doi:10.5509/2015883577.

Dimson, E., O. Karakaş and X. Li, 2015: Active ownership. Rev Financ Stud,

28(12), 3225–3268, doi:10.1093/rfs/hhv044.

Dimson, E., O. Karakaş and X. Li, 2020: Coordinated Engagements. European

Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 721/2021. Doi:

10.2139/ssrn.3209072.

Djoudi, H., et al., 2016: Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting

inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio, 45(S3), 248–262.

Doczi, J., 2015: Understanding patterns of climate resilient economic

development. Available at: https://www.odi.org/publications/10101-

understanding-patterns-climate-resilient-economic-development (accessed

20/01/2021).

Dodman, D. and D. Mitlin, 2015: The national and local politics of climate

change adaptation in Zimbabwe. Clim. Dev., 7(3), 223–234.

Dolšak, N. and A. Prakash, 2018: The politics of climate change adaptation.

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 43(1), 317–341, doi:10.1146/annurev-

environ-102017-025739.

Domingo, A., 2018: Analyzing zombie dystopia as neoliberal scenario: an

exercise in emancipatory catastrophism. Front. Sociol., 3, 20, doi:10.3389/

fsoc.2018.00020.

Donner, S.D., M. Kandlikar and S. Webber, 2016: Measuring and tracking the

ﬂow of climate change adaptation aid to the developing world. Environ. Res.

Lett., 11(5), 54006.

Dornan, M., 2015: Renewable energy development in small island

developing states of the paciﬁc. Resources, 4(3), 490–506, doi:10.3390/

resources4030490.

Douxchamps, S., etal., 2016: Linking agricultural adaptation strategies, food

security and vulnerability: evidence from West Africa. Reg Environ Change,

16(5), 1305–1317, doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0838-6.

Dresse, A., I. Fischhendler, J.Ø. Nielsen and D. Zikos, 2018: Environmental

peacebuilding: towards a theoretical framework. Coop Conﬂ,

doi:10.1177/0010836718808331.

Dreyer, J.S., 2015: Ubuntu. Int. J. Pract. Theol., 19(1), 189–209, doi:10.1515/

ijpt-2015-0022.

Driver, E., M. Parsons and K. Fisher, 2018: Technically political: The post-

politics(?) of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Geoforum, 97,

253–267, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.023.

Duan, F., Q. Ji, B.-Y. Liu and Y. Fan, 2018: Energy investment risk assessment for

nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative. JClean Prod, 170, 535–547,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.152.

Duku, C., S.J. Zwart and L. Hein, 2018: Impacts of climate change on cropping

patterns in a tropical, sub-humid watershed. PLoS One, 13(3), e192642,

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192642.

Dumont, E.S., S. Bonhomme, T.F. Pagella and F.L. Sinclair, 2019: Structured

stakeholder engagement leads to development of more diverse and inclusive

agroforestry options. Exp. Agric., 55(S1), 252–274.

Dun, O., C. McMichael, K. McNamara and C. Farbotko, 2020: Investing in home:

development outcomes and climate change adaptation for seasonal workers

living between Solomon Islands and Australia. Migr. Dev., 0(0), 1–24, doi:10

.1080/21632324.2020.1837535.

Dzebo, A., etal., 2017: Exploring connections between the Paris Agreement

and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Stockholm Environment

Institute. Available at: https://transparency-partnership.net/system/ﬁles/

document/SEI_2017_Exploring%20Paris%20Agreement%20and%20

SDG%20connections.pdf (accessed 20/0/2022)

Dzebo, A., H. Janetschek, C. Brandi and G. Iacobuta, 2019: Connections

between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda: the case for policy

coherence. Stockholm Environment Institute. Available at: https://www.sei.

org/publications/connections-between-the-paris-agreement-and-the-2030-

agenda/ (accessed 20/01/2021).

Eakin, H.C., M.C. Lemos and D.R. Nelson, 2014: Differentiating capacities as

a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang.,

27(1), 1–8.

Eastin, J., 2018: Climate change and gender equality in developing states.

World Dev, 107, 289–305.

Ebi, K.L., N.H. Ogden, J.C. Semenza and A. Woodward, 2017: Detecting and

attributing health burdens to climate change. Environ. Health Perspect.,

125(8), 85004, doi:10.1289/EHP1509.

ECB, 2020: Guide on Climate-Related and Environmental Risks. European

Central Bank. Available at: https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/

legalframework/publiccons/pdf/climate-related_risks/ssm.202005_draft_

guide_on_climate-related_and_environmental_risks.en.pdf (accessed

20/01/2022).

Economides, G. and A. Xepapadeas, 2018: Monetary Policy under Climate

Change. CESifo Working Paper, CESifo, Munich, Vol. 7021.

Ehnert, F., etal., 2018: Urban sustainability transitions in a context of multi-

level governance: A comparison of four European states. Environ. Innov. Soc.

Transit., 26, 101–116, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.05.002.

Eisenmenger, N., etal., 2020: The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize

economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reﬂection on the

SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustain Sci, 15(4), 1101–1110,

doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x.

Elliott, A. and J. Cullis, 2017: The importance of the humanities to the climate

change debate. In: Climate Change and the Humanities: Historical,

Philosophical and Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Contemporary

Environmental Crisis [Elliott, A., J. Cullis and V. Damodaran(eds.)]. Palgrave

Macmillan UK, London, pp. 15–42. ISBN 978-1137551245.

Ellis, N.R. and P. Tschakert, 2019: Triple-wins as pathways to transformation?

A critical review. Geoforum, 103, 167–170, doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2018.12.006.

Emmerling, J. and M. Tavoni, 2021: Representing inequalities in integrated

assessment modeling of climate change. One Earth, 4(2), 177–180,

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.013.

Enns, C., 2018: Mobilizing research on Africa’s development corridors.

Geoforum, 88, 105–108.

Enns, C. and B. Bersaglio, 2020: On the coloniality of “new” mega-infrastructure

projects in east africa. Antipode, 52(1), 101–123.

Ensor, J., 2016: Adaptation and resilience in Vanuatu: Interpreting community

perceptions of vulnerability, knowledge and power for community-based

adaptation programming. Report by SEI for Oxfam Australia, Carlton.

Stockhom Environment Institute, Stockholm.

Eriksen, S., R. Grøndahl and A.-M. Sæbønes, 2021a: On CRDP and CRPD: Why

the rights of persons with disabilities are critical for understanding climate

resilient development pathways. Lancet Planet. Health.

2746

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Eriksen, S., et al., 2021b: Adaptation interventions and their effect on

vulnerability in developing countries: help, hindrance or irrelevance? World

Dev, 141, 105383, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383.

Eriksen, S.H., L.K. Cramer, I. Vetrhus and P. Thornton, 2019: Can climate

interventions open up space for transformation? Examining the case of

climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in Uganda. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 3.

Eriksen, S.H., A.J. Nightingale and H. Eakin, 2015: Reframing adaptation: the

political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35,

523–533, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014.

Escobar, A., 1995: Imagining a post-development era. Power Dev., 211–227.

Doi: 10.2307/466217

Escobar, A., 2016: Thinking-feeling with the earth; territorial struggles and the

ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the south. AIBR Revista De

Antropología Iberoamericana, 11(1), 11–32.

Esquivel-Muelbert, A., etal., 2019: Compositional response of Amazon forests

to climate change. Glob. Change Biol., 25(1), 39–56, doi:10.1111/gcb.14413.

Estoque, R., etal., 2018: A review of quality of life (QOL) assessments and

indicators: Towards a “QOL-Climate” assessment framework. Ambio, 48,

doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1090-3.

Etchart, L., 2017: The role of indigenous peoples in combating climate change.

Palgrave Commun, 3(1), 1–4, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.85.

Ewuoso, C. and S. Hall, 2019: Core aspects of ubuntu: a systematic review. SAfr

J BL, 12(2), 93–103, doi:10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.679.

Fadrique, B., etal., 2018: Widespread but heterogeneous responses of Andean

forests to climate change. Nature, 564(7735), 207–212, doi:10.1038/

s41586-018-0715-9.

Faist, T., 2018: The Socio-natural question: how climate change adds to social

inequalities. J. Intercult. Stud., 39(2), 195–206, doi:10.1080/07256868.201

8.1446670.

Fankhauser, S. and T. McDermott, 2016: The Economics of Climate Resilient

Development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, ISBN 978-

1785360312.

Fankhauser, S. and T.K.J. McDermott, 2014: Understanding the adaptation

deﬁcit: why are poor countries more vulnerable to climate events

than rich countries? Glob. Environ. Chang., 27, 9–18, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2014.04.014.

FAO, 2014: Walking the Nexus Talk: Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in

the Context of the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative. Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Fao, 2016: Base de datos Género y derecho a la tierra. FAO, Available at: http://

www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database (accessed 20/01/2022).

Farrell, N., 2015: ‘Conscience capitalism’and the neoliberalisation of the non-

proﬁt sector. New Polit. Econ., 20(2), 254-272.

Faruque, M.O., 2017: Neoliberal resource governance and counter-hegemonic

social movement in Bangladesh. Soc. Mov Stud., 16(2), 254–259, doi:10.10

80/14742837.2016.1268957.

Favretto, N., etal., 2018: Links between climate change mitigation, adaptation

and development in land policy and ecosystem restoration projects: lessons

from South Africa. Sustainability, 10(3), 779, doi:10.3390/su10030779.

Fazey, I., etal., 2018a: Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda.

Clim. Dev., 10(3), 197–217.

Fazey, I., etal., 2018b: Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order

energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy

Res. Soc. Sci., 40, 54–70.

Fazey, I., etal., 2016: Past and future adaptation pathways. Clim. Dev., 8(1),

26–44.

Fedele, G., et al., 2019: Transformative adaptation to climate change for

sustainable social-ecological systems. Environ. Sci. Policy, 101, 116–125,

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001.

Feodoroff, P., 2020: Indigenous Female Bodies as Indicators of Change.

Global Report of Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge on Climate

Change 2020. Available at: https://arcticpassion.eu/blog/Paulina (accessed

20/01/2022).

Feola, G., 2015: Societal transformation in response to global environmental

change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376–390, doi:10.1007/

s13280-014-0582-z.

Feola, G., O. Koretskaya and D. Moore, 2021: (Un)making in sustainability

transformation beyond capitalism. Glob. Environ. Chang., 69, 102290,

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102290.

Fergnani, A. and Z. Song, 2020: The six scenario archetypes framework: A

systematic investigation of science ﬁction ﬁlms set in the future. Futures,

124, 102645, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102645.

Fernandez, G. and I. Ahmed, 2019: “build back better” approach to disaster

recovery: research trends since 2006. Prog. Disaster Sci., 1, 100003,

doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100003.

Ferragina, E., A. Arrigoni and T.F. Spreckelsen, 2020: The rising invisible majority.

Rev. Int. Polit. Econ., 0(0), 1–38, doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1797853.

Few, R., et al., 2017: Transformation, adaptation and development:

relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Commun, 3(1), 1–9, doi:10.1057/

palcomms.2017.92.

Ficklin, L., L.C. Stringer, A.J. Dougill and S.M. Sallu, 2018: Climate compatible

development reconsidered: calling for a critical perspective. Clim. Dev.,

10(3), 193–196, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1372260.

Fioramonti, L., L. Coscieme and L.F. Mortensen, 2019: From gross domestic

product to wellbeing: How alternative indicators can help connect the new

economy with the Sustainable Development Goals. Anthropocene Rev.,

doi:10.1177/2053019619869947.

Fischedick M., J. Roy, A. Abdel-Aziz, A. Acquaye, J. M. Allwood, J.-P. Ceron, Y.

Geng, H. Kheshgi, A. Lanza, D. Perczyk, L. Price, E. Santalla, C. Sheinbaum

and K. Tanaka, 2014: Industry. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of

Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O.,

R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.

Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C.

von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J. C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 739–810. ISBN 9781107058217.

Fischer, J. and M. Riechers, 2019: A leverage points perspective on sustainability.

People Nat., 1(1), 115–120, doi:10.1002/pan3.13.

Fisher, B. S. etal., 2007: Issues related to mitigation in the long term context.

In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change [Metz, B., O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and L. A. Meyer (eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 169-

250. ISBN 9780521880114.

Fisher, E., J. Hellin, H. Greatrex and N. Jensen, 2019: Index insurance and climate

risk management: addressing social equity. Dev Policy Rev, 37(5), 581–602,

doi:10.1111/dpr.12387.

Flammer, C., 2020: Green Bonds: Effectiveness and Implications for Public

Policy. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://

www.nber.org/papers/w25950. Accessed 2020.

Fleurbaey M., S. Kartha, S. Bolwig, Y. L. Chee, Y. Chen, E. Corbera, F. Lecocq,

W. Lutz, M. S. Muylaert, R. B. Norgaard, C. Oker-eke, and A. D. Sagar, 2014:

Sustainable Development and Equity. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation

of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. R.

Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,

K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.

MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

Folke, C., et al., 2016: Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based

sustainability science. Ecology and Society21(3):41. Doi: 10.5751/ES-08748-

210341

Ford, J., etal., 2016: Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC

assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Chang., 64(4), 349.

2747

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Ford, J., W. Vanderbilt and L. Berrang-Ford, 2012: Authorship in IPCC AR5 and

its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in

WGII. Clim Change, 113(2), 201–213, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0350-z.

Ford, J.D., etal., 2015: The status of climate change adaptation in Africa and

Asia. Reg Environ Change, 15(5), 801–814.

Ford, J.D., etal., 2020: The resilience of Indigenous Peoples to environmental

change. One Earth, 2, 532–543.

Forsyth, T., 2018: Is resilience to climate change socially inclusive? Investigating

theories of change processes in Myanmar. World Dev, 111, 13–26,

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.023.

Foster-Fishman, P.G., B. Nowell and H. Yang, 2007: Putting the system back

into systems change: a framework for understanding and changing

organizational and community systems. Am J Community Psychol, 39(3-4),

197–215, doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9109-0.

Fougère, L. and S. Bond, 2016: Legitimising activism in democracy: a

place for antagonism in environmental governance. Plan. Theory,

doi:10.1177/1473095216682795.

Fragkias, M. and C.G. Boone, 2016: Modern political economy, global

environmental change and urban sustainability transitions. Curr. Opin.

Environ. Sustain., 22, 63–68, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.007.

Frainer, A., etal., 2020: Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated

pillars of biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 117(43), 26539–26543,

doi:10.1073/pnas.2019469117.

Franco-Torres, M., B.C. Rogers and R. Harder, 2020: Articulating the new urban

water paradigm. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol, 0(0), 1–47, doi:10.1080/1064

3389.2020.1803686.

Frank, S., et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture

without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12(10), 105004,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.

Frank, T.D., etal., 2019: Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and

mortality of HIV, 1980-2017, and forecasts to 2030, for 195countries and

territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries,

and Risk Factors Study 2017. Lancet HIV, 6(12), e831–e859, doi:10.1016/

s2352-3018(19)30196-1.

Frantzeskaki, N., et al., 2017: Nature-based solutions accelerating urban

sustainability transitions in cities: lessons from Dresden, Genk and Stockholm

cities. In: Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban

Areas [Korn, H. & Kabisch, N. (eds).]. Springer, Cham, pp. 65–88.

Fresnillo Sallan, I., 2020: Debt and climate: entangled emergencies derailing

women’s rights and gender justice. Gend. Dev., 28(3), 499–513, doi:10.108

0/13552074.2020.1838168.

Friedman, S., S. Schmer-Galunder, A. Chen and J. Rye (eds.), 2019: Relating

Word Embedding Gender Biases to Gender Gaps: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.

Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 18–24.

Froehlich, H.E., J.C. Afﬂerbach, M. Frazier and B.S. Halpern, 2019: Blue Growth

Potential to Mitigate Climate Change through Seaweed Offsetting. Curr.

Biol., 29(18), 3087–3093.e3083, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041.

Fudge, S., M. Peters and B. Woodman, 2016: Local authorities as niche actors:

the case of energy governance in the UK. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 18,

1–17. Doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.004.

Fund for Peace, 2021: Fragile States Index Annual Report 2021. Fund for Peace,

Peace, F. f., Washington, DC. 51 pp.

Fuso Nerini, F., et al., 2018: Mapping synergies and trade-offs between

energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy, 3(1), 10–15,

doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5.

Gaddy, B.E., V. Sivaram, T.B. Jones and L. Wayman, 2017: Venture Capital and

Cleantech: The wrong model for energy innovation. Energy Policy, 102, 385–

395, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.035.

Galvin, K. A., 2009: Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu. Rev.

Anthropol., 38(1), 185–198.

Gambrel, J.C. and P. Cafaro, 2009: The virtue of simplicity. J. Agric. Environ.

Ethics., 23(1), 85, doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9187-0.

Garcia, A., P. Tschakert and N.A. Karikari, 2020: ‘Less able’: how gendered

subjectivities warp climate change adaptation in Ghana’s Central

Region. Gend. Place Cult., 27(11), 1602–1627, doi:10.1080/096636

9X.2020.1786017.

Garcia, D.J. and F. You, 2017: Introducing green GDP as an objective to account

for changes in global ecosystem services Due to Biofuel production. In:

Computer Aided Chemical Engineering [Espuña, A., M. Graells and L.

Puigjaner(eds.)]. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 505–510.

Garg, A. and K. Halsnæs, 2007: Sustainable development to enhance

resilience to climate change vulnerability. From vulnerability to resilience:

The challenge of adaptation to climate change, 17–25. United Nations

Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228466265_From_Vulnerability_to_Resilience_The_

Challenge_of_Adaptation_to_Climate_Change (accessed 20/01/2022).

Garschagen, M., etal., 2021: The consideration of future risk trends in national

adaptation planning: conceptual gaps and empirical lessons. Clim. Risk

Manag. In press. Doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2021.100357

Gaur, M. and V.R. Squires, 2018: Climate Variability Impacts on Land Use and

Livelihoods in Drylands. Springer International Publishing, Cham. ISBN 978-

3319566801.

Gay-Antaki, M., 2020: Feminist geographies of climate change: negotiating

gender at climate talks. Geoforum, 115, 1–10.

Gay-Antaki, M. and D. Liverman, 2018: Climate for women in climate science:

women scientists and the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci., 115(9), 2060–2065.

Gazzotti, P., etal., 2021: Persistent inequality in economically optimal climate

policies. Nat Commun, 12(1), 3421, doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23613-y.

Gebreyes, M., 2018: ‘Producing’ institutions of climate change adaptation and

food security in north eastern Ethiopia. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci., 84,

123–132, doi:10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.007.

Geere, J.-A.L. and P.R. Hunter, 2020: The association of water carriage, water

supply and sanitation usage with maternal and child health. A combined

analysis of 49 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys from 41countries. Int J Hyg

Environ Health, 223(1), 238–247.

Geradts, T.H. and N.M. Bocken, 2019: Driving sustainability-oriented innovation.

MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., 60(2), 1.

Gernert, M., H. El Bilali and C. Strassner, 2018: Grassroots initiatives as

Sustainability transition pioneers: implications and lessons for urban food

systems. Urban Sci., 2(1), 23.

Gerst, M., P. Raskin and J. Rockström, 2013: Contours of a resilient global

future. Sustainability, 6, 123–135, doi:10.3390/su6010123.

Ghisetti, C., S. Mancinelli, M. Mazzanti and M. Zoli, 2017: Financial barriers and

environmental innovations: evidence from EU manufacturing ﬁrms. Clim.

Policy, 17(sup1), 131–S147, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1242057.

Gianfrate, G. and M. Peri, 2019: The green advantage: exploring the convenience

of issuing green bonds. J Clean Prod, 219, 127–135, doi:10.1016/j.

jclepro.2019.02.022.

Gibon, T., etal., 2020: Shades of green: life cycle assessment of renewable

energy projects ﬁnanced through green bonds. Environ. Res. Lett., 15,

104045, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abaa0c.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2006: A Postcapitalist Politics, 1st edn., University of

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, ISBN 978-0816648047. 316 pp.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2005: Surplus possibilities: postdevelopment and

community economies. Singap J Trop Geogr, 26(1), 4–26.

Gielen, D., et al., 2019: The role of renewable energy in the global energy

transformation. Energy Strategy Rev., 24, 38–50, doi:10.1016/j.

esr.2019.01.006.

Gill, S.R. and S.R. Benatar, 2020: Reﬂections on the political economy of

planetary health. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ., 27(1), 167–190, doi:10.1080/0969

2290.2019.1607769.

Gillard, R., etal., 2016: Transformational responses to climate change: beyond

a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. Wiley

Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 251–265.

2748

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Gills, B. and J. Morgan, 2020: Global Climate Emergency: after COP24, climate

science, urgency, and the threat to humanity. Globalizations, 17(6), 885–

902, doi:10.1080/14747731.2019.1669915.

Gleditsch, N.P. and R. Nordås, 2014: Conﬂicting messages? The IPCC on

conﬂict and human security. Polit Geogr, 43, 82–90, doi:10.1016/j.

polgeo.2014.08.007.

Gliedt, T., C.E. Hoicka and N. Jackson, 2018: Innovation intermediaries

accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod, 174,

1247–1261.

Goda, T., Ö. Onaran and E. Stockhammer, 2017: Income inequality and wealth

concentration in the recent crisis. Development & Change, 48(1), 3–27,

doi:10.1111/dech.12280.

Goddard, G. and M. A. Farrelly, 2018: Just transition management: Balancing

just outcomes with just processes in Australian renewable energy transitions.

Appl Energy, 225, 110–123, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.025.

Godfrey-Wood, R. and O. Naess, 2016: Adapting to climate change: Transforming

development? Available at: https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/

view/2717 (accessed 21/01/2022).

Goldman, M.J., M.D. Turner and M. Daly, 2018: A critical political ecology of

human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics.

WIREs Clim. Chang., 9(4), e526, doi:10.1002/wcc.526.

Gonçalves-Souza, D., P.H. Verburg and R. Dobrovolski, 2020: Habitat loss,

extinction predictability and conservation efforts in the terrestrial ecoregions.

Biol. Conserv., 246, 108579, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108579.

Gonda, N., 2017: Revealing the patriarchal sides of climate change adaptation

through intersectionality: a case study from Nicaragua. In: Understanding

Climate Change through Gender Relations [Buckingham, S. & Le Masson, V.

(eds.)] 173–189. Routledge, London. ISBN 978-1315661605.

Goodrich, C.G., A. Prakash and P.B. Udas, 2019: Gendered vulnerability and

adaptation in Hindu-Kush Himalayas: Research insights. Environ. Dev., 31,

1–8, doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2019.01.001.

Göpel, M., 2016: The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and

Sustainability Transformations Go Hand in Hand. Springer, Berlin.

Gorddard, R., etal., 2016: Values, rules and knowledge: adaptation as change

in the decision context. Environ. Sci. Policy, 57, 60–69.

Görg, C., et al., 2017: Challenges for social-ecological transformations:

contributions from social and political ecology. Sustainability, 9, 1045,

doi:10.3390/su9071045.

Gorissen, L., et al., 2018: Moving towards systemic change? Investigating

acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City

of Genk. JClean Prod, 173, 171–185.

Gotham, K.F., 2016: Antinomies of risk reduction: climate change and the

contradictions of coastal restoration. Environ. Sociol., 2(2), 208–219, doi:10.

1080/23251042.2016.1177363.

Government of Kenya, 2008: About Vision 2030. Available at: https://vision2030.

go.ke/about-vision-2030/ (accessed 21/01/2022).

Government of Kenya, 2012: Vision 2030 Development Strategy for Northern

Kenya and other Arid Lands. Available at: https://www.adaconsortium.org/

images/publications/Vision2030-2011.pdf (accessed 21/01/2022).

Government of Kenya, 2016: Brief on LAPSSET corridor project. Available

at: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3.sourceafrica.net/

documents/118442/LAPSSET-Project-Report-July-2016-1.pdf (accessed

21/01/2022).

Government of Kenya, 2018: Ministry Of Devolution And ASALs, State

Department For Development Of The Arid And Semi Arid Lands Strategic

Plan (2018 – 2022). Available at: https://www.asals.go.ke/wp-content/

uploads/2019/05/ASAL-Report-Final-for-printing.pdf (accessed 21/01/2022).

Graham, N.T., et al., 2018: Water sector assumptions for the shared

socioeconomic pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water

Resour. Res., 54(9), 6423–6440, doi:10.1029/2018WR023452.

Gram-Hanssen, I., N. Schafenacker and J. Bentz, 2021: Decolonizing

transformations through ‘right relations. Sustain Sci, doi:10.1007/s11625-

021-00960-9.

Gratani, M., et al., 2011: Is validation of Indigenous ecological knowledge

a disrespectful process? A case study of traditional ﬁshing poisons and

invasive ﬁsh management from the wet tropics, Australia. Ecol. Soc., 16(3),

doi:10.5751/es-04249-160325.

Green, A.S., etal., 2020: An interdisciplinary framework for using archaeology,

history and collective action to enhance India’s agricultural resilience and

sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett., 15(10), 105021, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/

aba780.

Green, R., etal., 2013: The effect of rising food prices on food consumption:

systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ, 346(1), f3703–f3703.

Greiner, C., 2016: Land-use change, territorial restructuring, and economies of

anticipation in dryland Kenya. J. East. African Stud., 10(3), 530–547.

Griscom, B.W., etal., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,

114(44), 11645–11650.

Grove, K., 2018: Resilience. Routledge, London.

Grydehøj, A. and I. Kelman, 2017: The eco-island trap: climate change mitigation

and conspicuous sustainability. Area, 49(1), 106–113.

Guido, Z., C. Knudson, D. Campbell and J. Tomlinson, 2020: Climate information

services for adaptation: what does it mean to know the context? Clim. Dev.,

12(5), 395-407.

Gumucio, T., M. A. Alves, N. Orentlicher and M.C. Hernández Ceballo, 2018:

Analysis of gender research on forest, tree and agroforestry value chains in

Latin America. For. Trees Livelihoods, 27(2), 69–85.

Gundimeda, H., P. Sukhdev, R.K. Sinha and S. Sanyal, 2007: Natural resource

accounting for Indian states - Illustrating the case of forest resources. Ecol.

Econ., 61(4), 635–649, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.035.

Güneralp, B., etal., 2017: Urbanization in Africa: challenges and opportunities

for conservation. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(1), 15002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/

aa94 fe.

Gupta, J. and N. Pouw, 2017: Towards a trans-disciplinary conceptualization

of inclusive development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 24, 96–103. Doi:

10.1016/j.cosust.2017.03.004

Haasnoot, M., J.H. Kwakkel, W.E. Walker and J. ter Maat, 2013: Dynamic

adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply

uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 23(2), 485–498, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2012.12.006.

Haines, A., et al., 2017: Short-lived climate pollutant mitigation and the

Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7(12), 863–869,

doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0012-x.

Hajer, M., et al., 2015: Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the

transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability,

7(2), 1651–1660.

Hale, T., 2016: “All hands on deck”: the Paris Agreement and nonstate climate

action. Glob. Environ. Polit., 16(3), 12–22, doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00362.

Hall, S.M., 2020: The personal is political: feminist geographies of/in austerity.

Geoforum, 110, 242–251, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.04.010.

Hallam, R., 2019: Common sense for the 21st century: only nonviolent rebellion

can now stop climate breakdown and social collapse. Chelsea Green

Publishing, Hartford. ISBN 978-1527246744.

Hallegatte, S., C. Brandon, etal., 2018: The economics of (and obstacles to)

aligning development and climate change adaptation: A World Bank Group

Contribution to the Global Commission on Adaptation. Available at: https://

gca.org/reports/the-economics-of-and-obstacles-to-aligning-development-

and-climate-change-adaptation/ (accessed 21/01/2022).

Hallegatte, S., J. Rentschler and J. Rozenberg, 2019: Lifelines: The Resilient

Infrastructure Opportunity. World Bank, Washington, DC, ISBN 978-

1464814303.

Hallegatte, S. and J. Rozenberg, 2017: Climate change through a poverty lens.

Nat. Clim. Change, 7(4), 250–256, doi:10.1038/nclimate3253.

Han, H. and S.W. Ahn, 2020: Youth mobilization to stop global climate

change: narratives and impact. Sustainability, 12(10), 4127, doi:10.3390/

su12104127.

2749

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Han, S.-J., 2015: Emancipatory catastrophism from an East Asian perspective:

feedback from the dialogue organizer. Curr. Sociol., 63(1), 115–120,

doi:10.1177/0011392114559851.

Hansen, L., 2021: Central Banking Challenges Posed by Uncertain Climate

Change and Natural Disasters. Available at: https://www.frbsf.org/economic-

research/ﬁles/hansen-vsce-061021-paper.pdf (accessed 21/01/2022).

Hansen, L., et al., 2013: The state of adaptation in the United States: an

overview. A report for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Ecoadapt, Bainbridge Island, WA, USA.

Hansen, U. E. and R. Lema, 2019: The co-evolution of learning mechanisms and

technological capabilities: Lessons from energy technologies in emerging

economies. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 140, 241–257, doi:10.1016/j.

techfore.2018.12.007.

Hardee, K., etal., 2018: Family planning and resilience: associations found in

a population, health, and environment (PHE) project in western Tanzania.

Popul Environ, 40(2), 204–238, doi:10.1007/s11111-018-0310-x.

Hardoy, J., E. Gencer and M. Winograd, 2019: Participatory planning for climate

resilient and inclusive urban development in Dosquebradas, Santa Ana and

Santa Tomé. environ urban, 31(1), 33–52, doi:10.1177/0956247819825539.

Harnphatananusorn, S., S. Santipolvut and C. Sonthi, 2019: Concepts and

empirical calculation of the green GDP for Thailand. Int. J. Green Econ., 13,

68, doi:10.1504/IJGE.2019.10023001.

Harper, S., J.S. Kaufman and R.S. Cooper, 2017: Declining US life expectancy.

Epidemiology, 28(6), e54–e56.

Harrington, L.J. and F.E.L. Otto, 2018: Changing population dynamics and

uneven temperature emergence combine to exacerbate regional exposure

to heat extremes under 1.5°C and 2°C of warming. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(3),

34011, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa99.

Harris, L.M., E.K. Chu and G. Ziervogel, 2018: Negotiated resilience. Resilience,

6(3), 196–214, doi:10.1080/21693293.2017.1353196.

Harris, P. and L. Clarke, 2017: Maramataka. In: He Whare Hangarau M?ori-

Language, Culture and Technology [Whaanga, H., T.T. Keegan and M.

Apperley].

Harrison, P., etal., 2019: Synthesizing plausible futures for biodiversity and

ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia using scenario archetypes.

Ecol. Soc., 24(2), doi:10.5751/ES-10818-240227.

Harvey, B., L. Cochrane and M.V. Epp, 2019: Charting knowledge co-production

pathways in climate and development. Environ. Policy Gov., 29(2), 107–117,

doi:10.1002/eet.1834.

Hasegawa, T., etal., 2018: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent

global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(8), 699–703,

doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.

Hasegawa, T., S. Fujimori, K. Takahashi and T. Masui, 2015: Scenarios for the risk

of hunger in the twenty-ﬁrst century using shared socioeconomic pathways.

Environ. Res. Lett., 10(1), 14010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014010.

Haukkala, T., 2018: A struggle for change—the formation of a green-transition

advocacy coalition in Finland. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 27, 146–156,

doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.12.001.

Hay, J.E., P. Hartley and J. Roop, 2019: Climate risk assessments and

management options for redevelopment of the Parliamentary Complex in

Samoa, South Paciﬁc. Weather. Clim. Extrem., 25, 100214, doi:10.1016/j.

wace.2019.100214.

Häyhä, T., etal., 2016: From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of

the global safe operating space — how can the scales be bridged? Glob.

Environ. Chang., 40, 60–72.

Healey, P., 2006: Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional

adaptation and a new politics of space. Eur. Plan. Stud., 14(3), 299–320,

doi:10.1080/09654310500420792.

Hegre, H., K. Petrova and N. von Uexkull, 2020: Synergies and trade-offs in

reaching the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 12(20),

doi:10.3390/su12208729.

Heigl, F., etal., 2019: Opinion: toward an international deﬁnition of citizen

science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116(17), 8089–8092.

Heinrichs, H., 2020: Artful sustainability governance—foundational

considerations on sensory-informed policymaking for sustainable

development. Sustain. Dev., 28(4), 791–799, doi:10.1002/sd.2029.

Hémous, D., 2016: The dynamic impact of unilateral environmental policies.

JInt Econ, 103, 80–95, doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.09.001.

Hepburn, C., etal., 2020: Will COVID-19 ﬁscal recovery packages accelerate or

retard progress on climate change? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy, 36. Doi: 10.1093/

oxrep/graa015.

Herrero, M., et al., 2016: Climate change and pastoralism: impacts,

consequences and adaptation: -EN- -FR- Le changement climatique et le

pastoralisme : effets, conséquences et adaptation -ES- Cambio climático y

pastoreo: efectos directos, repercusiones y adaptación. Revue Sci. Et Tech. De

L’oie, 35(2), 417–433.

Hewitt, C.D., et al., 2020: Making society climate resilient: international

progress under the global framework for climate services. Bull. Am. Meteorol.

Soc., 101(2), E237–E252.

Heyen, A., L. Hermwille and T. Wehnert, 2017: Out of the comfort zone!

Governing the exnovation of unsustainable technologies and practices.

GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc., 26(4), 326–331, doi:10.14512/gaia.26.4.9.

Hickel, J., 2017: Is global inequality getting better or worse? A critique of the

World Bank’s convergence narrative. Third WorldQ, 38(10), 2208–2222, doi

:10.1080/01436597.2017.1333414.

Hickel, J., 2019: Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary

boundaries? Third WorldQ, 40(1), 18–35, doi:10.1080/01436597.2018.15

35895.

Hickel, J., etal., 2021: Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios.

Nat. Energy, 6(8), 766–768, doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00884-9.

Hickel, J. and G. Kallis, 2020: Is green growth possible? New Polit. Econ., 25(4),

469–486, doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964.

Hildingsson, R., A. Kronsell and J. Khan, 2019: The green state and industrial

decarbonisation. Env Polit, 28(5), 909–928, doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1

488484.

Hilmi, N., etal., 2017: The effects of energetic transition on economic growth in

Iran. Marmara İktisat Dergisi, 1(1), 77–93.

Hilmi, N. and A. Safa, 2010: The economic and ﬁnancial policies to ﬁght against

climate change: the case of Maghreb. MEEA Online J., 12. Available at:

https://ecommons.luc.edu/meea/120/.

Hilmi, N., A. Safa, N. Peridy and M. Zemouri, 2015: Taking into account

sustainable development for MENA countries: The calculation of a modiﬁed

HDI index. Top. Middle eastern North African Econ., 17. Available at: https://

meea.sites.luc.edu/volume17/pdfs/Hilmi-Safa-Peridy-Zemouri.pdf.

Hirpa, F.A., etal., 2018: Finding sustainable water futures in data-sparse regions

under climate change: Insights from the Turkwel River basin, Kenya. J. Hydrol.

Reg. Stud., 19, 124–135. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.08.005

Hjerpe, M., S. Storbjörk and J. Alberth, 2015: “There is nothing political in it”:

triggers of local political leaders’ engagement in climate adaptation. Local

Environ, 20(8), 855–873, doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.872092.

Hoagland, S.J., 2017: Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western

science for optimal natural resource management. IK: Other Ways Knowing,

3(1), 1–15, doi:10.18113/P8ik359744.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., R. Cai, E.S. Poloczanska, P.G. Brewer, S. Sundby, K. Hilmi,

V.J. Fabry, and S. Jung, 2014: The Ocean. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects: Working Group II

Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change [Barros, V. R., C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea,

K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B.

Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L.

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,

USA, pp. 1655–1731. ISBN 9781107058163.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., etal., 2019: The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change:

Five Opportunities for Action. Available at: https://www.oceanpanel.org/

climate (accessed 21/01/2022).

2750

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Hoekstra, A., M. Steinbuch and G. Verbong, 2017: Creating agent-based energy

transition management models that can uncover proﬁtable pathways to

climate change mitigation. Complexity. Doi: 10.1155/2017/1967645.

Holden, E., etal., 2017: The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Routledge,

ISBN 978-0203022177.

Hölscher, K., N. Frantzeskaki and D. Loorbach, 2019: Steering transformations

under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and

the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Reg Environ Change, 19(3), 791–

805, doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3.

Hölscher, K., J.M. Wittmayer and D. Loorbach, 2018: Transition versus

transformation: What’s the difference? Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 27, 1–3,

doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007.

Holvoet, N. and L. Inberg, 2014: Gender sensitivity of sub-saharan africa

national adaptation programmes of action: ﬁndings from a desk review of

31countries. Clim. Dev., 6(3), 266–276.

Holzer, J.M., N. Carmon and D.E. Orenstein, 2018: A methodology for evaluating

transdisciplinary research on coupled socio-ecological systems. Ecol Indic,

85, 808–819, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.074.

Honohan, P., 2019: Should Monetary Policy Take Inequality and Climate Change

into Account? Working Paper Series, Peterson Institute for International

Economics , Accessed 2021-08-26.

Hopkins, P., 2019: Social geography I: intersectionality. Prog Hum Geogr, 43(5),

937–947, doi:10.1177/0309132517743677.

Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., et al., 2019: Values in transformational sustainability

science: four perspectives for change. Sustain Sci, 14(5), 1425–1437,

doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1.

Houser, M., R. Gunderson and D. Stuart, 2019: Farmers’ perceptions of climate

change in context: toward a political economy of relevance. Sociol Ruralis,

59(4), 789–809, doi:10.1111/soru.12268.

Hov, Ø., etal., 2017: Five priorities for weather and climate research. Nature,

552(7684), 168–170.

Howells, M., et al., 2013: Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use,

energy and water strategies. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3(7), 621–626, doi:10.1038/

nclimate1789.

Howlett, M.P. and K. Saguin, 2018: Policy Capacity for Policy Integration:

Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://

www.researchgate.net/profile/Kidjie-Saguin/publication/324660470_

Policy_Capacity_for_Policy_Integration_Implications_for_the_Sustainable_

Development_Goals/links/5b43ec5c458515f71cb88d56/Policy-Capacity-for-

Policy-Integration-Implications-for-the-Sustainable-Development-Goals.pdf

(accessed 21/01/2022).

Huaman, E.S. and B. Sriraman, 2015: Indigenous Innovation: Universalities and

Peculiarities. Springer, Berlin, 214. ISBN 978-9463002264.

Huang, P., V. Castán Broto, Y. Liu and H. Ma, 2018: The governance of

urban energy transitions: A comparative study of solar water heating

systems in two Chinese cities. JClean Prod, 180, 222–231, doi:10.1016/j.

jclepro.2018.01.053.

Huang, R. and X. Sun, 2020: Dual mediation and success of environmental

protests in China: a qualitative comparative analysis of 10cases. Soc. Mov

Stud., 19(4), 408–425, doi:10.1080/14742837.2019.1682539.

Huitema, D., etal., 2016: The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and

effects. Introduction to the Special Feature. Ecol. Soc., 21(3), doi:10.5751/

ES-08797-210337.

Hulme, M., 2018: “Gaps” in climate change knowledge. Environ. Humanit., 10,

330–337, doi:10.1215/22011919-4385599.

Hulme, M., 2019: Climate Emergency Politics Is Dangerous. Issues in Science

and Technology,36(1), 23–25.

Human Development Report Ofﬁce, 2020: Human Development Report 2020:

The Next Frontier Human development and the Anthropocene. United

Nations Development Programme, New York, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/

default/ﬁles/hdr2020.pdf (accessed 21/01/2022). (412 pp).

Hunt, D., etal., 2012: Scenario archetypes: converging rather than diverging

themes. Sustainability, 4, 740–772, doi:10.3390/su4040740.

Huntington, H.P., etal., 2017: How small communities respond to environmental

change: patterns from tropical to polar ecosystems. Ecol. Soc., 22(3).

Huntjens, P. and T. Zhang, 2016: Climate justice: equitable and inclusive

governance of climate action. Working Paper, Vol. 16. The Hague Institute,

The Hague, Netherlands.

Hurlbert, M., J. Krishnaswamy, E. Davin, F.X. Johnson, C.F. Mena, J. Morton, S.

Myeong, D. Viner, K. Warner, A. Wreford, S. Zakieldeen, Z. Zommers, 2019: Risk

management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development.

In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change,

desertiﬁcation, land degradation, sustainable land management, food

security, and greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P. R.,

J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts,

P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S.

Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick,

M. Belkacemi and J. Malley (eds.)], In press.

Huxham, M., et al., 2015: Applying climate compatible development and

economic valuation to coastal management: a case study of Kenya’s

mangrove forests. J. Environ. Manag., 157, 168–181, doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2015.04.018.

Ide, T., 2020: The dark side of environmental peacebuilding. World Dev, 127,

104777, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104777.

IEA, 2015: Energy and climate change, world energy outlook special report.

International Energy Agency, Paris. Available at: https://www.actu-

environnement.com/media/pdf/news-24754-rapport-aie.pdf (accessed

21/01/2022).

IEA, 2017: Energy Technology Perspectives 2017. International Energy

Agency (IEA), Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-

perspectives-2017 (accessed 21/01/2022).

IEA, 2019: Material efﬁciency in clean energy transitions. International Energy

Agency (IEA).

IEA, 2020: Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the Covid-19 crisis on

global energy demand and CO2 emissions. International Energy Agency

(IEA), Paris.

IEA, etal., 2019: Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report 2019. https://

trackingsdg7.esmap.org/ (accessed 21/01/2022).

Ikeda, S. and S. Managi, 2019: Future inclusive wealth and human well-being

in regional Japan: projections of sustainability indices based on shared

socioeconomic pathways. Sustain Sci, 14(1), 147–158, doi:10.1007/s11625-

018-0589-7.

ILO, 1989: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, C169. International

Labour Organisation, Geneva.

IMF, 2017: Reigniting growth in low-income and emerging market economies:

what role can structural reforms play? World Economic Outlook. Available

at: https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2019/October/

English/Ch3.ashx (accessed 21/01/2022). .

IMF, 2019: Fiscal Monitor: How to Mitigate Climate Change. International

Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

IMF, 2021: Fiscal Policies to Address Climate Change in Asia and the Paciﬁc.

International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

IMF and OECD, 2021: Tax Policy and Climate Change: IMF/OECD Report for

the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. Available at: https://

www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/imf-oecd-g20-report-tax-policy-and-climate-

change.htm (accessed 21/01/2022).

Inaotombi, S. and P.C. Mahanta, 2019: Pathways of socio-ecological resilience

to climate change for ﬁsheries through indigenous knowledge. Hum. Ecol.

Risk Assessment: Int. J., 25(8), 2032–2044, doi:10.1080/10807039.2018.1

482197.

Iñigo, E.A. and L. Albareda, 2016: Understanding sustainable innovation as a

complex adaptive system: a systemic approach to the ﬁrm. JClean Prod,

126, 1–20, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.036.

IPBES, 2019: Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on

biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-

Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Secretariat of the

2751

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany, ISBN 978-3947851133. 56 pp.

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. Barros, T. F.

Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K.

Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp. ISBN 9781107025066.

IPCC, 2014a: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part

B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V. R., C.

B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,

K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.

MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 688 pp. ISBN 9781107058163.

IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J.

Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O.

Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R.

Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32. ISBN 9781107058071.

IPCC, 2018a: Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts

of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global

greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the

global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development,

and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson, D., P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts,

J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock,

S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.

Maycock, M. Tignor and Waterﬁeld (eds.)]. Organization, W. M., Geneva,

Switzerland, 32 pp.

IPCC, 2018b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An

IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-

industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in

the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate

change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-

Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani,

W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y.

Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor and T. Waterﬁeld

(eds.)]. In press. ISBN 9789291691517.

IPCC, 2019a: Annex I: Glossary [Weyer, N.M. (ed.)]. In: IPCC Special Report on the

Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D. C. Roberts,

V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A.

Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama and N. M. Weyer (eds.)], In

press.

IPCC, 2019b: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate

change, desertiﬁcation, land degradation, sustainable land management,

food security, and greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P.

R., J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts,

P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S.

Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick,

M. Belkacemi and J. Malley (eds.)]. In press.

IPCC, 2019c: Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change,

Desertiﬁcation, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food

Security, and Greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems [Shukla, P. R.,

J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H. O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts,

P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S.

Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick,

M. Belkacemi and J. Malley (eds.)]. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl-

report-download-page/ (accessed 2019/10/2).

IPCC, 2019d: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing

Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor,

E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B.

Rama and N. M. Weyer (eds.)]. In press.

IPCC, 2019e: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing

Climate [Pörtner, H. O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor,

E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B.

Rama and N. M. Weyer (eds.)]. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/

(accessed 2019/10/2).

IPCC, 2019 f: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an

IPCC special report on climate change, desertiﬁcation, land degradation,

sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in

terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P. R., J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-

Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van

Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J.

Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi and J. Malley

(eds.)]. In press.

IPCC, 2019g: Technical Summary. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and

Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-

Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M.

Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama and N. M. Weyer (eds.)], In press.

IPCC, 2021a: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M.

Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterﬁeld,

O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

IPCC, 2021b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P.

Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb,

M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T.

Waterﬁeld, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.

In Press.

Isgren, E., C.S. Boda, D. Harnesk and D. O’Byrne, 2019: Science has much to

offer social movements in the face of planetary emergencies. Nat. Ecol. Evol.,

3(11), 1498–1498.

Islam, S., C. Chu and J.C.R. Smart, 2020: Challenges in integrating disaster risk

reduction and climate change adaptation: Exploring the Bangladesh case.

Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 47, 101540, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101540.

ITK, 2019: National Inuit Climate Change Strategy, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK),

Ottawa. Accessed 2021-09-02.

https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ITK_Climate-Change-

Strategy_English.pdf

Ives, C., R. Freeth and J. Fischer, 2019: Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of

inner worlds. Ambio, 49, doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w.

Ives, C.D., et al., 2017: Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary

review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 26-27, 106–113, doi:10.1016/j.

cosust.2017.05.005.

Jabeen, H., 2014: Adapting the built environment: the role of gender in shaping

vulnerability and resilience to climate extremes in Dhaka. environ urban,

26(1), 147–165, doi:10.1177/0956247813517851.

Jabeen, H. and S. Guy, 2015: Fluid engagements: responding to the co-evolution

of poverty and climate change in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat Int., 47, 307–

314, doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.02.005.

Jackson, E.A., 2016: Ontological and Epistemological Discourse(s) on

Sustainable Development: Perspective on Sierra Leone in the Aftermath of

a Decade of Civil Unrest. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY,

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2811522. Accessed 2020.

Jackson, M., 2014: Composing postcolonial geographies: postconstructivism,

ecology and overcoming ontologies of critique. Singap J Trop Geogr, 35(1),

72–87, doi:10.1111/sjtg.12052.

Jackson, T., 2009: Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet.

Earthscan, UK, USA, ISBN 978-1-84407-894-3.

2752

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Jackson, T., 2021: Post Growth: Life after Capitalism, 1stedn., Polity, Cambridge,

UK Medford, MA, USA, ISBN 978-1509542529. 256 pp.

Jafry, T., 2016: Making the case for gender sensitive climate policy – lessons

from South Asia/IGP. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag., 8(4), 559–577,

doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2015-0049.

Jafry, T., M. Mikulewicz and K. Helwig, 2018: Introduction: justice in the era

of climate change. In: Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice, pp. 1–9.

Routledge, London.

Janke, T., 2018: Protecting indigenous cultural expressions in Australia and New

Zealand: Two decades after the ‘Mataatua Declaration and our culture, our

future’. Intellect. Prop. Forum: J. Intellect. Ind. Prop. Soc. Aust. N. Z., 114,

21–30, doi:10.3316/informit.204204436835200.

Jendrzejewski, B., 2020: Bioeconomic modelling – An application of

environmentally adjusted economic accounts and the computable general

equilibrium model. Land Use Policy, 92, Mar 1;92:104431.

Jenkins, K., 2017: Women anti-mining activists’ narratives of everyday resistance

in the Andes: staying put and carrying on in Peru and Ecuador. Gend. Place

Cult., 24(10), 1441–1459, doi:10.1080/0966369X.2017.1387102.

Jenkins, K., B.K. Sovacool and D. McCauley, 2018: Humanizing sociotechnical

transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global

transformative change. Energy Policy, 117, 66–74, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2018.02.036.

Jernnäs, M. and B.-O. Linnér, 2019: A discursive cartography of nationally

determined contributions to the Paris climate agreement. Glob. Environ.

Chang., 55, 73–83, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.006.

Joakim, E.P., L. Mortsch and G. Oulahen, 2015: Using vulnerability and resilience

concepts to advance climate change adaptation. Environ. Hazards, 14(2),

137–155, doi:10.1080/17477891.2014.1003777.

Johansson, T., A. Patwardhan, N. Nakicenovic and L. Gomez-Echeverri, 2012:

Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge UK and New York, NY, USA and the International

Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. ISBN 978-

0521182935.

Johnstone, P. and P. Newell, 2018: Sustainability transitions and the state.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 2018 Jun 1;27:72-82.

Jones, L., etal., 2014: Exploring the role of climate science in supporting long-

term adaptation and decision-making in sub-Saharan Africa. CDKN, 2014.

Jordan, J.C., 2019: Deconstructing resilience: why gender and power matter in

responding to climate stress in Bangladesh. Clim. Dev., 11(2), 167–179, doi:

10.1080/17565529.2018.1442790.

Jørgensen, M.S., U. Jørgensen and J.S. Jensen, 2017: Navigations and

governance in the Danish energy transition reﬂecting changing Arenas of

Development, controversies and policy mixes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 33, 173–

185, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.034.

Jørgensen, U., 2012: Mapping and navigating transitions—the multi-level

perspective compared with arenas of development. Res Policy, 41(6), 996–

1010, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.001.

Jost, C., et al., 2016: Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and

climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev., 8(2), 133–

144.

Juhola, S., E. Glaas, B.-O. Linnér and T.-S. Neset, 2015: Redeﬁning maladaptation.

Environ. Sci. Policy, 2016, 135–140, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.014.

Kabir, M. and R. Salim, 2019: Valuation of subsoil minerals in Bangladesh: An

application of the system of environmental-economic accounting. Resour.

Policy, 62, 193–204.

Kabubo-Mariara, M.J., 2009: Adaptation to Climate Change and Livestock

Biodiversity: Evidence from Kenya. In: Conserving and Valuing Ecosystem

Services and Biodiversity: Economic, Social and Institutional Challenges in

the New Millennium [Ninan, K.N.(ed.)]. Earthscan, pp. 345–369.

Kakenmaster, W., 2019: Articulating resistance: Agonism, radical

democracy and climate change activism. Millennium, 47(3), 373–397,

doi:10.1177/0305829819839862.

Kalafatis, S., 2017: Identifying the potential for climate compatible development

efforts and the missing links. Sustainability, 9(9), 1642.

Kallis, G., 2011: In defence of degrowth. Ecol. Econ., 70(5), 873–880.

Kallis, G., 2018: Degrowth. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, ISBN

978-1911116806. 176 pp.

Kallis, G., J. Martinez-Alier and R.B. Norgaard, 2009: Paper assets, real debts: An

ecological-economic exploration of the global economic crisis. Crit. Perspect.

Int. Bus., 5(1/2), 14–25.

Kamal Uddin, A.M., et al., 2006: Climate resilient development: country

framework to mainstream climate risk management and adaptation :

working paper. Climate Change Cell, Dept. of Environment, Dhaka, ISBN

978-9843237040.

Kamau, M., P. Chasek and D. O’Connor, 2018: Transforming Multilateral

Diplomacy: The Inside Story of the Sustainable Development Goals, 1stedn.,

Routledge, London New York, ISBN 978-0813350868. 366 pp.

Kandlikar, M., C. Reynolds and A. Grieshop, 2009: A Perspective Paper on

Black Carbon Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change. Copenhagen

Consensus Center, 2009.

Karlsson, M., E. Alfredsson and N. Westling, 2020: Climate policy co-beneﬁts: a

review. Clim. Policy, 20(3), 292–316, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1724070.

Kasdan, M., L. Kuhl and P. Kurukulasuriya, 2021: The evolution of transformational

change in multilateral funds dedicated to ﬁnancing adaptation to climate

change. Clim. Dev., 13(5), 427–442, doi:10.1080/17565529.2020.1790333.

Kattumuri, R., D. Ravindranath and T. Esteves, 2017: Local adaptation strategies

in semi-arid regions: study of two villages in Karnataka, India. Clim. Dev.,

9(1), 36–49.

Kaya, H.O. and M. Chinsamy, 2016: Community-based environmental resource

management systems for sustainable livelihood and climate change

adaptation: a review of best practices in africa. J. Soc. Sci., 46(2), 123–129,

doi:10.1080/09718923.2016.11893519.

Kaza, S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata and F.V. Woerden, 2018: What a Waste 2.0:

A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank

Publications, Washington, DCISBN 978-1464813474. 230 pp.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317

Keith, H., M. Vardon, J.A. Stein and D. Lindenmayer, 2019: Contribution of

native forests to climate change mitigation – A common approach to carbon

accounting that aligns results from environmental-economic accounting

with rules for emissions reduction. Environ. Sci. Policy, 93, 189–199.

Kenis, A. and M. Lievens, 2016: Imagining the carbon neutral city: the (post)

politics of time and space. Environ. Plan. A., doi:10.1177/0308518X16680617.

Kenis, A. and E. Mathijs, 2012: Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of

power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change. Environ. Educ.

Res., 18(1), 45–65, doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.576315.

Kenis, A. and E. Mathijs, 2014: Climate change and post-politics: repoliticizing

the present by imagining the future? Geoforum, 52, 148–156, doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2014.01.009.

Kermoal, N. and I. Altamirano-Jiménez, 2016: Kermoal and Altamirano-Jiménez,

2016. Athabasca University Press, Athabasca.

Khanal, U., et al., 2021: Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change

and its potential contribution to UN’s sustainable development goals of

zero hunger and no poverty. J Clean Prod, 281, 124999, doi:10.1016/j.

jclepro.2020.124999.

Khatri, D.B., 2018: Climate and development at the third pole. https://pub.

epsilon.slu.se/15564/. Accessed 09 Sep 2020.

Kim, Y., M.V. Chester, D.A. Eisenberg and C.L. Redman, 2019: The infrastructure

trolley problem: positioning safe-to-fail infrastructure for climate change

adaptation. Earth’s Future, 7(7), 704–717, doi:10.1029/2019EF001208.

Kim, Y., etal., 2017a: Fail-safe and safe-to-fail adaptation: decision-making for

urban ﬂooding under climate change. Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-

017-2090-1.

Kim, Y., et al., 2017b: A perspective on climate resilient development and

national adaptation planning based on USAID’s experience. Clim. Dev., 9(2),

141–151.

2753

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Kingsborough, A., E. Borgomeo and J.W. Hall, 2016: Adaptation pathways in

practice: Mapping options and trade-offs for London’s water resources.

Sustain. Cities Soc., 27, 386–397, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.013.

Kirchhoff, C.J., M. Carmen Lemos and S. Dessai, 2013: Actionable knowledge

for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate

science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 38(1), 393–414, doi:10.1146/annurev-

environ-022112-112828.

Kivimaa, P., W. Boon, S. Hyysalo and L. Klerkx, 2019a: Towards a typology of

intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research

agenda. Res Policy, 48(4), 1062–1075, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.

Kivimaa, P., et al., 2019b: Passing the baton: how intermediaries advance

sustainability transitions in different phases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 31,

110–125, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.001.

Kivimaa, P. and M. Martiskainen, 2018: Dynamics of policy change and

intermediation: the arduous transition towards low-energy homes in

the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 44, 83–99, doi:10.1016/j.

erss.2018.04.032.

Kivimaa, P., E. Primmer and J. Lukkarinen, 2020: Intermediating policy for

transitions towards net-zero energy buildings. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.007

Klein, N., 2020: On ﬁre: the (burning) case for a green new deal. Simon

& Schuster, ISBN 978-1982129927. https://doi.org/10.3197/09632712

0x15916910310572

Klein, R. J. T. et al., 2007: Inter-relationships between adaptation and

mitigation. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P.

Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 745–777. ISBN 9780521880107.

Klepp, S. and J. Herbeck, 2016: The politics of environmental migration and

climate justice in the Paciﬁc region. J. Hum. Rights Environ., 7, 54–73,

doi:10.4337/jhre.2016.01.03.

Kleres, J. and Å. Wettergren, 2017: Fear, hope, anger, and guilt in climate

activism. Soc. Mov Stud., 1–13, doi:10.1080/14742837.2017.1344546.

Klinsky, S., etal., 2017: Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy

research. Glob. Environ. Chang., 44, 170–173.

Klinsky, S. and H. Winkler, 2018: Building equity in: strategies for integrating

equity into modelling for a 1.5°C world. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A: Math.

Phys. Eng. Sci., 376(2119), 20160461.

Koch, M., 2020: Structure, action and change: a Bourdieusian perspective on

the preconditions for a degrowth transition. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, 16(1),

4–14, doi:10.1080/15487733.2020.1754693.

Kochore, H.H., 2016: The road to Kenya?: Visions, expectations and anxieties

around new infrastructure development in Northern Kenya. J. East. African

Stud., 10(3), 494–510.

Köhler, J., etal., 2019: An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State

of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 31, 1–32,

doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Kohler, P., S. Renggli and C. Lüthi, 2019: WASH and gender in health care

facilities: the uncharted territory. Health. Care. Women. Int., 40(1), 3–12.

Komendantova, N., etal., 2016: Multi-risk approach and urban resilience. Int. J.

Disaster Resil. Built Environ., 7, 114–132, doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2015-0013.

Kookana, R.S., etal., 2016: Groundwater scarcity impact on inclusiveness and

women empowerment: Insights from school absenteeism of female students

in two watersheds in India. Int. J. Incl. Educ., 20(11), 1155–1171.

Kothari, A., F. Demaria and A. Acosta, 2014: Buen Vivir, degrowth and ecological

Swaraj: alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy.

Development, 57(3), 362–375, doi:10.1057/dev.2015.24.

Koubi, V., 2019: Climate change and conﬂict. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 22(1), 343–

360, doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070830.

Krampe, F., E.S. Smith and M.D. Hamidi, 2021: Security implications of climate

development in conﬂict-affected states implications of local-level effects of

rural hydropower development on farmers in Herat. Polit Geogr, 90, 102454,

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102454.

Kriegler, E., etal., 2018: Pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C: a tale of turning

around in no time? Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.,

376(2119), 20160457, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0457.

Kristjanson, P., et al., 2017: Addressing gender in agricultural research for

development in the face of a changing climate: where are we and where

should we be going? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15(5), 482–500.

Krogstrup, S. and W. Oman, 2019: Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for

Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of the Literature. IMF Working Papers,

Vol. 19. doi:10.5089/9781513511955.001.

Krueger, P., Z. Sautner and L.T. Starks, Rochester, NY: The Importance of Climate

Risks for Institutional Investors. Social Science Research Network, https://

papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3235190.Accessed 2019.

Krusell, P. and A. Smith, 2018: Climate Change Around the World. Slides from

ifo Institute Workshop on “Heterogeneous Agents and the Macroeconomics

of Climate Change”.

Kubiszewski, I., et al., 2013: Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global

genuine progress. Ecol. Econ., 93, 57–68.

Kuenkel, P., 2019: Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging

Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Springer International

Publishing, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3030036904.

Kull, M., 2016: Multi-level governance and structural constructivism–

understanding multilevel politics in the European Union. In: European

Integration and Rural Development. Routledge, London and New York.

Kuokkanen, A., V. Uusitalo and K. Koistinen, 2019: A framework of disruptive

sustainable innovation: an example of the Finnish food system. Technol.

Analysis Strateg. Manag., 31(7), 749–764, doi:10.1080/09537325.2018.15

50254.

Kuper, M., H. Amichi and P.-L. Mayaux, 2017: Groundwater use in North Africa

as a cautionary tale for climate change adaptation. Water Int., 42(6), 725–

740, doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1351058.

Kuzemko, C., A. Lawrence and M. Watson, 2019: New directions in the

international political economy of energy. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ., 26(1), 1–24,

doi:10.1080/09692290.2018.1553796.

Labriet, M., etal., 2015: Worldwide impacts of climate change on energy for

heating and cooling. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change, 20(7), 1111–1136.

Lacroix, K. and R. Gifford, 2017: Psychological barriers to energy conservation

behavior: the role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environ

Behav, doi:10.1177/0013916517715296.

Lahn, B., 2018: In the light of equity and science: scientiﬁc expertise and climate

justice after Paris. Int. Environ. Agreements: Polit. Law Econ., 18(1), 29–43.

Lahsen, M. and E. Turnhout, 2021: How norms, needs, and power in science

obstruct transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett., 16(2),

25008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abdcf0.

Lam, D.P.M., et al., 2020: Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability

transformations research: a literature review. Ecol. Soc., 25(1), doi:10.5751/

ES-11305-250103.

Lamsal, P., L. Kumar, K. Atreya and K.P. Pant, 2017: Vulnerability and impacts

of climate change on forest and freshwater wetland ecosystems in Nepal: A

review. Ambio, 46(8), 915–930, doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0923-9.

Langlois, A.J., 2014: Social connection & political responsibility: an engagement

with Iris Marion Young. St Antony’s Int. Rev., 10(1), 43–63.

Larik, J.E., etal., 2017: Blue growth and sustainable development in Indian

ocean governance. The hague Inst. Glob. Justice Policy Brief.

Latour, B., D. Milstein, I. Marrero-Guillamón and I. Rodríguez-Giralt, 2018:

Down to earth social movements: an interview with Bruno Latour. Soc. Mov

Stud., 17(3), 353–361, doi:10.1080/14742837.2018.1459298.

Lau, J.D., D. Kleiber, S. Lawless and P.J. Cohen, 2021: Gender equality in climate

policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 11(3), 186–

192, doi:10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7.

2754

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Lawrence, J., etal., 2015: Adapting to changing climate risk by local government

in New Zealand : institutional practice barriers and enablers. Local Environ,

20(3), 298–320.

Le Blanc, D., 2015: Towards integration at last? The sustainable development

goals as a network of targets: the sustainable development goals as a

network of targets. Sustain. Dev., 23(3), 176–187, doi:10.1002/sd.1582.

Le, T.-H., Y. Chang and D. Park, 2016: Trade openness and environmental quality:

international evidence. Energy Polii, 92(C), 45–55.

Leal Filho, W., etal., 2020: COVID-19 and the UN sustainable development

goals: threat to solidarity or an opportunity? Sustainability, 12(13), 5343,

doi:10.3390/su12135343.

Lee, J.-Y., J. Marotzke, G. Bala, L. Cao, S. Corti, J.P. Dunne, F. Engelbrecht, E.

Fischer, J.C. Fyfe, C. Jones, A. Maycock, J. Mutemi, O. Ndiaye, S. Panickal,

and T. Zhou, 2021: Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based Projections and

Near-Term Information. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, K., N. Gjersoe, S. O’Neill and J. Barnett, 2020: Youth perceptions of climate

change: a narrative synthesis. WIREs Clim. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.641

Lee, S.-H. and M. Thiel, 2017: Relations between GDP growth and environmental

performance using latent growth curve model applied for environmental

Kuznets curve. Int. J. Sustain. Econ., 9(2), 87–104, doi:10.1504/

IJSE.2017.083362.

Lee, S.A., 2020: Playing the Long Game: The intersection of Climate Change

Risk and Financial Regulation.

Keynote Remarks at PLI’s 52nd Annual Institute on Securities Regulation.

Leibenluft, J., 2020: Rethinking the Intersection of Climate Policy and the

Federal Budget. Center for American Progress.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rethinking-intersection-climate-

policy-federal-budget/

Leigh, N.G. and H. Lee, 2019: Sustainable and resilient urban water systems:

the role of decentralization and planning. Sustainability, 11(3), 918,

doi:10.3390/su11030918.

Lele, S., V. Srinivasan, B.K. Thomas and P. Jamwal, 2018: Adapting to climate

change in rapidly urbanizing river basins: insights from a multiple-concerns,

multiple-stressors, and multi-level approach. Water Int., 43(2), 281–304, doi

:10.1080/02508060.2017.1416442.

Lemke, S. and T. Delormier, 2017: Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, nutrition,

and gender: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Matern. Child

Nutr., (Suppl 3), doi:10.1111/mcn.12499.

Lemoine, D. and C. Traeger, 2014: Watch your step: optimal policy in a tipping

climate. Am. Econ. Journal: Econ. Policy, 6, doi:10.1257/pol.6.1.137.

Lenzholzer, S., etal., 2020: Urban climate awareness and urgency to adapt:

an international overview. Urban Clim., 33, 100667, doi:10.1016/j.

uclim.2020.100667.

Lertzman, R.A., 2010: Myth of apathy: psychoanalytic explorations of

environmental degradation. Cardiff University, UK, ISBN 978-1073291229.

Lesnikowski, A., et al., 2017: What does the Paris Agreement mean for

adaptation? Clim. Policy, 17(7), 825–831.

Lesutis, G., 2020: How to understand a development corridor? The case of

Lamu Port–South Sudan–Ethiopia-Transport corridor in Kenya. Area, 52(3),

600–608.

Leventon, J., D.J. Abson and D.J. Lang, 2021: Leverage points for sustainability

transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and

practice. Sustain Sci, 16(3), 721–726, doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00961-8.

Ley, D., 2017: Sustainable development, climate change, and renewable energy

in rural central america. In: Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable

Development [Uitto, J.I., J. Puri and R.D. van den Berg(eds.)]. Springer

International Publishing, Cham, pp. 187–212. ISBN 978-3319437026.

Ley, D., H.J. Corsair, S. Fuss and C. Singh, 2020: Evaluating the use of renewable

energy and communal governance systems for climate change adaptation.

Cent. Eur. Rev. Econ. Manag., 4(1), 53–70, doi:10.29015/cerem.850.

Li, D., et al., 2019a: Challenges and opportunities for the development of

MEGACITIES. Int. J. Digit. Earth, 12(12), 1382–1395, doi:10.1080/1753894

7.2018.1512662.

Li, L., etal., 2018: Service learning, service climate, and service-based social

innovation for sustainability. Sustainability, 10(7), 2566.

Li, S., etal., 2017: Integrated modelling of urban spatial development under

uncertain climate futures: a case study in Hungary. Environ. Model. Softw.,

96, 251–264, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07.005.

Li, X., etal., 2019b: Projecting global urban area growth through 2100 based

on historical time series data and future shared socioeconomic pathways.

Earth’s Future, 7(4), 351–362, doi:10.1029/2019EF001152.

Liem, A., R.B. Natari, Jimmy and B.J. Hall, 2020: Digital health applications in

mental health care for immigrants and refugees: a rapid review. Telemedicine

E-health, doi:10.1089/tmj.2020.0012.

Lillebø, A.I., et al., 2017: How can marine ecosystem services support

the Blue Growth agenda? Mar. Policy., 81, 132–142, doi:10.1016/j.

marpol.2017.03.008.

Lind, J., 2018: Devolution, shifting centre-periphery relationships and conﬂict in

northern Kenya. Polit Geogr, 63, 135–147.

Lindoso, D., et al., 2018: Harvesting water for living with drought: insights

from the Brazilian human coexistence with semi-aridity approach towards

achieving the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 10(3), 622.

Liobikienė, G. and M. Butkus, 2018: The challenges and opportunities of climate

change policy under different stages of economic development. Sci. Total

Environ., 642, 999–1007, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.140.

Lipper, L., etal., 2014: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim.

Chang., 4(12), 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.

Liu, J.-Y., etal., 2019: Identifying trade-offs and co-beneﬁts of climate policies

in China to align policies with SDGs and achieve the 2°C goal. Environ. Res.

Lett., 14(12), 124070, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab59c4.

Lo, A.Y., S. Liu, L.T.O. Cheung and F.K.S. Chan, 2020: Contested transformations:

sustainable economic development and capacity for adapting to climate

change. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 110(1), 223–241, doi:10.1080/24694452.

2019.1625748.

Lo, K. and V. Castán Broto, 2019: Co-beneﬁts, contradictions, and multi-level

governance of low-carbon experimentation: Leveraging solar energy for

sustainable development in China. Glob. Environ. Chang., 59, 101993,

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101993.

Lockwood, M., C. Kuzemko, C. Mitchell and R. Hoggett, 2016: Historical

institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: a research

agenda. Environ. Plan. C: Polit. Space, doi:10.1177/0263774X16660561.

Löfmarck, E. and R. Lidskog, 2017: Bumping against the boundary: IPBES

and the knowledge divide. Environ Sci Policy, 69, 22–28, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2016.12.008.

Loorbach, D., N. Frantzeskaki and F. Avelino, 2017: Sustainability transitions

research: transforming science and practice for societal change.

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42(1), 599–626, doi:10.1146/annurev-

environ-102014-021340.

Loorbach, D., etal., 2020: Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 35, 251–260, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.009.

Lopez-Carr, D., Population-health-environment ( phe ) synergies ? Evidence

from USAID-sponsored programs in african and asian core conservation

areas. Accessed 2021-08-20.

Lorenzoni, I. and L. Whitmarsh, 2014: Climate change and perceptions,

behaviors, and communication research after the IPCC 5th Assessment

Report - a WIREs Editorial: Climate change and perceptions, behaviors, and

communication research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 5(6), 703–708.

Lucas, H., et al., 2017: Critical challenges and capacity building needs for

renewable energy deployment in Paciﬁc Small Island Developing States

(Paciﬁc SIDS). Renew. Energy, 107, 42–52, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.029.

Ludwig, D. and L. Poliseli, 2018: Relating traditional and academic ecological

knowledge: mechanistic and holistic epistemologies across cultures. Biol.

Philos., 33(5), 43, doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9655-x.

2755

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Ludwig, F., E. van Slobbe and W. Coﬁno, 2014: Climate change adaptation and

integrated water resource management in the water sector. J. Hydrol. Reg.

Stud., 518, 235–242, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.010.

Luederitz, C., D.J. Abson, R. Audet and D.J. Lang, 2017: Many pathways toward

sustainability: not conﬂict but co-learning between transition narratives.

Sustain Sci, 12(3), 393–407, doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0.

Luton, L.S., 2015: Climate scientists and the intergovernmental panel on

climate change: evolving dynamics of a belief in political neutrality. Adm.

Theory Prax., 37(3), 144–161, doi:10.1080/10841806.2015.1053360.

Lwasa, S., 2015: A systematic review of research on climate change adaptation

policy and practice in Africa and South Asia deltas. Reg Environ Change,

15(5), 815–824.

Lyon, C., 2018: Complexity ethics and UNFCCC practices for 1.5°C climate

change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 48–55.

MacGregor, S., 2003: Feminist perspectives on sustainability. In: UNESCO

Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems: Introduction to Sustainable

Development, ed. / David V J Bell; Annie Cheung. Oxford : Eolss Publishers,

pp. 467–492.

MacGregor, S., 2014: Only resist: feminist ecological citizenship and the post-

politics of climate change. Hypatia, 29(3), 617–633.

MacGregor, S., 2019: Finding transformative potential in the cracks? The

ambiguities of urban environmental activism in a neoliberal city. Soc. Mov

Stud., 0(0), 1–17, doi:10.1080/14742837.2019.1677224.

MacGregor, S., 2020: Gender matters in environmental justice. In:

Environmental Justice [Coolsaet, B.(ed).], 1st edn. Key issues in environment

and sustainability, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY, pp. 234–248.

ISBN 978-0429029585.

Mach, K.J., etal., 2019: Climate as a risk factor for armed conﬂict. Nature,

571(7764), 193–197, doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6.

Mackey, B. and D. Claudie, 2015: Points of contact: integrating traditional and

scientiﬁc knowledge for Biocultural conservation. Environ. Ethics., (Fall),

37(3), 341–357.

Maes, M.J.A., K.E. Jones, M.B. Toledano and B. Milligan, 2019: Mapping synergies

and trade-offs between urban ecosystems and the sustainable development

goals. Environ. Sci. Policy, 93, 181–188, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.010.

Magnan, A.K. and T. Ribera, 2016: Global adaptation after Paris. Science,

352(6291), 1280–1282.

Magnan, A.K., etal., 2016: Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate

change. WIREs Clim. Chang., 7(5), 646–665, doi:10.1002/wcc.409.

Magnan, A.K., E.L.F. Schipper and V.K.E. Duvat, 2020: Frontiers in climate change

adaptation science: advancing guidelines to design adaptation pathways.

Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 6(4), 166–177, doi:10.1007/s40641-020-00166-8.

Mahoney, J.L. and K. Thelen, 2009: A theory of gradual institutional change.

Explain. Institutional Chang. Ambiguity Agency Power, 1–37, doi:10.1017/

CBO9780511806414.003.

Mahony, M. and M. Hulme, 2016: Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising

Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92. Minerva, 54(4), 445–470,

doi:10.1007/s11024-016-9302-0.

Mainali, K., etal., 2020: Contrasting responses to climate change at Himalayan

treelines revealed by population demographics of two dominant species.

Ecol. Evol., 10(3), 1209–1222, doi:10.1002/ece3.5968.

Major, D.C., M. Lehmann and J. Fitton, 2018: Linking the management of climate

change adaptation in small coastal towns and cities to the Sustainable

Development Goals. Ocean. Coast. Manag., 163, 205–208, doi:10.1016/j.

ocecoaman.2018.06.010.

Makuvaro, V., et al., 2017: Constraints to crop production and adaptation

strategies of smallholder farmers in semi-arid Central and Western

Zimbabwe. African Crop. Sci. J., 25(2), 221–235, doi:10.4314/acsj.v25i2.7.

Mallucci, Enrico (2020). “Natural Disasters, Climate Change, and Sovereign

Risk,” International Finance Discussion Papers 1291. Washington: Board

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://doi.org/10.17016/

IFDP.2020.1291.

Manne, A.S. and R.G. Richels, 1992: Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The

Economic Costs of CO2 Emission Limits. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass,

194. ISBN 978-0262132800. New ed.

Maor, M., J. Tosun and A. Jordan, 2017: Proportionate and disproportionate

policy responses to climate change: core concepts and empirical applications.

J. Environ. Policy Plan., 0(0), 1–13.

Mapfumo, P., Mtambanengwe, F. and Chikowo, R.2016: Building on indigenous

knowledge to strengthen the capacity of smallholder farming communities

to adapt to climate change and variability in southern Africa. Clim. Dev., 8,

72–81, doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.998604.

Marin, A. and L.O. Naess, 2017: Climate change adaptation through humanitarian

aid? Promises, perils and potentials of the ‘new humanitarianism’. IDS Bull.

https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.150

Markard, J., F.W. Geels and R. Raven, 2020: Challenges in the acceleration of

sustainability transitions. Environ. Res. Lett.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9468

Markkanen, S. and A. Anger-Kraavi, 2019: Social impacts of climate change

mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Clim. Policy, 19(7),

827–844, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873.

Marmot, M., 2020: The Art of Medicine - Society and the slow burn of inequality.

Inst. Health Equity, 395, 1413–1414.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30940-5

Marmot, M. and J. Allen, 2020: COVID-19: exposing and amplifying inequalities.

JEpidemiol Community Health, doi:10.1136/jech-2020-214720.

Marsha, A., etal., 2018: Inﬂuences of climatic and population changes on heat-

related mortality in Houston, Texas, USA. Clim Change, 146(3), 471–485,

doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1775-1.

Martinez-Alier, J., 2021: Mapping ecological distribution conﬂicts: The EJAtlas.

Extr. Ind. Soc., doi:10.1016/j.exis.2021.02.003.

Martínez-Fernández, J., I. Banos-González and M.Á. Esteve-Selma, 2021:

An integral approach to address socio-ecological systems sustainability

and their uncertainties. Sci. Total. Environ., 762, 144457, doi:10.1016/j.

scitotenv.2020.144457.

Martiskainen, M., et al., 2020: Contextualizing climate justice activism:

knowledge, emotions, motivations, and actions among climate

strikers in six cities. Glob. Environ. Chang., 65, 102180, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2020.102180.

Maru, Y.T., et al., 2014: A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for

adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Glob. Environ.

Chang., 28, 337–350, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.007.

Massarella, K., etal., 2021: Transformation beyond conservation: how critical

social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity

conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 49, 79–87, doi:10.1016/j.

cosust.2021.03.005.

Massey, E., R. Biesbroek, D. Huitema and A. Jordan, 2014: Climate policy

innovation: the adoption and diffusion of adaptation policies across europe.

Glob. Environ. Chang., 29, 434–443.

Material, E., 2019: Industrial Transformation 2050: Pathways to net-zero

emissions from EU Heavy Industry. https://materialeconomics.com/

publications/industrial-transformation-2050. Accessed 25-04-2019.

Mathai, M.V., J.A.P. de Oliveira and G. Dale, 2018: The rise and ﬂaws of green

growth. Apn Sci. Bull., doi:10.30852/sb.2018.359.

Matin, N., J. Forrester and J. Ensor, 2018: What is equitable resilience? World

Dev, 109, 197–205.

Matos, P., etal., 2019: Modeling the provision of air-quality regulation ecosystem

service provided by urban green spaces using lichens as ecological indicators.

Sci. Total. Environ., 665, 521–530, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.023.

Matsui, K., 2015: Problems of deﬁning and validating traditional knowledge: a

historical approach. Int. Indig. Policy J., 6(2), 2, doi:10.18584/iipj.2015.6.2.2.

Matthew, R., 2014: Integrating climate change into peacebuilding. Clim

Change, 123(1), 83–93, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0894-1.

Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L.G. Barioni, T.G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai,

E. Liwenga, P. Pradhan, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, T. Sapkota, F.N. Tubiello, Y. Xu, 2019:

2756

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Food security. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate

change, desertiﬁcation, land degradation, sustainable land management,

food security, and greenhouse gas ﬂuxes in terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P.

R., J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts,

P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S.

Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick,

M. Belkacemi and J. Malley (eds.)]. In press.

McCartney, G., et al., 2017: Regeneration and health: a structured, rapid

literature review. Public Health, 148, 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

puhe.2017.02.022

McCollum, D.L., et al., 2018a: Connecting the sustainable development

goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(3), 33006,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3.

McCollum, D.L., etal., 2018b: Energy investment needs for fulﬁlling the paris

agreement and achieving the sustainable development goals. Nat. Energy,

3(7), 589–599, doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0179-z.

McGregor, D., S. Whitaker and M. Sritharan, 2020: Indigenous environmental

justice and sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 43, 35–40,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.007.

Mcleod, E., etal., 2018: Raising the voices of Paciﬁc Island women to inform

climate adaptation policies. Mar. Policy, 93, 178–185.

Mcleod, E., etal., 2019: Lessons from the paciﬁc islands – adapting to climate

change by supporting social and ecological resilience. Front. Mar. Sci., 6(289),

doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00289.

McManamay, R.A., C.R. Vernon and H.I. Jager, 2021: Global biodiversity

implications of alternative electriﬁcation strategies under the shared

socioeconomic pathways. Biol. Conserv., 260, 109234, doi:10.1016/j.

biocon.2021.109234.

McNamara, K.E., etal., 2020: An assessment of community-based adaptation

initiatives in the Paciﬁc Islands. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(7), 628–639,

doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0813-1.

McPhearson, T. and K. Wijsman, 2017: Transitioning complex urban systems:

the importance of Urban ecology for sustainability in new York City. In:

Urban Sustainability Transitions [Frantzeskaki, N., Broto, V.C., Coenen, L. and

Loorbach, D. (eds.)]. Routledge, London. ISBN 978-1315228389.

McPhetres, J. and M. Zuckerman, 2018: Religiosity predicts negative attitudes

towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLoS ONE, 13(11),

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207125.

Meadows, D., 1999: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The

Sustainability Institute. Available at: https://donellameadows.org/archives/

leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ (accessed 31.01.22)

Melica, G., etal., 2018: Multilevel governance of sustainable energy policies:

The role of regions and provinces to support the participation of small local

authorities in the Covenant of Mayors. Sustain. Cities Soc., 39, 729–739. Doi:

10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.013.

Meriluoto, T., 2018: ‘The will to not be empowered (according to your

rules)’: Resistance in Finnish participatory social policy. Crit. Soc. Policy,

doi:10.1177/0261018318764322.

Mersha, A.A. and F. van Laerhoven, 2019: Gender and climate policy: a

discursive institutional analysis of Ethiopia’s climate resilient strategy. Reg.

Environ. Change, 19(2), 429–440.

Metcalf, G.E., 2016: A conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of

green ﬁscal reforms. Int. J. Green Growth Dev., 2(2), 87–126.

Metcalf, G.E., 2019: On the Economics of a Carbon Tax for the United States.

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Available at: https://www.brookings.

edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/On-the-Economics-of-a-Carbon-Tax-for-

the-United-States.pdf (accedded 31.01.22).

Mganga, K.Z., N.K.R. Musimba and D.M. Nyariki, 2015: Combining sustainable

land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve

rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environ Manage, 56(6), 1538–

1548.

Michalena, E. and J.M. Hills, 2018: Paths of renewable energy development in

small island developing states of the South Paciﬁc. Renew. Sustain. Energy

Rev., 82, 343–352, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.017.

Mikulewicz, M., 2018: Politicizing vulnerability and adaptation: on the need

to democratize local responses to climate impacts in developing countries.

Clim. Dev., 10(1), 18–34, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1304887.

Mikulewicz, M., 2019: Thwarting adaptation’s potential? A critique of resilience

and climate resilient development. Geoforum, 104, 267–282, doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2019.05.010.

Mikulewicz, M. and M. Taylor, 2020: Getting the resilience right: climate change

and development policy in the ‘African Age’. New Polit. Econ., 25(4), 626–

641, doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1625317.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Miller, C.A., 2017: Incorporating sustainability into climate change adaptation.

In: Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies [Abraham, M. A.(ed.)]. Elsevier,

Oxford, pp. 175–182. ISBN 978-0128047927.

Milman, A. and Y. Arsano, 2014: Climate adaptation and development:

contradictions for human security in Gambella, Ethiopia. Glob. Environ.

Chang., 29, 349–359, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.017.

Mimura, N., R.S. Pulwarty, D.M. Duc, I. Elshinnawy, M.H. Redsteer, H.Q.

Huang, J.N. Nkem, and R.A. Sanchez Rodriguez, 2014: Adaptation Planning

and Implementation. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D.

Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova,

B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L.

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,

USA, pp. 869-898. ISBN 9781107058071.

Minx, J.C., etal., 2017: Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and

beyond. Environ. Sci. Policy, 77, 252–259, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.014.

Mirumachi, N., A. Sawas and M. Workman, 2020: Unveiling the security concerns

of low carbon development: climate security analysis of the undesirable and

unintended effects of mitigation and adaptation. Clim. Dev., 12(2), 97–109,

doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1604310.

Mirzabaev, A., et al., 2015: Bioenergy, food security and poverty reduction:

trade-offs and synergies along the water–energy–food security nexus. Water

Int., 40(5-6), 772–790, doi:10.1080/02508060.2015.1048924.

Mistry, J., B.A. Bilbao and A. Berardi, 2016: Community owned solutions for

ﬁre management in tropical ecosystems: casestudies from Indigenous

communities of South. Philos. Trans., 371, 1–10.

Mitchell, D., S. Enemark and P. van der Molen, 2015: Climate resilient urban

development: why responsible land governance is important. Land Use

Policy, 48, 190–198, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.026.

Mitchell, T. and S. Maxwell, 2010: Deﬁning Climate Compatible Development.

CDKR. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-

outputs/deﬁning-climate-compatible-development#:~:text='Climate%20

compatible%20development'%20is%20development,emissions%2C%20

more%20resilient%2C%20future. (accessed 31.01.22).

Mitter, H., et al., 2020: Shared socio-economic pathways for European

agriculture and food systems: the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Glob. Environ. Chang., 65,

102159, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102159.

Mocca, E. and S. Osborne, 2019: “Solidarity is our weapon”: social Mobilisation

in Scotland in the contest of the post-political condition. Antipode, 51(2),

620–641, doi:10.1111/anti.12466.

Mogelgaard, K., etal., 2018: From Planning to Action: Mainstreaming Climate

Change Adaptation Into Development. World Resources Institute. Available

at: https://www.wri.org/research/planning-action-mainstreaming-climate-

change-adaptation-development (accessed 31.01.22).

Mohammed, R. and M. Scholz, 2017: Adaptation strategy to mitigate the

impact of climate change on water resources in arid and semi-arid regions: a

2757

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

case study. Water Resour. Manag., 31(11), 3557–3573, doi:10.1007/s11269-

017-1685-7.

Montoute, A., D. Mohammed and J. Francis, 2019: Prospects and challenges

for civil society and climate change engagement in the caribbean: the

case of trinidad and Tobago. Caribb. Stud., 47(2), 81–109, doi:10.1353/

crb.2019.0015.

Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell and D. Vocisano, 2015: Scaling out, scaling up, scaling

deep: strategies of non-proﬁts in advancing systemic social innovation. J.

Corp. Citizsh., 58, 67–84.

Mora, C., etal., 2017: Global risk of deadly heat. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(7), 501–

506, doi:10.1038/nclimate3322.

Mora, O., etal., 2020: Exploring the future of land use and food security: A new

set of global scenarios. PLoS ONE, 15(7), e235597.

Moran, et al., 2018: The Intersection of Global Fragility and Climate Risks.

United States Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.

Mormina, M., 2019: Science, technology and innovation as social goods for

development: rethinking research capacity building from Sen’s capabilities

approach. SCI ENG ETHICS, 25(3), 671–692.

Morote, Á.-F., J. Olcina and M. Hernández, 2019: The use of non-conventional

water resources as a means of adaptation to drought and climate change

in semi-arid regions: south-eastern Spain. Water, 11(1), 93, doi:10.3390/

w11010093.

Morton, T., 2013: Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of

the World, 1st edn., Univ Of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, ISBN 978-

0816689231. 240 pp.

Morton, T., 2021: Contesting coal, contesting climate: materializing the social

drama of climate change in Australia and Germany. Environ. Commun.,

15(4), 465–481, doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1865428.

Mosberg, M., E. Nyukuri and L.O. Naess, 2017: The power of ‘know-who’:

adaptation to climate change in a changing humanitarian landscape in

Isiolo, Kenya. IDS Bull., 48(4), doi:10.19088/1968-2017.154.

Moser, S.C. and J.A. Ekstrom, 2011: Taking ownership of climate change:

participatory adaptation planning in two local case studies from California.

JEnviron Stud Sci, 1(1), 63–74, doi:10.1007/s13412-011-0012-5.

Moser, S., S. Meerow, J. Arnott and E. Jack-Scott, 2019: The turbulent world of

resilience: interpretations and themes for transdisciplinary dialogue. Clim.

Change, 153(1), 21–40, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2358-0.

Mosley, J. and E.E. Watson, 2016: Frontier transformations: development

visions, spaces and processes in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia. J.

East. African Stud., 10(3), 452–475.

Mouratiadou, I., etal., 2016: The impact of climate change mitigation on water

demand for energy and food: an integrated analysis based on the shared

socioeconomic pathways. Environ. Sci. Policy, 64, 48–58, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2016.06.007.

Moyer, J.D. and D.K. Bohl, 2019: Alternative pathways to human development:

assessing trade-offs and synergies in achieving the sustainable development

goals. Futures, 105, 199–210, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.007.

Republic of Mozambique and IUCN, 2014: Climate Change and Gender Action

Plan for the Republic of Mozambique. The Global Gender Ofﬁce of the

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN GGO). Available at:

https://genderandenvironment.org/climate-change-gender-action-plan-

phase-ii-for-the-republic-of-mozambique/ Accessed 2019-09-24.

Mpandeli, S., et al., 2018: Climate change adaptation through the water-

energy-food nexus in southern Africa. IJERPH, 15(10), 2306, doi:10.3390/

ijerph15102306.

https://www.mrfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MRFCJ-Rights-for-Action-

edition-2.pdf (accessed 31.01.22). (28 pp).

Mullins, J.T. and C. White, 2020: Can access to health care mitigate the effects

of temperature on mortality? J Public Econ, 191, 104259, doi:10.1016/j.

jpubeco.2020.104259.

Mulugetta, Y., E.B. Hagan and D. Kammen, 2019: Energy access for sustainable

development. Environ. Res. Lett., 14(2), 20201, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/

aaf449.

Muok, B., M. Mosberg, S. Eriksen and D. Ochieng, 2021: The politics of forest

governance in a changing climate: Political reforms, conﬂict and socio-

environmental changes in Laikipia, Kenya. For. Policy Econ. In press. Doi:

10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102590

Muratori, M., etal., 2020: EMF-33 insights on bioenergy with carbon capture

and storage (BECCS). Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02784-5.

Muricho, D.N., D.J. Otieno, W. Oluoch-Kosura and M. Jirström, 2019: Building

pastoralists’ resilience to shocks for sustainable disaster risk mitigation:

Lessons from West Pokot County, Kenya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 34,

429–435.

Murphy, B.L., 2011: From interdisciplinary to inter-epistemological approaches:

confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. Can.

Geogr., 55(4), 490–509, doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2011.00388.x.

Murtinho, F., 2016: What facilitates adaptation? An analysis of community-

based adaptation to environmental change in the Andes. Int. J. Commons,

10(1), 119–141, doi:10.18352/ijc.585.

Mustafa, S., A. Estim and R. Shapawi, 2019: Future-Prooﬁng Oceans for

Food Security and Poverty Alleviation, 1–11. ISBN 978-3319696270. Doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-71058-7_57-1

Mustonen, T., 2013: Oral histories as a baseline of landscape restoration –

co-management and watershed knowledge in Jukajoki river. Fennia, 191,

76–91. Doi: 10.11143/7637

Mustonen, T., 2014: Endemic time-spaces of Finland: Aquatic regimes. Fennia,

192(2), 120–139.

Mustonen, T., 2018: Meaningful engagement and oral histories of the

indigenous peoples of the north. Nord. Geogr. Publ., 47(2), 1–38.

Mustonen, T. and P. Feodoroff, 2020: What is a river? A cross-disciplinary

and indigenous assessment. In: Indigenous Wellbeing and Enterprise Self-

Determination and Sustainable Economic Development [Colborne, R.(ed.)].

Routledge, London.

Mustonen, T. and V. Shadrin, 2020: The River Alazeya: Shifting socio-ecological

systems connected to a Northeastern Siberian Rive. Arctic Institute of North

America, Calgary.

Mycoo, M. A., 2018: Beyond 1.5°C: vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies

for Caribbean Small Island Developing States. Reg Environ Change. Doi:

10.1007/s10113-017-1248-8

Mythen, G. and S. Walklate, 2016: Not knowing, emancipatory catastrophism

and metamorphosis: embracing the spirit of Ulrich beck. Secur. Dialogue,

47(5), 403–419, doi:10.1177/0967010616651027.

Nabuurs, G.-J., etal., 2017: By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could

nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests, 8, 484, doi:10.3390/

f8120484.

Nabuurs, G.-J., et al., 2019: Next-generation information to support a

sustainable course for European forests. Nat. Sustain., 2(9), 815–818,

doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0374-3.

Nachmany, M., S. Fankhauser, J. Setzer and A. Averchenkova, 2017: Global

trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2017 update. Available

at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/

Global_trends_in_climate_change_legislation_and_litigation_summary_

ﬂyer.pdf (accessed 31.01.22).

Nachmany, M. and J. Setzer, 2018: Policy brief Global trends in climate change

legislation and litigation: 2018 snapshot. Grantham Research Center

on Climate Change and the Environment and Center for Climate Change

Economics and Policy, London.

Naess, L.O., 2013: The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change.

WIREs Clim. Chang., 4(2), 99–106, doi:10.1002/wcc.204.

Naess, L.O., etal., 2015: Climate policy meets national development contexts:

insights from Kenya and Mozambique. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35, 534–544,

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.015.

Nagoda, S., 2015: New discourses but same old development approaches?

Climate change adaptation policies, chronic food insecurity and development

interventions in northwestern Nepal. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35, 570–579,

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.014.

2758

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Nagoda, S. and A.J. Nightingale, 2017: Participation and power in climate

change adaptation policies: vulnerability in food security programs in Nepal.

World Dev, 100, 85–93, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.022.

Naidoo, R. and B. Fisher, 2020: Reset sustainable development goals for a

pandemic world. Nature, 583(7815), 198–201, doi:10.1038/d41586-020-

01999-x.

Nakashima, D.J., etal., 2012: Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge

for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. UNESCO, and Darwin, UNU,

Paris.

Nalau, J., etal., 2018: The role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in

ecosystem-based adaptation: a review of the literature and case studies

from the Paciﬁc Islands. Wea. Clim. Soc., 10(4), 851–865, doi:10.1175/

WCAS-D-18-0032.1.

Nalau, J., B.L. Preston and M.C. Maloney, 2015: Is adaptation a local

responsibility? Environ. Sci. Policy, 48, 89–98.

Naspolini, G.F., B.S. Ciasca, E.L. La Rovere and A.O. Pereira Jr, 2020: Brazilian

environmental-economic accounting for water: a structural decomposition

analysis. J. Environ. Manag., 265, 110508.

Naude, P., 2019: Decolonising knowledge: can Ubuntu ethics save us from

coloniality? J. Bus. Ethics., 159(1), 23–37, doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3763-4.

Naylor, A., J. Ford, T. Pearce and J. Van Alstine, 2020: Conceptualizing climate

vulnerability in complex adaptive systems. One Earth, 2(5), 444–454.

NDRC, 2015: China Belt and Road Initiative. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/

backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative (accessed 31.01.22).

NEF, 2016: Happy Planet Index. Available at: https://happyplanetindex.org/wp-

content/themes/hpi/public/downloads/happy-planet-index-brieﬁng-paper.

pdf (accessed 31.01.22).

Newell, P., 2019: Trasformismo or transformation? The global political economy

of energy transitions. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ., 26(1), 25–48, doi:10.1080/0969

2290.2018.1511448.

Newell, P., 2020: Towards a global political economy of transitions: a comment

on the transitions research agenda. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 34, 344–

345, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.007.

Newell, P. and R. Lane, 2020: A climate for change? The impacts of climate

change on energy politics. Camb. Rev. Int. Aff., 33(3), 347–364, doi:10.1080

/09557571.2018.1508203.

Newman, T.P., E.C. Nisbet and M.C. Nisbet, 2018: Climate change, cultural

cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity,

biased processing, and polarized attitudes. Public Underst. Sci.,

doi:10.1177/0963662518801170.

Nhamo, G. and S. Nhamo, 2018: Gender and Geographical Balance: With a

Focus on the UN Secretariat and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Gend. Quest., 5(1). Doi: 10.25159/2412-8457/2520

Nhamo, L., B. Ndlela, S. Mpandeli and T. Mabhaudhi, 2020: The water-energy-

food nexus as an adaptation strategy for achieving sustainable livelihoods at

a local level. Sustainability, 12(20), 8582, doi:10.3390/su12208582.

Nielsen, S. and I.R. Skov, 2019: Investment screening model for spatial

deployment of power-to-gas plants on a national scale – a Danish case. Int J

Hydrogen Energy, 44(19), 9544–9557, doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.129.

Nightingale, A.J., 2016: Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid

methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation

research. Area, 48(1), 41–47, doi:10.1111/area.12195.

Nightingale, A.J., 2017: Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts:

Struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability.

Geoforum, 84, 11–20.

Nightingale, A.J., etal., 2020: Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the

great derangement. Clim. Dev., 12(4), 343–352.

Nightingale, A.J., T. Böhler, B. Campbell and L. Karlsson, 2019: Background and

history of sustainability. In: Environment and Sustainability in a Globalizing

World [Nightingale, A.J., T. Böhler, B. Campbell and L. Karlsson (eds).].

Routledge, London. pp. 13–34. ISBN 978-0765646446.

Nikulina, V., D. Simon, H. Ny and H. Baumann, 2019: Context-adapted urban

planning for rapid transitioning of personal mobility towards sustainability:

A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(4), 1007.

Nilsson, M. and N. Weitz, 2019: Governing trade-offs and building coherence in

policy-making for the 2030 agenda. Polit. Gov., 7(4), 254–263, doi:10.17645/

pag.v7i4.2229.

Nilsson, M., etal., 2012: Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework

and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environ.

Policy Gov., 22(6), 395–423, doi:10.1002/eet.1589.

Nkemelang, T., M. New and M. Zaroug, 2018: Temperature and precipitation

extremes under current, 1.5°C and 2.0°C global warming above pre-

industrial levels over Botswana, and implications for climate change

vulnerability. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(6), 65016.

Nordhaus, W.D. and J. Tobin, 1973: Is growth obsolete? In: The measurement

of economic and social performance [Moss, M. (eds.)..National Bureau of

Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. , pp. 509–564.

Novák, A., 2021: Every city needs a Klinika: The struggle for autonomy in the

post-political city. Soc. Mov Stud., 20(3), 276–291, doi:10.1080/14742837.

2020.1770070.

Nunn, P. and N. Reid, 2016: Aboriginal memories of inundation of the Australian

coast dating from more than 7000years ago. Aust. Geogr., 47(1), 11–47, do

i:10.1080/00049182.2015.1077539.

Nyariki, D.M. and D.A. Amwata, 2019: The value of pastoralism in Kenya:

Application of total economic value approach. Pastoralism, 9(1), 9.

Nyasimi, M., etal., 2018: Inclusion of gender in africa’s climate change policies

and strategies, 171–185. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3319698373.

Nyberg, G., etal., 2015: Enclosures in West Pokot, Kenya: transforming land,

livestock and livelihoods in drylands. Pastoralism, 5(1), 25.

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, T.H. Inderberg and L. Sygna, 2015: Climate change

adaptation and development: transforming through paradigms and practics.

Routledge, New York.

O’Brien, K. and E. Selboe, 2015: Social Transformation: The Real Adaptive

Challenge, 311–324. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-

1139149389.

O’Brien, K.L., 2016: Climate change and social transformations: is it time for a

quantum leap? WIREs Clim. Chang., 7(5), 618–626, doi:10.1002/wcc.413.

O’Brien, K., 2018: Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres

of transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 153–160, doi:10.1016/j.

cosust.2018.04.010.

O’Brien, K., 2021: Reﬂecting on the anthropocene: the call for deeper

transformations. Ambio, 50(10), 1793–1797, doi:10.1007/s13280-020-

01468-9.

O’Neil, T., A. Fleury and M. Foresti, 2017: Gender equality, migration and the

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Louise Arbour, UN Special

Representative for International Migration, 45.

O’Neill, B.C., etal., 2017: The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic

pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang.,

42, 169–180, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

O’Neil, T., A. Fleury and M. Foresti, 2017: Women on the move: Gender equality,

migration and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Oversees

Development Institute. Available at: https://odi.org/en/publications/

women-on-the-move-migration-gender-equality-and-the-2030-agenda-for-

sustainable-development/ (accessed 31.01.22).

O’Neill, B.C., etal., 2017: The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic

pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang.,

42, 169–180, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

O’Neill, D.W., A.L. Fanning, W.F. Lamb and J.K. Steinberger, 2018: A good life

for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain., 1(2), 88–95, doi:10.1038/

s41893-018-0021-4.

Ochieng, J., L. Kirimi and J. Makau, 2017: Adapting to climate variability and

change in rural Kenya: farmer perceptions, strategies and climate trends. Nat

Resour Forum, 41(4), 195–208.

2759

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

OECD, 2017: Mobilising Investment in Clean Energy Infrastructure. Available

at: https://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/clean-energy-

infrastructure.htm (accessed 31.01.22).

OECD, 2019a: Better Life Index. Available at: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.

org/ (accessed 31.01.22).

OECD, 2019b: Society at a Glance 2019. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.

org/social-issues-migration-health/society-at-a-glance-2019_soc_glance-

2019-en (accessed 31.01.22).

OECD, 2021: Climate change and long term ﬁscal sustainability. Available

at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/scoping-paper-on-ﬁscal-

sustainability-and-climate-change.pdf (accessed 31.01.22).

Oﬁr, Z., 2021: The DAC Criteria Guidance 2021 - Evaluation for

transformation. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/

daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm (accessed 31.01.22).

Ogar, E., G. Pecl and T. Mustonen, 2020: Science must embrace traditional and

indigenous knowledge to solve our Biodiversity crisis. One Earth, 162–164,

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006.

Ojwang, L., et al., 2017: Assessment of coastal governance for climate

change adaptation in Kenya. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1119–1132,

doi:10.1002/2017EF000595.

Oke, C., etal., 2021: Cities should respond to the biodiversity extinction crisis.

Npj Urban Sustain., 1(1), 1–4, doi:10.1038/s42949-020-00010-w.

Oleribe, O.O. and S.D. Taylor-Robinson, 2016: Before sustainable

development goals (SDG): why Nigeria failed to achieve the millennium

development goals (MDGs). Pan. Afr. Med. J., 24, 156–156, doi:10.11604/

pamj.2016.24.156.8447.

Olmstead, S.M., 2014: Climate change adaptation and water resource

management: a review of the literature. Energy Econ., 46, 500–509,

doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.005.

Olsson, L., M. Opondo, P. Tschakert, A. Agrawal, S.H. Eriksen, S. Ma, L.N. Perch,

and S.A. Zakieldeen, 2014: Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Climate Change

2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D.

J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y.

O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R.

Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 793-832. ISBN 9781107058071.

Omukuti, J., 2020: Country ownership of adaptation: Stakeholder inﬂuence

or government control? Geoforum, 113, 26–38, doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2020.04.019.

Onarheim, K.H., J.H. Iversen and D.E. Bloom, 2016: Economic beneﬁts of

investing in women’s health: a systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e150120,

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150120.

Opiyo, F., et al., 2016: Determinants of perceptions of climate change and

adaptation among Turkana pastoralists in northwestern Kenya. Clim. Dev.,

8(2), 179–189.

Opiyo, F.E., O.V. Wasonga and M.M. Nyangito, 2014: Measuring household

vulnerability to climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of Kenya:

Implications for resilience programming. Pastoralism, 4(1), 10.

Oppenheimer, M., B.C. Glavovic , J. Hinkel, R. van de Wal, A.K. Magnan, A.

Abd-Elgawad, R. Cai, M. Cifuentes-Jara, R.M. DeConto, T. Ghosh, J. Hay, F.

Isla, B. Marzeion, B. Meyssignac, and Z. Sebesvari, 2019: Sea Level Rise and

Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. In: IPCC Special

Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-

O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K.

Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama and N. M.

Weyer (eds.)]. In press.

Orlove, B., R. Shwom, E. Markowitz and S.-M. Cheong, 2020: Climate decision-

making. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 45(1), 271–303, doi:10.1146/annurev-

environ-012320-085130.

Ota, T., 2017: Economic growth, income inequality and environment: assessing

the applicability of the Kuznets hypotheses to Asia. Palgrave Commun, 3(1),

1–23, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.69.

Ott, C. and B. Kiteme, 2016: Concepts and practices for the democratisation of

knowledge generation in research partnerships for sustainable development.

Evid. Policy: A J. Res. Debate Pract., 12(3), 405–430, doi:10.1332/17442641

6X14700793045951.

Ott, K.K., 2018: On the political economy of solar radiation management. Front.

Environ. Sci., 6, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2018.00043.

Owen, G., 2020: What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic

review of the literature. Glob. Environ. Change, 62, 102071, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2020.102071.

Paik, S., D.T.P. Le, L.T. Nhu and B.F. Mills, 2020: Salt-tolerant rice variety adoption

in the mekong river delta: farmer adaptation to sea-level rise. PLoS ONE,

15(3), e229464, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229464.

Palazzo, A., et al., 2017: Linking regional stakeholder scenarios and shared

socioeconomic pathways: Quantiﬁed West African food and climate futures

in a global context. Glob. Environ. Chang., 45, 227–242, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2016.12.002.

Palermo, V. and Y. Hernandez, 2020: Group discussions on how to implement

a participatory process in climate adaptation planning: a case study in

Malaysia. Ecol. Econ., 177, 106791, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106791.

Pant, L.P., B. Adhikari and K.K. Bhattarai, 2015: Adaptive transition for

transformations to sustainability in developing countries. Curr. Opin. Environ.

Sustain., 14, 206–212, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.006.

Papoutsi, M., M. Piaszzesi and M. Schneider, 2021: How Unconventional is

Green Monetary Policy? Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/~piazzesi/

How_unconventional_is_green_monetary_policy.pdf (accessed 31.01.22).

Paprocki, K., 2018: Threatening dystopias: development and adaptation regimes

in Bangladesh. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 108(4), 955–973, doi:10.1080/2469

4452.2017.1406330.

Parikh, K.S., J.K. Parikh and P.P. Ghosh, 2018: Can India grow and live within a

1.5 degree CO2 emissions budget? Energy Policy, 120, 24–37.

Parraguez-Vergara, E., etal., 2018: Does indigenous and campesino traditional

agriculture have anything to contribute to food sovereignty in Latin America?

Evidence from Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. Int. J.

Agric. Sustain., 326–341, doi:10.1080/14735903.2018.1489361.

Parry, I., 2021: Implementing the United States’ Domestic and International

Climate Mitigation Goals: A Supportive Fiscal Policy Approach. IMF Working

Paper. Doi: 10.5089/9781513571003.001.

Parry, J.-E., 2017: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Transformational adaptation.

IISD, http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-

climate-resilient-city-transformational-adaptation.pdf. (accessed 31.01.22).

Parsons, M., C. Brown, J. Nalau and K. Fisher, 2018: Assessing adaptive capacity

and adaptation: insights from Samoan tourism operators. Clim. Dev., 10(7),

644–663, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1410082.

Parsons, M., K. Fisher and J. Nalau, 2016: Alternative approaches to co-design:

insights from indigenous/academic research collaborations. Curr. Opin.

Environ. Sustain., 20, 99-105.

Partzsch, L., 2017: ‘Power with’ and ‘power to’ in environmental politics and

the transition to sustainability. Env Polit, 26(2), 193–211, doi:10.1080/0964

4016.2016.1256961.

Pascual, U., etal., 2017: Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES

approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 26-27, 7–16, doi:10.1016/j.

cosust.2016.12.006.

Pasquini, L., 2020: The urban governance of climate change adaptation in least-

developed African countries and in small cities: the engagement of local

decision-makers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Karonga, Malawi. Clim.

Dev., 12(5), 408–419, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1632166.

Paton, F.L., H.R. Maier and G.C. Dandy, 2014: Including adaptation and mitigation

responses to climate change in a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm

framework for urban water supply systems incorporating GHG emissions.

Water Resour. Res., 50(8), 6285–6304, doi:10.1002/2013WR015195.

2760

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Patorniti, N.P., N.J. Stevens and P.M. Salmon, 2017: A systems approach to city

design: exploring the compatibility of sociotechnical systems. Habitat Int.,

66, 42–48, doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.05.008.

Patorniti, N.P., N.J. Stevens and P.M. Salmon, 2018: A sociotechnical systems

approach to understand complex urban systems: A global transdisciplinary

perspective. Hum. Factors Ergonomics Manuf. Serv. Ind., 28(6), 281–296,

doi:10.1002/hfm.20742.

Patterson, J., et al., 2017: Exploring the governance and politics of

transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 24,

1–16, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.

Patterson, J.J., etal., 2018: Political feasibility of 1.5° C societal transformations:

the role of social justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 1–9.

Patton, M.Q., 2021: Evaluation criteria for evaluating transformation:

implications for the coronavirus pandemic and the global climate emergency.

Am. J. Eval., 42(1), 53–89, doi:10.1177/1098214020933689.

Pauliuk, S., T. Wang and D.B. Müller, 2013: Steel all over the world: estimating

in-use stocks of iron for 200countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 71, 22–30,

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.11.008.

Pauw, W.P., etal., 2018: Beyond headline mitigation numbers: we need more

transparent and comparable NDCs to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate

change. Clim Change, 147(1), 23–29, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2122-x.

PBCSF, 2019: Support for BRI low carbon development: a green ﬁnance roadmap.

Available at: https://www.climateworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/

BRI_Exec_Summary_v10-screen_pages_lo-1.pdf (accessed 31.01.22).

Pearce, T.D., E.H. Rodríguez, D. Fawcett and J.D. Ford, 2018a: How is Australia

adapting to climate change based on a systematic review? Sustainability,

10(9), 3280, doi:10.3390/su10093280.

Pearce, W., M. Mahony and S. Raman, 2018b: Science advice for global

challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environ. Sci. Policy, 80,

125–131, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.017.

Pearse, R., 2017: Gender and climate change. WIREs Clim. Chang., 8(2), e451,

doi:10.1002/wcc.451.

Pecl, G.T., etal., 2017: Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts

on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355(6332), doi:10.1126/

science.aai9214.

Pelling, M., 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to

Transformation, 1stedn., Routledge, London, UK, ISBN 978-0203889046.

Pelling, M., T. Abeling and M. Garschagen, 2016: Emergence and transition in

London’s climate change adaptation pathways. J. Extrem. Events, 03(03),

1650012.

Pelling, M. and M. Garschagen, 2019: Put equity ﬁrst in climate adaptation.

Nature, 569(7756), 327–329, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01497-9.

Pelling, M., etal., 2018: Africa’s urban adaptation transition under a 1.5° climate.

Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 10–15, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.005.

Pelling, M., K. O’Brien and D. Matyas, 2015: Adaptation and transformation.

Clim Change, 133(1), 113–127, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.

Pereira, J.J., 2018: Science and technology to enhance disaster resilience in

a changing climate. In: Science and Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction

in Asia [Shaw, R., K. Shiwaku and T. Izumi(eds.)] Vol.3, Academic Press,

Cambridge, MA, pp. 31–38. ISBN 978-0128127117.

Perera, A.T.D., et al., 2020: Quantifying the impacts of climate change and

extreme climate events on energy systems. Nat. Energy, 5(2), 150–159,

doi:10.1038/s41560-020-0558-0.

Perkins, P.E., 2019: Climate justice, commons, and degrowth. Ecol. Econ., 160,

183–190, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.005.

Persson, Å., 2019: Global adaptation governance: an emerging but contested

domain. WIREs Clim. Chang., 10(6), e618, doi:10.1002/wcc.618.

Pervin, M., etal., 2013: A framework for mainstreaming climate resilience into

development planning. https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10050IIED.pdf, (accessed

31.01.22)..

Peters, H.P., 2013: Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public

communicators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(Supplement_3), 14102–14109.

Peterson, G.D., et al., 2018: Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES:

“Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol. Soc.,

23(1), doi:10.5751/es-10134-230139.

Petrides, D., A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos and G. Chryssolouris,

2018: Dematerialisation of products and manufacturing-generated

knowledge content: relationship through paradigms. Int. J. Prod. Res., 56(1),

86–96, doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1401246.

Phillips, C.A., etal., 2020: Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nat. Clim. Chang., 10(7), 586–588, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0804-2.

Piggot, G., 2018: The inﬂuence of social movements on policies that constrain

fossil fuel supply. Clim. Policy, 18(7), 942–954, doi:10.1080/14693062.201

7.1394255.

Pineda-López, M.R., etal., 2015: The role of women in the forest conservation

in a Mexican national park: pruning ﬁrs for the manufacture of christmas

wreaths. Hum Ecol, 43(3), 493–501, doi:10.1007/s10745-015-9756-y.

Pinnegar, J.K., etal., 2021: Future Socio-political scenarios for aquatic resources

in europe: a common framework based on shared-socioeconomic-pathways

(SSPs). Front. Mar. Sci., 7(1096), doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.568219.

Pirmana, V., A.S. Alisjahbana, R. Hoekstra and A. Tukker, 2019: Implementation

barriers for a system of environmental-economic accounting in developing

countries and its implications for monitoring sustainable development goals.

Sustainability, 11(22), 6417, doi:10.3390/su11226417.

Plank, C., et al., 2021: Climate policy integration viewed through the

stakeholders’ eyes: a co-production of knowledge in social-ecological

transformation research. Environ. Policy Gov., 31(4), 387–399, doi:10.1002/

eet.1938.

Plesa, P., 2019: A theoretical foundation for ecopsychology: looking at

ecofeminist epistemology. New Ideas Psychol, 52, 18–25, doi:10.1016/j.

newideapsych.2018.10.002.

Popescu, G.H., etal., 2017: Stabilizing valences of an optimum monetary zone

in a resilient economy—approaches and limitations. Sustainability, 9(6),

1051, doi:10.3390/su9061051.

Popp, A., etal., 2014: Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization:

model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use

based mitigation options. Clim Change, 123(3), 495–509, doi:10.1007/

s10584-013-0926-x.

Porta, D., 2020: Protests as critical junctures: some reﬂections towards a

momentous approach to social movements. Soc. Mov Stud., 19(5-6), 556–

575, doi:10.1080/14742837.2018.1555458.

Power, M., et al., 2016: The political economy of energy transitions in

Mozambique and South Africa: the role of the rising powers. Energy Res. Soc.

Sci., 17, 10–19, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.007.

Preston, B.L., L. Rickards, H. Fünfgeld and R.J. Keenan, 2015: Toward reﬂexive

climate adaptation research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14, 127–135.

Price, R., 2021: Overview of Political Economy Analysis Frameworks in the Area

of Climate Governance and Key Issues to Consider. Institute of Development

Studies. Available at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/

handle/20.500.12413/16655/1014_PEA_climate_change_frameworks.

pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 31.01.22).

Pringle, P. and T. Leiter, 2018: Pitfalls and potential of measuring climate

change adaptation through adaptation metrics. In: Adaptation metrics:

Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results

[Christiansen, L. (eds.)]. UNEP DTU Partnership, Copenhagen, Denmark. ISBN

978-8793458277.

Psaltoglou, A. and E. Calle, 2018: Enhanced connectivity index - A new measure

for identifying critical points in urban public transportation networks. Int. J.

Crit. Infrastruct. Prot., 21, 22–32, doi:10.1016/j.ijcip.2018.02.003.

Purdon, M., 2014: The Comparative Turn in Climate Change Adaptation

and Food Security Governance Research. CCAFS Working Paper no. 92.

Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Quader, M. A., S. Ahmed and R.A.R. Ghazillaa, 2016: Recent progress and

future trends of CO2 breakthrough iron and steelmaking technologies for

2761

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

CO2 mitigation. In: Ironmaking and Steelmaking Processes: Greenhouse

Emissions, Control, and Reduction [Cavaliere, P.(ed.)]. Springer International

Publishing, Cham, pp. 373–388. ISBN 978-3319395296.

Rabaey, K., T. Vandekerckhove, A.V. de Walle and D.L. Sedlak, 2020: The third

route: Using extreme decentralization to create resilient urban water

systems. Water Res., 185, 116276, doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116276.

Radcliffe, S.A., 2014: Gendered frontiers of land control: indigenous territory,

women and contests over land in Ecuador. Gend. Place Cult., 21(7), 854–

871, doi:10.1080/0966369X.2013.802675.

Ramalho, J., 2019: Worlding aspirations and resilient futures: Framings of risk

and contemporary city-making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines. Asia Pac

Viewp, 60(1), 24–36, doi:10.1111/apv.12208.

Ramkissoon, H. and L. Smith, 2014: The Relationship between Environmental

Worldviews, Emotions and Personal Efﬁcacy in Climate Change. International

Journal of Arts & Sciences, CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934, 7(1):93–109.

Randers, J., etal., 2019: Achieving the 17 sustainable development goals within

9 planetary boundaries. Glob. Sustain., 2, e24.

Rao, N., 2019: From abandonment to autonomy: Gendered strategies for coping

with climate change, Isiolo County, Kenya. Geoforum, 102, 27–37, Doi:

10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.017.

Rao, N., etal., 2019a: A qualitative comparative analysis of women’s agency

and adaptive capacity in climate change hotspots in Asia and Africa. Nat.

Clim. Chang., 9(12), 964–971, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0638-y.

Rao, N.D., P. Sauer, M. Gidden and K. Riahi, 2019b: Income inequality projections

for the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). Futures, 105, 27–39,

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.07.001.

Rasul, G. and B. Sharma, 2016: The nexus approach to water–energy–food

security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Clim. Policy, 16(6),

682–702, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865.

Raworth, K., 2017: Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-

Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction,

Vermont, 320. ISBN 978-1603586740.

Reckien, D., etal., 2018: Equity, environmental justice, and urban climate change.

In: Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban

Climate Change Research Network [Rosenzweig, C., etal.(ed.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, pp. 173–224. ISBN 978-1316603338.

Reed, M.G., A. Scott, D. Natcher and M. Johnston, 2014: Linking gender, climate

change, adaptive capacity, and forest-based communities in Canada. Can. J.

For. Res., 44(9), 995–1004, doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0174.

Reid, R.S., M. E. Fernández-Giménez and K. A. Galvin, 2014: Dynamics and

resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annu. Rev.

Environ. Resour., 39(1), 217–242.

Remling, E., 2021: Climate-related Security Risks in the 2020 Updated Nationally

Determined Contributions. SIPRI, January, 2021. , Accessed 2021-08-30.

https://www.sipri.org/publications/2021/sipri-insights-peace-and-security/

climate-related-security-risks-2020-updated-nationally-determined-

contributions

Remling, E. and J. Veitayaki, 2016: Community-based action in Fiji’s Gau Island:

a model for the Paciﬁc? Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 8(3), 375–398,

doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2015-0101.

Repo, P. and K. Matschoss, 2020: Social innovation for sustainability challenges.

Sustainability, 12(1), 319.

Riahi, K., etal., 2017: The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy,

land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob.

Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.

Ribeiro, H.V., D. Rybski and J.P. Kropp, 2019: Effects of changing population

or density on urban carbon dioxide emissions. Nat Commun, 10(1), 3204,

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11184-y.

Ribot, J., 2011: Vulnerability before adaptation: toward Transformative

climate action. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, 1160–1162, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2011.07.008.

Richardson, K.J., etal., 2018: Food security outcomes under a changing climate:

impacts of mitigation and adaptation on vulnerability to food insecurity.

Clim Change, 147(1), 327–341, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2137-y.

Riechers, M., Á. Balázsi, M. García-Llorente and J. Loos, 2021: Human-nature

connectedness as leverage point. Ecosyst. People, 17(1), 215–221, doi:10.1

080/26395916.2021.1912830.

Roberts, D., J. Douwes, C. Sutherland and V. Sim, 2020: Durban’s 100 resilient

cities journey: governing resilience from within. environ urban, 32(2), 547–

568, doi:10.1177/0956247820946555.

Robinson, S., etal., 2021: Climate compatible development in practice. Dev.

Pract., 0(0), 1–11, doi:10.1080/09614524.2021.1907534.

Rochette, A., 2016: Climate change is a social justice issue: The need for a

gender-based analysis of mitigation and adaptation policies in Canada and

Quebec. J. Environ. Law Pract., 29, 383–410.

Rockström, J., et al., 2009a: A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,

461(7263), 472–475, doi:10.1038/461472a.

Rockström, J., etal., 2009b: Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating

space for humanity. Ecol. Soc., 14(2), doi:10.5751/ES-03180-140232.

Roelich, K. and J. Giesekam, 2019: Decision making under uncertainty in

climate change mitigation: introducing multiple actor motivations, agency

and inﬂuence. Clim. Policy, 19(2), 175–188.

Rogelj, J., et al., 2010: Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature,

464(7292), 1126–1128, doi:10.1038/4641126a.

Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fiﬁta, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H.

Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V. Vilariño,

2018: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of

Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special

Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial

levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context

of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,

sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-

Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani,

W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y.

Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor and T. Waterﬁeld

(eds.)]. In press. ISBN 9789291691517.

Rogers, P., J.J. Bohland and J. Lawrence, 2020: Resilience and values: Global

perspectives on the values and worldviews underpinning the resilience

concept. Polit Geogr, 83, 102280, doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102280.

Roggema, R., T. Vermeend and A.V. Dobbelsteen, 2012: Incremental change,

transition or transformation? Optimising change pathways for climate

adaptation in spatial planning. Sustainability, 4(10), doi:10.3390/su4102525.

Rohat, G., etal., 2019: Inﬂuence of changes in socioeconomic and climatic

conditions on future heat-related health challenges in Europe. Glob. Planet.

Change., 172, 45–59, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.09.013.

Romero-Lankao, P., etal., 2018: Urban transformative potential in a changing

climate. Nature Clim Change, 8(9), 754–756, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0264-

Romero Mosquera, M., 2019: Banning plastic straws: the beginning of the war

against plastics. Environ. Earth Law J. (eelj), 9(1).

Rose, S.K., 2017: Managing Climate Damages: Exploring Trade-offs. Electric

Power Research Institute, http://web.stanford.edu/group/emf-research/docs/

sm/2019/wk2/Rose.pdf, (accessed 31.01.22).

Rose, S.K., et al., 2014: Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate

management. Clim Change, 123(3), 477–493, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-

0965-3.

Rose, S.K. and M. Scott, 2018: Grounding Decisions: A Scientiﬁc Foundation

for Companies Considering Global Climate Scenarios and Greenhouse

Gases. Electric Power Research Institute, https://www.epri.com/research/

products/000000003002014510, (accessed 31.01.22).

Rose, S.K. and M. Scott, 2020: Review of 1.5°C and Other Newer Global Emissions

Scenarios: Insights for Company and Financial Climate Low-Carbon Transition

Risk Assessment and Greenhouse Gas Goal Setting. Electric Power Research

2762

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Institute, https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002018053,

(accessed 31.01.22).

Rosenberg, M.N., 2021: What matters? The role of values in transformations

toward sustainability: a case study of coffee production in Burundi. Sustain

Sci, doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00974-3.

Rosenzweig, C. and W. Solecki, 2018: Action pathways for transforming cities.

Nature Clim Change, 8(9), 756–759, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0267-x.

Rougoor, W. and C. van Marrewijk, 2015: Demography, growth, and global

income inequality. World Dev., 74(C), 220–232.

Rowell, L. and A. Feldman, 2019: Knowledge democracy and action research.

Educ. Action Res., 27(1), 1–6, doi:10.1080/09650792.2019.1557456.

Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P. Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta,

B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C. Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi,

and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018: Sustainable Development, Poverty

Eradication and Reducing Inequalities. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An

IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-

industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in

the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate

change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-

Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani,

W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y.

Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor and T. Waterﬁeld

(eds.)]. In press. ISBN 9789291691517.

Rudebusch, G., 2019: Climate change and the Federal Reserve. FRBS Economic

Letter Available at: https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/

economic-letter/2019/march/climate-change-and-federal-reserve/ (accessed

31.01.22).Ruggeri Laderchi, C., R. Saith and F. Stewart, 2003: Does it matter

that we do not agree on the deﬁnition of poverty? A comparison of four

approaches. Oxf. Dev. Stud., 31, 243–274, doi:10.1080/136008103200011

1698.

Ruggiero, S., H. Busch, T. Hansen and A. Isakovic, 2021: Context and agency

in urban community energy initiatives: an analysis of six case studies

from the Baltic Sea region. Energy Policy, 148, 111956, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2020.111956.

Runhaar, H., 2018: Mainstreaming climate adaptation : taking stock about B

what works ^ from empirical research worldwide. Reg Environ Change, 18,

1201–1210.

Ryan, D. and E. Bustos, 2019: Knowledge gaps and climate adaptation policy:

a comparative analysis of six Latin American countries. Clim. Policy, 19(10),

1297–1309, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1661819.

Ryan, L., S. Moarif, E. Levina and R. Baron, 2011: Energy efﬁciency policy and

carbon pricing. IEA Information Paper. Available at: https://www.iea.org/

reports/energy-efﬁciency-policy-and-carbon-pricing (accessed 31.01.22).

Ryota, N., 2019: A Possible Approach to Fiscal Rules in Small Islands —

Incorporating Natural Disasters and Climate ChangeRyot. IMF Working

paper. WP/19/186.

Sachdeva, S., 2016: Religious Identity, Beliefs, and Views about Climate Change.

Oxford University Press USA, 2016.

Sadoff, C.W., E. Borgomeo and S. Uhlenbrook, 2020: Rethinking water for SDG

6. Nat. Sustain., 3(5), 346–347, doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0530-9.

Sage, C., C. Kropp and I. Antoni-Komar, 2021: Grassroots initiatives in food

system transformation: the role of food movements in the second ‘Great

Transformation’, 1–19. Routledge, ISBN 978-1003131304.

Saj, S., etal., 2017: The way forward: an agroecological perspective for climate-

smart agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 250, 20–24, doi:10.1016/j.

agee.2017.09.003.

Saja, A.M. A., A. Goonetilleke, M. Teo and A.M. Ziyath, 2019: A critical review

of social resilience assessment frameworks in disaster management. Int. J.

Disaster Risk Reduct., 35, 101096. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101096

Sakaguchi, K., A. Varughese and G. Auld, 2017: Climate wars? A systematic

review of empirical analyses on the links between climate change and

violent conﬂict. Int. Stud. Rev., 19(4), 622–645, doi:10.1093/isr/vix022.

Salamon, M.K., 2019: Leading the public into emergency mode. Clim.

Mobilization.

Sánchez, A. and M. Izzo, 2017: Micro hydropower: an alternative for climate

change mitigation, adaptation, and development of marginalized local

communities in Hispaniola Island. Clim. Change, 140(1), 79–87, doi:10.1007/

s10584-016-1865-0.

Sanchez Rodriguez, R., D. Ürge-Vorsatz and A.S. Barau, 2018: Sustainable

development goals and climate change adaptation in cities. Nature Clim

Change, 8(3), 181–183, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0098-9.

Sanganyado, E., C. Teta and B. Masiri, 2018: Impact of African traditional

worldviews on climate change adaptation. Integr Environ Assess Manag,

14(2), 189–193, doi:10.1002/ieam.2010.

Sarker, S., etal., 2018: From science to action: Exploring the potentials of Blue

Economy for enhancing economic sustainability in Bangladesh. Ocean.

Coast. Manag., 157, 180–192, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.001.

Satyal, P., M.F. Byskov and K. Hyams, 2020: Addressing multi-dimensional

injustice in indigenous adaptation: the case of Uganda’s Batwa community.

Clim. Dev., 0(0), 1–14, doi:10.1080/17565529.2020.1824888.

Savaget, P., M. Geissdoerfer, A. Kharrazi and S. Evans, 2019: The theoretical

foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sustainability: A

systematic literature review. J Clean Prod, 206, 878–892, doi:10.1016/j.

jclepro.2018.09.208.

Scarano, F.R., 2017: Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept,

scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv., 15(2),

65–73, doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.05.003.

Schaeffer, M., et al., 2015: Mid- and long-term climate projections for

fragmented and delayed-action scenarios. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 90,

257–268, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.013.

Scheffran, J., 2020: Climate extremes and conﬂict dynamics. In: Climate

Extremes and Their Implications for Impact and Risk Assessment [Sillmann,

J., S. Sippel and S. Russo(eds.)]. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 293–315. ISBN 978-

0128148952 Chapter 16). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01794-9.

Scherer, L., et al., 2018: Trade-offs between social and environmental

sustainable development goals. Environ. Sci. Policy, 90, 65–72, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2018.10.002.

Schipper, E.L.F., 2020: Maladaptation: when adaptation to climate change goes

very wrong. One Earth, 3(4), 409–414, doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.014.

Schipper, E.L.F., etal., 2014: Community-based adaptation to climate change :

scaling it up. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK, ISBN 978-0203105061.

Schipper, E.L.F., et al., 2020a: Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal

disruption and climate resilient development. Clim. Dev., 0(0), 1–8, doi:10.1

080/17565529.2020.1799738.

Schipper, E.L.F., et al., 2020b: Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal

disruption and climate resilient development. Clim. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1

080/17565529.2020.1799738

Schipper, E.L.F., et al., 2020c: The debate: Is global development adapting

to climate change? World Dev. Perspect., 18, 100205, doi:10.1016/j.

wdp.2020.100205.

Schleussner, C.-F., etal., 2021: Pathways of climate resilience over the 21st

century. Environ. Res. Lett., 16(5), 54058, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abed79.

Schlosberg, D., L.B. Collins and S. Niemeyer, 2017: Adaptation policy and

community discourse: risk, vulnerability, and just transformation. Env Polit,

26(3), 413–437, doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1287628.

Schmitz, H., 2017: Who drives climate-relevant policies in the rising powers?

New Polit. Econ., 22(5), 521–540, doi:10.1080/13563467.2017.1257597.

Schoenmaker, D., 2019: Greening monetary policy. https://www.bruegel.

org/2019/02/greening-monetary-policy/. Accessed 29 Apr 2019 .

Schoenmaker, D. and W. Schramade, 2020: Asset Pricing and Sustainability: A

Teaching Note. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. Available at:

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3539080.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539080. Accessed

2020.

2763

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Schot, J. and W.E. Steinmueller, 2018: Three frames for innovation policy: R&D,

systems of innovation and transformative change. Res Policy, 47(9), 1554–

1567.

Schwarz, M., C. Nakhle and C. Knoeri, 2020: Innovative designs of building

energy codes for building decarbonization and their implementation

challenges. JClean Prod, 248, 119260, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119260.

Scobie, M., 2013: Climate regulation: implications for trade competitiveness

in caribbean states. In: Climate-Smart Technologies Integrating Renewable

Energy and Energy Efﬁciency in Mitigation and Adaptation Responses.

Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 33–49.

Scobie, M., 2017: Fossil fuel reform in developing states: the case of Trinidad

and Tobago, a petroleum producing small island developing state. Energy

Policy, 104, 265–273, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.008.

Scobie, M., J. Skovgaard and H. Asselt, 2018: Actors, frames and contexts in fossil

fuel subsidy reform: the case of Trinidad and Tobago, 283–302. Cambridge

University Press, 2018, UK. ISBN 978-1108416795.

Scott, S. and C. Ku, 2018: The UN Security Council and global action on climate

change. Fac. Scholarsh., 1–24, doi:10.4337/9781785364648.00008.

Scoville-Simonds, M., H. Jamali and M. Hufty, 2020: The hazards of

mainstreaming: climate change adaptation politics in three dimensions.

World Dev., 125, 104683, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104683.

Segger, M.-C., 2016: Advancing the Paris Agreement on climate change for

sustainable development. Camb. Int. Law J., 5, 202–237, doi:10.4337/

cilj.2016.02.03.

Sellers, S. and K.L. Ebi, 2018: Climate change and health under the shared

socioeconomic pathway framework. IJERPH, 15(1), doi:10.3390/

ijerph15010003.

Sen, A., 2000: Development as Freedom. Anchor, New York, ISBN 978-

0385720274. Reprint edition, 384 pp.

Sengers, F., A.J. Wieczorek and R. Raven, 2019: Experimenting for sustainability

transitions: A systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Change,

145, 153–164, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031.

Serﬁlippi, E. and G. Ramnath, 2018: Resilience measurement and conceptual

frameworks: a review of the literature. Ann. Public Coop. Econ., 89(4), 645–

664.

Settele, J., R. Scholes, R. Betts, S. Bunn, P. Leadley, D. Nepstad, J.T. Overpeck, and

M. A. Taboada, 2014:Terrestrial and inland water systems. In: Climate Change

2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.Part A: Global and Sectoral

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,

D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,

Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.

Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–359. ISBN 978-1107058071.

Setzer, J. and R. Byrnes, 2019: Global trends in climate change litigation:

2019 snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the

Environment and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy,

www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute, Accessed 2022-03-16.

Seyfang, G. and A. Smith, 2007: Grassroots innovations for sustainable

development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Env Polit, 16(4),

584–603, doi:10.1080/09644010701419121.

Shaneyfelt, K.M., A.R. Anderson, P. Kumar and W.F. Hunt, 2017: Air quality

considerations for stormwater green street design. Environ. Pollut., 231,

768–778, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.081.

Shariﬁ, A., 2020: Trade-offs and conﬂicts between urban climate change

mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. JClean Prod, 276,

122813, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813.

Sharpe, B., etal., 2016: Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation.

Ecol. Soc., 21(2), doi:10.5751/ES-08388-210247.

Shaw, J., 2016: Archaeology, climate change and environmental ethics:

diachronic perspectives on human:non-human:environment worldviews,

activism and care. World. Archaeol., 48(4), 449–465, doi:10.1080/004382

43.2016.1326754.

Sheller, M., 2021: Reconstructing tourism in the Caribbean: connecting

pandemic recovery, climate resilience and sustainable tourism through

mobility justice. J. Sustain. Tour., 29(9), 1436–1449, doi:10.1080/0966958

2.2020.1791141.

Shi, J., V.H.M. Visschers and M. Siegrist, 2015: Public perception of climate

change: the importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis,

35(12), 2183–2201, doi:10.1111/risa.12406.

Shi, L., 2020a: Beyond ﬂood risk reduction: How can green infrastructure

advance both social justice and regional impact? Socio-ecological Pract.

Res., 2(4), 311–320, doi:10.1007/s42532-020-00065-0.

Shi, L., 2020b: From progressive cities to resilient cities: lessons from history

for new debates in equitable adaptation to climate change. Urban Aff. Rev.,

doi:10.1177/1078087419910827. 1078087419910827.

Shi, L. and S. Moser, 2021: Transformative climate adaptation in the United

States: trends and prospects. Science, 372(6549), doi:10.1126/science.

abc8054.

Shiller, R., 2012: Finance and the Good Society. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, New Jersey.

Shim, Y.-H., 2015: A research methodological debate on emancipatory

catastrophism: The case of transnational marriage. Curr. Sociol., 63(1), 105–

109, doi:10.1177/0011392114559850.

Shindell, D., et al., 2017: A climate policy pathway for near- and long-term

beneﬁts. Science, 356(6337), 493–494, doi:10.1126/science.aak9521.

Shiva, V., 2017: Swaraj. Hart, J. ed., 2017 In: The Wiley Blackwell Companion

to Religion and Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, UK, In, pp. 12–19. ISBN

978-1118465523.

Shukla, P. R., J. Skea, R. Slade, R. van Diemen, E. Haughey, J. Malley, M. Pathak,

J. Portugal Pereira (eds.), 2019: Technical Summary, 2019. In: Climate Change

and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertiﬁcation, land

degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse

gas ﬂuxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V.

Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors,

R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold,

J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley,

(eds.)]. In press.

Sillitoe, P., 2016: Indigenous studies and engaged anthropology: The

collaborative moment. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK.

Silva Rodríguez de San Miguel, J.A., 2018: Gender and water management in

Mexico. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J., 29(5), 842–858, doi:10.1108/MEQ-10-

2017-0112.

Silver, J.J. and L.M. Campbell, 2018: Conservation, development and the

blue frontier: the Republic of Seychelles’ debt restructuring for marine

conservation and climate adaptation program. Int. Soc. Sci. J., 68(229-230),

241–256, doi:10.1111/issj.12156.

Silvola, H. and T. Landau, 2021: Sustainable Investing: Beating the Market

with ESG, 1st edn., Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, ISBN 978-

3030714888. 266 pp.

Siméant-Germanos, J., 2019: Conceptualizing contexts or contextualizing

concepts? On some issues of the modeling of relational spaces in the study

of collective action. Soc. Mov Stud., 0(0), 1–16, doi:10.1080/14742837.201

9.1629899.

Simonee, N. etal., 2021: Sila qanuippa? (how’s the weather?): Integrating Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit and environmental forecasting products to support travel

safety around Pond Inlet, Nunavut in a changing climate. Weather, Climate,

and Society. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0174.1.

Simonet, C. and G. Jobbins, 2016: Understanding patterns of climate resilient

development – the case of Senegal. Overseas Development Institute,

London. Available at: http://prise.odi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/

Understanding-patterns-of-climate-resilient-development-%E2%80%93-

the-case-of-Senegal_Low-Res.pdf.

Singh, C., 2019: Migration as a driver of changing household structures:

implications for local livelihoods and adaptation. Migr. Dev., 8(3), 301–319,

doi:10.1080/21632324.2019.1589073.

2764

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Singh, C. et al., 2018: The utility of weather and climate information for

adaptation decision-making: current uses and future prospects in Africa and

India. Clim. Dev., 10(5), 389–405, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1318744.

Singh, C., et al., 2021a: Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change

adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Clim.

Dev., 1–15, doi:10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937.

Singh, C., D. Solomon and N. Rao, 2021b: How does climate change adaptation

policy in India consider gender? An analysis of 28 state action plans. Clim.

Policy, 21(7), 958–975, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1953434.

Sitas, N., et al., 2019: Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in

science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments. Ecol. Soc.,

24(3), doi:10.5751/ES-11039-240335.

Sitas, N., O. Selomane, M. Hamann and S.P.S. Gajjar, 2021: Towards equitable

urban resilience in the global south within a context of planning and

management. In: Urban Ecology in the Global South [Shackleton, C.M., S.S.

Cilliers, E. Davoren and M.J. du Toit(eds.)]. Springer International Publishing,

Cham, pp. 325–345. ISBN 978-3030676506.

Slaven, M. and J. Heydon, 2020: Crisis, deliberation, and extinction rebellion.

Crit. Stud. Secur., 8(1), 59–62.

Slee, B., 2015: Is there a case for community-based equity participation in

Scottish on-shore wind energy production? Gaps in evidence and research

needs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 41, 540–549.

Sloat, L.L., etal., 2020: Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nat Commun,

11(1), 1243, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15076-4.

Smit, B., etal., 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable

development and equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J.,

O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White(eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 877–912. ISBN

978-0521807685.

Smith, A. and A. Stirling, 2018: Innovation, sustainability and democracy: an

analysis of grassroots contributions. J. Self-gov. Manag. Econ., 6(1), 64,

doi:10.22381/JSME6120183.

Smith, L.T., 2013: Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous

peoples. Zed Books Ltd.London.

Smith, P., etal., 2013: How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can

be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Glob Change Biol, 19(8), 2285–2302, doi:10.1111/gcb.12160.

Smith, R. and K. McNamara, 2015: Future migrations from Tuvalu and Kiribati:

exploring government, civil society and donor perceptions. Clim. Dev., 7, doi

:10.1080/17565529.2014.900603.

Smucker, T.A., et al., 2015: Differentiated livelihoods, local institutions, and

the adaptation imperative: Assessing climate change adaptation policy in

Tanzania. Geoforum, 59, 39–50.

Söderholm, P. and J.E. Tilton, 2012: Material efﬁciency: An economic perspective.

Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 61, 75–82, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.01.003.

Soga, M. and K.J. Gaston, 2016: Extinction of experience: the loss of human–

nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ., 14(2), 94–101, doi:10.1002/

fee.1225.

Solecki, W., M. Pelling and M. Garschagen, 2017: Transitions between risk

management regimes in cities. Ecol. Soc., 22, 38, doi:10.5751/ES-09102-

220238.

Solecki, W., etal., 2018: City transformations in a 1.5°C warmer world. Nature

Clim Change, 8(3), 177–181, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0101-5.

Soma, K., etal., 2018: Social innovation – A future pathway for Blue growth?

Mar. Policy., 87, 363–370, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.008.

Song, L., et al., 2020a: Contested energy futures, conﬂicted rewards?

Examining low-carbon transition risks and governance dynamics in

China’s built environment. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 59, 101306, doi:10.1016/j.

erss.2019.101306.

Song, S., Z. Liu, C. He and W. Lu, 2020b: Evaluating the effects of urban expansion

on natural habitat quality by coupling localized shared socioeconomic

pathways and the land use scenario dynamics-urban model. Ecol Indic, 112,

106071, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106071.

Sørensen, E. and J. Torﬁng, 2019: Designing institutional platforms and arenas

for interactive political leadership. Public Manag. Rev., 21(10), 1443–1463,

doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1559342.

Sovacool, B.K., 2018: Bamboo beating bandits: conﬂict, inequality, and

vulnerability in the political ecology of climate change adaptation in

Bangladesh. World Dev., 102, 183–194, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.014.

Sovacool, B.K., etal., 2015: The political economy of climate adaptation. Nature

Clim Change, 5(7), 616–618.

Sovacool, B.K., M. Tan-Mullins, D. Ockwell and P. Newell, 2017: Political

economy, poverty, and polycentrism in the global environment facility’s

least developed countries fund (LDCF) for climate change adaptation. Third

WorldQ, 38(6), 1249–1271, doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1282816.

Srivastava, A., Sharma, R.K. and Suresh, A., 2020. Impact of Covid-19 on

sustainable development goals. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol, 29, pp.253-258.

Stafford-Smith, M., etal., 2017: Integration: the key to implementing the

sustainable development goals. Sustain Sci, 12(6), 911–919, doi:10.1007/

s11625-016-0383-3.

Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek, M., K. Sobolewska-Mikulska, H. Ritzema and J.M.

van Loon-Steensma, 2018: Integration of water management and land

consolidation in rural areas to adapt to climate change: Experiences from

Poland and the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 77, 498–511, doi:10.1016/j.

landusepol.2018.06.005.

Starbird, E., M. Norton and R. Marcus, 2016: Investing in family planning: key

to achieving the sustainable development goals. Glob Health Sci Pract, 4(2),

191–210, doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00374.

Steelman, T.A., et al., 2019: Identifying transformational space for

transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustain Sci, 14(3),

771–790, doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0644-4.

Steffen, B., 2018: The importance of project ﬁnance for renewable energy

projects. Energy Econ., 69, 280–294, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.006.

Stein, S. and M. Kalina, 2019: Becoming an agricultural growth corridor. Environ.

Soc., 10(1), 83–100.

Sterk, M., I. A. van de Leemput and E.T. Peeters, 2017: How to conceptualize and

operationalize resilience in socio-ecological systems? Curr. Opin. Environ.

Sustain., 28, 108–113, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.003.

Stern, N., 2007: The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 978-0511817434.

Stevenson, K.T., etal., 2014: Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting

inﬂuences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived

climate change risk among adolescents. Clim Change, 126(3), 293–304,

doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7.

Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J.P., 2009. Report by the commission on the

measurement of economic performance and social progress.Stjepanović,

S., D. Tomic and M. Skare, 2017: A new approach to measuring green GDP:

a cross-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Sustain. Issues, 4, 574–590,

doi:10.9770/jesi.2017.4.4(13).

Stjepanović, S., D. Tomic and M. Skare, 2019: Green GDP: an analysis for

developing and developed countries. E+m Ekon. A Manag., 22, 4–17,

doi:10.15240/tul/001/2019-4-001.

Stoddard, I., etal., 2021: Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven’t we

bent the global emissions curve? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., doi:10.1146/

annurev-environ-012220-011104.

Strazds, L., 2019: Radical hope: Transforming sustainability. J. Sustain. Educ.

Journal of Sustainability Education, 21, 1–18.

Stuart, D., R. Gunderson and B. Petersen, 2020: The climate crisis as a catalyst

for emancipatory transformation: An examination of the possible. Int. Sociol.,

35(4), 433–456.

Sugden, F., et al., 2014: Agrarian stress and climate change in the eastern

Gangetic plains: gendered vulnerability in a stratiﬁed social formation. Glob.

Environ. Chang., 29, 258–269, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.008.

2765

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Sultana, F., 2010: Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities

and experiences of ﬂoods and disasters. Environ. Hazards, 9(1), 43–53,

doi:10.3763/ehaz.2010.SI02.

Sultana, F., 2021: Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of

injustices: a feminist reading of overlapping crises. Soc. Cult. Geogr., 22(4),

447–460, doi:10.1080/14649365.2021.1910994.

Sultana, P., et al., 2019: Transforming local natural resource conﬂicts to

cooperation in a changing climate: Bangladesh and Nepal lessons. Clim.

Policy, 19(sup1), 94–106, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1527678.

Solomon, S., C. Singh and F. Islam, 2021: Examining the outcomes of urban

adaptation interventions on gender equality using SDG 5. Clim. Dev., 0(0),

1–12, doi:10.1080/17565529.2021.1939643.

Susskind, L., etal., 2020: Breaking out of carbon lock-in: Malaysia’s path to

decarbonization. Front. Built Environ., 6, 21, doi:10.3389/fbuil.2020.00021.

Swafﬁeld, J., 2017: Freebies, freedom and fundamental change: resistance to

neoliberal environmentalism in large “green” corporations. Local Environ,

22(5), 553–567, doi:10.1080/13549839.2016.1233952.

Swatuk, L.A., etal., 2021: The ‘boomerang effect’: insights for improved climate

action. Clim. Dev., 13(1), 61–67, doi:10.1080/17565529.2020.1723470.

Swyngedouw, E., 2018: Promises of the Political: Insurgent Cities in a Post-

Political Environment. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, ISBN 978-

0262535656. 232 pp.

Swyngedouw, E., 2019: The perverse lure of autocratic postdemocracy. South

Atl. Q., 118(2), 267–286, doi:10.1215/00382876-7381134.

Tan, R.R. and D.C.Y. Foo, 2018: Integrated multi-scale water management as

a climate change adaptation strategy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, 20(6),

1123–1125, doi:10.1007/s10098-018-1551-1.

Tanaka, K., 2011: Review of policies and measures for energy efﬁciency

in industry sector. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6532–6550, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2011.07.058.

Tanner, T. and J. Allouche, 2011: Towards a new political economy of climate

change and development. IDS Bull., 42(3), 1–14, doi:10.1111/j.1759-

5436.2011.00217.x.

Tanner, T., etal., 2019: Inﬂuencing resilience: the role of policy entrepreneurs

in mainstreaming climate adaptation. Disasters, 43(S3), 388–S411,

doi:10.1111/disa.12338.

Tari, D. and J. Pattison, 2014: Evolving Customary Institutions in the Drylands

An Opportunity for Devolved Natural Resource Governance in Kenya? Issue

Paper. IIED, London ISBN 978-1784310424.

Tauginienė, L., etal., 2020: Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities:

the power of interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Commun, 6(1), 1–11, doi:10.1057/

s41599-020-0471-y.

Taylor, M., 2008: Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from

California’s solar policy. Energy Econ., 30(6), 2829–2854, doi:10.1016/j.

eneco.2008.06.004.

Temmer, J., 2017a: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Agriculture and food

security. IISD, http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/

pcc-brief-climate-resilient-city-agriculture-food.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2017

Temmer, J., 2017b: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Disaster preparedness and

emergency management. IISD, http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp-content/

uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-disaster-mangement-emergency-preparedness.

pdf.

Tengö, M., et al., 2017: Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and

beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 26-

27, 17–25, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.

Terry, G., 2009: No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the

issues. Gend. Dev., 17(1), 5–18, doi:10.1080/13552070802696839.

Terton, A., 2017: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Urban ecosystems. IISD,

http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-

climate-resilient-city-urban-ecosystems.pdf. Accessed 13th May 2019.

Thackeray, S.J., et al., 2020: Civil disobedience movements such as school

strike for the climate are raising public awareness of the climate change

emergency. Glob Change Biol, 26(3), 1042–1044.

The People’s Republic of China, 2017: Vision for Maritime Cooperation under

the Belt and Road Initiative.

Thew, H., L. Middlemiss and J. Paavola, 2020: “Youth is not a political position”:

Exploring justice claims-making in the UN Climate change negotiations.

Glob. Environ. Chang., 61, 102036.

Thomas, B.K., 2008: Methodological debate in poverty studies:

towards ‘participatory qual–quant’? Dev. Pract., 18(2), 280–288,

doi:10.1080/09614520801899218.

Thompson-Hall, M., E.R. Carr and U. Pascual, 2016: Enhancing and expanding

intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings.

Ambio, 45(3), 373–382, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0.

Tilleard, S. and J. Ford, 2016: Adaptation readiness and adaptive capacity of

transboundary river basins. Clim Change, 137(3-4), 575–591.

Tobias, J.K. and R.C.A., 2014: “that land means everything to us as

Anishinaabe….”: environmental dispossession and resilience on the

north shore of Lake Superior. Health Place, 29, 26–33, doi:10.1016/j.

healthplace.2014.05.008.

Tolliver, C., A.R. Keeley and S. Managi, 2019: Green bonds for the Paris

Agreement and sustainable development goals. Environ. Res. Lett., 14(6),

64009, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab1118.

Törnberg, A., 2018: Combining transition studies and social movement theory:

towards a new research agenda. Theor Soc, 47(3), 381–408, doi:10.1007/

s11186-018-9318-6.

Tramel, S., 2018: Convergence as political strategy: social justice movements,

natural resources and climate change. Third WorldQ, 39(7), 1290–1307, doi

:10.1080/01436597.2018.1460196.

Tramutola, M.J., 2019: Adpatación al Cambio Climático ¿Con Perspectiva de

Género? LatinoAdapta, http://www.cambioclimaticoydecisiones.org/wp-

content/uploads/2019/08/PolicyBrief-Genero_5_09_2019.pdf.

Trewin, D. and J. Hall, 2004: Measures of Australia’s progress: key economic,

social and environment indicators. Oecd Obs., 246-247, 35–37.

Tschakert, P., et al., 2016: Tchange: the role of values and visioning

in transformation science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 20, 21–25,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.003.

Tufa, F., A. Amsalu and E.B. Zoomers, 2018: Failed promises: governance regimes

and conﬂict transformation related to Jatropha cultivation in Ethiopia. Ecol.

Soc., 23(4), doi:10.5751/ES-10486-230426.

Turnhout, E., et al., 2021: Enabling transformative economic change in the

post-2020 biodiversity agenda. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 14(4), e12805,

doi:10.1111/conl.12805.

TWI, 2019: TWI2050 Report: The Digital Revolution and Sustainable

Development: Opportunities and Challenges. https://iiasa.ac.at/web/home/

research/twi/Report2019.html.

Ullah, I., H. Fang and K. Jebran, 2019: Do gender diversity and CEO gender

enhance ﬁrm’s value? Evidence from an emerging economy. Corporate

Governance, 20(1), 44–66, doi:10.1108/CG-03-2019-0085.

UNDRR, 2015: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015–

2030.

Undrr, 2019: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva,

Switzerland. United Nations Ofﬁce for Disaster Risk Reduction.

UNEP, 2014: Adaptation Gap Report 2014.

UNEP, 2018a: Adaptation Gap Report 2018.

UNEP, 2018b: Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability. https://

www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-

sustainability.

UNEP, 2021: Adaptation Gap Report 2020.

UNESCO, 2019: Resilience in a Time of Uncertainty: Indigenous peoples and

climate change. https://en.unesco.org/events/resilience-time-uncertainty-

indigenous-peoples-and-climate-change.

UNESCO, 2018: What is Local and Indigenous Knowledge. United Nations

Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization.

2766

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

UNFCCC, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

UNFCCC, 2010: Cancún Climate Change Conference.

UNFCCC, 2011: Launching the Green Climate Fund. https://unfccc.int/resource/

docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=55.

UNFCCC, 2015: Paris Agreement. United Nations. United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change.

UNFCCC, 2017: The China Clean Development Mechanism Fund (CCDMF).

United Nations, 1994: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation

in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertiﬁcation,

Particularly in Africa. United Nations, New York, NY.

United Nations, 2007: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples. New York, https://www.un.org/development/desa/

indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.

pdf.

United Nations, 2015: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/

transformingourworld.

United Nations, 2020: Human Development Report 2020. The Next Frontier:

Human Development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development

Programme.

United Nations, 2021: The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Department

of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, N.Y.

United Nations, 2021: Adaptation Gap Report 2020. https://www.unep.org/

adaptation-gap-report-2020 . (United Nations Environment Programme,

Programme, U. N. E., Nairobi, Kenya, 99 pp.).

Ura, K. and K. Galay, 2004: Gross National Happiness and Development.

USAID, 2014: Climate resilient development a framework for understanding

and addressing climate change. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PBAAA245.

pdf.

USAID, 2018: Climate Risk Proﬁle: Kenya.

USEPA, 2019: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.

Wuebbles, D.J., et al. (ed.), 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth

National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Washington, DC, USA. U.S. Global

Change Research Program, 470 pp.

Vagheﬁ, N., C. Siwar and S. Aziz, 2015: Green GDP and Sustainable Development

in Malaysia. Curr. World Environ., 10(1), 1–8.

Valta, J., 2020: Innovation ecosystem perspective accelerating sustainable

business models. In: Affordable and Clean Energy [Leal Filho, W., A.M. Azul,

L. Brandli, P.G. Özuyar and T. Wall(eds.)]. Springer International Publishing,

Cham, pp. 1–11. ISBN 978-3319710570.

van Baalen, S. and M. Mobjörk, 2018: Climate change and violent conﬂict in

east Africa: integrating qualitative and quantitative research to probe the

mechanisms. Int. Stud. Rev., 20(4), 547–575, doi:10.1093/isr/vix043.

Van den Bergh, J.C., 2007: Abolishing GDP.

van Dooren, C., etal., 2018: Unsustainable dietary habits of speciﬁc subgroups

require dedicated transition strategies: Evidence from the Netherlands. Food

Policy, 79, 44–57, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.05.002.

van Egmond, N.D. and H.J.M. de Vries, 2011: Sustainability: The search

for the integral worldview. Futures, 43(8), 853–867, doi:10.1016/j.

futures.2011.05.027.

Van Opstal, M. and J. Hugé, 2013: Knowledge for sustainable development: a

worldviews perspective. Environ Dev Sustain, 15(3), 687–709, doi:10.1007/

s10668-012-9401-5.

van Puijenbroek, P.J.T.M., A. F. Bouwman, A.H.W. Beusen and P.L. Lucas, 2014:

Global implementation of two shared socioeconomic pathways for future

sanitation and wastewater ﬂows. Water Sci. Technol., 71(2), 227–233,

doi:10.2166/wst.2014.498.

van Ruijven, B.J., etal., 2014: Enhancing the relevance of shared socioeconomic

pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research.

Clim Change, 122(3), 481–494, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0931-0.

Van Vuuren, D.P., etal., 2019: Integrated scenarios to support analysis of the

food–energy–water nexus. Nat. Sustain., 2(12), 1132–1141, doi:10.1038/

s41893-019-0418-8.

Vander Stichele, M., 2020: The Financialised Firm.

Veland, S., I. Gram-Hanssen, D. Maggs and A.H. Lynch, 2021: Can the sustainable

development goals harness the means and the manner of transformation?

Sustain Sci, doi:10.1007/s11625-021-01032-8.

Venema, H. and J. Temmer, 2017a: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Electricity

and information and communication technology infrastructure. IISD, http://

prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-climate-

resilient-city-electricity-ict.pdf.

Venema, H. and J. Temmer, 2017b: Building a Climate-Resilient City: Water

supply and sanitation systems. e International Institute for Sustainable

Development and the University of Winnipeg, , http://prairieclimatecentre.

ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-climate-resilient-city-water-

supply-sanitation.pdf, Accessed 2022-03-16.

Verkerk, P.J., etal., 2020: Climate-smart forestry: the missing link. For. Policy

Econ., 115, 102164, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102164.

Vermeulen, S.J., etal., 2018: Transformation in practice: a review of empirical

cases of transformational adaptation in agriculture under climate change.

Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 2, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00065.

Vihemäki, H., A. Toppinen and R. Toivonen, 2020: Intermediaries to accelerate

the diffusion of wooden multi-storey construction in Finland. Environ. Innov.

Soc. Transit., 36, 433–448, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2020.04.002.

Villamayor-Tomas, S. and G. García-López, 2018: Social movements as key

actors in governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource

management cases across the world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 53, 114–126,

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.005.

Vincent, K. and W. Colenbrander, 2018: Developing and applying a ﬁve step

process for mainstreaming climate change into local development plans:

A case study from Zambia. Clim. Risk Manag., 21, 26–38, doi:10.1016/j.

crm.2018.04.005.

Vinyeta, K., K. Whyte and K. Lynn, 2016: Climate Change Through an

Intersectional Lens: Gendered Vulnerability and Resilience in Indigenous

Communities in the United States. Social Science Research Network,

Rochester, NY. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2770089.

Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., etal., 2021: Transformative governance of biodiversity:

insights for sustainable development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 53, 20–

28, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002.

Visvizi, A., M.D. Lytras, E. Damiani and H. Mathkour, 2018: Policy making

for smart cities: innovation and social inclusive economic growth for

sustainability. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag., 9(2), 126–133, doi:10.1108/

JSTPM-07-2018-079.

Vogel, C. and K. O’Brien, 2021: Getting to the heart of transformation. Sustain

Sci, doi:10.1007/s11625-021-01016-8.

Vogl, V., M. Åhman and L.J. Nilsson, 2018: Assessment of hydrogen direct

reduction for fossil-free steelmaking. J Clean Prod, 203, 736–745,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.279.

von Stechow, C., etal., 2016: 2°C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they

fall? Environ. Res. Lett., 11(3), e34022.

von Uexkull, N. and H. Buhaug, 2021: Security implications of climate

change: a decade of scientiﬁc progress. J. Peace Res., 58(1), 3–17,

doi:10.1177/0022343320984210.

Wada, Y., etal., 2016: Modeling global water use for the 21st century: the Water

Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative and its approaches. Geosci. Model

Dev., 9(1), 175–222, doi:10.5194/gmd-9-175-2016.

Waddock, S., 2019: Shaping the shift: shamanic leadership, memes, and

transformation. J. Bus. Ethics., 155(4), 931–939, doi:10.1007/s10551-018-

3900-8.

Walch, C., 2019: Adaptive governance in the developing world: disaster risk

reduction in the state of Odisha, India. Clim. Dev., 11(3), 238–252, doi:10.1

080/17565529.2018.1442794.

2767

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Waldherr, A., 2012: The mass media as actors in innovation systems. In:

Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries [Bauer, J., A. Lang

and V. Schneider(eds.)]. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 77–100. ISBN 978-

3642125621 978-3-642-12563-8).

Walsh, C., 2018: 9. Development as Buen Vivir: institutional arrangements and

(de)colonial entanglements. In: B. Reiter (ed.), Constructing the Pluriverse:

The Geopolitics of Knowledge. Duke University Press, pp. 184–194. ISBN

978-1478002017.

Walsh, J.H. and J. Dillard-Wright, 2020: The case for “structural missingness:”

A critical discourse of missed care. Nurs Philos, 21(1), e12279, doi:10.1111/

nup.12279.

Walshe, R. and A.G. Argumedo, 2016: Ayni, Ayllu, Yanantin and Chanincha: the

cultural values enabling adaptation to climate change in communities of

the Potato Park, in the Peruvian Andes. Gaia - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc., 25(3),

166–173, doi:10.14512/gaia.25.3.7.

Walton, A. A., 2018: Fossil Fuel Divestment: The Power of Positively Deviant

Leadership for Catalyzing Climate Action and Financing Clean Energy. In:

Evolving Leadership for Collective Wellbeing (Building Leadership Bridges).

Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 101–120.

Walton, A. A., 2018: Positive deviance and behavior change: A research methods

approach for understanding fossil fuel divestment. Energy Research & Social

Science, 45, 235–249, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.003.

Wamsler, C., 2019: Contemplative sustainable futures: the role of individual

inner dimensions and transformation in sustainability research and

education. In: Sustainability and the Humanities [Leal Filho, W. and A.

Consorte McCrea(eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 359–

373. ISBN 978-3319953366.

Wamsler, C. and E. Brink, 2018: Mindsets for sustainability: exploring the link

between mindfulness and sustainable climate adaptation. Ecol. Econ., 151,

55–61, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.029.

Wang, F., R. Wang and J. Wang, 2020: Measurement of China’s green GDP and

its dynamic variation based on industrial perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut.

Res. 27, 43813–43828.

Wang, Y., etal., 2019: Tens of thousands additional deaths annually in cities

of China between 1.5°C and 2.0°C warming. Nat Commun, 10(1), 3376,

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11283-w.

Washington-Ottombre, C. and B.C. Pijanowski, 2013: Rural organizations and

adaptation to climate change and variability in rural Kenya. Reg Environ

Change, 13(3), 537–550.

Washington, H. and P. Twomey (eds.), 2016: A Future Beyond Growth: Towards

a Steady State Economy, 1stedn., Routledge, Oxfordshire, 282 pp.

Watson, E.E., H.H. Kochore and B.H. Dabasso, 2016: Camels and climate

resilience: adaptation in northern Kenya. Hum Ecol, 44(6), 701–713.

Watts, N., etal., 2019: The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and

climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not deﬁned

by a changing climate. Lancet, 394, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6.

Webb, R., etal., 2018: Sustainable urban systems: Co-design and framing for

transformation. Ambio, 47(1), 57–77, doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0934-6.

Webber, S., 2016: Climate change adaptation as a growing development

priority: towards critical adaptation scholarship. Geogr. Compass, 10(10),

401–413, doi:10.1111/gec3.12278.

Webber, S. and S.D. Donner, 2017: Climate service warnings: cautions about

commercializing climate science for adaptation in the developing world.

Wires Clim. Chang., 8(1), e424, doi:10.1002/wcc.424.

Weir, T., 2018: Renewable energy in the Paciﬁc Islands: Its role and status.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 94, 762–771, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.069.

Weir, T. and M. Kumar, 2020: Renewable energy can enhance resilience of small

islands. Nat Hazards, 104(3), 2719–2725, doi:10.1007/s11069-020-04266-

Welch, D. and L. Yates, 2018: The practices of collective action: Practice theory,

sustainability transitions and social change. JTheory Soc Behav, 48(3), 288–

305, doi:10.1111/jtsb.12168.

Wells, P., W. Abouarghoub, S. Pettit and A. Beresford, 2020: A socio-technical

transitions perspective for assessing future sustainability following the

COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, 16(1), 29–36, doi:10.1080/

15487733.2020.1763002.

Werners, S.E., etal., 2018: Towards Climate Resilient Development Pathways

for the People in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. HI-AWARE, Kathmandu.

Werners, S.E., etal., 2021: Adaptation pathways: A review of approaches and

a learning framework. Environ. Sci. Policy, 116, 266–275, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2020.11.003.

Westholm, L. and S. Arora-Jonsson, 2015: Deﬁning solutions, ﬁnding problems:

deforestation, gender, and REDD+ in Burkina Faso. Conserv. Soc., 13(2),

189–199.

Westholm, L. and S. Arora-Jonsson, 2018: What room for politics and change in

global climate governance? Addressing gender in co-beneﬁts and safeguards.

Env Polit, 27(5), 917–938, doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1479115.

Westley, F., etal., 2011: Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of

transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762, doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.

Westwell, E. and J. Bunting, 2020: The regenerative culture of extinction

rebellion: self-care, people care, planet care. Env Polit, 29(3), 546–551.

Weyant, J. and E. Kriegler, 2014: Preface and introduction to EMF 27. Clim

Change, 123(3), 345–352, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1102-7.

White, D., 2020: Just transitions/design for transitions: preliminary notes on a

design politics for a green new deal. Capitalism Nat. Social., 31(2), 20–39,

doi:10.1080/10455752.2019.1583762.

WHO, 2016: Climate And Health Country Proﬁle – 2015: Kenya. World Health

Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Wiebe, K., etal., 2015: Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under

a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios. Environ. Res.

Lett., 10(8), 85010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085010.

Wieczorek, A.J., 2018: Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major

insights and their implications for research and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy,

84, 204–216, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008.

Wijsman, K. and M. Feagan, 2019: Rethinking knowledge systems for urban

resilience: Feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations.

Environ. Sci. Policy, 98, 70–76, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.017.

Wilhelmi, O.V., P.D. Howe, M.H. Hayden and C.R. O’Lenick, 2021: Compounding

hazards and intersecting vulnerabilities: experiences and responses

to extreme heat during COVID-19. Environ. Res. Lett., 16(8), 84060,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac1760.

Williams, A., J. Dickman and R. Smurthwaite, 2021: Advancing evaluation and

learning on transformational change: lessons from the climate investment

funds’ transformational change learning partnership. Am. J. Eval., 42(1),

90–109, doi:10.1177/1098214020970283.

Wilson, N.J., etal., 2019: Water is medicine: Reimagining water security through

Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in relationships to treated and traditional water sources in

Yukon. Canada. water, 11(3), 624, doi:10.3390/w11030624.

Wilson, N.J. and J. Inkster, 2018: Respecting water: Indigenous water

governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environ.

Plan. E: Nat. Space, doi:10.1177/2514848618789378.

Winkler, H., A. Boyd, M. Torres Gunfaus and S. Raubenheimer, 2015:

Reconsidering development by reﬂecting on climate change. Int. Environ.

Agreements: Polit. Law Econ., 15(4), 369–385, doi:10.1007/s10784-015-

9304-7.

Winkler, H. and N.K. Dubash, 2016: Who determines transformational change

in development and climate ﬁnance? Clim. Policy, 16(6), 783–791, doi:10.1

080/14693062.2015.1033674.

v. Winterfeldt, D., 2013: Bridging the gap between science and decision making.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(Supplement 3), 14055–14061, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1213532110.

Wise, R.M., et al., 2016: How climate compatible are livelihood adaptation

strategies and development programs in rural Indonesia? Clim. Risk Manag.,

12, 100–114, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.11.001.

2768

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Woiwode, C., 2020: Inner transformation for 21st-century futures: the missing

dimension in higher education. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev., 62(4), 30–

38, doi:10.1080/00139157.2020.1764299.

Wood, B.T., 2017: Socially just Triple-Wins? An Evaluation of Projects that

Pursue Climate Compatible Development Goals in Malawi. University of

Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Wood, B.T., C.H. Quinn, L.C. Stringer and A.J. Dougill, 2017: Investigating climate

compatible development outcomes and their implications for distributive

justice: evidence from Malawi. Environ Manage, 60(3), 436–453.

World Bank, 2000: World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11856 . World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA..

World Bank, 2017: Climate Vulnerability Assessment: Making Fiji Climate

Resistant. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

World Bank, 2021: GINI Index. In: The World Development Indicators (WDI).

World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank G., 2019: Using Carbon Revenues. https://openknowledge.

worldbank.org/handle/10986/32247, Accessed 2022-03-16.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

World Economic Forum, 2019: Innovate Europe: Competing for Global

Innovation Leadership, Geneva, Switzerland.

Woroniecki, S., 2019: Enabling environments? Examining social co-beneﬁts of

ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Sri Lanka. Sustainability,

11(3), 772, doi:10.3390/su11030772.

Worrell, E., J. Allwood and T. Gutowski, 2016: The role of material efﬁciency

in environmental stewardship. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 41(1), 575–598,

doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085737.

Xu, T., 2018: Investigating environmental Kuznets curve in China–aggregation

bias and policy implications. Energy Policy, 114, 315–322, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2017.12.027.

Xu, Y. and V. Ramanathan, 2017: Well below 2°C: Mitigation strategies for

avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,

114(39), 10315–10323, doi:10.1073/pnas.1618481114.

Xue, W., etal., 2016: Cultural worldviews and climate change: A view from

China. Asian J Soc Psychol, 19(2), 134–144, doi:10.1111/ajsp.12116.

Yadav, S.S. and R. Lal, 2018: Vulnerability of women to climate change in arid

and semi-arid regions: The case of India and South Asia. J. Arid Environ., 149,

4–17, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.08.001.

Yalew, A.W., 2020: Climate Resilient Development. In: Economic Development

under Climate Change : Economy-Wide and Regional Analysis for Ethiopia

[Yalew, A.W.(ed.)]. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, pp. 99–108. ISBN 978-

3658294137.

Yao, M., et al., 2017: Building regional water-use scenarios consistent with

global shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ. Process., 4(1), 15–31.

Yohe, G.W., R.D. Lasco, Q.K. Ahmad, N.W. Arnell, S.J. Cohen, C. Hope, A.C. Janetos

and R.T. Perez, 2007: Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In:

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der

Linden and C.E. Hanson(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

pp. 811–841. ISBN 978-0521880107.

Young, I.M., 2003: Political Responsibility and Structural Injustice. University of

Kansas, Department of Philosophy, Lawrence, Kansas.

Yu, Y., etal., 2019: National green GDP assessment and prediction for China

based on a CA-Markov land use simulation model. Sustainability, 11(3), 576.

Yunkaporta, T., 2019: Sand Talk: How Indigenous thinking can save the world.

Text Publishing, Melbourne.

Yurdakul, M. and H. Kazan, 2020: Effects of eco-innovation on economic

and environmental performance: evidence from Turkey’s manufacturing

companies. Sustainability, 12(8), 3167, doi:10.3390/su12083167.

Zaman, F., 2021: The role of popular discourse about climate change in disaster

preparedness: A critical discourse analysis. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 60,

102270, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102270.

Zambia, R. o. and IUCN, 2017: Climate Change Gender Action Plan of The

Republic of Zambia. (International Union for Conservation of Nature Global

Gender Ofﬁce (IUCN GGO)).https://portals.iucn.org/union/sites/union/ﬁles/

doc/ccgap-zambia-ﬁnal-web.pdf, Accessed 2019-09-24.

Zavaleta, C., et al., 2018: Multiple non-climatic drivers of food insecurity

reinforce climate change maladaptation trajectories among Peruvian

Indigenous Shawi in the Amazon. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e205714, doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0205714.

Ziervogel, G., 2019: Building transformative capacity for adaptation planning

and implementation that works for the urban poor: Insights from South

Africa. Ambio, 48(5), 494–506, doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1141-9.

Ziervogel, G., E. Archer van Garderen and P. Price, 2016a: Strengthening the

knowledge–policy interface through co-production of a climate adaptation

plan: leveraging opportunities in Bergrivier Municipality, South Africa.

environ urban, 28(2), 455–474.

Ziervogel, G., A. Cowen and J. Ziniades, 2016b: Moving from adaptive to

transformative capacity: building foundations for inclusive, thriving, and

regenerative urban settlements. Sustainability, 8(9), 955, doi:10.3390/

su8090955.

Ziervogel, G., J. Enqvist, L. Metelerkamp and J. van Breda, 2021: Supporting

transformative climate adaptation: community-level capacity building and

knowledge co-creation in South Africa. Clim. Policy, 0(0), 1–16, doi:10.1080

/14693062.2020.1863180.

Zinsstag, J., etal., 2018: Climate change and one health. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.,

365(11), doi:10.1093/femsle/fny085.

Zivkovic, S., 2018: Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems. Social

Enterprise Journal, 14 (3), 348–366.

Zummo, L., B. Donovan and K.C. Busch, 2020: Complex inﬂuences of

mechanistic knowledge, worldview, and quantitative reasoning on climate

change discourse: Evidence for ideologically motivated reasoning among

youth. JRes Sci Teach, doi:10.1002/tea.21648.

2769

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB | Feasibility Assessment of Adaptation Options: An Update of the SR1.5

Authors: Debora Ley (Guatemala/Mexico), Helen Adams (UK), Malcolm Araos (Canada/USA), Ritwika Basu (India/UK), Amir Bazaz (India),

Luigi Conte (Italy), Katy Davis (UK), Constantino Dockendorff (Chile/Germany), James Ford (UK/Canada), Sabine Fuss (Germany), Elisabeth

A Gilmore (USA/Canada), Tania Guillén Bolaños (Nicaragua/Germany), Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (Australia), Mark Howden (Australia),

Bavisha Kalyan (South Africa/USA), Laura Moro (Italy), Anuszka Mosurska (UK/Poland), Reinhard Mechler (Germany), Joana Portugal-

Pereira (Brazil), Aromar Revi (India), Swarnika Sharma (India), Anne J. Sietsma (the Netherlands/UK), Chandni Singh (India), Alessandro

Triacca (Italy), Bianca van Bavel (Canada/Ireland/UK), Ivan Villaverde Canosa (Spain/UK), Mustafa Babiker (Sudan/Saudi Arabia), Paolo

Bertoldi (Italy), Brett Cohen (South Africa), Annette Cowie (Australia), Kiane de Kleijne (the Netherlands), Jeremy Emmet-Booth (Ireland),

Amit Garg (India), Gert-Jan Nabuurs (the Netherlands), André Frossard Pereira de Lucena (Brazil), Adrian Leip (Italy/Germany), Lars J.

Nilsson (Sweden), Pete Smith (UK), Linda Steg (the Netherlands), Masahiro Sugiyama (Japan)

Key Messages

The feasibility assessment (FA) presents a systematic framework to assess adaptation and mitigation options organised

by system transitions. This Cross-Chapter Box assessed the feasibility of 23 adaptation options across six dimensions: economic,

technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental-ecological, and geophysical to identify factors within each dimension that

present barriers to the achievement of the option. The results are presentedbelow.

For energy systems transitions, the adaptation options of infrastructure resilience, efﬁcient water use and water management,

and reliable power systems enable energy systems to work during disasters with reduced costs, demonstrating the

synergistic relationships between mitigation and adaptation (high conﬁdence). There is high conﬁdence in the high feasibility of

infrastructure resilience and reliable power systems as they enable power systems to provide emergency services during disasters, as well

as continue these services during recovery periods. New evidence has focused on both options for peri-urban and rural areas through

distributed generation and isolated renewable energy systems, which also provide multiple social co-beneﬁts (medium conﬁdence). For

efﬁcient water use and management, the synergistic potential with mitigation can make processes more efﬁcient and cost effective (high

conﬁdence). With regards to adaptation feasibility, efﬁcient water use is especially useful in drought-stricken areas and provides better

water management for multiple uses (high conﬁdence).

There are multiple adaptation options for land and ocean ecosystems. Forest- and biodiversity-based adaptation options

are generally promoted on the basis of their positive impacts on adaptive and ecological capacities, increased provision

of ecosystem services and goods, with a particularly strong contribution to carbon sequestration (high conﬁdence).

However, large afforestation projects and the introduction of non-native and fast-growing vegetation reduce water availability,

impoverish habitats for wildlife and reduce overall ecological resilience, threatening the achievement of some Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs), and potentially leading to maladaptation (high conﬁdence).Over-reliance on forest-based solutions may increase the

susceptibility to wildﬁres, with detrimental consequences both for mitigation and adaptation (medium conﬁdence). Over the last

decade, forest- and biodiversity-based solutions have gained considerable political traction and social acceptability (high conﬁdence),

but in countries with economies highly dependent on the export of agricultural commodities, opportunity costs continue to hinder the

expansion of these alternatives, particularly against more proﬁtable land uses (high conﬁdence). In such cases, government support

and innovative ﬁnancial schemes, including payments for ecosystem services, are fundamental for broader adherence to forest- and

biodiversity-based options.

Agro-forestry solutions have strong ecological and adaptive co-beneﬁts (high conﬁdence), including improved provision of

ecosystem services, synergies with the water–energy–land–food nexus, and positive outcomes in agricultural intensiﬁcation,

job diversiﬁcation and household income. While broad inclusion of agro-forestry schemes in countries’ Nationally Determined

Contributions (NDCs) reﬂect growing international interest in these strategies, insufﬁcient ﬁnancial support to smallholder farmers

continues to limit the expansion of agro-forestry initiatives in developing and tropical countries.

Implementing environmentally and biodiversity sensitive coastal defence options—often as part of Integrated Coastal

Zone Management—is limited by economic, environmental, institutional and social barriers. Successful implementation

requires a strong socioeconomic framework and can offer diverse social, ecological and economic beneﬁts, as well as

sequestering carbon (high conﬁdence). There is extensive experience with hard coastal defence structures (e.g., sea walls), which

can be cost-effective in economic terms, depending on the location (medium conﬁdence); however, they are considered maladaptive and

unsustainable in some contexts (medium conﬁdence) due to their lack of ﬂexibility or robustness in response to a changing climate, as

well as their carbon-intensiveness and potential ecological impacts (medium conﬁdence).

2770

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

There is medium conﬁdence on the feasibility of sustainable aquaculture and ﬁsheries as adaptation options. There are

ﬁnancial barriers to implementing sustainable aquaculture and ﬁsheries, even though they can improve employment opportunities,

especially for local communities (medium conﬁdence). Technical resource availability is still lacking and could represent a barrier to

implementing sustainable aquaculture and ﬁsheries (medium conﬁdence). Robust institutional and legal frameworks are needed to

guarantee effective adaptation (high conﬁdence). Sustainable aquaculture and ﬁsheries are highly dependent on healthy and resilient

ecosystems (high conﬁdence). They can provide diverse ecosystem services and support coastal ecosystems restoration (medium

conﬁdence).

There are a range of strategies to improve livestock system efﬁciency including improved livestock diets, enhanced animal

health, breeding and manure management, and grassland management. This suite of strategies has strong feasibility to build

resilience while improving incomes (medium conﬁdence) and providing mitigation co-beneﬁts (high conﬁdence). While technological

and ecological feasibility is high, institutional, market and socio-political acceptability remain signiﬁcant barriers (medium conﬁdence).

Improving water use efﬁciency and water resource management under land and ecosystem transitions has high technological

feasibility (high conﬁdence) with positive resilience-building and socioeconomic co-beneﬁts. However, economic and

institutional barriers remain and are based on type, scale and location of interventions (medium conﬁdence). Notably, inadequate

institutional capacities to prepare for changing water availability, especially in the long term, unsustainable and unequal water use and

sharing practices, and fragmented water resource management approaches remain critical barriers to feasibility (high conﬁdence).

Improved cropland management includes agricultural adaptation strategies such as integrated soil management, no/

reduced tillage, conservation agriculture, planting of stress-resistant or early maturing crop varieties, and mulching.

These strategies have high economic and environmental feasibility (high conﬁdence) and substantial mitigation co-beneﬁts (medium

conﬁdence). However, high costs, inadequate information and technical know-how, delays between actions and tangible beneﬁts, lack

of comprehensive policies, fragmentation across different sectors, inadequate access to credit, and unequal access to resources constrain

technological, institutional and socio-cultural feasibility (medium conﬁdence).

For urban and infrastructure system transitions, sustainable urban planning can support both adaptation and decarbonisation

by mainstreaming climate concerns, including effective land use into urban policies, by promoting resilient and low-carbon

infrastructure, and by protecting and integrating carbon-reducing biodiversity and ecosystem services into city planning

(medium conﬁdence). Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services have high feasibility to support climate adaptation and

mitigation efforts in cities, for example to reduce ﬂood exposure and attenuate the urban heat island (high conﬁdence). While green

infrastructure options are cost-effective and provide co-beneﬁts in terms of ecosystem services such as improved air quality or other

health beneﬁts (high conﬁdence), there remains a need for systematically assessing co-beneﬁts, particularly for ﬂood risk management

and sustainable material ﬂow analysis. Governments across scales can support urban sustainable water management by undertaking

projects to recycle wastewater and runoff through green infrastructure; enabling greater coherence between urban water and riverine

basin management; decentralising water systems; supporting networks for sharing best practices in water supply and storm runoff

treatment to scale sustainable management; and foregrounding equity and justice concerns, especially through participation involving

informal settlement residents (medium conﬁdence).

Strong and equitable health systems can protect the health of populations in the face of known and unexpected stressors

(medium conﬁdence). Health and health systems adaptation is feasible where capacity is well developed, and where options align with

national priorities and engage local and international communities (medium conﬁdence). Socio-cultural acceptability of health and health

systems adaptation is high and there is signiﬁcant potential for risk-mitigation and social co-beneﬁts where adaptation addresses the

needs of vulnerable regions and populations (medium conﬁdence). Microeconomic feasibility and socioeconomic vulnerability reduction

potentials are also high (high conﬁdence), although economic feasibility may pose a signiﬁcant challenge in low-income settings (medium

conﬁdence). However, inadequate institutional capacity and resource availability represent major barriers, particularly for health systems

struggling to manage current health risks (high conﬁdence).

There is strong evidence that disaster risk management (DRM) is highly feasible when supported by strong institutions,

good governance, local engagement and trust across actors (medium conﬁdence). DRM is constrained by lack of capacity,

inadequate institutions, limited coordination across levels of government (high conﬁdence), lack of transparency and accountability, and

poor communication (medium conﬁdence). There is a preference for top-down DRM processes, which can undermine local institutions

and perpetuate uneven power relationships (medium conﬁdence). However, local integration of worldviews, belief systems and local and

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2771

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Indigenous Knowledge into DRM activities can facilitate successful, disability-inclusive and gender-focused DRM (medium conﬁdence).

Moves towards community-based and ecosystem-based DRM are promising but uneven and may increase vulnerability if they fail to

address underlying and structural determinants of vulnerability (high conﬁdence).

Climate services that are demand-driven and context-speciﬁc (e.g., to a particular crop or agricultural system) build

adaptation capacity and enable short- and longer-term risk management decisions (high conﬁdence). Metrics to assess the

economic outcomes of climate services remain insufﬁcient to capture longer-term beneﬁts of interventions (medium conﬁdence). While

technological capacity and political acceptance is high (medium conﬁdence), institutional barriers, poor ﬁt with user requirements and

inadequate regional coverage constrain the option’s overall feasibility.

Risk insurance can be a feasible tool to adapt to climate risks and support sustainable development (high conﬁdence). They

can reduce both vulnerability and exposure, support post-disaster recovery and reduce ﬁnancial burden on governments, households

and business. Insurance mechanisms enjoy wide legal and regulatory acceptability among policymakers and are institutionally feasible

(high conﬁdence). However, socio-cultural and ﬁnancial barriers make insurance spatially and temporally challenging to implement

(high conﬁdence), even though it can improve the health and well-being of populations (medium conﬁdence). The risk of generating

maladaptive outcomes can further limit the uptake of insurance, as it can provide disincentives for reducing risk over the long term

(medium conﬁdence). Expanding the knowledge base on insurance is fundamental to successfully implement insurance among all

relevant stakeholders. Ensuring equitable access to and beneﬁts from innovative ﬁnancial products (e.g., loans) is needed to guarantee

successful uptake of insurance across all the population (high conﬁdence).

Migration has been used by millions around the world to maintain and improve their well-being in the face of changed

circumstances, often as part of labour or livelihood diversiﬁcation (very high conﬁdence). Properly supported and, where

levels of agency and assets are high, migration as a climate response can reduce exposure and socioeconomic vulnerability (medium

conﬁdence). Households and communities in climate-exposed regions experience a range of intersecting stressors. These households can

undertake distress migration, which results in negative adaptive and resilience outcomes (high conﬁdence). Outcomes can be improved

through a systematic examination of the political economy of local and regional sectors that employ precarious communities and by

addressing vulnerabilities that pose barriers to in situ adaptation and livelihood strategies (medium conﬁdence). Migrants and their

sending and receiving communities can be supported through temporary labour-migration schemes, improving discourses on migration,

and matching existing migration agreements with development objectives (medium conﬁdence).

Planned relocation and resettlement have low feasibility as climate responses (medium conﬁdence). Previous disaster- and

development-related relocation has been expensive, contentious, posed multiple challenges for governments and ampliﬁed existing,

and generated new, vulnerabilities for the people involved (high conﬁdence).Planned relocation will be increasingly required as climate

change undermines habitability, especially for coastal areas (medium conﬁdence). Full participation of those affected,ensuring human

rights-based approaches, preserving cultural, emotional and spiritual bonds to place, anddedicated governance structures and associated

funding are associated with improved outcomes (high conﬁdence).Improving the feasibility of planned relocation and resettlement is a

high priority for managing climate risks (high conﬁdence).

CCB FEASIB.1 Scope

The Paris Climate Agreement marked a signiﬁcant shift for the IPCC AR6 assessment towards a systematic exploration of climate solutions

and a suite of linked adaptation and mitigation options (IPCC, 2018b; IPCC, 2019b). This shift was ﬁrst evidenced in SR1.5, whose plenary-

approved outline sought to deﬁne feasibility as ‘referring to the potential for a mitigation or adaptation option to be implemented. Factors

inﬂuencing feasibility are context-dependent, temporally dynamic, and may vary between different groups and actors.Feasibility depends

on geophysical, environmental-ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional factors that enable or constrain the

implementation of an option. The feasibility of options may change when different options are combined and increase when enabling

conditions are strengthened’. Based on this, SR1.5 identiﬁed (with high conﬁdence) rapid and far-reaching transitions in four systems:

energy, land and other ecosystems, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems, are necessary to

enable pathways to limit average global warming to 1.5°C compared with pre-industrial temperatures (Bazaz etal., 2018; IPCC, 2018b).

This was deepened for terrestrial systems in SRCCL, while SROCC added additional evidence from ocean and cryosphere systems. The

assessment also included the interactions between carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and adaptation outcomes: compared with previous

Assessment Reports, it is clear that the ambitious temperature targets agreed upon in Paris in 2015 will require at least some CDR, that

is all 1.5°C pathways will eventually feature annual removals at gigaton level (Rogelj etal., 2018a). This necessitates assessing the

interactions of CDR with adaptation.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2772

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

This feasibility assessment (FA) of adaptation options is situated within four system transitions identiﬁed in SR1.5 (de Coninck etal., 2018b).

In this report, feasibility refers to the potential for an adaptation option to be implemented. Twenty-three key adaptation options have

been identiﬁed in AR6, across these system transitions, and mapped against representative key risks at global scale (Chapter 16) (Figure1).

This cross-chapter box ﬁrst presents the methodology for the (FA) of adaptation options (Section2); ﬁndings of the FA (Section3);

presents synergies and trade-offs (S&Ts) of adaptation for mitigation options and mitigation for adaptations (Section4); and knowledge

gaps (Section5).

Feasibility assessment options mapped against Representative Key Risks (RKR)

Systems transitions

RKRs

Energy systems

transitions

Land and ecosystems transitions

Urban and infrastructure

systems transitions

Overarching

adaptation options

Risk to costal socio-

ecological systems

• Coastal defense and hardening

• Sustainable aquaculture

• Social safety nets

• Risk spreading andsharing

• Climate services (including

EWS)

• Disaster risk management

• Population health andhealth

systems

• Human migration and

displacement

• Planned relocation and

resettlement

Risk to terrestrial and

ocean ecosystems

• Integrated coastal zone management

including wetland, mangrove

conservation

• Sustainable forest management and

conservation, forestations and

afforestation

• Biodiversity management and

ecosystem connectivity

Risk associated with

critical physical

infrastructure,

networks, and

services

• Resilient power

infrastructure

• Improved power

reliability

• Green infrastructure and

ecosystem services

• Sustainable land-use

land urban planning

Risk to living

standards and equity

• Livelihood diversification

Risk to human health

Risk to food security

• Improved cropland management

(including integrated soil management,

conservation agriculture)

• Efficient livestock systems (including

improved grazing land management)

• Agroforestry

Risk to water security

• Improve water use

efficiency

• Water use efficiency and water

resource management

• Sustainable urban water

management

Risk to peace and

migration

•

Ris

sso

cia

ted

Ris

ivi

Ris

eac

and

FigureCross-ChapterBoxFEASIB.1 | Feasibility assessment option mapped against representative key risks (RKRs)

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2773

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

There has been growing research emphasis on synthesising adaptation literature through meta-reviews of adaptation research (Sietsma

etal., 2021; Berrang-Ford etal. 2021), adaptation readiness (Ford etal., 2015a; Ford etal., 2017), adaptation progress (Araos etal.,

2016a), adaptation barriers and enablers (Biesbroek etal., 2013; Eisenack etal., 2014; Barnett etal., 2015), and adaptation outcomes

(Owen, 2020) (Cross-Chapter BoxADAPT in Chapter 1). In particular, understanding which adaptation options are effective, to what risks,

and under what conditions, is particularly challenging given the lack of a clearly deﬁned and globally- agreed- adaptation goals, as well

as disagreement on the metrics to assess adaptation effectiveness (Berrang-Ford etal., 2019; Singh etal., 2021c) (17.5.2 on Successful

Adaptation). Effectiveness studies often use metrics such as reduced risk exposure, damage costs averted, which lend themselves well to

infrastructural options (e.g., effectiveness of seawalls in reducing sea level rise [SLR] exposure in coastal cities), but do not translate well

to ‘soft’ adaptation options such as climate services or changing building codes.

CCB FEASIB.2 Methodology: feasibility assessment of adaptation options across key system transitions

The multi-dimensional feasibility of 23 adaptation options is assessed across six dimensions. This multi-dimensional framework goes

beyond technical or economic feasibility alone to capture how adaptation is mediated by the political environment, sociocultural norms

(Evans etal., 2016), cognitive and motivational factors (van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019), economic incentives and beneﬁts (Masud etal.,

2017), and ecological conditions (Biesbroek etal., 2013).

The six feasibility dimensions are underpinned by a set of 20 indicators. Each adaptation option is scored as having robust, medium or

limited evidence on barriers based on a review of literature published from 2018 onwards (pre-2018 literature is expected to be covered

by SR1.5 but in some cases pre-2018 literature was added) that reports studies that are 1.5°C-relevant. Further details and motivations

for this methodology can be found in Singh etal., 2020c.

The scoring process is undertaken by one author and reviewed by at least two more authors to ensure robustness and geographical

coverage. While the literature does not support an assessment at different temperature levels or an assessment of how feasibility can

change over time, some examples of these spatial and temporal aspects are detailed below.

CCB FEASIB.3 Findings: feasibility assessment of adaptation options across key system transitions

The following sections outline the ﬁndings of a 1.5

C-relevant feasibility assessment of adaptation options by the four system transitions.

A synoptic summary of the ﬁndings of the multi-dimensional feasibility is shown at the end of this section in Figure Cross-Chapter

BoxFEASIB.2. The full line of sight can be found in the Supplementary Material (SM).

CCB FEASIB.3.1 Energy systems transitions

The adaptation options assessed for energy system transitions are resilient power infrastructure; water management, focused on water

efﬁciency and cooling, for all types of generation sources; and reliable power systems. Since SR1.5, there has not been signiﬁcant change

in the feasibility of the ﬁrst two options as they continue to be implemented successfully, allowing for power generation to maintain

or increase its reliability during extreme weather events (high conﬁdence) (Zhang etal., 2018; Ali and Kumar, 2016; DeNooyer etal.,

2016). As in the case of SR1.5, these options are not sufﬁcient for the far-reaching transformations required in the energy sector, which

tend to focus on technological transitions from a fossil-based to a renewable energy regime (Erlinghagen and Markard, 2012; Muench

etal., 2014; Brand and von Gleich, 2015; Monstadt and Wolff, 2015; Child and Breyer, 2017; Hermwille etal., 2017). The main difference

from SR1.5 is that resilient power infrastructure now includes distributed generation utilities, such as microgrids, as there is increasing

evidence of its role in reducing vulnerability, especially within underserved populations (high conﬁdence).

The option for resilient power infrastructure considers all types generation sources, and transmission and distribution systems. There is

robust evidence and high agreement for the high feasibility of the economic and technological dimensions as the technologies have

been used and their cost effectiveness is high, although the latter is dependent upon the generation source and location of each speciﬁc

generation plant. There is medium institutional feasibility (medium evidence, medium agreement) as there are insufﬁcient policies for

resilient infrastructure, although there is high acceptability for these options.

The option of efﬁcient water use and management also has high feasibility for the economic, technological and environmental dimensions

(robust evidence, high agreement), as this option also has proven that technology and efﬁcient water use can make power generation

operations more efﬁcient and cost effective as well as have positive effects on the environment, especially in drought-stricken regions.

There is high political acceptability, existence of water use policies, regulations and supporting institutional frameworks to ensure

compliance (Ali and Kumar, 2016; DeNooyer etal., 2016; Zhang etal., 2018). There is medium evidence and high agreement for the

medium feasibility of the socio-cultural dimension, especially given the evidence of resilience in distributed generation systems and

independent microgrids.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2774

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Since AR5, the reliability of power systems has gained interest because of the numerous service disruptions during extreme weather

events. As with resilient power systems, there is increasing evidence of the feasibility of increased reliability for both existing power

plants, independently of the generation source, and for rural landscapes. The option has high conﬁdence (robust evidence, high agreement)

for the high feasibility of the technological and social dimensions. As with previous options, the technological means exist to create

redundancy in power generation, transmission and distribution systems and their implementation ensures the continuous functionality

of emergency services, such as communications, health and water pumping, amongst others, in urban, peri-urban and rural landscapes

(high conﬁdence). There is high feasibility for the economic, technical and socio-cultural dimensions (the latter more prominently for

decentralised systems), and medium feasibility for institutional and geophysical dimensions.

For the three options, some of the indicators within the institutional, social and geophysical dimensions have limited evidence as they

have not been the focus of dedicated research. For example, when discussing the social co-beneﬁts of energy reliable systems of efﬁcient

water use, the literature does not focus on intergenerational or gender issues separately from the broad range of social co-beneﬁts the

options provide, but, for example, highlight the need for electricity for communications and health centres.

CCB FEASIB.3.2 Land and ecosystems

CCB FEASIB.3.2.1 Coastal defence and hardening

There is robust evidence and medium agreement regarding the feasibility of coastal defence and hardening as adaptation options in some

circumstances, which here includes grey coastal infrastructure. Economic and social factors may limit the feasibility of these options as

they require large investments (both construction, maintenance and monitoring) (Hamin etal., 2018; Magnan and Duvat, 2018; Morris

etal., 2018; Morris etal., 2019; Nicholls etal., 2019; Hanley etal., 2020b) (Section CCP2.3). While these costs present challenges for rural

areas, coastal defence structures may still be cost-effective in other areas, such as those with larger economies (Aerts, 2018; Lincke and

Hinkel, 2018; Tiggeloven etal., 2020; Vousdoukas etal., 2020; Lima and Coelho, 2021). Strong, transparent and inclusive governance is

key, suggesting that these measures can occasionally fail to adequately balance competing stakeholder interests. Consequently, they may

disproportionately beneﬁt wealthier people and exacerbate existing vulnerability of the poor (Kind etal., 2017; O’Donnell, 2019; Ratter

etal., 2019; Siders and Keenan, 2020; Siriwardane-de Zoysa, 2020). They are also potentially maladaptive if they are not ﬂexible or robust

in response to a changing climate (Antunes do Carmo, 2018; Hamin etal., 2018; Morris etal., 2019; Baills etal., 2020; Foti etal., 2020;

Hanley etal., 2020b) and can have negative impacts on the local environment, habitats, ecosystem services, and communities (Mills etal.,

2016; Morris etal., 2018; Morris etal., 2019; Foti etal., 2020; Hanley etal., 2020b).

Recent projects have focused on improving adaptability and increasing ecological and social sustainability by combining both hard

engineering and ‘softer’ nature-based solutions (Morris etal., 2019; Scheres and Schüttrumpf, 2019; Schoonees etal., 2019; Van Loon-

Steensma and Vellinga, 2019; Du etal., 2020; Foti etal., 2020; Winters etal., 2020; Ghiasian etal., 2021; Joy and Gopinath, 2021; Tanaya

etal., 2021; Waryszak etal., 2021). For example, coastal defence might involve a combination of ‘stabilising’ ecosystems (e.g., seagrasses,

mangroves, salt marshes) and hard human-made structures. Such coastal defence ‘mixed’ structures can be part of an Integrated Coastal

Zone Management (ICZM) strategy, which is covered as a separate option below.

CCB FEASIB.3.2.2 Sustainable aquaculture

There is medium evidence with medium agreement on the feasibility of sustainable aquaculture as an adaptation measure. Sustainable

aquaculture (e.g., integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, polyculture, aquaponics, mangrove-integrated culture) can have socioeconomic

beneﬁts for vulnerable communities and small-scale ﬁsheries (Ahmed, 2018; Blasiak etal., 2019; Mustafa etal., 2021; Thomas etal.,

2021; Xuan etal., 2021). However, caution is important to guarantee that access to ﬁsh supply of local and vulnerable communities is

not affected (Chan etal., 2019; Galappaththi etal., 2020). Access to ﬁnancial resources is often a barrier to implementation, although

sustainable aquaculture can increase employment opportunities that are increasingly gender equitable (Alleway etal., 2018; Leakhena

etal., 2018; Valenti etal., 2018; Gopal etal., 2020), as well as increasing the resilience of coastal livelihoods to climate change (Shaffril

etal., 2017; Blasiak and Wabnitz, 2018). Technological, institutional and socio-cultural factors can form barriers to the feasibility of

sustainable aquaculture (e.g., Ahmed etal., 2018; Blasiak etal., 2019; Galappaththi etal., 2019; Boyd etal., 2020; Osmundsen etal., 2020;

Stentiford etal., 2020; Mustapha etal., 2021; Xuan etal., 2021).

Sustainable aquaculture depends on healthy ecosystems (Sampantamit etal., 2020; Stentiford etal., 2020; Qurani etal., 2021). At the

same time, its implementation can increase or regenerate ecosystem services, enhance ecosystems’ adaptive capacity (Shaffril etal.,

2017; Freduah etal., 2018; Custódio etal., 2020; Bricknell etal., 2021; Mustafa etal., 2021) and protect nursery grounds and habitats for

ﬁsh and other important organisms (i.e., many commercial species are associated with mangroves). It may also prevent ecosystem

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2775

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

degradation such as deforestation, enhancing land use potential (Ahmed etal., 2018; Stentiford etal., 2020; Turolla etal., 2020; Mustafa

etal., 2021).

Environmental and economic aspects are key when assessing the sustainability of aquaculture practices (Ahmed etal., 2018; Aubin etal.,

2019; Bohnes etal., 2019; Galappaththi etal., 2019; Boyd etal., 2020; Galappaththi etal., 2020; Osmundsen etal., 2020; Stentiford

etal., 2020; Thomas etal., 2021). A global picture of where sustainable aquaculture is possible is needed and desirable (FAO, 2018;

Galappaththi etal., 2019; Bricknell etal., 2021), yet there are few new references to its physical feasibility. Adaptation options for existing

sustainable aquaculture need to be developed, along with institutional arrangements such as education and technology transfer, focused

on developing sustainable industries (Section8.6.2.3). Sustainable agriculture is likely to receive strong support from many countries but

may also experience resistance for several reasons (e.g., competition with existing industries, debates over tolerance to aesthetic changes

to coastlines). Literature on this area is growing. Potential barriers at the government and political levels are signiﬁcant (e.g., Jayanthi

etal., 2018; Blasiak etal., 2019; Hargan etal., 2020; Osmundsen etal., 2020; Stentiford etal., 2020; Mustafa etal., 2021; Qurani etal.,

2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.3 Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)

ICZM measures such as salt marsh management, re-vegetation of shorelines, community-based coastal adaptation and ecosystem-based

adaptation were considered in this assessment. There is robust evidence and high agreement that ICZM increases ecological and adaptive

capacity to climate change (Villamizar etal., 2017; Antunes do Carmo, 2018; Hamin etal., 2018; Le Cornu etal., 2018; Propato etal., 2018;

Romañach etal., 2018; Rosendo etal., 2018; Warnken and Mosadeghi, 2018; Morecroft etal., 2019; Morris etal., 2019; Alves etal., 2020;

Donatti etal., 2020; Erftemeijer etal., 2020; Foti etal., 2020; Gómez Martín etal., 2020; Hanley etal., 2020b; Jones etal., 2020b; Krauss

and Osland, 2020; O’Mahony etal., 2020; Perera-Valderrama etal., 2020; Cantasano etal., 2021).

Diverse socioeconomic co-beneﬁts have been identiﬁed, including integration of tourism activities, increased educational opportunities for

the reduction in storm damage, maintenance of ecosystems and their services, increasing adaptive capacities of institutions (Romañach

etal., 2018; Mestanza-Ramón etal., 2019; Morris etal., 2019; Donatti etal., 2020; Ellison etal., 2020; Erftemeijer etal., 2020; Gómez

Martín etal., 2020; Hanley etal., 2020a; Jones etal., 2020b; Martuti etal., 2020; Perera-Valderrama etal., 2020; Telave and Chandankar,

2021); as well as environmental and geophysical co-beneﬁts aspects, including mitigation potential and hazard risk reduction (Propato

etal., 2018; Romañach etal., 2018; Ellison etal., 2020; Erftemeijer etal., 2020; Hanley etal., 2020a; Jones etal., 2020b; Martuti etal.,

2020; Cantasano etal., 2021).

ICZM measures are generally more cost-effective than ‘hard engineering’ measures (Antunes do Carmo, 2018; Morecroft etal., 2019;

Morris etal., 2019; Donatti etal., 2020; Erftemeijer etal., 2020; Hanley etal., 2020a; Jones etal., 2020b), but implementation pose

barriers, especially in low-income countries (Lamari etal., 2016; Villamizar etal., 2017; Rosendo etal., 2018; Mestanza-Ramón etal.,

2019; Barragán Muñoz, 2020; Botero and Zielinski, 2020; Caviedes etal., 2020; Martuti etal., 2020; Lin etal., 2021). ICZM implementation

requires strong institutional frameworks, where all relevant stakeholders (especially representatives of local communities) are part of

decision-making processes (Pérez-Cayeiro and Chica-Ruiz, 2015; Lamari etal., 2016; Hassanali, 2017; Antunes do Carmo, 2018; Hamin

etal., 2018; Phillips etal., 2018; Romañach etal., 2018; Rosendo etal., 2018; Warnken and Mosadeghi, 2018; Mestanza-Ramón etal.,

2019; Morecroft etal., 2019; Morris etal., 2019; Walsh, 2019; Barragán Muñoz, 2020; Caviedes etal., 2020; Donatti etal., 2020; Ellison

etal., 2020; Martuti etal., 2020; O’Mahony etal., 2020; Perera-Valderrama etal., 2020). This aspect is mentioned as a key challenge

in developing countries (Pérez-Cayeiro and Chica-Ruiz, 2015; Villamizar etal., 2017; Rosendo etal., 2018; Alves etal., 2020). Similarly,

explicitly incorporating gender considerations into ICZM is generally recommended, mainly because women are key knowledge holders in

coastal communities; however, this is rarely done in practice, which may lead to sub-optimal or unequal outcomes (Nguyen Mai and Dang

Hoang, 2018; Hoegh-Guldberg etal., 2019; Pearson etal., 2019; Barreto etal., 2020). The perception that building ‘hard’ infrastructure

(i.e., coastal defence and hardening) is a more efﬁcient way of reducing coastal risk than the implementation of ‘soft’ or nature-based

solutions (NbS) measures has been challenged in recent studies (Magnan and Duvat, 2018).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.4 Agro-forestry

There is robust evidence and high agreement that agro-forestry systems can increase ecological and adaptive capacity (Schoeneberger

etal., 2012; Smith etal., 2013a; Minang etal., 2014; Apuri etal., 2018; Kmoch etal., 2018; IPCC, 2019b; Jordon etal., 2020). Beneﬁts

include preservation of ecosystems services, such as water provision and soil conservation, more efﬁcient use of limited land, alleviation

of land degradation, prevention of desertiﬁcation and improved agricultural output. Agro-forestry solutions also result in co-beneﬁts in

the water–energy–land–food nexus, with observed positive outcomes in soil management, crop diversiﬁcation, water efﬁciency and

alternative sources of energy (De Beenhouwer etal., 2013; Elagib and Al-Saidi, 2020). Further, they can have social and economic beneﬁts

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2776

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

and positive synergies between adaptation and mitigation (Section8.6.2.2) (Coulibaly etal., 2017; Hernández-Morcillo etal., 2018;

Tschora and Cherubini, 2020; Duffy etal., 2021).

When locally adapted to ﬁne-scale ecological and social variation, agro-forestry initiatives can improve household income, and provide

regular employment and sustainable livelihood to local communities, thereby strengthening peoples’ resilience to cope with adverse

impacts of changing climate conditions (Coe etal., 2014; Ogada etal., 2020; Sharma etal., 2020; Sollen-Norrlin etal., 2020; Awazi etal.,

2021). However, Cechin etal. (2021) questions the ﬁnancial viability of agro-forestry systems, especially in the case of smallholders in

agrarian reform settlements, struggling with high upfront costs. Similarly, insufﬁcient ﬁnancial support was found to be a major constraint

for the implementation of broader agro-forestry initiatives in Southeast Asia and Africa (Sections8.5.2 and 8.6.2.1) (Dhyani etal., 2021;

Williams etal., 2021b).

Over the last decade, agro-forestry schemes have grown in acceptability and political support, most notably observed in their broad

inclusion in countries’ NDCs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). Governance and institutional arrangements, however, have not

been conducive to broader implementation of agro-forestry initiatives at the landscape level (Dhyani etal., 2021; Williams etal., 2021b).

Medium evidence with medium agreement suggests that economic and cultural barriers may explain difﬁculties with the implementation

of agro-forestry systems (Coe etal., 2014; Quandt etal., 2017; Cedamon etal., 2018; Hernández-Morcillo etal., 2018; Ghosh-Jerath etal.,

2021). Also, unclear land tenure and ownership issues, together with inappropriate mapping and incomplete databases for monitoring

vegetation, continue to hinder the adoption of broader agro-forestry strategies, particularly in remote areas and tropical forests (Martin

etal., 2020).

Notably, agro-forestry practices are often part of Indigenous and local Knowledge (Santoro etal., 2020), and so far, most literature

refers to the evaluation of existing agro-forestry practices or autonomous adaptation, with few studies evaluating the effects of targeted

interventions, especially in low- and middle-income countries (Miller, 2020; Castle etal., 2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.5 Forest-based adaptation, including sustainable forest management, forest conservation and restoration,

avoided deforestation, reforestation and afforestation

There is robust evidence and medium agreement supporting the overall feasibility of forest-based adaptation options. Regarding its

economic feasibility, some studies (Nabuurs etal., 2017b; Chow etal., 2019; Seddon etal., 2020a) highlight that the net beneﬁts of

measures such as reforestation, sustainable forest management and ecosystem restoration outweigh the costs of implementation and

maintenance. Yet, another strand of literature observes that limited access to ﬁnancial resources is a major constraint to forest-based

initiatives, especially in the face of upfront investment costs and alternative, more proﬁtable land uses, such as agriculture (Bustamante

etal., 2019; Ota etal., 2020; Seddon etal., 2020b). In countries with extensive rural areas where forests provide for local communities,

government support together with private investments and long-term assurances of maintenance, are considered fundamental for the

long-term viability of forest conservation strategies (Bustamante etal., 2019; Seddon etal., 2020b). In rural areas, smallholders can

diversify their livelihood and increase household income as a result of improved local forest governance (Bustamante etal., 2019;

Fleischman etal., 2020; Ota etal., 2020) Similarly, forest and ecosystem restoration has been found to reduce poverty and improve

social inclusion and participation, given that ecosystems can be managed jointly and in traditional ways (Woroniecki etal., 2019). Robust

evidence (high agreement) links forest-based adaptation to job creation, improved health and recreational beneﬁts, most notably for

indigenous, rural and remote communities (Muricho etal., 2019b; Rahman etal., 2019; Ambrosino etal., 2020; Bhattarai, 2020; Ota

etal., 2020; von Holle etal., 2020; Tagliari etal., 2021). However, Chausson etal. (2020) note that frameworks for assessing the cost-

effectiveness of adaptation strategies continue to be tailored to conventional, engineered interventions, which fail to capture the broader

array of material and non-material beneﬁts that forest-based interventions might bring.

Forest-based solutions enjoy wide local, regional and international support (Lange etal., 2019; Chausson etal., 2020; Seddon etal.,

2020b), and most countries have a basic regulatory framework for environmental protection. However, lack of institutional capacity,

deﬁcient inter-agency coordination, and insufﬁcient staff and budget continue to limit broader implementation of forest-based adaptation

measures. Limited technical capacity, insufﬁcient production and supply of seeds and seedlings, long transport distances and immature

supply chains have also been identiﬁed as signiﬁcant barriers that hinder the expansion of forest-based initiatives (Bustamante etal.,

2019; Nunes etal., 2020).

There is robust evidence and medium agreement that forest-based solutions support ecosystems’ capacity to adapt to climate change,

including better regulation of microclimate, increased groundwater recharge, improved quality of air and water, reduced soil erosion,

improved and climate-adapted biodiversity habitats and expansion of biomass, as well as continuous provision of renewable wood

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2777

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

products (Nabuurs etal., 2017b; Chow etal., 2019; Lochhead etal., 2019; Shannon etal., 2019; Weng etal., 2019; von Holle etal., 2020;

Dooley etal., 2021; Forster etal., 2021; Tagliari etal., 2021). In well-designed systems, adaptation and mitigation can then go hand in

hand, as in climate-smart forestry. What is more, adaptive forest management is already being tested in climate-smart forestry pilots in

several temperate regions (Nabuurs etal., 2017b). However, large afforestation and non-native monoculture plantations may negatively

impact non-forest ecosystems, such as grasslands, shrublands and peatlands, their water resources and biodiversity (Seddon etal., 2019;

Seddon etal., 2020a; Seddon etal., 2020b). Similarly, the International Resource Panel (2019) warns that restoration may also imply

trade-offs with other ecological and societal goals.

Regarding risk reduction potential, forest-based strategies are found to protect in-land infrastructure from landslides and coastal

infrastructure from storm surges (Seddon etal., 2020a; Seddon etal., 2020b), together with offering a cheaper solution than engineered

grey solutions (Chausson etal., 2020). Land availability is a limiting factor for expanding forest-based solutions (Morecroft etal., 2019;

Ontl etal., 2020). However, there is high agreement and robust evidence that reforestation, environmental conservation and NbS result in

increased carbon sinks (Griscom etal., 2017b; Nabuurs etal., 2017b; de Coninck etal., 2018b; Fuss etal., 2018; Favretto etal., 2020; Forster

etal., 2021). Some authors argue that primary ecosystems and native forests contain larger stocks of carbon than tree plantations (Seddon

etal., 2019; Fleischman etal., 2020; Seddon etal., 2020a), while another strain of literature ﬁnds that net sequestration rate is lower in

mature primary forests than in younger managed forests with their associated wood value chains (Cowie etal., 2021; Forster etal., 2021;

Gundersen etal., 2021). There is robust evidence and high agreement that forest- and ecosystem-based strategies result in hazard risk

reduction potential. Environmental restoration can be an effective climate change adaptation alternative, reducing susceptibility to extreme

events, improving ecological capacities and increasing overall ecosystems’ resilience (Chapter 8, Box9.7) (Nunes etal., 2020). However, too

much reliance on forests and green alternatives might increase water shortages and wildﬁres (Seddon etal., 2019; Fleischman etal., 2020).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.6 Biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity

There is robust evidence and medium agreement supporting the overall feasibility of biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity

as adaptation options. With respect to its economic feasibility, ﬁnancial constraints continue to hinder broader implementation of

biodiversity-based solutions (Lausche etal., 2013; Chausson etal., 2020; Jones etal., 2020a). Seddon etal. (2020a) highlights that only 5%

of climate ﬁnance goes towards adaptation strategies, and only 1% is destined to disaster risk management including NbS and biodiversity

management. Government support via subsidies and ﬁscal transfers is critical for broader biodiversity management interventions. In

addition, REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Land Degradation) initiatives have been promoted as a proﬁtable mechanism

to advance biodiversity conservation strategies while reducing carbon emissions. As far as ecosystem connectivity is concerned, its feasibility

will strongly depend on the existence of a regulatory framework that appropriately balances property rights, environmental regulations and

monetary incentives to ensure landowners’ willingness to participate and maintain ecosystem corridors (Jones etal., 2020b). The demands

of commodity-based economies, favouring extractive land uses, present serious barriers to upscaling biodiversity-based adaptation

interventions (Seddon etal., 2020a). In addition, integrated assessments have shown how biodiversity-based solutions can deliver jobs

from landscape restoration or income from wildlife tourism and how those beneﬁts are fairly distributed (Chausson etal., 2020).

Legal and regulatory instruments are not perceived as major barriers to biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity projects

(Lausche etal., 2013; D’Aloia etal., 2019). A challenge that biodiversity-based measures still face is less acceptance among decision

makers because their efﬁciency and cost-beneﬁt ratio are difﬁcult to determine and most of the measures are only effective in the long

term (Lange etal., 2019). Methodologies to determine cost-effectiveness vary substantially between studies, in part because these

analyses must be tailored to the socio–ecological context to be meaningful for local governance. This makes it challenging to capture

and synthesise the full economic beneﬁts of biodiversity-based solutions in comparison to alternatives (Chausson etal., 2020). In all,

biodiversity and nature-based solutions have gained considerable political traction, with the greatest emphasis on the role of ecosystems

as carbon sinks (Lange etal., 2019; Chausson etal., 2020; Seddon etal., 2020a).

Several social co-beneﬁts are found to follow from biodiversity management strategies, including improved community health, recreational

activities and eco-tourism, in addition to educational, spiritual and scientiﬁc beneﬁts (Lausche etal., 2013; Worboys etal., 2016; Seddon

etal., 2020a). Lavorel etal. (2020) show how the beneﬁts of biodiversity management are co-produced by harnessing ecological and

social capital to promote resilient ecosystems with high connectivity and functional diversity. Furthermore, Chausson etal. (2020) note

how properly implemented NBS, including biodiversity management, can strengthen social networks and foster a sense of place,

supporting virtuous cycles of community engagement to sustain interventions over time.

There is high agreement and robust evidence supporting the ecological capacity enhancement of biodiversity-based and ecosystem

connectivity strategies (Thompson etal., 2017; Lavorel etal., 2020). Forest management that favours mixed-species rather than non-

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2778

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

native monocultures can promote the resilience of timber production and carbon storage while also beneﬁting biodiversity (Chausson

etal., 2020). Similarly, monocultures have been found to impoverish biodiversity and hold less resilient carbon stocks than natural and

semi-natural forests (Seddon etal., 2020a).

There is a relatively high agreement that ecosystem connectivity has the potential to improve the adaptive capacity of both ecological

systems and humans. Krosby etal. (2010), for example, found that planting trees in short distances could increase the probability of

range shifts in species that depend on the habitat those trees provide. Likewise, connectivity conservation has beneﬁts for climate change

mitigation (Lausche etal., 2013), but empirical evidence of the adaptation beneﬁts for humans is scant. More recently, it has been

found that biodiversity conservation reduces the risk of zoonotic diseases when it provides additional habitats for species and reduces

the potential contact between wildlife, livestock and humans (Van Langevelde etal., 2020). Ecosystem-based approaches have been

promoted to address the risk of increased zoonotic diseases, including the conservation of wildlife corridors (Gibb etal., 2020).

Despite abundant literature on the necessity to implement ecosystem connectivity strategies, many policy recommendations are mostly

discursive and not supported by evidence. There is a lack of speciﬁcity when referring to the actors that should intervene in the design,

implementation and evaluation of policies. What is more, most of the literature comes from the natural sciences and is concerned with

co-beneﬁts to wildlife and nature, with very little elaboration on the socioeconomic co-beneﬁts for humans.

CCB FEASIB.3.2.7 Improved cropland management

Improved cropland management, which includes agricultural adaptation strategies such as integrated soil management, no/reduced tillage,

conservation agriculture, planting of stress-resistant or early maturing crop varieties, and mulching, has high economic and environmental

feasibility (robust evidence, high agreement) (AGEGNEHU and AMEDE, 2017; Lalani etal., 2017; Schulte etal., 2017; Thierfelder etal.,

2017; Aryal etal., 2018a; Mayer etal., 2018; Prestele etal., 2018; Sova etal., 2018; Gonzalez-Sanchez etal., 2019; Lunduka etal., 2019;

McFadden etal., 2019; Shah and Wu, 2019; TerAvest etal., 2019; Adams etal., 2020; Aryal etal., 2020a; Debie, 2020; Mutuku etal., 2020;

Somasundaram etal., 2020; Du etal., 2021). Despite higher initial costs in some cases, the economic feasibility of improved cropland

management is high through improved productivity, higher net returns and reduced input costs (Aryal, 2020; Mottaleb etal., 2017; Keil

etal., 2019; Lunduka etal., 2019; McFadden etal., 2019; Parihar etal., 2020). Self-efﬁcacy is shown to be the most important predictor in

technical and non-technical adaptation behaviour (Zobeidi etal., 2021), while subsidies, extension services, training, commercial custom-hire

services and strong social connections such as farmer networks are among the factors supporting adoption among farmers (Section8.5.2.3)

(Aryal etal., 2015a; Aryal etal., 2015b; Kannan and Ramappa, 2017; Bedeke etal., 2019; Acevedo etal., 2020). In some regions and for some

practices, technological feasibility is constrained by costs and inadequate information and technical know-how on particular practices and

their beneﬁts and trade-offs, indicating medium feasibility (Khatri-Chhetri etal., 2016; Bhatta etal., 2017; Dougill etal., 2017; Kannan and

Ramappa, 2017; Aryal etal., 2018a; Sova etal., 2018; Findlater etal., 2019). Delays between actions and tangible beneﬁts can reduce public

and private acceptability and uptake of improved cropland management practices (e.g., Dougill etal., 2017 in Malawi).

There remain institutional and ﬁnancial barriers to improved cropland management such as lack of comprehensive policies, inadequate

mainstreaming into national policy priorities (e.g., Amjath-Babu etal., 2019 and Reddy etal., 2020 in South Asia), fragmentation across

different sectors (Dougill etal., 2017 in Malawi), and inadequate access to credit (Aryal etal., 2018c in India). Adoption of improved

cropland management practices is often strongly mediated by gender: structural barriers such as unequal access to land, machinery,

inputs, and extension and credit services, constrain adoption by female farmers (Aryal etal., 2018b; Aryal etal., 2018c) Mponela etal.,

2016; Van Hulst and Posthumus, 2016; Ntshangase etal., 2018; Somasundaram etal., 2020). Improved cropland management practices

have social and ecological co-beneﬁts in terms of better health, education and food security (Agarwal, 2017; Farnworth etal., 2017;

Hörner and Wollni, 2020) and better soil health and ecosystem functioning (AGEGNEHU and AMEDE, 2017; Mottaleb et al., 2017;

Thierfelder etal., 2017; Zomer etal., 2017; Sarkar etal., 2018; Gonzalez-Sanchez etal., 2019; Shah and Wu, 2019; Du etal., 2020; Mutuku

etal., 2020; Somasundaram etal., 2020).

There is robust evidence (medium agreement) that improved cropland management can have mitigation co-beneﬁts but the exact quantity

of emissions reductions and increased removals depend on agro-ecosystem type, climatic factors and cropping practices (VandenBygaart,

2016; Han etal., 2018; Mayer etal., 2018; Prestele etal., 2018; Singh etal., 2018a; Sommer etal., 2018; Gonzalez-Sanchez etal., 2019; Ogle

etal., 2019; Shah and Wu, 2019; Adams etal., 2020; Aryal etal., 2020a; Li etal., 2020; Wang etal., 2020b; Shang etal., 2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.8 Efﬁcient livestock systems

Enhancing the production efﬁciency of livestock systems through, for example, improved livestock diets, enhanced animal health,

breeding and manure management, can contribute to adaptation and mitigation (Ericksen and Crane, 2018; Accatino etal., 2019; Paul

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2779

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

etal., 2020; IPCC WGIII AR6 Section7.4.3). While the technological and ecological feasibility of improving livestock production systems

is high (i.e., measures are technically well established, with different options applicable to a range of livestock production systems and

ecological conditions), there are multiple context-speciﬁc barriers to adoption. These include the lack of coordinated policy support

or governance, potentially high implementation costs and limited access to ﬁnance, inadequate advisory, knowledge exchange or

infrastructural capacity (Escarcha etal., 2018; Paul etal., 2020), the potential land requirements and associated ecological impacts of

adjusting livestock management, lack of context-speciﬁc research (Pardo and del Prado, 2020) and socio-cultural barriers limiting access

by women or low-income groups to better breeds or feed varieties (Luqman etal., 2018; Salmon etal., 2018), as well as women losing

inﬂuence in the household in some contexts when farms intensify (Tavenner and Crane, 2018). In dryland livestock systems in Ethiopia

and Kenya, Ericksen and Crane (2018) ﬁnd that low governance capacities to implement improved grazing regimes constrain improved

grassland management.

CCB FEASIB.3.2.9 Water use efﬁciency and water resource management

There is high technological feasibility (robust evidence, high agreement) of improving water use efﬁciency as well as of managing

water resources at basin and ﬁeld scales. These approaches include rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation, laser land levelling, drainage

management and stubble retention (Dasgupta and Roy, 2017; Khatri-Chhetri etal., 2017; Rahman etal., 2017; Adham etal., 2018; Darzi-

Naftchali and Ritzema, 2018; Terêncio etal., 2018; Velasco-Muñoz etal., 2018; Sojka etal., 2019). There is robust evidence (medium

agreement) that such measures have socioeconomic co-beneﬁts and improve adaptive capacities through improved water supply (e.g.,

through rainwater harvesting, increased inﬁltration or integrated watershed management) and sustainable water demand management

(e.g., reduction of evaporation loss). There is medium evidence (high agreement) of the option’s economic feasibility due to water and

energy cost savings enhanced by low-cost monitoring systems in some cases (Kodali and Sarjerao, 2017; Viani etal., 2017). Implementation

costs vary widely, with land forming and irrigation infrastructure requiring substantial up-front investment, while mulches and cover

crops are low-cost practices. Water management and use efﬁciency is currently constrained by governance and institutional factors

such as inadequate institutional capacities to prepare for changing water availability, especially in the long term; unsustainable and

unequal water use and sharing practices, particularly across boundaries; and fragmented and siloed resource management approaches

(Lardizabal, 2015; Margerum and Robinson, 2015; Singh etal., 2020a).

CCB FEASIB.3.2.10 Livelihood diversiﬁcation

Livelihood diversiﬁcation is a key coping and adaptation strategy to climatic and non-climatic risks (Gautam and Andersen, 2016; Asfaw

etal., 2018; Liu, 2015; Goulden etal., 2013; Makate etal., 2016; Orchard etal., 2016; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2017; Schuhbauer etal., 2017;

Kihila, 2018; Radel etal., 2018; Tian and Lemos, 2018; Buechler and Lutz-Ley, 2019; Salam and Bauer, 2020). There is robust evidence

(medium agreement) that diversifying livelihoods improves incomes and reduces socioeconomic vulnerability, but depending on livelihood

type, opportunities and local context, feasibility changes (Section8.5.1) (Barrett, 2013; Martin and Lorenzen, 2016; Sina etal., 2019).

Livelihood diversiﬁcation has positive and negative outcomes for adaptive capacity, especially in ecologically and resource-stressed regions

(e.g. Anderson etal., 2017; Woodhouse and McCabe, 2018; Rosyida etal., 2019; Ojea etal., 2020), with diversiﬁcation predominantly

out of rural farm-based livelihoods on the rise (Rigg and Oven, 2015; Shackleton etal., 2015; Ober and Sakdapolrak, 2020). Key barriers

to livelihood diversiﬁcation include socio-cultural and institutional barriers (including social networks; Goulden etal., 2013) as well as

inadequate resources and livelihood opportunities that hinder the full adaptive possibilities of existing livelihood diversiﬁcation practices

(Shackleton etal., 2015; Nightingale, 2017b; Bhowmik etal., 2021; Rahut etal., 2021). Autonomous diversiﬁcation in the absence of more

equitable and harmonised efforts at regional and national scales to facilitate sustainable diversiﬁcation can further skew development

indicators at the sub-national scale in favour of local elites, increased inequality and environmental degradation (Ford etal., 2014; Wilson,

2014; Alobo Loison, 2015; Tanner etal., 2015; Gautam and Andersen, 2016; Baird and Hartter, 2017; Torell etal., 2017; Asfaw etal., 2018;

Woodhouse and McCabe, 2018; Brown etal., 2019; Rosyida etal., 2019; Sani Ibrahim etal., 2019; Ojea etal., 2020; Salam and Bauer, 2020).

CCB FEASIB.3.3 Urban and infrastructure system transitions

CCB FEASIB.3.3.1 Sustainable land use and urban planning

Urban planning is a medium feasibility option to support adaptation by prioritising it in city plans, such as land use planning, transportation

(Liang etal., 2020), and health and social services (Carter etal., 2015; Araos etal., 2016b); by procuring the design and construction of

resilient infrastructure; by promoting community-based adaptation through community-based design and implementation of adaptation

activities (Archer, 2016); and by protecting and integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into city planning. Research since SR1.5

documents the challenging high costs of infrastructure (Georgeson etal., 2016; Woodruff etal., 2018); potential loss of municipal revenue

in the case of managed retreat (Shi and Varuzzo, 2020; Siders and Keenan, 2020); and the fraught causal connection between planning

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2780

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

and the reduction of socioeconomic vulnerability (Keenan etal., 2018; Anguelovski etal., 2019a; Elliott, 2019; Paganini, 2019; Shokry etal.,

2020). However, adaptation beneﬁts could potentially outweigh costs (Carey, 2020). There is ﬁnancial viability of green infrastructure

(Meerow, 2019; Zhang etal., 2019; Van Oijstaeijen etal., 2020; Ossola and Lin, 2021); and availability of technical expertise, although the

inequitable planning processes and distribution of those resources remains a signiﬁcant concern (Serre and Heinzlef, 2018; Szewrański

etal., 2018; Fitzgibbons and Mitchell, 2019; Hasan etal., 2019; Heikkinen etal., 2019; Colven, 2020; Goetz etal., 2020; Goh, 2020).

Structural disincentives and institutional arrangements create challenges for planning even where political willingness may be high

(Di Gregorio etal., 2019; DuPuis and Greenberg, 2019; Shi, 2019; Zen etal., 2019; Rasmussen etal., 2020). Social resistance may

signiﬁcantly delay or block progress entirely, as vulnerable communities have responded negatively in cases where adaptive urban and

land use planning leads to perceived ‘resilience gentriﬁcation’ (Keenan etal., 2018; Anguelovski etal., 2019a), if residents do not perceive

themselves as included in the crafting of plans (Araos, 2020; Rasmussen etal., 2020), if the options such as managed retreat are perceived

as culturally unacceptable (Ajibade, 2019; Koslov, 2019; Siders, 2019), or if wealthier and advantaged residents beneﬁt from planning

at the expense of socially vulnerable groups (Chu and Michael, 2018; Chu etal., 2018; Fainstein, 2018; Rosenzweig etal., 2018; Pelling

and Garschagen, 2019a; Ranganathan and Bratman, 2021). Nonetheless, potential social co-beneﬁts related to health and education

are high (Raymond etal., 2017; Spaans and Waterhout, 2017; Klinenberg, 2018; Keeler etal., 2019; Meerow, 2019). Finally, the option

is highly feasible in relation to ecological and geophysical characteristics, as urban and land use planning’s primary tool is to shape the

built environment and natural spaces to protect and reduce the vulnerability of residents.

CCB FEASIB.3.3.2 Green infrastructure and ecosystem services

Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services have high feasibility to support climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in cities,

for example to reduce ﬂood exposure and attenuate the urban heat island effect (Perrotti and Stremke, 2018; Belčáková etal., 2019;

De la Sota etal., 2019; Stefanakis, 2019). While green infrastructure options are cost-effective and provide co-beneﬁts in terms of

ecosystem services such as improved air quality or other health beneﬁts (Depietri and McPhearson, 2017; Morris etal., 2018; Reguero

etal., 2018; Escobedo etal., 2019; Filazzola etal., 2019; Hewitt etal., 2020b; Venter etal., 2020; Nieuwenhuijsen, 2021) (robust evidence,

high agreement), a need remains for systematically assessing co-beneﬁts, particularly for ﬂood risk management (Alves etal., 2019;

Stefanakis, 2019) and sustainable material ﬂow analysis (Perrotti and Stremke, 2018).Moreover, while once neglected, rapidly increasing

attention has been paid to the equity and justice dimensions of planning and implementing green infrastructure initiatives, such as

inclusion of citizens in decision making or the allocation of beneﬁts and impacts of projects (Anguelovski etal., 2019b; Buijs etal., 2019;

Langemeyer etal., 2020; Venter etal., 2020)

Institutional barriers constrain the feasibility of urban green infrastructure (medium conﬁdence), such as policy resistance to shift priorities

from grey to green infrastructure (e.g., Johns, 2019 in Canada) or siloed governance structures (Willems etal., 2021). Further, social and

political acceptability of green infrastructure is constrained by lack of conﬁdence in efﬁcacy (Thorne etal., 2018) or issues of accessibility

(Biernacka and Kronenberg, 2018).

For ﬂood management, a mix of green, blue and grey infrastructures are found effective, with grey infrastructure reducing the risk of

ﬂooding and green infrastructure yielding multiple co-beneﬁts (Alves etal., 2019; Gu etal., 2019; Webber etal., 2020) but catchment-

wide solutions are advocated as the best performing strategy (Webber etal., 2020). Recognising and addressing a full range of ecosystem

disturbances and disasters over a larger urban spatial scale (Vargas-Hernández and Zdunek-Wielgołaska, 2021) are crucial for planning

green infrastructure-based solutions. In some cases, low impact development interventions yield effective ﬂood management outcomes

but are adequate only for small ﬂood peaks (Pour etal., 2020), with the major challenge being identifying best practices. NbS hold

signiﬁcant potential to achieve mitigation and adaptation goals in comparison with traditional approaches, but more research is necessary

to understand their effectiveness, distribution, implementation at scale, cost-beneﬁt and integration with spatial dimensions of planning

(Davies etal., 2019; Dorst etal., 2019; Zwierzchowska etal., 2019; Hobbie and Grimm, 2020).

CCB FEASIB.3.3.3 Sustainable urban water management (blue infrastructure interventions e.g., lake/river restoration; rainwater

harvesting)

Governments across scales can support urban sustainable water management with high feasibility by undertaking projects to recycle

wastewater and runoff from higher intensity storms, with implications for decarbonisation and adaptation. Green infrastructure, for

example, has shown a high potential to reduce water-use footprints and to save potable water for consumption (Liu and Jensen, 2018),

and contributing to a ‘circular’ water system in cities (Oral etal., 2020). Supportive governance can yield positive outcomes such as

improved water security (Jensen and Nair, 2019) and there is medium evidence and high agreement that participation, such as involving

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2781

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

informal settlement residents in water management can improve social inclusion (Pelling etal., 2018; Williams etal., 2018; Leigh and

Lee, 2019b; Sletto etal., 2019). Green infrastructure can support the planning of ‘sponge cities’, such as in China, wherein large areas

of green space, permeable surfaces and sustainable water sourcing combine to purify urban runoff, attenuate peak runoff and conserve

water for consumption (Chan etal., 2018; Nguyen etal., 2019). Similar approaches in Dutch cities focus on designing and planning for

the capturing, storing and draining of storm water (Dai etal., 2018). However, some interventions suffer from uncertainties in design,

planning and ﬁnancing (Nguyen etal., 2019). As drought becomes more severe in some regions, physical barriers in the form of reduced

availability of water may become pressing (Singh etal., 2021b).

Deployment of decentralised water management through effective local governance frameworks, is an important water management

strategy (Herslund and Mguni, 2019; Leigh and Lee, 2019b), but in general, insufﬁcient institutional learning and capacity remains a

critical barrier for the uptake of sustainable urban water management practices (Krueger etal., 2019a; Adem Esmail and Suleiman, 2020).

Transnational networks of cities for sharing best practices in water supply and storm runoff treatment also hold the potential to scale

sustainable management (Feingold etal., 2018). In rapidly growing large urban areas, sustainable water management faces challenges

of institutional heterogeneity (Chu etal., 2018), scalar mismatch, particularly between river basin and city scales (van den Brandeler

etal., 2019), and equity and justice concerns (Chu etal., 2018; Pelling etal., 2018). Finally, assessing the vulnerability of urban water

infrastructures at city scale remains an important knowledge gap (Dong etal., 2020).

CCB FEASIB.3.4 Cross-cutting adaptation options

CCB FEASIB.3.4.1 Social safety nets

Social safety nets contribute to meeting development goals (e.g., poverty alleviation, accessible education and health services) and are

increasingly being reconﬁgured to build adaptive capacities of the most vulnerable (Coirolo etal., 2013; Aleksandrova, 2020; Bowen etal.,

2020; Fischer, 2020; Mueller etal., 2020). They include a range of policy and market-based instruments such as public works programmes

and conditional or unconditional cash transfers, in-kind transfers, and insurance schemes (Centre, 2019; Aleksandrova, 2020). While

there is robust evidence (medium agreement) that social safety nets can build adaptive capacities, reduce socioeconomic vulnerability

and reduce risk linked to hazards (Fischer, 2020; Mueller etal., 2020), macroeconomic, institutional and regulatory barriers such as

limited state resources, underdeveloped credit and insurance markets, and economic leakages constrain their feasibility (Singh etal.,

2018c; Hansen etal., 2019; Aleksandrova, 2020; Lykke Strøbech and Bordon Rosa, 2020). Social safety nets have strong co-beneﬁts with

development goals (Section8.6) (Castells-Quintana etal., 2018b; Ulrichs etal., 2019; Mueller etal., 2020) but these positive outcomes

are constrained by inadequate regional inclusiveness (e.g., limited access in certain remote, rural areas; Singh etal., 2018b; Aleksandrova,

2020; Lykke Strøbech and Bordon Rosa, 2020) or focus on rural areas overlooks urban vulnerable groups (Coirolo etal., 2013).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.2 Risk spreading and sharing

There is high conﬁdence on risk spreading and sharing, most commonly arranged through insurance, as an adaptation option, but high to

medium feasibility depending on context (e.g., developed versus developing countries). Technological, economic and institutional feasibility

is high, as insurance can spread risk, provide a buffer against the impact of climate hazards, support recovery and reduce the ﬁnancial burden

on governments, households and businesses (Wolfrom and Yokoi-Arai, 2015; O’Hare etal., 2016; Glaas etal., 2017; Jenkins etal., 2017; Patel

etal., 2017; Kousky etal., 2021). Insurance can shift the mobilisation of ﬁnancial resources away from ad hoc post-event payments, where

funding is often unpredictable and delayed, towards more strategic approaches that are set up in advance of disastrous events (Surminski

et al., 2016). By pricing risk, insurance can provide incentives for investments and behaviour that reduce vulnerability and exposure

(Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler, 2015; Shapiro, 2016; Jenkins etal., 2017). Socio-cultural barriers, such as social inclusiveness, socio-

cultural acceptability and gender equity constrains feasibility (Bageant and Barrett, 2017; Budhathoki etal., 2019). Insurance can provide

disincentives for reducing risk through the transfer of the risk spatially and temporally, distorting incentives for adaptation if the pricing is

too low (moral hazard) and is often unaffordable, poorly understood, and not widely utilised in developing nations even when subsidised,

possibly leading to maladaptation (García Romero and Molina, 2015; Joyette etal., 2015; Lashley and Warner, 2015; Jin etal., 2016; Müller

etal., 2017; Tesselaar etal., 2020). Insurance can reinforce exposure and vulnerability through underwriting a return to the ‘status-quo’ rather

than enabling adaptive behaviour (e.g., through ‘no-betterment’ principles) (Collier and Cox, 2021). For low-income nations and in the

absence of global support, insurance shifts responsibility to those least responsible for climate change (Surminski etal., 2016).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.3 Disaster risk management

There is robust evidence (high agreement) that DRM aids adaptation decision making, particularly where it is demand-driven, context-

speciﬁc and supported by strong institutions, good governance, strong local engagement and trust across actors (Hasan etal., 2019; Kim

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2782

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

and Marcouiller, 2020; Peng etal., 2020; Smucker etal., 2020; Uddin etal., 2020; Webb, 2020; Ali etal., 2021; Anderson and Renaud, 2021;

Glantz and Pierce, 2021; Ji and Lee, 2021; Villeneuve, 2021). These conditions are rarely met, and therefore DRM is often constrained by

institutional factors that may even increase vulnerability (Booth etal., 2020; Islam etal., 2020b; Islam etal., 2020c; Marchezini, 2020;

Goryushina, 2021; Mena and Hilhorst, 2021). The feasibility of DRM continues to be constrained by limited coordination across levels

of government, lack of transparency and accountability, poor communication and a preference for top-down DRM processes that can

undermine local institutions and perpetuate uneven power relationships (Atanga, 2020; Booth etal., 2020; Bordner etal., 2020; Bronen

etal., 2020; Goryushina, 2021; Mena and Hilhorst, 2021; Son etal., 2021; Yumagulova etal., 2021). However, local integration of

worldviews, belief systems and local and Indigenous Knowledge into DRM activities improves feasibility (Bordner etal., 2020; Cuaton and

Su, 2020; Hosen etal., 2020; Sharma and Sharma, 2021), including disability-inclusive and gender-focused DRM (Ruszczyk etal., 2020;

Crawford etal., 2021). Data access and availability continues to challenge DRM despite advances in data analytics, especially in rapidly

growing informal settlements, including population estimates and limited mobility data (Goniewicz and Burkle, 2019; Marchezini, 2020).

Moves towards community-based and ecosystem-based DRMs are promising but uneven (Klein etal., 2019; Seebauer etal., 2019; Almutairi

etal., 2020; Bordner etal., 2020; Hosen etal., 2020; Murti etal., 2020; Sharma and Sharma, 2021), and may increase vulnerability if they fail

to address underlying, structural determinants of vulnerability, particularly among marginalised groups and by gender (Sections8.4.4 and

8.4.5) (Seleka etal., 2017; Hossen etal., 2019; Ramalho, 2019b; Atanga, 2020; Cuaton and Su, 2020; Gartrell etal., 2020; Kenney and Phibbs,

2020; Khalil etal., 2020; Ngin etal., 2020; Ruszczyk etal., 2020; Webb, 2020; Ali etal., 2021; Geekiyanage etal., 2021; Villeneuve, 2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.4 Climate services, including early warning systems

There is robust evidence (high agreement) that climate services aid adaptation decision making and build adaptive capacity, particularly

where they are demand-driven and context-speciﬁc (Vaughan etal., 2018; Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019; Daniels etal., 2020; Hewitt

etal., 2020a; Findlater etal., 2021). Climate service interventions are constrained by low capacity, inadequate institutions, difﬁculties

in maintaining systems beyond pilot project stage (Vincent etal., 2017; Tall etal., 2018; Bruno Soares and Buontempo, 2019), and poor

mapping between climate services and existing user capacities and demands (Williams etal., 2020) (robust evidence, high agreement).

Metrics to assess outcomes of climate services remain project-based and insufﬁciently capture longer-term economic and non-economic

beneﬁts of interventions (Tall etal., 2018; Parton etal., 2019; Perrels, 2020). The technical feasibility of climate services is relatively strong

and growing (Vaughan etal., 2016; Kihila, 2017; Findlater etal., 2021) but they can be made more inclusive by focusing on addressing

uneven uptake based on location or gender (Amegnaglo etal., 2017; Daly and Dessai, 2018; Tall etal., 2018; Alexander and Dessai, 2019;

Vaughan etal., 2019; Gumucio etal., 2020) and a more balanced focus on uptake rather than data production alone (Dorward etal.,

2021; Findlater etal., 2021) that values co-production and different knowledge systems (Daniels etal., 2020; Martínez-Barón etal., 2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.5 Health and health systems adaptation

Climate change will exacerbate existing health challenges. Strong health systems can protect and promote the health of a population in

the face of known and unexpected stressors and pressures (Watts etal., 2021), including climate change. The building blocks of strong

health systems engender climate resilience, strong leadership and governance, and effective coordination across sectors, to prioritise the

needs of the most vulnerable (Ebi etal., 2020). Options for enhancing current health services include providing access to safe water and

sanitation, improving food security, enhancing access to essential services such as vaccinations, developing or strengthening integrated

surveillance systems, and changing the timing and location of speciﬁc vector-control measures (WHO, 2015; Haines and Ebi, 2019).

These measures can reduce the health system’s vulnerability to climate change, especially if combined with iterative management that

incorporates monitoring of (and resilience against) climate change impacts (Hanefeld etal., 2018; Haines and Ebi, 2019; Linares etal.,

2020; Rudolph etal., 2020) (medium evidence, high agreement).

Health systems can provide sufﬁcient and high-quality healthcare to all where capacity is well developed, and where options are aligned

with national priorities, engage local to international communities, and address the needs of particularly vulnerable regions and

population groups (Hanefeld etal., 2018; Austin etal., 2019; Nuzzo etal., 2019; Sheehan and Fox, 2020). Microeconomic feasibility and

socioeconomic vulnerability reduction potential are high where a system’s capacity is well developed. Economic feasibility poses a

signiﬁcant challenge in low-income settings, with many governments projected to require international climate ﬁnance for health systems

which is not currently available (WHO, 2019; Watts etal., 2021), and where adequate household-level ﬁnancial security is a cross-cutting

barrier (Paudel and Pant, 2020). Risk mitigation potential is high where capacity is well developed, for example through technologies to

monitor and alter environmental conditions (Lock-Wah-Hoon etal., 2020; Kouis etal., 2021; Ligsay etal., 2021). Social co-beneﬁts of

mainstreaming health and climate change are also present, such as the inclusion of environmental health in medical education curricula

training programmes (Kligler etal., 2021). There is growing recognition that lack of institutional capacity and low availability of resources

represent major barriers to health system adaptation options, particularly for health systems struggling to manage current health risks

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2783

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

(Ebi etal., 2018; Brooke-Sumner etal., 2019; Chersich and Wright, 2019; Gilﬁllan, 2019; Negev etal., 2019; Hussey and Arku, 2020), for

neglected populations (Hanefeld etal., 2018; Negev etal., 2019), and where there are conﬂicting mandates or poor coordination across

ministries (Austin etal., 2019; Fox etal., 2019; Gilﬁllan, 2019; Kendrovski and Schmoll, 2019; Sheehan and Fox, 2020). Barriers to adapting

health systems to climate change include lack of institutional funding, staff and data access (Austin etal., 2019; Schramm etal., 2020;

Opoku etal., 2021), inadequate resources for evaluation and management of adaptation (Pascal etal., 2021), competing stakeholder

goals and costly technology (Negev etal., 2021). Within the healthcare community, surveillance systems generally lack ways to integrate

climate observation data, as well as expertise to critically evaluate these data, limiting their ability to plan and prepare for climate hazards

and hospital-associated vulnerabilities (Runkle etal., 2018; Chersich and Wright, 2019; Liao etal., 2019). Although understanding of

health vulnerability is growing (Berry etal., 2018), knowledge on the health effects of climate change among health practitioners remains

limited (Ebi etal., 2018; Brooke-Sumner etal., 2019; Chersich and Wright, 2019; Fox etal., 2019; Liao etal., 2019; Albright etal., 2020).

Mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of implementing, monitoring and evaluating adaptation within the health sector

are lacking, across scales and contexts (Gostin and Friedman, 2017; Huynh and Stringer, 2018; Parry etal., 2019).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.6 Human migration

Much climate-related migration is associated with labour migration. Rural–urban migrant networks are important channels for remittances

and knowledge that help build resilience to hazards in sending areas (Bragg etal., 2018; Obokata and Veronis, 2018; Semenza and Ebi,

2019; Maharjan etal., 2020; Porst etal., 2020). Whether migration reduces vulnerability for migrants depends on levels of control over

the migration decision and assets such as wealth, and education of the migrant household (Thober etal., 2018; Cattaneo, 2019; Hoffmann

etal., 2020; Maharjan etal., 2020; Sedova and Kalkuhl, 2020). Individuals from households of all levels of wealth migrate. However, poorer

households do so with lower levels of choice and often more likely under duress, and in these cases, migration can undermine well-being

(Suckall etal., 2016; Mallick etal., 2017; Nawrotzki and DeWaard, 2018; Natarajan etal., 2019). In some cases, migration can increase

poverty in sending communities (Jacobson etal., 2019). Women in the sending community can experience an increase or decrease in the

vulnerability, depending on the livelihoods people are moving into and existing asset bases (Banerjee etal., 2018; Banerjee etal., 2019b;

Goodrich etal., 2019; Maharjan etal., 2020; Rao etal., 2020; Singh and Basu, 2020; Singh etal., 2020b).

Migration has been highly politicised, and climate-related immigration has been conceptualised in public and media discourse as a

potential threat which limits adaptation feasibility (Telford, 2018; Honarmand Ebrahimi and Ossewaarde, 2019; McLeman, 2019; Wiegel

etal., 2019; Hauer etal., 2020). Existing international agreements provide potential frameworks for climate-related migration to beneﬁt

adaptive capacity and sustainable development (Warner, 2018; Kälin, 2019). However, agreements to facilitate temporary or circular

migration and remittances are often informal and limited in scope (Webber and Donner, 2017b; Margaret and Matias, 2020) and migrant

receiving areas, particularly urban areas, can be better assisted to prepare for population change (Deshpande etal., 2019; Adger etal.,

2020; Hauer etal., 2020). Policies and planning are lacking that would ensure that positive migration outcomes for sending and receiving

areas and the migrants themselves (Wrathall etal., 2019; Adger etal., 2020; de Salles Cavedon-Capdeville etal., 2020; Hughes, 2020).

Investing in building in situ adaptive capacity through climate resilient development is a precondition to supporting high agency migration

(Cundill et. al. 2021). Migration only tends to occur when adaptation in situ has been exhausted and thresholds for living with risk have

been crossed (Sections8.2.2.1, 8.4.4, 8.4.5) (McLeman, 2018; Adams and Kay, 2019; Semenza and Ebi, 2019). The ﬁnancial, emotional

and social costs of leaving are high (Adams and Kay, 2019; McNamara etal., 2021), there are environmental, health and well-being risks

in destination areas (Schwerdtle etal., 2018; Schwerdtle etal., 2020), and existential threats to identity and citizenship (Oakes, 2019;

Piguet, 2019; Desai etal., 2021). In receiving areas, without appropriate policies to ensure equitable provision of services, there can be

socio-cultural barriers to in-migration where there is the perception of a loss caused by new arrivals, although outcomes are mixed (Koubi

etal., 2018; Linke etal., 2018; Spilker etal., 2020; Petrova, 2021).

CCB FEASIB.3.4.7 Planned relocation and resettlement

Few climate-related planned resettlement and relocation initiatives have taken place. However, initial ﬁndings, and experience from past

development and disaster-related resettlement programmes, show that when implemented in a top-down manner and without the full

participation of those affected, resettlement increases vulnerability by undermining livelihoods and negatively impacting health, community

cohesion and emotional and psychological well-being (Wilmsen and Webber, 2015; Dannenberg etal., 2019; Piggott-McKellar etal., 2019;

Tabe, 2019; Ajibade etal., 2020; Henrique and Tschakert, 2020; Desai etal., 2021). Planned relocation could also redistribute vulnerability

for those who do not move (Thomas and Benjamin, 2018; Mach etal., 2019a; Piggott-McKellar etal., 2019; Johnson etal., 2021; Maldonado

etal., 2021) and vulnerability generally is reproduced along existing social cleavages often worsening inequality (See and Wilmsen, 2020).

Approaches that foreground participation, non-material and socio-cultural factors, livelihoods and local power dynamics can be addressed

and adjusted to prevent planned relocation from reproducing inequality (See and Wilmsen, 2020; Alverio etal., 2021).

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2784

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Human health

Other

cross-cutting

risks

Peace and human mobility

Social safety nets

Risk spreading and sharing

Health and health systems adaptation

Human migrations

Cross-

sectoral

Living standards and equity

Livelihooddiversiﬁcation

Climate services

Planned relocation and resettlement

Disaster risk management

Composite

Feasibility

Index

Coastal socio-

ecological systems

Terrestrial and ocean

ecosystem services

Food

security

Critical infrastructure,

networks and services

Water security

Critical infrastructure,

networks and services

Forest-based adaptation*

Improved cropland management

Efﬁcient livestock systems

Sustainable land use andurban planning

Coastaldefence and hardening

Resilientpower systems

Improve wateruse efﬁciency

Biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity

Greeninfrastructure and ecosystemservices

Sustainable aquaculture and fisheries

Integrated coastal zone management

Water security Wateruse efﬁciencyand water resource management

Near-term climate responses and adaptation options

Representative

key risks

System

transitions

Land,

ocean and

ecosystems

Urban and

infrastructure

systems

Energy

systems

Agroforestry

Energy reliability

Strong

mitigation

co-benefit

Confidence in Composite Feasibility Index

High Medium Low

Assessed feasibility levels

Multidimensional feasibility and synergies with mitigation of

climate responses and adaptation options relevant in the

near-term, at global scale and up to 1.5°C of global warming

Feasibility Dimensions

Economic

Institutional

Technological

Social

Geophysical

Environmental

= Not applicablena

= Insufficient evidence/

* including sustainable forest management, forest conservation and

restoration, reforestation and afforestation

HighMediumLowHighMediumLow

Sustainable urban water management

FigureCross-ChapterBoxFEASIB.2 | This ﬁgure summarizes the assessment results classifying options by System Transitions and Representative

Key Risks. Each option is assessed across six dimensions: economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and geophysical. Each dimension is assessed

as high (big circle), medium (medium circle), low (small circle) feasibility, and limited evidence or no evidence (LE/NE, as a dash). Composite feasibility is calculated across

the six dimensions following the same key as above, with feasibility levels determined by circle size and conﬁdence levels by shades of colour. The last column shows

options with strong synergies with mitigation, which is then broken down in Fig. CCB FEASIB.3.

There is inadequate institutional capacity to enable movement relocation, with global and national policies identiﬁed as too abstract

and lacking guidance on ensuring equity (Mortreux etal., 2018; Kelman etal., 2019; Ajibade etal., 2020; Hauer etal., 2020; Alverio etal.,

2021). Lack of institutional capacity can lead to resettlements being stalled indeﬁnitely. Climate-related resettlement can be facilitated

by novel institutional structures that expand the deﬁnition of disaster to include slow onset events, adaptive management frameworks

that facilitate a continuum of responses from supporting communities to community relocation and approaches that incorporate existing

power dynamics (Bronen and Chapin, 2013; See and Wilmsen, 2020). In 2018, the Fiji Government provided a framework for climate

change-related relocation and equipped communities with rights in the planned relocation process (McMichael and Katonivualiku, 2020).

However, even with guidelines in place, local socio-cultural dynamics complicate planning, and relocation should take place only after

cost–beneﬁt analysis of all available adaptation options (Jolliffe, 2016; Bronen and Chapin, 2013; Albert etal., 2017; Mortreux etal.,

2018). At a local level, issues around land tenure, a lack of ﬁnancial support, dedicated governance frameworks and complex planning

processes delay action (Albert etal., 2017). Funding for climate-related resettlement is currently not readily available, exacerbated by

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2785

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

a lack of appropriate mechanisms through which to deliver that funding (Boston etal., 2021). For example, planned relocation projects

cannot access disaster relief funds in the USA because of the slow onset nature of the impacts (Bronen and Chapin, 2013).

Without consultation, relocated people can experience signiﬁcant ﬁnancial and emotional distress as cultural and spiritual bonds

to place and livelihoods are disrupted (Neef etal., 2018; Roy etal., 2018b; Piggott-McKellar etal., 2019; Bertana, 2020; McMichael

and Katonivualiku, 2020; McMichael etal., 2021; Jain etal. 2021). However, in some places, where climate risks are acute, political

acceptance for planned relocation is high (e.g., (McNamara, 2015; Roy etal., 2018b) in Kiribati). Socio-cultural feasibility can be improved

by participatory approaches and, where possible, moving within ancestral lands (McNamara, 2015). In this case, voluntary planned

relocation can represent the assertion of people living in an area to preserve land and community-based social, cultural and spiritual ties.

A summary of feasible options to enable four 1.5°C-relevant system transitions is presented in Figure Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB.2.

CCB FEASIB.4 Synergies and trade-offs

The feasibility assessment focuses on individual adaptation options. However, systems transitions necessitate assessing how mitigation

and adaptation options interact to mediate overall feasibility. To capture these linkages, this section reports synergies and trade-offs of

(a) adaptation options for mitigation and (b) mitigation options for adaptation (following (de Coninck etal., 2018b) as the outcome of an

iterative assessment between WGII and WGIII authors. Also assessed are synergies and trade-offs of adaptation with the SDGs, following

(which was done for mitigation alone).

(a) Climate responses and adaptation options and their implications for mitigation

Human health

Other

cross-cutting

risks

Peace and human mobility

Social safety nets

Risk spreading and sharing

Population health andhealth systems

Human migration

Cross-

sectoral

Living standards and equity

Livelihood diversiﬁcation

Climate services

Planned relocation and resettlement

Disaster risk management

Coastal socio-

ecological systems

Terrestrial and ocean

ecosystem services

Food

security

Critical infrastructure,

networks and services

Water security

Critical infrastructure,

networks and services

Forest-based adaptation*

Improved cropland management

Efﬁcient livestock systems

Sustainable land use and urbanplanning

Coastaldefence and hardening

Resilient powersystems

Improve wateruse efﬁciency

Biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity

Greeninfrastructure and ecosystemservices

Sustainable aquaculture and fisheries

Integrated coastal zone management

Water security Wateruse efﬁciency and waterresource management

Near-term climate responses and adaptation options

Representative

key risks

System

transitions

Land,

ocean and

ecosystems

Urban and

infrastructur

systems

Energy

systems

Agroforestry

Energy reliability

Synergies

with mitigation

Trade-offs

with mitigation

insufficient evidence

not applicable

Overall confidence Overall strength of synergy/trade-off

HighMediumLowHighMediumLowNone

* Including sustainable forest management,

forest conservation and restoration, avoided

deforestation, reforestation and afforestation.

Sustainable urban water management

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2786

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Mitigation options

System

transitions

Synergies

with adaptation

Trade-offs

with adaptation

Energy

system

Land and

ecosystem

Urban

system

Industrial

system

Cross-

sectoral

Biomasscrops for bioenergy, biocharand other bio-based products

Enhancecarbon in agricultural systems

Envelope improvement

Healthy balanced diets, rich in plant based food* andreduced food waste

Protect and avoid conversion of forests and other ecosystems**

Reduce non-CO

emissions from agriculture

Reduce overconsumption

Reforestation and restoration of otherecosystems

Sustainable management of forests and otherecosystems

Active and passive managementand operation

Change in construction methods and materials

Circular and shared economy

Digitalization

Efﬁcient appliances

Electromobility

Flexible comfortrequirements

Fuel efﬁciency in transport

Heating, ventilation and airconditioning

Integrating sector, strategies and innovations

Renewable energy production

Response option: district heating and cooling network

Urban land use and spatial planning

Urban nature-based solutions

Waste prevention, minimization and management

Bioenergy and bioenergywith carbon capture and storage

capture and storage

Demand side mitigation

Energy storage for low-carbon grids

Fossil fuels phase out

Hydroelectric power

Nuclear

Solar energy

System integration

Wind energy

capture and utilization

Circular economy

Electriﬁcation and fuel switching

IndustrialCO

capture and storage

Industrial energy efﬁciency

Materials efﬁciency and demand management

Direct air carbon capture and storage

Enhanced weathering

(b) Mitigation options and their implications for adaptation

not applicable

insufficient evidence

not applicable

Overall confidence Overall strength of synergy/trade-off

HighMediumLowHighMediumLowNone

* Less animal based.

** e.g. peatlands or natural grasslands.

FigureCross-ChapterBoxFEASIB.3 | This ﬁgure shows a) adaptation options synergies and trade-offs with mitigation and b) mitigation options

synergies and trade-offs with adaptation. The size of the circle denotes the strength of the synergy or trade-offs with big circles meaning strong synergy or trade-off

and small circles denoting a weak synergy or trade-off.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2787

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

well-being

6: Cleanwater &sanitation

7: Affordable &clean energy

8: Decent work &economicgrowth

9: Industry,innovation&infrastructure

10: Reducedinequality

11: Sustainablecities&communities

12: Responsibleconsumption &production

13: Climateaction

14: Life belowwater

15: Life on land

No poverty

Zero hunger

Good health &

Quality education

16: Peace&justicestrong institutions

17: Partnerships for the Goals

tyGender equali

Footnotes:

The term

response is used here

instead of adaptation

because some responses,

such as retreat, may or may

not be considered to be

adaptation.

Including

sustainable forest

management, forest

conservation and

restoration, reforestation

and afforestation.

The

Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) are

integrated and indivisible,

and efforts to achieve any

goal in isolation may trigger

synergies or trade-offs with

other SDGs.

Relevant in

the near-term, at global

scale and up to 1.5°C of

global warming.

Types of relation

Climate services, including Early Warning Systems

Forest-based adaptation

Resilient power systems

Agroforestry

Energy reliability

Sustainable aquaculture and fisheries

Efﬁcient livestock systems

Biodiversity management and ecosystem connectivity

Integrated coastal zone management

Water use efﬁciency and water resource management

Improved cropland management

Green infrastructure and ecosystem services

Sustainable land use and urban planning

Planned relocation and resettlement

Improve water use efﬁciency

Health and health systems adaptation

Livelihood diversiﬁcation

Human migration

Disaster risk management

Social safety nets

Risk spreading and sharing

Coastal defence and hardening

Cross-

sectoral

System

transitions

Land and

ocean

ecosystems

Urban and

infrastructure

systems

Energy

systems

Relation with Sustainable Development Goals

3, 4

•

With benefits

Not clear or mixed

•

With dis-benefits

–

Insufficient evidence

Climate responses¹

and adaptation options

Sustainable urban water management

•

–

•

–

•

Climate responses and adaptation options and their relation with the Sustainable Development Goals

•

FigureCross-ChapterBoxFEASIB.4 | This ﬁgure summarises the assessment of the nexus of each adaptation option considered in this CCB with the

17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDGs with which there is a nexus are colored and have a + for positive nexus, − for negative nexus and +/− for mixed

nexus. Blank cells either don’t have a nexus or there is no or limited evidence of such nexus.

CCB FEASIB.5 Knowledge Gaps

Despite the progress in new evidence since the SR1.5, there remain several knowledge gaps for the assessment of adaptation and

mitigation options. They are underlying the Figure Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB.2 through the NE (no evidence) or LE (limited evidence).

Within energy system transitions, resilient power infrastructure has knowledge gaps on indicators of transparency and accountability

potential, socio-cultural acceptability, social and regional inclusiveness, and intergenerational equity.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2788

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Under land and ecosystem system transitions, gaps include limited evidence for some of the institutional and socio-cultural feasibility

dimensions indicators of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Speciﬁcally, there is lack of evidence for transparency and accountability

potential and for gender and intergenerational equity. For coastal defence and hardening, there is no or limited evidence on the indicators

of employment and productivity enhancement, legal and regulatory acceptability, transparency and accountability potential, social and

regional inclusiveness, beneﬁts for gender equity, intergenerational equity and land use change enhancement potential. Sustainable

aquaculture has knowledge gaps for the indicators of macroeconomic viability, legal and regulatory acceptability, transparency and

accountability potential, social and regional inclusiveness, intergenerational equity and land use change enhancement potential. The

geographical feasibility for migration and relocation is still an emerging area of research, however, there is limited evidence to assess this

speciﬁc dimension.

The options of forest-based adaptation and biodiversity management and ecosystems connectivity have knowledge gaps for the indicators

of risk mitigation potential, legal and regulatory feasibility, and social and regional inclusiveness. The option of improved cropland

management has no or limited evidence for the indicators of legal and regulatory feasibility, transparency and accountability potential

and hazard risk reduction potential. The efﬁcient livestock systems option has no evidence for political acceptability and legal and

regulatory feasibility, and limited evidence for overall institutional feasibility. Agro-forestry has knowledge gaps for employment and

productivity enhancement, transparency and accountability potential and intergenerational equity. There is also limited evidence for the

economic and technical feasibility dimensions for ecosystem connectivity.

For urban and infrastructure systems, the option of green infrastructure and ecosystem services has limited evidence for macroeconomic

viability, employment and productivity enhancement, and political acceptability. Sustainable water management has gaps for

macroeconomic viability, employment and productivity enhancement, and transparency and accountability potential.

For cross-cutting options, the main knowledge gaps identiﬁed are socio-cultural acceptability for social safety nets. While the evidence on

resettlement, relocation and migration is large and growing, there is disagreement on several indicators, marking the need for more evidence

synthesis. Geophysical feasibility for resettlement, relocation and migration has limited evidence, but is an emerging area of research.

In general, throughout most of the options, there is signiﬁcantly less literature from the regions of Central and South America, and West

and Central Asia, as compared with other world regions.

References

Accatino, F., etal., 2019: Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services. Agric Syst, 168, 58–72, doi:10.1016/j.

agsy.2018.08.002.

Acevedo, M., etal., 2020: A scoping review of adoption of climate-resilient crops by small-scale producers in low- and middle-income countries. Nat.

Plants, 6, 1231–1241, doi:10.1038/s41477-020-00783-z.

Adams, A.M., etal., 2020: Long-term effects of integrated soil fertility management practices on soil chemical properties in the Sahel. Geoderma, 366,

114207, doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114207.

Adams, H. and S. Kay, 2019: Migration as a human affair: Integrating individual stress thresholds into quantitative models of climate migration. Environ.

Sci. Policy, 93, 129–138, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.015.

Esmail, A. and L. Suleiman, 2020: Analyzing evidence of sustainable urban water management systems: a review through the lenses of sociotechnical

transitions. Sustainability, 12(11), doi:10.3390/su12114481.

Adger, W.N., etal., 2020: Urbanization, migration, and adaptation to climate change. One Earth, 3, 396–399, doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.016.

Adham, A., etal., 2018: A GIS-based approach for identifying potential sites for harvesting rainwater in the Western Desert of Iraq. Int. Soil Water Conserv.

Res., 6(4), 297–304, doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.07.003.

Aerts, J.C.J.H., 2018: A Review of Cost Estimates for Flood Adaptation.

Agarwal, P.K. and D. Pandey, 2017, Impact of pesticide: an overview. Trends in Biosciences, (10)6, 1341–1344.

Agegnehu, G. and T. Amede, 2017: Integrated Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrient Management in Tropical Agro-Ecosystems: A Review. Soil Science Society

of China, 662–680.

Ahmed, B., 2018: Who takes responsibility for the climate refugees? Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 10, 5–26, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-10-2016-0149.

Ahmed, N., etal., 2018: Blue-green water nexus in aquaculture for resilience to climate change. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac., 26, 139–154, doi:10.1080/23308

249.2017.1373743.

Ajibade, I., 2019: Planned retreat in global south megacities: disentangling policy, practice, and environmental justice. Clim. Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-

019-02535-1.

Ajibade, I., M. Sullivan and M. Haeffner, 2020: Why climate migration is not managed retreat: Six justiﬁcations. Glob. Environ. Chang., 65, 102187,

doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102187.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2789

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Albert, S., etal., 2017: Winners and losers as mangrove, coral and seagrass ecosystems respond to sea-level rise in Solomon Islands. Environ. Res. Lett.,

12, 94009.

Albright, K., P. Shah, M. Santodomingo and J. Scandlyn, 2020: Dissemination of information about climate change by state and local public health

departments: United States, 2019-2020. Am J Public Health, 110, 1184–1190, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305723.

Aleksandrova, M., 2020: Principles and considerations for mainstreaming climate change risk into national social protection frameworks in developing

countries. Clim. Dev., 12, 511–520, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1642180.

Alexander, M. and S. Dessai, 2019: What can climate services learn from the broader services literature? Clim. Change, 157, 133–149, doi:10.1007/

s10584-019-02388-8.

Ali, B. and A. Kumar, 2016: Development of life cycle water footprints for gas-ﬁred power generation technologies. Energy Convers. Manag., 110,

386–396, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.048.

Ali, T., etal., 2021: Integrating Indigenous perspectives and community-based disaster risk reduction: a pathway for sustainable Indigenous development

in Northern Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 59, 102263, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102263.

Alleway, H.K., etal., 2018: The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing beneﬁts to people and nature. BioScience, 69, 59–68, doi:10.1093/

biosci/biy137.

Almutairi, A., M. Mourshed and R.F.M. Ameen, 2020: Coastal Community Resilience Frameworks for Disaster Risk Management. Springer, 595–630.

Alobo Loison, S., 2015: Rural livelihood diversiﬁcation in Sub-Saharan Africa: a literature review. J. Dev. Stud., 51, 1125–1138, doi:10.1080/00220388.2

015.1046445.

Alverio, G.N., S.H. Hoagland, E.C. Perez and K.J. Mach, 2021: The role of international organizations in equitable and just planned relocation. JEnviron

Stud Sci, 1–12, doi:10.1007/S13412-021-00698-X.

Alves, A., etal., 2019: Assessing the co-beneﬁts of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban ﬂood risk management. J. Environ. Manag., 239,

244–254, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036.

Alves, B., D.B. Angnuureng, P. Morand and R. Almar, 2020: A review on coastal erosion and ﬂooding risks and best management practices in West Africa:

what has been done and should be done. J. Coast. Conserv., 24, 38, doi:10.1007/s11852-020-00755-7.

Ambrosino, C., et al., 2020: Integrating climate adaptation, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation in Kwale county, Kenya. Springer

International Publishing, 1–19.

Amegnaglo, C.J., etal., 2017: Contingent valuation study of the beneﬁts of seasonal climate forecasts for maize farmers in the Republic of Benin, West

Africa. Clim. Serv., 6, 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.007.

Amjath-Babu, T.S., P.K. Aggarwal and S. Vermeulen, 2019: Climate action for food security in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture in nationally

determined contributions to the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy, 19, 283–298, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1501329.

Anderson, C.C. and F.G. Renaud, 2021: A review of public acceptance of nature-based solutions: the ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ of success for disaster risk

reduction measures. Ambio, 50(8), 1552–1573, doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01502-4.

Anderson, S.C., etal., 2017: Beneﬁts and risks of diversiﬁcation for individual ﬁshers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114, 10797–10802, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1702506114.

Anguelovski, I., etal., 2019a: New scholarly pathways on green gentriﬁcation: What does the urban ‘green turn’ mean and where is it going? Prog Hum

Geogr, 43, 1064–1086, doi:10.1177/0309132518803799.

Anguelovski, I., C. Irazábal-Zurita and J.J.T. Connolly, 2019b: Grabbed urban landscapes: Socio-spatial tensions in green infrastructure planning in

Medellín. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res., 43, 133–156, doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12725.

Antunes do Carmo, J.S., 2018: Climate Change, Adaptation Measures, and Integrated Coastal Zone Management: the New Protection Paradigm for the

Portuguese Coastal Zone. Coastal Education Research Foundation Inc., 687–703.

Apuri, I., K. Peprah and G.T.W. Achana, 2018: Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: The case of Kassena Nankana West District, Ghana.

Environ. Dev., 28, 32–41, doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2018.09.002.

Araos, M., 2020: Democracy underwater: public participation and technical expertise in climate infrastructure planning in New York City. Soc. Sci. Res.

Netw.

Araos, M., S.E. Austin, L. Berrang-Ford and J.D. Ford, 2016a: Public health adaptation to climate change in large cities: A global baseline. Int J Health Serv,

46, 53–78, doi:10.1177/0020731415621458.

Araos, M., etal., 2016b: Climate change adaptation planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy, 66, 375–382, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2016.06.009.

Archer, D., 2016: Building urban climate resilience through community-driven approaches to development. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 8, 654–

669, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2014-0035.

Aryal, J.P., etal., 2018a: Adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices in the Gangetic plains of Bihar, India. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag.,

10, 407–427, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2017-0025.

Aryal, J.P., M.B. Mehrotra, M.L. Jat and H.S. Sidhu, 2015a: Impacts of laser land leveling in rice–wheat systems of the north–western Indo-Gangetic plains

of India. Food Sec., 7, 725–738, doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0460-y.

Aryal, J.P., etal., 2018b: Factors determining the adoption of laser land leveling in the irrigated rice–wheat system in Haryana, India. J. Crop Improv., 32,

477–492, doi:10.1080/15427528.2018.1457584.

Aryal, J.P., D.B. Rahut, S. Maharjan and O. Erenstein, 2018c: Factors affecting the adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices in the Indo-

Gangetic plains of India. Nat Resour Forum, 42, 141–158, doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12152.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2790

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Aryal, J.P., T.B. Sapkota, M.L. Jat and D.K. Bishnoi, 2015b: On-farm economic and environmental impact of zero-tillage wheat: A case of North-West India.

Exp. Agric., 51, 1–16, doi:10.1017/S001447971400012X.

Aryal, J.P., etal., 2020a: Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 22,

5045–5075, doi:10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4.

Aryal, J.P., T.B. Sapkota, D.B. Rahut and M.L. Jat, 2020b: Agricultural sustainability under emerging climatic variability: the role of climate-smart agriculture

and relevant policies in India. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev., 14, 219–245.

Asfaw, S., G. Pallante and A. Palma, 2018: Diversiﬁcation strategies and adaptation deﬁcit: evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Dev, 101,

219–234, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09.004.

Atanga, R.A., 2020: The role of local community leaders in ﬂood disaster risk management strategy making in Accra. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 43,

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101358.

Aubin, J., etal., 2019: Implementing ecological intensiﬁcation in ﬁsh farming: deﬁnition and principles from contrasting experiences. Rev. Aquac., 11,

149–167, doi:10.1111/raq.12231.

Austin, S.E., etal., 2019: Enabling local public health adaptation to climate change. Soc. Sci. Med., 220, 236–244, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.002.

Awazi, N.P., M.N. Tchamba and L.F. Temgoua, 2021: Climate-smart practices of smallholder farmers in Cameroon confronted with climate variability and

change: the example of agroforestry. Agric. Res., 10, 83–96, doi:10.1007/s40003-020-00477-0.

Bageant, E.R. and C.B. Barrett, 2017: Are there gender differences in demand for index-based livestock insurance? J. Dev. Stud., 53, 932–952, doi:10.10

80/00220388.2016.1214717.

Baills, A., M. Garcin and T. Bulteau, 2020: Assessment of selected climate change adaptation measures for coastal areas. Ocean. Coast. Manag., 185,

105059, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105059.

Baird, T.D. and J. Hartter, 2017: Livelihood diversiﬁcation, mobile phones and information diversity in Northern Tanzania. Land Use Policy, 67, 460–471,

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.031.

Banerjee, S., etal., 2018: Assessing vulnerability of remittance-recipient and nonrecipient households in rural communities affected by extreme weather

events: Case studies from S outh-W est. Wiley Online Libr., 25, doi:10.1002/psp.2157.

Banerjee, S., A. Hussain, S. Tuladhar and A. Mishra, 2019: Building capacities of women for climate change adaptation: insights from migrant-sending

households in Nepal. Clim. Change, 157, 587–609, doi:10.1007/S10584-019-02572-W.

Barnett, J., etal., 2015: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc., 20, doi:10.5751/ES-

07698-200305.

Barragán Muñoz, J.M., 2020: Progress of coastal management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ocean. Coast. Manag., 184, 105009, doi:10.1016/j.

ocecoaman.2019.105009.

Barreto, G.C., M. Di Domenico and R.P. Medeiros, 2020: Human dimensions of marine protected areas and small-scale ﬁsheries management: A review of

the interpretations. Mar. Policy., 119, 104040, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104040.

Barrett, S., 2013: Local level climate justice? Adaptation ﬁnance and vulnerability reduction. Glob. Environ. Change, 23(6), 1819–1829, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2013.07.015.

Bazaz, A., etal. (ed.), Summary for Urban Policymakers – What the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C Means for Cities.

Bedeke, S., etal., 2019: Adoption of climate change adaptation strategies by maize-dependent smallholders in Ethiopia. Njas - Wageningen J. Life Sci., 88,

96–104, doi:10.1016/j.njas.2018.09.001.

Belčáková, I., M. Świąder and M. Bartyna-Zielińska, 2019: The green infrastructure in cities as a tool for climate change adaptation and mitigation:

Slovakian and Polish experiences. Atmosphere, 10(9), doi:10.3390/atmos10090552.

Berrang-Ford, L., etal., 2019: Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments. Nature Clim Change, 9, 440–449, doi:10.1038/s41558-

019-0490-0.

Berry, P., etal., 2018: Assessing Health Vulnerabilities and Adaptation to Climate Change: a Review of International Progress. MDPI AG.

Bertana, A., 2020: The role of power in community participation: Relocation as climate change adaptation in Fiji. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space, 38(5),

902–919, doi:10.1177/2399654420909394.

Bhatta, G.D., etal., 2017: Agricultural innovation and adaptation to climate change: empirical evidence from diverse agro-ecologies in South Asia. Environ.

Dev. Sustain., 19, 497–525, doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9743-x.

Bhattarai, B., 2020: How do gender relations shape a community’s ability to adapt to climate change? Insights from Nepal’s community forestry. Clim.

Dev., 12, 876–887, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1701971.

Bhowmik, J., H.M. Irfanullah and S.A. Selim, 2021: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh of assessing climate hazard-related loss and damage and state of

adaptive capacity to address them. Clim. Risk Manag., 31, 100273, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2021.100273.

Biernacka, M. and J. Kronenberg, 2018: Classiﬁcation of institutional barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban green

spaces. Urban For. Urban Green., 36, 22–33, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007.

Biesbroek, G.R., J.E.M. Klostermann, C.J.A.M. Termeer and P. Kabat, 2013: On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Change,

13, 1119–1129, doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y.

Blasiak, R. and C.C.C. Wabnitz, 2018: Aligning ﬁsheries aid with international development targets and goals. Mar. Policy, 88, 86–92, doi:10.1016/j.

marpol.2017.11.018.

Blasiak, R., etal., 2019: Towards greater transparency and coherence in funding for sustainable marine ﬁsheries and healthy oceans. Mar. Policy, 107,

103508, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.012.

Bohnes, F.A., M.Z. Hauschild, J. Schlundt and A. Laurent, 2019: Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported ﬁndings with

recommendations for policy and system development. Rev. Aquac., 11, 1061–1079, doi:10.1111/raq.12280.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2791

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Booth, L., etal., 2020: Simulating synergies between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction stakeholders to improve management of

transboundary disasters in europe. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 49, 101668, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101668.

Bordner, A.S., C.E. Ferguson and L. Ortolano, 2020: Colonial dynamics limit climate adaptation in Oceania: perspectives from the Marshall Islands. Glob.

Environ. Change, 61, 102054, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102054.

Boston, J., A. Panda and S. Surminski, 2021: Designing a funding framework for the impacts of slow-onset climate change — insights from recent

experiences with planned relocation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 50, 159–168, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.001.

Botero, C.M. and S. Zielinski, 2020: The implementation of a world-famous tourism ecolabel triggers political support for beach management. Tour.

Manag. Perspect., 35, 100691, doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100691.

Bowen, T., etal., 2020: Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1575-1. Adaptive Social Protection: Building

Resilience to Shocks.

Boyd, C.E., etal., 2020: Achieving sustainable aquaculture: Historical and current perspectives and future needs and challenges. J. World Aquac. Soc., 51,

578–633, doi:10.1111/jwas.12714.

Bragg, C., etal., 2018: Remittances as aid following major sudden-onset natural disasters. Disasters, 42, 3–18, doi:10.1111/DISA.12229.

Brand, U. and A. von Gleich, 2015: Transformation toward a secure and precaution-oriented energy system with the guiding concept of resilience –

implementation of low-Exergy solutions in northwestern Germany. Energies, 8, 6995–7019, doi:10.3390/en8076995.

Bricknell, I.R., etal., 2021: Resilience of cold water aquaculture: a review of likely scenarios as climate changes in the Gulf of Maine. Rev. Aquac., 13,

460–503, doi:10.1111/RAQ.12483.

Bronen, R. and F.S. Chapin, 2013: Adaptive governance and institutional strategies for climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci., 110, 9320–9325, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210508110.

Bronen, R., etal., 2020: Usteq: integrating indigenous knowledge and social and physical sciences to coproduce knowledge and support community-

based adaptation. Polar Geogr., 43(2-3), 188–205, doi:10.1080/1088937X.2019.1679271.

Brooke-Sumner, C., et al., 2019: ‘Doing more with less’: a qualitative investigation of perceptions of south African health service managers on

implementation of health innovations. Health Policy Plan., 34, 132–140, doi:10.1093/heapol/czz017.

Brown, B., I. Nuberg and R. Llewellyn, 2017: Negative evaluation of conservation agriculture: perspectives from African smallholder farmers. Int. J. Agric.

Sustain., 15, 467–481, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1336051.

Brown, P.R., etal., 2019: Constraints to the capacity of smallholder farming households to adapt to climate change in South and Southeast Asia. Clim.

Dev., 11, 383–400, doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1442798.

Bruno Soares, M. and C. Buontempo, 2019: Challenges to the sustainability of climate services in Europe. WIREs Clim. Change, 10(4), e587, doi:10.1002/

wcc.587.

Budhathoki, N.K., J.A. Lassa, S. Pun and K.K. Zander, 2019: Farmers’ interest and willingness-to-pay for index-based crop insurance in the lowlands of

Nepal. Land Use Policy, 85, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.029.

Buechler, S. and A. Lutz-Ley, 2019: Livelihoods with multiple stressors: Gendered youth decision-making under global change in rural Northwest Mexico.

Environ. Plan. E: Nat. Space, 3(4), 1096–1119, doi:10.1177/2514848619878603.

Buijs, A., etal., 2019: Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban For.

Urban Green., 40, 53–62, doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2018.06.011.

Bustamante, M.M.C., etal., 2019: Ecological restoration as a strategy for mitigating and adapting to climate change: lessons and challenges from Brazil.

Springer Netherlands, 1249–1270.

Butler, J.R.A., etal., 2020: How feasible is the scaling-out of livelihood and food system adaptation in Asia-Paciﬁc islands? Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 4,

43, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00043.

Cantasano, N., etal., 2021: Can ICZM contribute to the mitigation of erosion and of human activities threatening the natural and cultural heritage of the

coastal landscape of Calabria? Sustainability, 13, doi:10.3390/su13031122.

Carey, J., 2020: Core concept: managed retreat increasingly seen as necessary in response to climate change’s fury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 117, 202008198,

doi:10.1073/pnas.2008198117.

Carter, J.G., etal., 2015: Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Prog. Plann., 95, 1–66, doi:10.1016/j.progress.2013.08.001.

Castells-Quintana, D., M.P. d. Lopez-Uribe and T.K.J. McDermott, 2018: Adaptation to climate change: A review through a development economics lens.

World Dev, 104, 183–196, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.016.

Castle, S.E., etal., 2021: The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low- and

middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev., 17, e1167, doi:10.1002/CL2.1167.

Cattaneo, C., 2019: Migrant networks and adaptation. Nature Clim Change, 9, 907–908, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0646-y.

Caviedes, V., P. Arenas-Granados and J.M. Barragán-Muñoz, 2020: Regional public policy for integrated coastal zone management in Central America.

Ocean. Coast. Manag., 186, 105114, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105114.

Cechin, A., A. da Silva and L. Amand, 2021: Exploring the synergy between community supported agriculture and agroforestry: institutional innovation

from smallholders in a Brazilian rural settlement. JRural Stud, 81, 246–258, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.031.

Cedamon, E., I. Nuberg, B.H. Pandit and K.K. Shrestha, 2018: Adaptation factors and futures of agroforestry systems in Nepal. Agrofor. Syst., 92, 1437–

1453, doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0090-9.

Centre, F. a. R. C. R. C. C. (ed.), Managing Climate Risks Through Social Protection Reducing Rural Poverty and Building Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods.

Rome, ISBN 978-9251318843.

Chan, C.Y., etal., 2019: Prospects and challenges of ﬁsh for food security in Africa. Elsevier B.V., 17–25.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2792

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Chan, F.K.S., etal., 2018: “Sponge city” in China—A breakthrough of planning and ﬂood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy, 76,

772–778, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.03.005.

Chausson, A., etal., 2020: Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob Change Biol, 26, 6134–6155,

doi:10.1111/gcb.15310.

Chersich, M.F. and C.Y. Wright, 2019: Climate change adaptation in South Africa: a case study on the role of the health sector. BioMed Central Ltd.

Child, M. and C. Breyer, 2017: Transition and transformation: A review of the concept of change in the progress towards future sustainable energy systems.

Energy Policy, 107, 11–26, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.022.

Chow, J., T. Khanom, R. Hossain and J. Khadim, 2019: Forest management for climate change adaptation in Bangladesh. In: Springer, Cham, pp. 39–50.

Chu, E. and K. Michael, 2018: Recognition in urban climate justice: marginality and exclusion of migrants in Indian cities. SAGE journal. 31(1), 139–156,

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956247818814449.

Chu, E., T. Schenk and J. Patterson, 2018: The dilemmas of citizen inclusion in urban planning and governance to enable a 1.5°C climate change scenario.

Urban Plan., 3, 128–140, doi:10.17645/up.v3i2.1292.

Coe, R., F. Sinclair and E. Barrios, 2014: Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 73–77,

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013.

Coirolo, C., S. Commins, I. Haque and G. Pierce, 2013: Climate change and social protection in Bangladesh: Are existing programmes able to address the

impacts of climate change? Dev Policy Rev, 31(o74), o90, doi:10.1111/dpr.12040.

Collier, S.J. and S. Cox, 2021: Governing urban resilience: insurance and the problematization of climate change. Econ. Soc., 50(2), 275–296, doi:10.108

0/03085147.2021.1904621.

Colven, E., 2020: Thinking beyond success and failure: Dutch water expertise and friction in postcolonial Jakarta. Environ. Plan. C: Polit. Space, 38,

961–979, doi:10.1177/2399654420911947.

Coulibaly, J.Y., B. Chiputwa, T. Nakelse and G. Kundhlande, 2017: Adoption of agroforestry and the impact on household food security among farmers in

Malawi. Agric. Syst., 155, 52–69, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.017.

Cowie, A.L., etal., 2021: Applying a science-based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy,

13(8), 1210–1231, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12844.

Crawford, T., etal., 2021: Disability inclusive disaster risk reduction with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in the Hawkesbury-

Nepean region: A co-production approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 63, 102430, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102430.

Cuaton, G.P. and Y. Su, 2020: Local-indigenous knowledge on disaster risk reduction: insights from the Mamanwa indigenous peoples in Basey, Samar

after Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 48, 101596, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101596.

Custódio, M., S. Villasante, R. Calado and A.I. Lillebø, 2020: Valuation of ecosystem services to promote sustainable aquaculture practices. Rev. Aquac.,

12, 392–405, doi:10.1111/raq.12324.

D’Aloia, C.C., etal., 2019: Coupled networks of permanent protected areas and dynamic conservation areas for biodiversity conservation under climate

change. Front. Ecol. Evol., 7, 27, doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00027.

Dai, L., R. Wörner and H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, 2018: Rainproof cities in the Netherlands: approaches in Dutch water governance to climate-adaptive urban

planning. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 34, 652–674, doi:10.1080/07900627.2017.1372273.

Daly, M. and S. Dessai, 2018: Examining the goals of the regional climate outlook forums: what role for user engagement? Weather Clim. Soc., 10(4),

693–708, doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0015.1.

Daniels, E., et al., 2020: Refocusing the climate services lens: Introducing a framework for co-designing “transdisciplinary knowledge integration

processes” to build climate resilience. Clim. Serv., 19, 100181, doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100181.

Dannenberg, A.L., H. Frumkin, J.J. Hess and K.L. Ebi, 2019: Managed retreat as a strategy for climate change adaptation in small communities: public

health implications. Clim. Change, 153(1), 1–14, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02382-0.

Darzi-Naftchali, A. and H. Ritzema, 2018: Integrating irrigation and drainage management to sustain agriculture in northern Iran. Sustainability, 10(6),

doi:10.3390/su10061775.

Dasgupta, S. and J. Roy, 2017: Analysing energy intensity trends and decoupling of growth from energy use in Indian manufacturing industries during

1973–1974 to 2011–2012. Energy Efﬁc., 10, 925–943, doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9497-9.

Davies, C.M., etal., 2019: Potential of precision livestock farming in small ruminant farming systems. Wageningen Academic Publishers. 717 pp.

De Beenhouwer, M., R. Aerts and O. Honnay, 2013: A global meta-analysis of the biodiversity and ecosystem service beneﬁts of coffee and cacao

agroforestry. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 175, 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.003.

de Coninck, H., A. Revi, M. Babiker, P. Bertoldi, M. Buckeridge, A. Cartwright, W. Dong, J. Ford, S. Fuss, J.-C. Hourcade, D. Ley, R. Mechler, P. Newman, A.

Revokatova, S. Schultz, L. Steg, and T. Sugiyama, 2018: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC

Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the

context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-

Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen,

X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterﬁeld (eds.)]. In Press.

De la Sota, C., V.J. Ruffato-Ferreira, L. Ruiz-García and S. Alvarez, 2019: Urban green infrastructure as a strategy of climate change mitigation. A case study

in northern Spain. Urban For. Urban Green., 40, 145–151, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.004.

de Salles Cavedon-Capdeville, F., etal., 2020: Climate change, extreme events and human mobility in Latin America: exploring the links through national

laws and policies.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2793

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Debie, E., 2020: Multi-criteria evaluation of soil conservation practices to sustainable cropland management in northwest highlands of Ethiopia. Authorea

Prepr., doi:10.22541/AU.159221547.73795848.

DeNooyer, T.A., J.M. Peschel, Z. Zhang and A.S. Stillwell, 2016: Integrating water resources and power generation: The energy-water nexus in Illinois. Appl

Energy, 162, 363–371, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.071.

Depietri, Y. and T. McPhearson, 2017: Integrating the Grey, Green, and Blue in Cities: Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Risk

Reduction.

Desai, B., etal., 2021: Addressing the human cost in a changing climate. Science, 372, 1284–1287, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.ABH4283.

Deshpande, T., K. Michael and K. Bhaskara, 2019: Barriers and enablers of local adaptive measures: a case study of Bengaluru’s informal settlement

dwellers. Local Environ., 24, 167–179, doi:10.1080/13549839.2018.1555578.

Dhyani, S., etal., 2021: Agroforestry to achieve global climate adaptation and mitigation targets: are South Asian countries sufﬁciently prepared? MDPI

AG. 303 pp.

Di Gregorio, M., etal., 2019: Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Glob. Environ. Chang., 54, 64–77, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2018.10.003.

Donatti, C.I., etal., 2020: Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Clim Change, 158, 413–433,

doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02565-9.

Dong, X., et al., 2020: Vulnerability of urban water infrastructures to climate change at city level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 161, doi:10.1016/J.

RESCONREC.2020.104918.

Dooley, K., E. Harrould-Kolieb and A. Talberg, 2021: Carbon-dioxide removal and biodiversity: a threat identiﬁcation framework. Glob Policy, 12, 34–44,

doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12828.

Dorst, H., A. van der Jagt, R. Raven and H. Runhaar, 2019: Urban greening through nature-based solutions – key characteristics of an emerging concept.

Sustain. Cities Soc., 49, 101620, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620.

Dorward, P., G. Clarkson, S. Poskitt and R. Stern, 2021: Putting the farmer at the center of climate services. One Earth, 4(8), 1059–1061, doi:10.1016/j.

oneear.2021.08.004.

Dougill, A.J., etal., 2017: Mainstreaming conservation agriculture in Malawi: Knowledge gaps and institutional barriers. J. Environ. Manag., 195, 25–34,

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.076.

Du, S., etal., 2020: Hard or soft ﬂood adaptation? Advantages of a hybrid strategy for Shanghai. Glob. Environ. Change, 61, 102037, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2020.102037.

Du, X., J. Jian, C. Du and R.D. Stewart, 2021: Conservation management decreases surface runoff and soil erosion. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.,

doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.08.001.

Duffy, C., etal., 2021: Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst., 95(6), 1109–1124, doi:10.1007/S10457-

021-00632-8.

DuPuis, E.M. and M. Greenberg, 2019: The right to the resilient city: progressive politics and the green growth machine in New York City. JEnviron Stud

Sci, 9, 352–363, doi:10.1007/s13412-019-0538-5.

Ebi, K.L., etal., 2018: Stress testing the capacity of health systems to manage climate change-related shocks and stresses. IJERPH, 15, doi:10.3390/

ijerph15112370.

Ebi, K.L., etal., 2020: Transdisciplinary research priorities for human and planetary health in the context of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

IJERPH, 17(23), doi:10.3390/ijerph17238890.

Eisenack, K., etal., 2014: Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Clim Change, 4, 867–872, doi:10.1038/nclimate2350.

Elagib, N.A. and M. Al-Saidi, 2020: Balancing the beneﬁts from the water–energy–land–food nexus through agroforestry in the Sahel. Elsevier B.V. 140509

pp.

Elliott, R., 2019: ‘Scarier than another storm’: values at risk in the mapping and insuring of US ﬂoodplains. Br. J. Sociol., 70, 1067–1090, doi:10.1111/1468-

4446.12381.

Ellison, A.M., A.J. Felson and D.A. Friess, 2020: Mangrove rehabilitation and restoration as experimental adaptive management. Front. Mar. Sci., 7, 327,

doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00327.

Erftemeijer, P.L.A., etal., 2020: Mangrove planting on dredged material: Three decades of nature-based coastal defence along a causeway in the Arabian

Gulf. Mar. Freshw. Res., 71, 1062–1072, doi:10.1071/MF19289.

Ericksen, P. and T. Crane (eds.), The feasibility of low emissions development interventions for the East African livestock sector: Lessons from Kenya and

Ethiopia. International Livestock Research Institute, ISBN 978-9291465422. The feasibility of low emissions development interventions for the East

African livestock sector: Lessons from Kenya and Ethiopia.

Erlinghagen, S. and J. Markard, 2012: Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT ﬁrms as potential catalysts for sectoral change.

Energy Policy, 51, 895–906, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.045.

Escarcha, J.F., J.A. Lassa and K.K. Zander, 2018: Livestock under climate change: A systematic review of impacts and adaptation. Climate, 6, 54, doi:10.3390/

cli6030054.

Escobedo, F.J., etal., 2019: Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors? Urban For.

Urban Green., 37, 3–12, doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2018.02.011.

Evans, L.S., etal., 2016: Structural and psycho-social limits to climate change adaptation in the Great Barrier Reef region. PLoS ONE, 11, e150575.

Fainstein, S.S., 2018: Resilience and justice: planning for New York City. Urban. Geogr., 1–8, doi:10.1080/02723638.2018.1448571.

FAO (ed.), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018. Rome, Italy. 227 pp.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2794

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Farnworth, C.R., etal., 2017: Gender and inorganic nitrogen: what are the implications of moving towards a more balanced use of nitrogen fertilizer in

the tropics? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15, 136–152, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343.

Favretto, N., etal., 2020: Delivering climate-development co-beneﬁts through multi-stakeholder forestry projects in Madagascar: opportunities and

challenges. Land, 9, 157, doi:10.3390/land9050157.

Feingold, D., S. Koop and K. van Leeuwen, 2018: The city blueprint approach: Urban water management and governance in cities in the U.S. Environ

Manage, 61, 9–23, doi:10.1007/S00267-017-0952-Y.

Filazzola, A., N. Shrestha and J.S. MacIvor, 2019: The contribution of constructed green infrastructure to urban biodiversity: A synthesis and meta-analysis.

JAppl Ecol, 56, 2131–2143, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13475.

Findlater, K., S. Webber, M. Kandlikar and S. Donner, 2021: Climate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nat. Clim. Change,

11(9), 731–737, doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3.

Findlater, K.M., M. Kandlikar and T. Satterﬁeld, 2019: Misunderstanding conservation agriculture: Challenges in promoting, monitoring and evaluating

sustainable farming. Environ. Sci. Policy, 100, 47–54, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.027.

Fischer, H.W., 2020: Policy innovations for pro-poor climate support: social protection, small-scale infrastructure, and active citizenship under India’s

MGNREGA. Clim. Dev., 12, 689–702, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1676690.

Fitzgibbons, J. and C. Mitchell, 2019: Just urban futures? Exploring equity in “100 Resilient Cities”. World Dev, 122, 648–659, doi:10.1016/j.

worlddev.2019.06.021.

Fleischman, F., etal., 2020: Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience, 70, 947–950, doi:10.1093/

biosci/biaa094.

Ford, J.D., etal., 2015: Adaptation tracking for a post-2015 climate agreement. Nature Clim Change, 5, 967–969, doi:10.1038/nclimate2744.

Ford, J.D., J. Labbé, M. Flynn and M. Araos, 2017: Readiness for climate change adaptation in the Arctic: a case study from Nunavut, Canada. Clim Change,

145, 85–100, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2071-4.

Ford, J.D., etal., 2014: Adapting to the effects of climate change on Inuit health. Am J Public Health, 104, e9–e17, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301724.

Forster, E.J., J.R. Healey, C. Dymond and D. Styles, 2021: Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple

decarbonisation pathways. Nat Commun, 12(1), 3831, doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24084-x.

Foti, E., R.E. Musumeci and M. Stagnitti, 2020: Coastal defence techniques and climate change: a review. Rendiconti Lincei, 31, 123–138, doi:10.1007/

s12210-020-00877-y.

Fox, M., etal., 2019: Integrating public health into climate change policy and planning: State of practice update. MDPI AG.

Freduah, G., P. Fidelman and T.F. Smith, 2018: Mobilising adaptive capacity to multiple stressors: Insights from small-scale coastal ﬁsheries in the western

region of Ghana. Geoforum, 91, 61–72, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.026.

Fuss, S., etal., 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9 f.

Galappaththi, E.K., J.D. Ford and E.M. Bennett, 2019: A framework for assessing community adaptation to climate change in a ﬁsheries context. Elsevier

Ltd, 17–26.

Galappaththi, E.K., etal., 2020: Climate change adaptation in aquaculture. Rev. Aquac., 12, 2160–2176, doi:10.1111/raq.12427.

García Romero, H. and A. Molina (eds.), Agriculture and Adaptation to Climate Change: The Role of Insurance in Risk Management: The Case of Colombia.

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Washington DC, USA. 49 pp.

Gartrell, A., E. Calgaro, G. Goddard and N. Saorath, 2020: Disaster experiences of women with disabilities: barriers and opportunities for disability inclusive

disaster risk reduction in Cambodia. Glob. Environ. Change, 64, 102134, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102134.

Gautam, Y. and P. Andersen, 2016: Rural livelihood diversiﬁcation and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. JRural Stud, 44, 239–249,

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.001.

Geekiyanage, D., K. Keraminiyage, T. Fernando and T. Jayawickrama, 2021: Factors inﬂuencing acceptance or rejection regarding being the host community

for post-disaster resettlements in developing countries. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 53, 101973, doi:10.1016/J.IJDRR.2020.101973.

Georgeson, L., M. Maslin, M. Poessinouw and S. Howard, 2016: Adaptation responses to climate change differ between global megacities. Nature Clim

Change, 6, 584–588, doi:10.1038/nclimate2944.

Ghiasian, M., etal., 2021: Dissipation of wave energy by a hybrid artiﬁcial reef in a wave simulator: implications for coastal resilience and shoreline

protection. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods, 19(1), 1–7, doi:10.1002/lom3.10400.

Ghosh-Jerath, S., etal., 2021: Pathways of climate change impact on agroforestry, food consumption pattern, and dietary diversity among indigenous

subsistence farmers of Sauria Paharia tribal community of India: a mixed methods study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 0, 174, doi:10.3389/

FSUFS.2021.667297.

Gibb, R., L.H.V. Franklinos, D.W. Redding and K.E. Jones, 2020: Ecosystem perspectives are needed to manage zoonotic risks in a changing climate. BMJ,

371, doi:10.1136/bmj.m3389.

Gilﬁllan, D., 2019: The health sector’s role in governance of climate change adaptation in Myanmar. Clim. Dev., 11, 574–584, doi:10.1080/17565529.20

18.1510364.

Glaas, E., E.C.H. Keskitalo and M. Hjerpe, 2017: Insurance sector management of climate change adaptation in three Nordic countries: the inﬂuence of

policy and market factors. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 60, 1601–1621, doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1245654.

Glantz, M.H. and G.E. Pierce, 2021: Forecast hesitancy: why are people reluctant to believe, accept, or respond to various weather, water, and climate

hazard-related forecasts? Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 12(4), 600–609, doi:10.1007/s13753-021-00353-7.

Goetz, E. G., R.A. Williams and A. Damiano, 2020: Whiteness and Urban Planning. Routledge, 142–156.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2795

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Goh, K., 2020: Flows in formation: The global-urban networks of climate change adaptation. Urban Stud., 57, 2222–2240, doi:10.1177/0042098018807306.

Gómez Martín, E., M. Máñez Costa and K. Schwerdtner Máñez, 2020: An operationalized classiﬁcation of nature based solutions for water-related

hazards: from theory to practice. Ecol. Econ., 167, 106460, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106460.

Goniewicz, K. and F.M. Burkle, 2019: Challenges in implementing Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health,

16(14), doi:10.3390/ijerph16142574.

Gonzalez-Sanchez, E.J., etal., 2019: meta-analysis on carbon sequestration through conservation agriculture in Africa. Soil Tillage Res., 190, 22–30,

doi:10.1016/j.still.2019.02.020.

Goodrich, C.G., A. Prakash and P.B. Udas, 2019: Gendered vulnerability and adaptation in Hindu-Kush Himalayas: Research insights. Environ. Dev., 31,

1–8, doi:10.1016/J.ENVDEV.2019.01.001.

Gopal, N., etal., 2020: Expanding the horizons for women in ﬁsheries and aquaculture. Gend. Technol. Dev., 24, 1–9, doi:10.1080/09718524.2020.1736

353.

Goryushina, E.M., 2021: Challenges of the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction adaption in Russia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 720(1),

12101, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/720/1/012101.

Gostin, L.O. and E.A. Friedman, 2017: Global health: a pivotal moment of opportunity and peril. Health Aff., 36(1), 159–165, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1492.

Goulden, M.C., W.N. Adger, E.H. Allison and D. Conway, 2013: Limits to resilience from livelihood diversiﬁcation and social capital in lake social–ecological

systems. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 103, 906–924, doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.765771.

Griscom, B.W., etal., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.

Gu, L., etal., 2019: The contribution of internal climate variability to climate change impacts on droughts. Sci. Total. Environ., 684, 229–246, doi:10.1016/j.

scitotenv.2019.05.345.

Gumucio, T., J. Hansen, S. Huyer and T. van Huysen, 2020: Gender-responsive rural climate services: a review of the literature. Clim. Dev., 12(3), 241–254,

doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1613216.

Gundersen, P., etal., 2021: Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature, 591(7851), E21–E23, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z.

Gutiérrez, J.M., R.G. Jones, G.T. Narisma, L.M. Alves, M. Amjad, I. V. Gorodetskaya, M. Grose, N.A.B. Klutse, S. Krakovska, J. Li, D. Martínez-Castro, L.O.

Mearns, S.H. Mernild, T. Ngo-Duc, B. van den Hurk, and J.-H. Yoon, 2021: Atlas. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution

of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterﬁeld, O.

Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Available from http://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/.

Haines, A. and K. Ebi, 2019: The imperative for climate action to protect health. N. Engl. J. Med., 380, 263–273, 10.1056/nejmra1807873.

Hamin, E., etal., 2018: Pathways to coastal resiliency: the adaptive gradients framework. Sustainability, 10, 2629, doi:10.3390/su10082629.

Han, D., etal., 2018: Large soil organic carbon increase due to improved agronomic management in the North China Plain from 1980s to 2010s. Glob

Change Biol, 24, 987–1000, doi:10.1111/gcb.13898.

Hanefeld, J., etal., 2018: Towards an understanding of resilience: Responding to health systems shocks. Health Policy Plan., 33, 355–367, doi:10.1093/

heapol/czx183.

Hanley, M. E., T.J. Bouma and H.L. Mossman, 2020a: The gathering storm: Optimizing management of coastal ecosystems in the face of a climate-driven

threat. Ann Bot, 125, 197–212, doi:10.1093/aob/mcz204.

Hanley, M. E., T.J. Bouma and H.L. Mossman, 2020b: The gathering storm: Optimizing management of coastal ecosystems in the face of a climate-driven

threat. Oxford University Press, 197–212.

Hansen, J., etal., 2019: Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agric Syst, 172, 28–46, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.019.

Hargan, K.E., etal., 2020: Understanding the fate of shrimp aquaculture efﬂuent in a mangrove ecosystem: Aiding management for coastal conservation.

JAppl Ecol, 57, 754–765, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13579.

Hasan, M.R., M. Nasreen and M. A. Chowdhury, 2019: Gender-inclusive disaster management policy in Bangladesh: A content analysis of national and

international regulatory frameworks. Elsevier Ltd.

Hassanali, K., 2017: Challenges in mainstreaming climate change into productive coastal sectors in a Small Island State – The case of Trinidad and Tobago.

Ocean. Coast. Manag., 142, 136–142, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.001.

Hauer, M. E., etal., 2020: Sea-level rise and human migration. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 28–39, doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0002-9.

Heikkinen, M., T. Ylä-Anttila and S. Juhola, 2019: Incremental, reformistic or transformational: what kind of change do C40 cities advocate to deal with

climate change? J. Environ. Policy Plan., 21, 90–103, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2018.1473151.

Henrique, K.P. and P. Tschakert, 2020: Pathways to urban transformation: From dispossession to climate justice. Prog Hum Geogr, 0(0),

doi:10.1177/0309132520962856. 0309132520962856.

Hermwille, L., W. Obergassel, H.E. Ott and C. Beuermann, 2017: UNFCCC before and after Paris – what’s necessary for an effective climate regime? Clim.

Policy, 17, 150–170, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1115231.

Hernández-Morcillo, M., etal., 2018: Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy,

80, 44–52, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.013.

Herrero, M., etal., 2016: Climate change and pastoralism: impacts, consequences and adaptation. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz, 35, 417–433, doi:10.20506/

rst/35.2.2533.

Herslund, L. and P. Mguni, 2019: Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water

management in Sub-Saharan cities. Sustain. Cities Soc., 48, doi:10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101573.

Hewitt, C.D., etal., 2020a: Making society climate resilient: international progress under the global framework for climate services. Bull. Am. Meteorol.

Soc., 101(2), E237–E252, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0211.1.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2796

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Hewitt, C.N., K. Ashworth and A.R. MacKenzie, 2020b: Using green infrastructure to improve urban air quality (GI4AQ). Ambio, 49, 62–73, doi:10.1007/

S13280-019-01164-3.

Hobbie, S.E. and N.B. Grimm, 2020: Nature-based approaches to managing climate change impacts in cities. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B Biol. Sci., 375(1794),

20190124, doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0124.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., etal. (ed.), The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action.

Hoffmann, R., etal., 2020: A meta-analysis of country-level studies on environmental change and migration. Nat. Clim. Chang., 10(10), 904–912,

doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0898-6.

Honarmand Ebrahimi, S. and M. Ossewaarde, 2019: Not a security issue: How policy experts de-politicize the climate change-migration nexus. Soc Sci, 8,

214, doi:10.3390/socsci8070214.

Hörner, D. and M. Wollni, 2020: RTG 1666 GlobalFood Transformation of Global Agri-Food Systems: Trends, Driving Forces, and Implications for Developing

Countries Does Integrated Soil Fertility Management increase returns to land and labor? Plot-level evidence from Ethiopia.

Hosen, N., H. Nakamura and A. Hamzah, 2020: Adaptation to climate change: does traditional ecological knowledge hold the key? Sustainability, 12(2),

doi:10.3390/su12020676.

Hossen, etal., 2019: Governance challenges in addressing climatic concerns in coastal Asia and Africa. Sustainability, 11, 2148, doi:10.3390/su11072148.

Hughes, S., 2020: Principles, drivers, and policy tools for just climate change adaptation in legacy cities. Environ. Sci. Policy, 111, 35–41, doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2020.05.007.

Hussey, L.K. and G. Arku, 2020: Are we ready for it? Health systems preparedness and capacity towards climate change-induced health risks: perspectives

of health professionals in Ghana. Clim. Dev., 12, 170–182, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1610350.

Huynh, L.T.M. and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Multi-scale assessment of social vulnerability to climate change: an empirical study in coastal Vietnam. Clim. Risk

Manag., 20, 165–180, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2018.02.003.

IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global

greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and

efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock,

S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterﬁeld (eds.)]. In Press.

IPCC, 2019: Clim. Chang., 1–864.

Islam, S., C. Chu and J.C.R. Smart, 2020a: Challenges in integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Exploring the Bangladesh case.

Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 47, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101540.

Islam, S., C. Chu, J.C.R. Smart and L. Liew, 2020b: Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a systematic literature review. Taylor

and Francis Ltd., 255–267.

Jacobson, C., S. Crevello, C. Chea and B. Jarihani, 2019: When is migration a maladaptive response to climate change? Reg Environ Change, 19, 101–112,

doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1387-6.

Jayanthi, M., S. Thirumurthy, M. Muralidhar and P. Ravichandran, 2018: Impact of shrimp aquaculture development on important ecosystems in India.

Glob. Environ. Chang., 52, 10–21, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.005.

Jenkins, K., S. Surminski, J. Hall and F. Crick, 2017: Assessing surface water ﬂood risk and management strategies under future climate change: Insights

from an Agent-Based Model. Sci. Total. Environ., 595, 159–168, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.242.

Jensen, O. and S. Nair, 2019: Integrated urban water management and water security: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Water (switzerland),

11, doi:10.3390/W11040785.

Ji, H. and D. Lee, 2021: Disaster risk reduction, community resilience, and policy effectiveness: the case of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in the

United States. Disasters, 45, 378–402, doi:10.1111/disa.12424.

Jin, J., W. Wang and X. Wang, 2016: Farmers’ risk preferences and agricultural weather index insurance uptake in rural China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 7,

366–373, doi:10.1007/s13753-016-0108-3.

Johnson, K., S. Mortensen, C. Gueguen-Teil and A.R. Torre, 2021: Displaced by climate and disaster-induced relocations: Experiences of cascading

displacement in Fiji and the Philippines. Disasters, doi:10.1111/DISA.12475.

Jolliffe, J., 2016: Economic dimensions of relocation as an adaptation strategy to climate change: A case study of the Narikoso Relocation Project, Fiji.

Jones, H.P., etal., 2020a: Global hotspots for coastal ecosystem-based adaptation. PLoS ONE, 15, e233005, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233005.

Jones, K.W., K. Powlen, R. Roberts and X. Shinbrot, 2020b: Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: A systematic

review. Ecosyst. Serv., 45, 101159, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101159.

Jordon, M.W., etal., 2020: Implications of temperate agroforestry on sheep and cattle productivity, environmental impacts and enterprise economics. A

systematic evidence map. Forests, 11, 1321, doi:10.3390/F11121321.

Joy, A. and A. Gopinath, 2021: The Application of Reefs in Shoreline Protection, 295–315.

Joyette, A.R.T., L.A. Nurse and R.S. Pulwarty, 2015: Disaster risk insurance and catastrophe models in risk-prone small Caribbean islands. Disasters, 39,

467–492, doi:10.1111/disa.12118.

Kälin, W., 2019: The Global Compact on Migration: A Ray of Hope for Disaster-Displaced Persons. Int. J. Refug. Law, 30, 664–667, doi:10.1093/ijrl/eey047.

Kannan, E. and K.B. Ramappa, 2017: Analysis of farm-level adoption of soil nutrient management technology by paddy farmers in Karnataka, India.

Environ. Dev. Sustain., 19, 2317–2331, doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9858-8.

Keeler, B.L., etal., 2019: Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Publishing Group, 29–38.

Keenan, J.M., T. Hill and A. Gumber, 2018: Climate gentriﬁcation: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade county, Florida. Environ. Res. Lett., 13,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabb32.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2797

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Keil, A., A. Mitra, A.K. Srivastava and A. McDonald, 2019: Social inclusion increases with time for zero-tillage wheat in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains.

World Dev., 123, 104582, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.006.

Kelman, I., etal., 2019: Does climate change inﬂuence people’s migration decisions in Maldives? Clim Change, 153, 285–299, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-

02376-y.

Kendrovski, V. and O. Schmoll, 2019: Priorities for protecting health from climate change in the WHO European region: recent regional activities. Springer

Verlag, 537–545.

Kenney, C. and S. Phibbs, 2020: Indigenous peoples and climate change: situating culture, identity, and place in climate change risk mitigation and

resilience. In: Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation [Leal Filho, W., J. Luetz and D. Ayal(eds.)]. Springer

International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-3030227593.

Khalil, M.B., B.C. Jacobs, K. McKenna and N. Kuruppu, 2020: Female contribution to grassroots innovation for climate change adaptation in Bangladesh.

Clim. Dev., 12(7), 664–676, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1676188.

Khatri-Chhetri, A., P.K. Aggarwal, P.K. Joshi and S. Vyas, 2017: Farmers’ prioritization of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies. Agric Syst, 151,

184–191, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.005.

Khatri-Chhetri, A., J.P. Aryal, T.B. Sapkota and R. Khurana, 2016: Economic beneﬁts of climate-smart agricultural practices to smallholder farmers in the

Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Curr. Sci., 110, 1251–1256, doi:10.18520/cs/v110/i7/1251-1256.

Kihila, J.M., 2017: Indigenous coping and adaptation strategies to climate change of local communities in Tanzania: a review. Clim. Dev., 1–11, doi:10.1

080/17565529.2017.1318739.

Kihila, J.M., 2018: Indigenous coping and adaptation strategies to climate change of local communities in Tanzania: a review. Taylor and Francis Ltd.,

406–416.

Kim, H. and D.W. Marcouiller, 2020: Making sense of resilience planning and policy in the pursuit of sustainable development and disaster risk reduction.

Clim. Dev., 12, 228–240, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1613215.

Kind, J., W. Botzen and J.C.J.H. Aerts, 2017: Accounting for risk aversion, income distribution and social welfare in cost-beneﬁt analysis for ﬂood risk

management. Wires Clim. Chang., 8, e446, doi:10.1002/wcc.446.

Klein, J.A., etal., 2019: An integrated community and ecosystem-based approach to disaster risk reduction in mountain systems. Environ. Sci. Policy, 94,

143–152, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.034.

Kligler, B., etal., 2021: The impact of integrating environmental health into medical school curricula: a survey-based study. BMC Med. Educ., 21(1), 40,

doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02458-x.

Klinenberg, E., 2018: Palaces for the people : how social infrastructure can help ﬁght inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. ISBN 978-

1524761165. 1524761168 9781524761172 1524761176 9781984822413 1984822411.

Kmoch, L., T. Pagella, M. Palm and F. Sinclair, 2018: Using local agroecological knowledge in climate change adaptation: A study of tree-based options in

Northern Morocco. Sustain. (switzerland), 10, 3719, doi:10.3390/su10103719.

Kodali, R. K. and B. S. Sarjerao (eds.), A low cost smart irrigation system using MQTT protocol. 2017 IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP), 14-16 July

2017, 1-5 pp.

Koslov, L., 2019: Avoiding climate change: “agnostic adaptation” and the politics of public silence. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 109, 568–580, doi:10.1080/

24694452.2018.1549472.

Koubi, V., etal., 2018: The Determinants of Environmental Migrants’ Conﬂict Perception. cambridge.org.

Kouis, P., etal., 2021: The MEDEA childhood asthma study design for mitigation of desert dust health effects: implementation of novel methods for

assessment of air pollution exposure and lessons learned. BMC Pediatr., 21(1), 13, doi:10.1186/s12887-020-02472-4.

Kousky, C., H. Wiley and L. Shabman, 2021: Can parametric microinsurance improve the ﬁnancial resilience of low-income households in the United

States? Econ. Disasters Clim. Chang., doi:10.1007/s41885-021-00088-1.

Krauss, K.W. and M.J. Osland, 2020: Tropical cyclones and the organization of mangrove forests: A review. Ann Bot, 125, 213–234, doi:10.1093/aob/

mcz161.

Krosby, M., J. Tewksbury, N.M. Haddad and J. Hoekstra, 2010: Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conserv. Biol., 24, 1686–1689, doi:10.1111/

j.1523-1739.2010.01585.x.

Krueger, E., P.S.C. Rao and D. Borchardt, 2019: Quantifying urban water supply security under global change. Glob. Environ. Chang., 56, 66–74,

doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2019.03.009.

Lalani, B., P. Dorward and G. Holloway, 2017: Farm-level economic analysis - is conservation agriculture helping the poor? Ecol. Econ., 141, 144–153,

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.033.

Lamari, M., J. Bouchard, J. Jacob and L. Poulin-Larivière, 2016: Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal Zones: Overview of

the Indicators in Use. Springer, 3–20.

Lange, W., etal., 2019: Ecosystem-based approaches for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Rio de Janeiro state. Springer, Cham,

345–359.

Langemeyer, J., etal., 2020: Creating urban green infrastructure where it is needed – A spatial ecosystem service-based decision analysis of green roofs

in Barcelona. Sci. Total. Environ., 707, 135487, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487.

Lardizabal, C.C., 2015: Basin comanagement plans – A participative approach to water governance: a case study in Honduras, Central America. Sustain.

Integr. Water Resour. Manag. Water Gov. Clim. Ecohydrol., 345–363, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12194-9_19.

Lashley, J.G. and K. Warner, 2015: Evidence of demand for microinsurance for coping and adaptation to weather extremes in the Caribbean. Clim Change,

133, 101–112, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0922-1.

Lausche, B., etal. (ed.), The Legal Aspects of Connectivity Conservation A Concept Paper.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2798

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Lavorel, S., B. Locatelli, M.J. Colloff and E. Bruley, 2020: Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol.

Sci., 375, doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0119.

Le Cornu, E., etal., 2018: Spatial management in small-scale ﬁsheries: A potential approach for climate change adaptation in Paciﬁc Islands. Mar. Policy.,

88, 350–358, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.030.

Leakhena, C., etal., 2018: Aiming for Improved Gender Equity in Cambodian Aquaculture.

Leigh, N.G. and H. Lee, 2019: Sustainable and resilient urban water systems: The role of decentralization and planning. Sustain. (switzerland), 11,

doi:10.3390/SU11030918.

Li, Z., etal., 2020: Biochar-supported nanoscale zero-valent iron as an efﬁcient catalyst for organic degradation in groundwater. J. Hazard. Mater., 383,

doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121240.

Liang, Y., M. Du, X. Wang and X. Xu, 2020: Planning for urban life: A new approach of sustainable land use plan based on transit-oriented development.

Eval Program Plann, 80, 101811, doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101811.

Liao, W., etal., 2019: Preparing the next generation of health professionals to tackle climate change: Are China’s medical students ready? Environ. Res.,

168, 270–277, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.006.

Ligsay, A., O. Telle and R. Paul, 2021: Challenges to mitigating the urban health burden of mosquito-borne diseases in the face of climate change. Int. J.

Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(9), doi:10.3390/ijerph18095035.

Lima, M. and C. Coelho, 2021: Integrated methodology for physical and economic assessment of coastal interventions impacts. J. Model. Optim., 13,

22–43, doi:10.32732/jmo.2021.13.1.22.

Lin, T.Y., V.M.V. Onselen and L.P. Vo, 2021: Coastal erosion in Vietnam: Case studies and implication for integrated coastal zone management in the

Vietnamese south-central coastline. Iop Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 652, 12009, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/652/1/012009.

Linares, C., etal., 2020: Impacts of climate change on the public health of the Mediterranean Basin population - Current situation, projections, preparedness

and adaptation. Academic Press Inc.

Lincke, D. and J. Hinkel, 2018: Economically robust protection against 21st century sea-level rise. Glob. Environ. Chang., 51, 67–73, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2018.05.003.

Linke, A., F. Witmer and J. O. L.-E. … and u., 2018: The consequences of relocating in response to drought: human mobility and conﬂict in contemporary

Kenya. iopscience.iop.org.

Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and S. Hochrainer-Stigler, 2015: Financial instruments for disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Clim Change,

133, 85–100, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1035-6.

Liu, L. and M.B. Jensen, 2018: Green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management: Practices of ﬁve forerunner cities. Cities, 74, 126–133,

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.013.

Lochhead, K., S. Ghafghazi, V. LeMay and G.Q. Bull, 2019: Examining the vulnerability of localized reforestation strategies to climate change at a

macroscale. J. Environ. Manag., 252, 109625, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109625.

Lock-Wah-Hoon, J., etal., 2020: Exploring vector-borne disease surveillance and response systems in Beijing, China: a qualitative study from the health

system perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17(22), doi:10.3390/ijerph17228512.

Lunduka, R.W., K.I. Mateva, C. Magorokosho and P. Manjeru, 2019: Impact of adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties on total maize production in

south Eastern Zimbabwe. Clim. Dev., 11, 35–46, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1372269.

Luqman, M., etal., 2018: Socio-economic impacts of agro-forestry on livelihoods of rural households in southern region of the Punjab, Pakistan. SJA, 34,

doi:10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.4.880.887.

Strøbech, L. and R. Bordon, 2020: Addressing the risk of Maladaptation in Social Protection: The case of World Food Programme.

Mach, K.J., etal., 2019: Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of ﬂood-prone properties. 5, doi:10.1126/SCIADV.AAX8995.

Magnan, A.K. and V.K.E. Duvat, 2018: Unavoidable solutions for coastal adaptation in Reunion Island (Indian Ocean). Environ. Sci. Policy, 89, 393–400,

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.002.

Maharjan, A., etal., 2020: Migration and household adaptation in climate-sensitive hotspots in south Asia. Curr Clim Change Rep, 6, doi:10.1007/S40641-

020-00153-Z.

Makate, C., R. Wang, M. Makate and N. Mango, 2016: Crop diversiﬁcation and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: Adaptive management

for environmental change. SpringerPlus, 5, 1–18, doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2802-4.

Maldonado, J., etal., 2021: Addressing the challenges of climate-driven community-led resettlement and site expansion: knowledge sharing, storytelling,

healing, and collaborative coalition building. JEnviron Stud Sci, 1–11, doi:10.1007/S13412-021-00695-0.

Mallick, B., B. Ahmed and J. V.-. Environments and u., 2017: Living with the risks of cyclone disasters in the south-western coastal region of Bangladesh.

mdpi.com.

Marchezini, V., 2020: “What is a sociologist doing here?” an unconventional people-centered approach to improve warning implementation in the Sendai

framework for disaster risk reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 11(2), 218–229, doi:10.1007/s13753-020-00262-1.

Margaret, D. and S. Matias, 2020: Climate humanitarian visa: international migration opportunities as post-disaster humanitarian intervention. Clim

Change, 160, 143–156, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02691-9.

Margerum, R.D. and C.J. Robinson, 2015: Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.,

12, 53–58, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.003.

Martin, G., etal., 2020: Potential of multi-species livestock farming to improve the sustainability of livestock farms: A review. Agric Syst, 181, 102821,

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102821.

Martin, S.M. and K. Lorenzen, 2016: Livelihood diversiﬁcation in rural Laos. World Dev, 83, 231–243, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.018.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2799

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Martínez-Barón, D., etal., 2021: Strengthening the climate services chain in Central America.

Martuti, N.K.T., R. Pribadi, W.A.B.N. Sidiq and D.P. Mutiatari, 2020: Community-Based Integrated Coastal Management Strategy in Tugurejo Subdistrict,

Semarang. Atlantis Press, 73–80.

Masud, M.M., etal., 2017: Adaptation barriers and strategies towards climate change: Challenges in the agricultural sector. JClean Prod, 156, 698–706,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.060.

Mayer, A., Z. Hausfather and W. Silver, 2018: The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures. Sci. Adv.,

4, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaq0932.

McFadden, J., D. Smith, S. Wechsler and S. Wallander (eds.), Development, Adoption, and Management of Drought-Tolerant Corn in the United States.

McLeman, R., 2018: Migration and displacement risks due to mean sea-level rise. Bull. At. Sci., 74(3), 148–154, doi:10.1080/00963402.2018.1461951.

McLeman, R., 2019: International migration and climate adaptation in an era of hardening borders. Nat. Clim. Chang., 9(12), 911–918, doi:10.1038/

s41558-019-0634-2.

McMichael, C., etal., 2021: Rising seas, immobilities, and translocality in small island states: case studies from Fiji and Tuvalu. Popul Environ, 43(1),

82–107, doi:10.1007/s11111-021-00378-6.

McMichael, C. and M. Katonivualiku, 2020: Thick temporalities of planned relocation in Fiji. Geoforum, 108, 286–294, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.012.

McNamara, K.E., 2015: Cross-border migration with dignity in Kiribati. Forced Migr. Rev., 49, 62.

McNamara, K.E., R. Westoby and A. Chandra, 2021: Exploring climate-driven non-economic loss and damage in the Paciﬁc Islands. Curr. Opin. Environ.

Sustain., 50, 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.07.004.

Meerow, S., 2019: A green infrastructure spatial planning model for evaluating ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies across three coastal megacities.

Environ. Res. Lett., 14, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab502c.

Mena, R. and D. Hilhorst, 2021: The (im)possibilities of disaster risk reduction in the context of high-intensity conﬂict: the case of Afghanistan. Environ.

Hazards, 20(2), 188–208, doi:10.1080/17477891.2020.1771250.

Mestanza-Ramón, C., M.S. Capa, H.F. Saavedra and J.R. Paredes, 2019: Integrated coastal zone management in continental Ecuador and Galapagos

Islands: Challenges and opportunities in a changing tourism and economic context. Sustainability, 11, 6386, doi:10.3390/su11226386.

Miller, F., 2020: Exploring the consequences of climate-related displacement for just resilience in Vietnam. Urban Stud., 57, 1570–1587,

doi:10.1177/0042098019830239.

Mills, M., etal., 2016: Reconciling development and conservation under coastal squeeze from rising sea level. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 9, 361–368,

doi:10.1111/conl.12213.

Minang, P.A., etal., 2014: Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa. Elsevier, 78–82.

Monstadt, J. and A. Wolff, 2015: Energy transition or incremental change? Green policy agendas and the adaptability of the urban energy regime in Los

Angeles. Energy Policy, 78, 213–224, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.022.

Morecroft, M.D., etal., 2019: Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science, 366, doi:10.1126/

science.aaw9256.

Morris, R., etal., 2019: Developing a nature-based coastal defence strategy for Australia. Aust. J. Civ. Eng., 17, 167–176, doi:10.1080/14488353.2019.1

661062.

Morris, R.L., T.M. Konlechner, M. Ghisalberti and S. Swearer, 2018: From grey to green: Efﬁcacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal

defence. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1827–1842.

Mortreux, C., etal., 2018: Political economy of planned relocation: A model of action and inaction in government responses. Glob. Environ. Chang., 50,

123–132, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.008.

Mottaleb, K. A., etal., 2017: Beneﬁts of the development and dissemination of climate-smart rice: ex ante impact assessment of drought-tolerant rice in

South Asia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change, 22, 879–901, doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9705-0.

Mponela, P., etal., 2016: Determinants of integrated soil fertility management technologies adoption by smallholder farmers in the Chinyanja Triangle of

Southern Africa. Land Use Policy, 59, 38–48, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.029.

Mueller, V., C. Gray, S. Handa and D. Seidenfeld, 2020: Do social protection programs foster short-term and long-term migration adaptation strategies?

Envir. Dev. Econ., 25, 135–158, doi:10.1017/S1355770X19000214.

Muench, S., S. Thuss and E. Guenther, 2014: What hampers energy system transformations? The case of smart grids. Energy Policy, 73, 80–92, doi:10.1016/j.

enpol.2014.05.051.

Müller, B., L. Johnson and D. Kreuer, 2017: Maladaptive outcomes of climate insurance in agriculture. Glob. Environ. Chang., 46, 23–33, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2017.06.010.

Muricho, D.N., D.J. Otieno, W. Oluoch-Kosura and M. Jirström, 2019: Building pastoralists’ resilience to shocks for sustainable disaster risk mitigation:

lessons from west Pokot county, Kenya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 34, 429–435, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.12.012.

Murti, R., S.L. Mathez-Stiefel, V.R. Garcia and S. Rist, 2020: Engaging national policy makers in ecosystem based disaster risk reduction through social

learning: Lessons from workshops in Africa, oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean. Elsevier Ltd.

Mustafa, S., etal., 2021: Technological applications and adaptations in aquaculture for progress towards sustainable development and seafood security.

(Tall etal.) Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 718, 12041, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/718/1/012041.

Mustapha, U.F., A.-W. Alhassan, D.-N. Jiang and G.-L. Li, 2021: Sustainable aquaculture development: a review on the roles of cloud computing, internet

of things and artiﬁcial intelligence (CIA). Rev. Aquac., doi:10.1111/raq.12559.

Mutuku, E.A., etal., 2020: Maize production under combined conservation agriculture and integrated soil fertility management in the sub-humid and

semi-arid regions of Kenya. Field Crop. Res., 254, 107833, doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107833.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2800

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Nabuurs, G.-J., etal., 2017: By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests, 8(12), doi:10.3390/

f8120484.

Natarajan, N. and K.B.-E.P. a. … u, 2019: Climate change adaptation and precarity across the rural–urban divide in Cambodia: Towards a ‘climate

precarity’ approach. 2, 899–921, doi:10.1177/2514848619858155. journals.sagepub.com.

Nawrotzki, R.J. and J. DeWaard, 2018: Putting trapped populations into place: climate change and inter-district migration ﬂows in Zambia. Reg. Environ.

Change, 18, 533–546, doi:10.1007/S10113-017-1224-3.

Neef, A., et al., 2018: Climate adaptation strategies in Fiji: the role of social norms and cultural values. World Dev., 107, 125–137, doi:10.1016/j.

worlddev.2018.02.029.

Negev, M., etal., 2021: Regional lessons from the COVID-19 outbreak in the Middle East: from infectious diseases to climate change adaptation. Sci. Total

Environ., 768, 144434, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144434.

Negev, M., etal., 2019: Adaptation of health systems to climate-related migration in Sub-Saharan Africa: Closing the gap. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 222,

311–314, doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.10.004.

Ngin, C., J.H. Grayman, A. Neef and N. Sanunsilp, 2020: The role of faith-based institutions in urban disaster risk reduction for immigrant communities.

Nat. Hazards, 103(1), 299–316, doi:10.1007/s11069-020-03988-9.

Nguyen Mai, T.H. and D. Hoang, 2018: Gender role in mangrove resource management: case study in Trieu Phong district of Quang Tri province, Vietnam.

J. Vietnamese Environ., 9(2), doi:10.13141/jve.vol9.no2.pp92-98.

Nguyen, T.T., etal., 2019: Implementation of a speciﬁc urban water management - sponge city. Sci. Total. Environ., 652, 147–162, doi:10.1016/J.

SCITOTENV.2018.10.168.

Nicholls, R., J. Hinkel, D. Lincke and T.D. van der Pol, 2019: Global Investment Costs for Coastal Defense Through the 21st Century. World Bank Policy

Research Working Paper Series.

Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2021: Green Infrastructure and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 42(1), 317–328, doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102511.

Nightingale, A.J., 2017: Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: Struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political

instability. Geoforum, 84, 11–20, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.05.011.

Ntshangase, N.L., B. Muroyiwa and M. Sibanda, 2018: Farmers’ perceptions and factors inﬂuencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by

small-scale farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal province. Sustain. (switzerland), 10, 555, doi:10.3390/su10020555.

Nunes, S., etal., 2020: Challenges and opportunities for large-scale reforestation in the Eastern Amazon using native species. Elsevier B.V. 118120 pp.

Nuzzo, J.B., etal., 2019: What makes health systems resilient against infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards? Results from a scoping review.

Bmc Public Health, 19, doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7707-z.

Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., 2017: Agricultural diversiﬁcation and dietary diversity: A feminist political ecology of the everyday experiences of landless and

smallholder households in northern Ghana. Geoforum, 86, 63–75, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.003.

O’Donnell, T., 2019: Contrasting land use policies for climate change adaptation: A case study of political and geo-legal realities for Australian coastal

locations. Land Use Policy, 88, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2019.104145.

O’Mahony, C., S. Gray, J. Gault and V. Cummins, 2020: ICZM as a framework for climate change adaptation action – Experience from Cork Harbour, Ireland.

Mar. Policy., 111, 102223, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.008.

O’Hare, P., I. White and A. Connelly, 2016: Insurance as maladaptation: resilience and the ‘business as usual’ paradox. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 34,

1175–1193, doi:10.1177/0263774X15602022.

Oakes, R., 2019: Culture, climate change and mobility decisions in Paciﬁc small island developing states. Popul. Environ., 40, 480–503, doi:10.1007/

s11111-019-00321-w.

Ober, K. and P. Sakdapolrak, 2020: Whose climate change adaptation ‘barriers’? Exploring the coloniality of climate change adaptation policy assemblages

in Thailand and beyond. Singap J Trop Geogr, 41(1), 86–104, doi:10.1111/sjtg.12309.

Obokata, R. and L. Veronis, 2018: Transnational approaches to remittances, risk reduction, and disaster relief: evidence from post-Typhoon Haiyan experiences

of Filipino immigrants in Canada. In: Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration, pp. 270–276. doi:10.4324/9781315638843-

21.

Ogada, M.J., etal., 2020: Climate-smart agriculture, household income and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers in the Nyando basin of Kenya.

World Dev. Perspect., 18, 100203–100203, doi:10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100203.

Ogle, S.M., etal., 2019: Climate and soil characteristics determine where no-till management can store carbon in soils and mitigate greenhouse gas

emissions. Sci. Rep., 9, 1–8, doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47861-7.

Ojea, E., S.E. Lester and D. Salgueiro-Otero, 2020: Adaptation of Fishing Communities to Climate-Driven Shifts in Target Species. Cell Press, 544–556.

Ontl, T.A., etal., 2020: Forest management for carbon sequestration and climate adaptation. J. For., 118, 86–101, doi:10.1093/jofore/fvz062.

Opoku, S.K., W.L. Filho, F. Hubert and O. Adejumo, 2021: Climate change and health preparedness in Africa: analysing trends in six African countries. Int.

J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(9), doi:10.3390/ijerph18094672.

Oral, H.V., etal., 2020: A review of nature-based solutions for urban water management in European circular cities: a critical assessment based on case

studies and literature. Blue-green Syst., 2, 112–136, doi:10.2166/BGS.2020.932.

Orchard, S.E., L.C. Stringer and C.H. Quinn, 2016: Mangrove system dynamics in Southeast Asia: linking livelihoods and ecosystem services in Vietnam.

Reg. Environ. Change, 16(3), 865–879, doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0802-5.

Osmundsen, T.C., etal., 2020: The operationalisation of sustainability: Sustainable aquaculture production as deﬁned by certiﬁcation schemes. Glob.

Environ. Chang., 60, 102025, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102025.

Ossola, A. and B.B. Lin, 2021: Making nature-based solutions climate-ready for the 50°C world. Elsevier Ltd, 151–159.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2801

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Ota, L., J. Herbohn, N. Gregorio and S. Harrison, 2020: Reforestation and smallholder livelihoods in the humid tropics. Land Use Policy, 92, 104455,

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104455.

Owen, G., 2020: What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Glob. Environ. Chang., 62, 102071, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2020.102071.

Paganini, Z., 2019: Underwater: Resilience, racialized housing, and the national ﬂood insurance program in Canarsie, Brooklyn. Geoforum, 104, 25–35,

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.003.

Pardo, G. and A. del Prado, 2020: Guidelines for small ruminant production systems under climate emergency in Europe. Small Rumin. Res., 193, 106261,

doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106261.

Parihar, C.M., etal., 2020: Soil quality and carbon sequestration under conservation agriculture with balanced nutrition in intensive cereal-based system.

Soil Tillage Res., 202, 104653, doi:10.1016/j.still.2020.104653.

Parry, L., etal., 2019: The (in)visible health risks of climate change. Soc. Sci. Med., 241, 112448, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112448.

Parton, K. A., J. Crean and P. Hayman, 2019: The value of seasonal climate forecasts for Australian agriculture. Agric. Syst., 174, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.

agsy.2019.04.005.

Pascal, M., etal., 2021: Evolving heat waves characteristics challenge heat warning systems and prevention plans. Int. J. Biometeorol., doi:10.1007/

s00484-021-02123-y.

Patel, R., G. Walker, M. Bhatt and V. Pathak, 2017: The demand for disaster microinsurance for small businesses in urban slums: the results of surveys in

three Indian cities. Plos Curr. Disasters, 9.

Paudel, U. and K.P. Pant, 2020: Estimation of household health cost and climate adaptation cost with its health related determinants: empirical evidences

from western Nepal. Heliyon, 6(11), e5492, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05492.

Paul, S., etal., 2020: Development of an indicator based composite measure to assess livelihood sustainability of shifting cultivation dependent ethnic

minorities in the disadvantageous Northeastern region of India. Ecol Indic, 110, 105934, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105934.

Pearson, J., K.E. McNamara and P.D. Nunn, 2019: Gender-speciﬁc perspectives of mangrove ecosystem services: Case study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands.

Ecosyst. Serv., 38, 100970, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100970.

Pelling, M. and M. Garschagen, 2019: Put equity ﬁrst in climate adaptation. Nature Publishing Group, 327–329.

Pelling, M., etal., 2018: Africa’s urban adaptation transition under a 1.5° climate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 10–15, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.005.

Peng, L.L.H., etal., 2020: Cooling effects of block-scale facade greening and their relationship with urban form. Build. Environ., 169, 106552, doi:10.1016/j.

buildenv.2019.106552.

Perera-Valderrama, S., etal., 2020: Increasing marine ecosystems conservation linking marine protected areas and integrated coastal management in

southern Cuba. Ocean. Coast. Manag., 196, 105300, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105300.

Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. and J.A. Chica-Ruiz, 2015: Evaluation of a programme of integrated coastal zone management: the Ecoplata programme (Uruguay).

Mar. Policy., 51, 527–535, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.008.

Perrels, A., 2020: Quantifying the uptake of climate services at micro and macro level. Clim. Serv., 17, 100152, doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100152.

Perrotti, D. and S. Stremke, 2018: Can urban metabolism models advance green infrastructure planning? Insights from ecosystem services research. 47(4),

678–694, doi:10.1177/2399808318797131. doi:10.1177/2399808318797131.

Petrova, K., 2021: Natural hazards, internal migration and protests in Bangladesh. JPeace Res, 58, 33–49, doi:10.1177/0022343320973741.

Phillips, M.R., A.L. Jones and T. Thomas, 2018: Climate change, coastal management and acceptable risk: consequences for tourism. J. Coast. Res., 85,

1411–1415, doi:10.2112/SI85-283.1.

Piggott-McKellar, A.E., K.E. McNamara, P.D. Nunn and S.T. Sekinini, 2019: Moving people in a changing climate: Lessons from two case studies in Fiji. Soc

Sci, 8, 133, doi:10.3390/socsci8050133.

Piguet, E., 2019: Climatic statelessness: risk assessment and policy options. Popul. Dev. Rev., 45(4), 865–883, doi:10.1111/padr.12295.

Porst, L., P.S. Population, S. Place and u, 2020: Gendered translocal connectedness: Rural–urban migration, remittances, and social resilience in Thailand.

Wiley Online Libr., 26, doi:10.1002/psp.2314.

Pour, S.H., etal., 2020: Low impact development techniques to mitigate the impacts of climate-change-induced urban ﬂoods: current trends, issues and

challenges. Sustain. Cities Soc., 62, 102373, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102373.

Prestele, R., etal., 2018: A spatially explicit representation of conservation agriculture for application in global change studies. Glob. Change Biol., 24,

4038–4053, doi:10.1111/gcb.14307.

Propato, M., J.S. Clough and A. Polaczyk, 2018: Evaluating the costs and beneﬁts of marsh-management strategies while accounting for uncertain sea-

level rise and ecosystem response. PLoS ONE, 13, e200368, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200368.

Quandt, A., H. Neufeldt and J.T. McCabe, 2017: The role of agroforestry in building livelihood resilience to ﬂoods and drought in semiarid Kenya. Ecol. Soc.,

22, 10, doi:10.5751/ES-09461-220310.

Qurani, I.Z., N.I. Fawzi, R. Fadilah and W. Kismorodati, 2021: Empowering ﬁsh-farmer through coastal ﬁeld school: towards sustainable aquaculture

practice. Iop Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 750, 12054, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/750/1/012054.

Radel, C., B. Schmook, L. Carte and S. Mardero, 2018: Toward a political ecology of migration: land, labor migration, and climate change in northwestern

Nicaragua. World Dev, 108, 263–273, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.023.

Rahman, A.T.M.S., etal., 2017: Drought analysis and its implication in sustainable water resource management in Barind area, Bangladesh. JGeol Soc

India, 89(1), 47–56, doi:10.1007/s12594-017-0557-3.

Rahman, S., M.S. Islam, M.N.H. Khan and M. Touhiduzzaman, 2019: Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) through coastal

afforestation in South-Central Coast of Bangladesh. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J., 30, 498–517, doi:10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0021.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2802

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Rahut, D.B., J.P. Aryal and P. Marenya, 2021: Understanding climate-risk coping strategies among farm households: Evidence from ﬁve countries in Eastern

and Southern Africa. 769, 145236.

Ramalho, J., 2019: Worlding aspirations and resilient futures: Framings of risk and contemporary city-making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines. Asia Pac

Viewp, 60, 24–36, doi:10.1111/apv.12208.

Ranganathan, M. and E. Bratman, 2021: From urban resilience to abolitionist climate justice in Washington, DC. Antipode, 53(1), 115–137, doi:10.1111/

anti.12555.

Rao, N., etal., 2020: Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and

India. World Dev, 125, 104667, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2019.104667.

Rasmussen, D., M. Oppenheimer, R.E. Kopp and R. Shwom, 2020: The political complexity of coastal ﬂood risk reduction: lessons for climate adaptation

public works in the U.S. Earth Space Sci. Open Arch., doi:10.1002/essoar.10502705.3.

Ratter, B., A. Hennig and Zahid, 2019: Challenges for shared responsibility – Political and social framing of coastal protection transformation in the

Maldives. Die Erde – J. Geogr. Soc. Berl., 150, doi:10.12854/erde-2019-426.

Raymond, C.M., etal., 2017: A framework for assessing and implementing the co-beneﬁts of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy,

77, 15–24, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008.

Reddy, V.R., T. Chiranjeevi and G. Syme, 2020: Inclusive sustainable intensiﬁcation of agriculture in West Bengal, India: policy and institutional approaches.

Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 18, 70–83, doi:10.1080/14735903.2019.1698489.

Reguero, B.G., etal., 2018: Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: a case study from the Gulf Coast of the United

States. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e192132, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192132.

Rigg, J. and K. Oven, 2015: Building liberal resilience? A critical review from developing rural Asia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 32, 175–186, doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2015.03.007.

Rogelj, J., etal., 2018: Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C. Nature Clim Change, 8, 325–332, doi:10.1038/s41558-

018-0091-3.

Romañach, S.S., etal., 2018: Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean. Coast. Manag., 154, 72–82,

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.009.

Rosendo, S., L. Celliers and M. Mechisso, 2018: Doing more with the same: a reality-check on the ability of local government to implement integrated

coastal management for climate change adaptation. Mar. Policy, 87, 29–39, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.001.

Rosenzweig, C., etal., 2018: Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University

Press, 17–42.

Rosyida, I., W. Ullah, A. Helmi and M. Sasaoka, 2019: Adapting livelihoods to the impacts of tin mining in Indonesia: options and constraints. Vol. 6,

1302–1313.

Roy, J., etal., 2018: Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities. In: Global warming of 1.5° C.

Rudolph, L., N. Maizlish, S. North and K. Dervin, 2020: A public health learning collaborative on climate change for urban health departments, 2016-2018.

Public Health Rep, 135, 189–201, doi:10.1177/0033354920902468.

Runkle, J., etal., 2018: Population Health Adaptation Approaches to the Increasing Severity and Frequency of Weather-Related Disasters Resulting From

our Changing Climate: A Literature Review and Application to Charleston, South Carolina. Springer, 439–452.

Ruszczyk, H.A., etal., 2020: Empowering women through participatory action research in community-based disaster risk reduction efforts. Int. J. Disaster

Risk Reduct., 51, 101763, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101763.

Salam, S. and S. Bauer, 2020: Rural non-farm economy and livelihood diversiﬁcation strategies: evidence from Bangladesh. GeoJournal, 1–13, doi:10.1007/

s10708-020-10269-2.

Salmon, G., etal., 2018: Trade-offs in livestock development at farm level: Different actors with different objectives. Glob Food Sec, 17, 103–112,

doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.04.002.

Sampantamit, T., etal., 2020: Aquaculture production and its environmental sustainability in Thailand: challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability,

12, doi:10.3390/su12052010.

Sani Ibrahim, S., H. Ozdeser and B. Cavusoglu, 2019: Financial inclusion as a pathway to welfare enhancement and income equality: Micro-level evidence

from Nigeria. Dev. South. Afr., 36, 390–407, doi:10.1080/0376835X.2018.1498766.

Santoro, A., M. Venturi, R. Bertani and M. Agnoletti, 2020: A review of the role of forests and agroforestry systems in the FAO globally important

agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) programme. Forests, 11, 860, doi:10.3390/F11080860.

Sarkar, D., etal., 2018: Can sustainability of maize-mustard cropping system be achieved through balanced nutrient management? Field Crop. Res., 225,

9–21, doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.018.

Scheres, B. and H. Schüttrumpf, 2019: Enhancing the Ecological Value of Sea Dikes.

Schoeneberger, M., etal., 2012: Branching out: Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv.,

67, 128A–136A, doi:10.2489/jswc.67.5.128A.

Schoonees, T., etal., 2019: Hard structures for coastal protection, towards greener designs. Estuaries Coasts, 42, 1709–1729, doi:10.1007/s12237-019-

00551-z.

Schramm, P.J., etal., 2020: How indigenous communities are adapting to climate change: insights from the climate-ready tribes initiative. Health Aff.,

39(12), 2153–2159, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00997.

Schuhbauer, A., etal., 2017: How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale ﬁsheries. Mar. Policy., 82, 114–121, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.013.

Schulte, L.A., etal., 2017: Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci. U.S.A., 114, 11247–11252, doi:10.1073/pnas.1620229114.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2803

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Schwerdtle, P., K. Bowen and C. McMichael, 2018: The health impacts of climate-related migration. BMC Med, 16(1), 1–7, doi:10.1186/S12916-017-0981-7.

Schwerdtle, P., C. McMichael and I. M.-E. and u., 2020: Health and migration in the context of a changing climate: a systematic literature assessment .

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ece. iopscience.iop.org.

Seddon, N., etal., 2020a: Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Royal Society

Publishing.

Seddon, N., etal., 2020b: Global recognition of the importance of nature-based solutions to the impacts of climate change. Glob. Sustain., 3, doi:10.1017/

sus.2020.8.

Seddon, N., etal., 2019: Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nature Publishing Group, 84–87.

Sedova, B. and M. Kalkuhl, 2020: Who are the climate migrants and where do they go? Evidence from rural India. World Dev., 129, 104848, doi:10.1016/j.

worlddev.2019.104848.

See, J. and B. Wilmsen, 2020: Just adaptation? Generating new vulnerabilities and shaping adaptive capacities through the politics of climate-related

resettlement in a Philippine coastal city. Glob. Environ. Chang., 65, 102188, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102188.

Seebauer, S., S. Ortner, P. Babcicky and T. Thaler, 2019: Bottom-up citizen initiatives as emergent actors in ﬂood risk management: Mapping roles, relations

and limitations. J. Flood Risk Manag., 12, doi:10.1111/jfr3.12468.

Seleka, M., B. Lough, E. Combaz and M.L. Seleka, 2017: African Young Graduates and Scholars Conference Paper.

Semenza, J.C. and K.L. Ebi, 2019: Climate change impact on migration, travel, travel destinations and the tourism industry. J. Travel Med., 26, doi:10.1093/

jtm/taz026.

Serre, D. and C. Heinzlef, 2018: Assessing and mapping urban resilience to ﬂoods with respect to cascading effects through critical infrastructure networks.

Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 30, 235–243, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.018.

Shackleton, S., etal., 2015: Why is socially-just climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review of barriers identiﬁed from

empirical cases. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 321–344, doi:10.1002/wcc.335.

Shaffril, H.A.M., A. Abu Samah and J.L. D’Silva, 2017: Adapting towards climate change impacts: Strategies for small-scale ﬁshermen in Malaysia. Mar.

Policy., 81, 196–201, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.032.

Shah, F. and W. Wu, 2019: Soil and crop management strategies to ensure higher crop productivity within sustainable environments. Sustainability, 11,

1485, doi:10.3390/su11051485.

Shang, Z., etal., 2021: Can cropland management practices lower net greenhouse emissions without compromising yield? Glob Change Biol, doi:10.1111/

gcb.15796.

Shannon, P.D., etal., 2019: Adaptation strategies and approaches for forested watersheds. Elsevier B.V., 51–64.

Shapiro, S., 2016: The realpolitik of building codes: overcoming practical limitations to climate resilience. Build. Res. Inf., 44, 490–506, doi:10.1080/096

13218.2016.1156957.

Sharma, H., D. Kumar, L. and K.S. Pant, 2020: Agroforestry- A sustainable tool for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Agric. Rev., doi:10.18805/

ag.r-1924.

Sharma, R. and R. Sharma, 2021: Community based ﬂood risk management: local knowledge and actor’s involvement approach from lower Karnali river

basin of Nepal. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot., 9(6), 35–65, doi:10.4236/GEP.2021.96003.

Sheehan, M.C. and M. A. Fox, 2020: Early warnings: the lessons of COVID-19 for public health climate preparedness. Int J Health Serv, 50, 264–270,

doi:10.1177/0020731420928971.

Shi, L., 2019: Promise and paradox of metropolitan regional climate adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy, 92, 262–274, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.002.

Shi, L. and A.M. Varuzzo, 2020: Surging seas, rising ﬁscal stress: Exploring municipal ﬁscal vulnerability to climate change. Cities, 100, doi:10.1016/j.

cities.2020.102658.

Shokry, G., J.J. Connolly and I. Anguelovski, 2020: Understanding climate gentriﬁcation and shifting landscapes of protection and vulnerability in green

resilient Philadelphia. Urban Clim., 31, 100539, doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100539.

Siders, A.R., 2019: Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs. Clim Change, 152, 239–257, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2272-5.

Siders, A.R. and J.M. Keenan, 2020: Variables shaping coastal adaptation decisions to armor, nourish, and retreat in North Carolina. Ocean. Coast. Manag.,

183, 105023, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105023.

Sietsma, A.J., J.D. Ford, M.W. Callaghan and J.C. Minx, 2021: Progress in climate change adaptation research. Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 54038,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abf7 f3.

Sina, D., A.Y. Chang-Richards, S. Wilkinson and R. Potangaroa, 2019: What does the future hold for relocated communities post-disaster? Factors affecting

livelihood resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 34, 173–183, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.015.

Singh, B.P., R. Setia, M. Wiesmeier and A. Kunhikrishnan, 2018a: Agricultural management practices and soil organic carbon storage. Elsevier, 207–244.

Singh, C. and R. Basu, 2020: Moving in and out of vulnerability: Interrogating migration as an adaptation strategy along a rural–urban continuum in India.

Geogr. J., 186, 87–102, doi:10.1111/geoj.12328.

Singh, C., etal., 2020a: Assessing the feasibility of climate change adaptation options in the water sector: Examples from rural and urban landscapes.

Water Secur., 11, 100071, doi:10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100071.

Singh, C., etal., 2018b: The utility of weather and climate information for adaptation decision-making: current uses and future prospects in Africa and

India. Clim. Dev., 10, 389–405, doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1318744.

Singh, C., etal., 2020b: Assessing the feasibility of adaptation options: methodological advancements and directions for climate adaptation research and

practice. Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02762-x.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2804

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Singh, C., G. Jain, V. Sukhwani and R. Shaw, 2021a: Losses and damages associated with slow-onset events: urban drought and water insecurity in Asia.

Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 50, 72–86, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.006.

Singh, C., M. Madhavan, J. Arvind and A. Bazaz, 2021b: Climate change adaptation in Indian cities: A review of existing actions and spaces for triple wins.

Urban Clim., 36, 100783, doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100783.

Singh, C., A. Rahman, A. Srinivas and A. Bazaz, 2018c: Risks and responses in rural India: Implications for local climate change adaptation action. Clim.

Risk Manag., 21, 52–68, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2018.06.001.

Singh, D., etal., 2020c: A review on feedstocks, production processes, and yield for different generations of biodiesel. Elsevier Ltd.

Siriwardane-de Zoysa, R., 2020: Beyond the wall: Dyking as an object of everyday governance in the Bay of Manila, Philippines. Mar. Policy., 112, 103661,

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103661.

Sletto, B., S. Tabory and K. Strickler, 2019: Sustainable urban water management and integrated development in informal settlements: The contested

politics of co-production in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Glob. Environ. Chang., 54, 195–202, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.12.004.

Smith, J., B.D. Pearce and M.S. Wolfe, 2013: Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renew.

Agric. Food Syst., 28(1), 80–92, doi:10.1017/S1742170511000585.

Smucker, T.A., M. Oulu and R. Nijbroek, 2020: Foundations for convergence: sub-national collaboration at the nexus of climate change adaptation, disaster

risk reduction, and land restoration under multi-level governance in Kenya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 51, 101834, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101834.

Sojka, M., etal., 2019: Sustainable water management in agriculture—the impact of drainage water management on groundwater table dynamics and

subsurface outﬂow. Sustainability, 11(15), doi:10.3390/su11154201.

Sollen-Norrlin, M., B.B. Ghaley and N.L. Rintoul, 2020: Agroforestry Beneﬁts and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond. Sustainability, 12(17),

doi:10.3390/su12177001.

Somasundaram, J., etal., 2020: No-till farming and conservation agriculture in south asia–issues, challenges, prospects and beneﬁts. CRC Crit Rev Plant

Sci, 39, 236–279, doi:10.1080/07352689.2020.1782069.

Sommer, R., B.K. Paul, J. Mukalama and J. Kihara, 2018: Reducing losses but failing to sequester carbon in soils – the case of conservation agriculture

and integrated soil fertility management in the humid tropical agro-ecosystem of western Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 254, 82–91, doi:10.1016/j.

agee.2017.11.004.

Son, H.N., A. Kingsbury and H.T. Hoa, 2021: Indigenous knowledge and the enhancement of community resilience to climate change in the northern

mountainous region of Vietnam. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 45(4), 499–522, doi:10.1080/21683565.2020.1829777.

Sova, C.A., etal., 2018: Bringing the Concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture to Life. doi:10.1596/31064. Bringing the Concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture

to Life.

Spaans, M. and B. Waterhout, 2017: Building up resilience in cities worldwide–Rotterdam as participant in the 100 resilient cities programme. Cities, 61,

109–116.

Spilker, G., Q. Nguyen, V. Koubi and T. Böhmelt, 2020: Attitudes of urban residents towards environmental migration in Kenya and Vietnam. Nature Clim

Change, 10, 622–627, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0805-1.

Stefanakis, A.I., 2019: The role of constructed wetlands as green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management. Sustainability, 11(24),

doi:10.3390/su11246981.

Stentiford, G.D., etal., 2020: Sustainable aquaculture through the one health lens. Nat. Food, 1, 468–474, doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0127-5.

Suckall, N., E. Fraser and P. F.-C. a. Development and u, 2017: 2016: reduced migration under climate change: evidence from Malawi using an aspirations

and capabilities framework. Taylor Francis, 9, 298–312, doi:10.1080/17565529.2016.1149441.

Surminski, S., L.M. Bouwer and J. Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016: How insurance can support climate resilience. Nature Clim Change, 6, 333–334, doi:10.1038/

nclimate2979.

Szewrański, S., etal., 2018: Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Mapping for Environmental and Flood Resilience Assessment: The Case of Ageing and

Poverty in the City of Wrocław, Poland. Wiley-Blackwell, 592–597.

Tabe, T., 2019: Climate change migration and displacement: learning from past relocations in the paciﬁc. Soc Sci, 8(7), doi:10.3390/socsci8070218.

Tagliari, M.M., etal., 2021: Collaborative management as a way to enhance Araucaria Forest resilience. Associacao Brasileira de Ciencia Ecologica e

Conservacao, 131–142.

Tall, A., J.Y. Coulibaly and M. Diop, 2018: Do climate services make a difference? A review of evaluation methodologies and practices to assess the value

of climate information services for farmers: Implications for Africa. Clim. Serv., 11, 1–12, doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2018.06.001.

Tanaya, T., etal., 2021: Improvement of the coral growth and cost-effectiveness of hybrid infrastructure by an innovative breakwater design in Naha Port,

Okinawa, Japan. Coast. Eng. J., doi:10.1080/21664250.2021.1889823.

Tanner, T., etal., 2015: Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. Nature Publishing Group, 23–26.

Tavenner, K. and T.A. Crane, 2018: Gender power in Kenyan dairy: cows, commodities, and commercialization. Agric Hum Values, 35(3), 701–715,

doi:10.1007/s10460-018-9867-3.

Telave, A.B. and S.R. Chandankar, 2021: Integrated coastal zone management: An Indian perspective-A Review. Ecol. Environ. Conserv., 162–167.

Telford, A., 2018: A threat to climate-secure European futures? Exploring racial logics and climate-induced migration in US and EU climate security

discourses. Geoforum, 96, 268–277, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.021.

TerAvest, D., P.R. Wandschneider, C. Thierfelder and J.P. Reganold, 2019: Diversifying conservation agriculture and conventional tillage cropping systems

to improve the wellbeing of smallholder farmers in Malawi. Agric Syst, 171, 23–35, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.004.

Terêncio, D.P.S., etal., 2018: Rainwater harvesting in catchments for agro-forestry uses: A study focused on the balance between sustainability values and

storage capacity. Sci. Total. Environ., 613-614, 1079–1092, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.198.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2805

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Tesselaar, M., W.J.W. Botzen and J.C.J.H. Aerts, 2020: Impacts of climate change and remote natural catastrophes on EU ﬂood insurance markets: an

analysis of soft and hard reinsurance markets for ﬂood coverage. Atmosphere, 11, doi:10.3390/atmos11020146.

Thierfelder, C., etal., 2017: How climate-smart is conservation agriculture (CA)? – its potential to deliver on adaptation, mitigation and productivity on

smallholder farms in southern Africa. Food Sec., 9, 537–560, doi:10.1007/s12571-017-0665-3.

Thober, J., N. Schwarz and K. Hermans, 2018: Agent-based modeling of environment-migration linkages: A review. Ecol. Soc., 23, doi:10.5751/ES-10200-

230241.

Thomas, A. and L. Benjamin, 2018: Policies and mechanisms to address climate-induced migration and displacement in Paciﬁc and Caribbean small island

developing states. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 10, 86–104, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2017-0055.

Thomas, M., etal., 2021: When more is more: taking advantage of species diversity to move towards sustainable aquaculture. Biol Rev, 96, 767–784,

doi:10.1111/brv.12677.

Thompson, P.L., B. Rayﬁeld and A. Gonzalez, 2017: Loss of habitat and connectivity erodes species diversity, ecosystem functioning, and stability in

metacommunity networks. Ecography, 40, 98–108, doi:10.1111/ecog.02558.

Thorne, C.R., etal., 2018: Overcoming uncertainty and barriers to adoption of blue-green infrastructure for urban ﬂood risk management. J. Flood Risk

Manag., 11(S2), 960–972, doi:10.1111/jfr3.12218.

Tian, Q. and M.C. Lemos, 2018: Household livelihood differentiation and vulnerability to climate hazards in rural China. World Dev, 108, 321–331,

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.019.

Tiggeloven, T., etal., 2020: Global-scale beneﬁt–cost analysis of coastal ﬂood adaptation to different ﬂood risk drivers using structural measures. Nat.

Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1025–1044, doi:10.5194/nhess-20-1025-2020.

Torell, E., C. McNally, B. Crawford and G. Majubwa, 2017: Coastal livelihood diversiﬁcation as a pathway out of poverty and vulnerability: experiences

from Tanzania. Coast. Manag., 45(3), 199–218, doi:10.1080/08920753.2017.1303718.

Tschora, H. and F. Cherubini, 2020: Co-beneﬁts and trade-offs of agroforestry for climate change mitigation and other sustainability goals in West Africa.

Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 22, doi:10.1016/J.GECCO.2020.E00919.

Turolla, E., G. Castaldelli, E.A. Fano and E. Tamburini, 2020: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Proves that Manila Clam Farming (Ruditapes Philippinarum) is a

Fully Sustainable Aquaculture Practice and a Carbon Sink.

Uddin, M.S., C.E. Haque and M.N. Khan, 2020: Good governance and local level policy implementation for disaster-risk-reduction: actual, perceptual and

contested perspectives in coastal communities in Bangladesh. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J., 30, 94–111, doi:10.1108/DPM-03-2020-0069.

Ulrichs, M., R. Slater and C. Costella, 2019: Building resilience to climate risks through social protection: from individualised models to systemic

transformation. Disasters, 43, 368–387, doi:10.1111/disa.12339.

Valenti, W.C., J.M. Kimpara, B.L. Preto and P. Moraes-Valenti, 2018: Indicators of sustainability to assess aquaculture systems. Ecol Indic, 88, 402–413,

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.068.

van den Brandeler, F., J. Gupta and M. Hordijk, 2019: Megacities and rivers: scalar mismatches between urban water management and river basin

management. J. Hydrol., 573, 1067–1074, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.001.

Van Hulst, F.J. and H. Posthumus, 2016: Understanding (non-) adoption of conservation agriculture in Kenya using the reasoned action approach. Land

Use Policy, 56, 303–314, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.002.

Van Langevelde, F., etal. (ed.), The link between biodiversity loss and the increasing spread of zoonotic diseases Policy Department for Economic, Scientiﬁc

and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies.

Van Loon-Steensma, J.M. and P. Vellinga, 2019: How “wide green dikes” were reintroduced in The Netherlands: a case study of the uptake of an innovative

measure in long-term strategic delta planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 62, 1525–1544, doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1557039.

Van Oijstaeijen, W., S. Van Passel and J. Cools, 2020: Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. J.

Environ. Manag., 267, 110603, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603.

van Valkengoed, A.M. and L. Steg, 2019: Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Clim Change, 9, 158–163,

doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.

Vanden Bygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Elsevier B.V., 98–99.

Vargas-Hernández, J.G. and J. Zdunek-Wielgołaska, 2021: Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environ. Dev.

Sustain., 23(2), 1335–1354, doi:10.1007/s10668-020-00623-2.

Vaughan, C., L. Buja, A. Kruczkiewicz and L. Goddard, 2016: Identifying research priorities to advance climate services. Clim. Serv., 4, 65–74, doi:10.1016/j.

cliser.2016.11.004.

Vaughan, C., S. Dessai and C. Hewitt, 2018: Surveying climate services: what can we learn from a bird’s-eye view? Weather. Clim. Soc., 10, 373–395,

doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0030.1.

Vaughan, C., etal., 2019: Evaluating agricultural weather and climate services in Africa: evidence, methods, and a learning agenda. WIREs Clim. Change,

10(4), e586, doi:10.1002/wcc.586.

Velasco-Muñoz, J.F., J.A. Aznar-Sánchez, L.J. Belmonte-Ureña and M.J. López-Serrano, 2018: Advances in water use efﬁciency in agriculture: a bibliometric

analysis. Water, 10(4), doi:10.3390/w10040377.

Venter, Z.S., etal., 2020: Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa.

Landsc Urban Plan, 203, 103889, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889.

Viani, F., M. Bertolli, M. Salucci and A. Polo, 2017: Low-cost wireless monitoring and decision support for water saving in agriculture. IEEE Sensors J.,

17(13), 4299–4309, doi:10.1109/JSEN.2017.2705043.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2806

Chapter 18 Climate Resilient Development Pathways

Villamizar, A., etal., 2017: Climate adaptation in South America with emphasis in coastal areas: the state-of-the-art and case studies from Venezuela and

Uruguay. Clim. Dev., 9, 364–382, doi:10.1080/17565529.2016.1146120.

Villeneuve, M., 2021: Building a roadmap for inclusive disaster risk reduction in Australian communities. Prog. Disaster Sci., 10, 100166, doi:10.1016/j.

pdisas.2021.100166.

Vincent, K., etal., 2017: Identifying climate services needs for national planning: insights from Malawi. Clim. Policy, 17(2), 189–202, doi:10.1080/14693

062.2015.1075374.

von Holle, B., S. Yelenik and E.S. Gornish, 2020: Restoration at the landscape scale as a means of mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Curr.

Landsc. Ecol. Reports, 5, 85–97, doi:10.1007/s40823-020-00056-7.

Vousdoukas, M.I., etal., 2020: Economic motivation for raising coastal ﬂood defenses in Europe. Nat Commun, 11, 2119, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-

15665-3.

Walsh, C., 2019: Integration of expertise or collaborative practice?: Coastal management and climate adaptation at the Wadden Sea. Ocean. Coast.

Manag., 167, 78–86, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.004.

Wang, X., etal., 2020: Cutting carbon footprints of vegetable production with integrated soil - crop system management: A case study of greenhouse

pepper production. JClean Prod, 254, 120158, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120158.

Warner, K., 2018: Coordinated approaches to large-scale movements of people: contributions of the Paris Agreement and the global compacts for

migration and on refugees. Popul Environ, 39, 384–401, doi:10.1007/S11111-018-0299-1.

Warnken, J. and R. Mosadeghi, 2018: Challenges of implementing integrated coastal zone management into local planning policies, a case study of

Queensland, Australia. Mar. Policy, 91, 75–84, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.031.

Waryszak, P., etal., 2021: Combining gray and green infrastructure to improve coastal resilience: lessons learnt from hybrid ﬂood defenses. Coast. Eng. J.,

1–16, doi:10.1080/21664250.2021.1920278.

Watts, N., etal., 2021: The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Lancet, 397(10269),

129–170, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32290-x.

Webb, J., 2020: What difference does disaster risk reduction make? Insights from Vanuatu and tropical cyclone Pam. Reg. Environ. Change, 20, doi:10.1007/

s10113-020-01584-y.

Webber, J.L., etal., 2020: Is green infrastructure a viable strategy for managing urban surface water ﬂooding? Urban Water Journal, 17(7), 598–608, do

i:10.1080/1573062X.2019.1700286.

Webber, S. and S.D. Donner, 2017: Climate service warnings: cautions about commercializing climate science for adaptation in the developing world. Wiley

Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 8, e424, doi:10.1002/wcc.424.

Weng, W., L. Costa, M.K.B. Lüdeke and D.C. Zemp, 2019: Aerial river management by smart cross-border reforestation. Land Use Policy, 84, 105–113,

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.010.

WHO, 2015: Operational framework for building climate resilient health systems. World Health Organisation, 56.

WHO, 2019: 2018 WHO health and climate change survey report: Tracking global progress.

Wiegel, H., I. Boas and J. Warner, 2019: A mobilities perspective on migration in the context of environmental change. Wiley Online Libr., 10, doi:10.1002/

wcc.610.

Willems, J.J., A.V. Kenyon, L. Sharp and A. Molenveld, 2021: How actors are (dis)integrating policy agendas for multi-functional blue and green infrastructure

projects on the ground. J. Environ. Policy Plan., 23(1), 84–96, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2020.1798750.

Williams, D.S., M.M. Costa, L. Celliers and C. Sutherland, 2018: Informal settlements and ﬂooding: Identifying strengths and weaknesses in local

governance for water management. Water (Switzerland), 10, doi:10.3390/W10070871.

Williams, D.S., etal., 2020: A method of assessing user capacities for effective climate services. Clim. Serv., 19, 100180, doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100180.

Williams, P.A., etal., 2021: Feasibility assessment of climate change adaptation options across Africa: An evidence-based review. Environ. Res. Lett., 16,

73004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac092d.

Wilmsen, B. and M. Webber, 2015: What can we learn from the practice of development-forced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements

in response to climate change? Geoforum, 58, 76–85, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.016.

Wilson, N.J., 2014: The politics of adaptation: subsistence livelihoods and vulnerability to climate change in the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby,

Alaska. Hum Ecol, 42, 87–101, doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9619-3.

Winters, M. A., B. Leslie, E.B. Sloane and T.W. Gallien, 2020: Observations and Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment of a Hybrid Dune-Based Living

Shoreline.

Wolfrom, L. and M. Yokoi-Arai, 2015: Financial instruments for managing disaster risks related to climate change. OECD Journal: Financial Mark. Trends,

25–47, doi:10.1787/fmt-2015-5jrqdkpxk5d5.

Woodhouse, E. and J.T. McCabe, 2018: Well-being and conservation: diversity and change in visions of a good life among the Maasai of northern Tanzania.

Ecol. Soc., 23, 9986–230143, doi:10.5751/ES-09986-230143. Published online: Mar 26, 2018.

Woodruff, S., T.K. BenDor and A.L. Strong, 2018: Fighting the inevitable: infrastructure investment and coastal community adaptation to sea level rise.

Syst. Dyn. Rev., 34, 48–77, doi:10.1002/sdr.1597.

Worboys, G.L., etal. (ed.), Connectivity conservation area guidelines [deﬁnition, types, selection criteria and governance]. advanced draft, may 2016.

Woroniecki, S., C. Wamsler and E. Boyd, 2019: The promises and pitfalls of ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change as a vehicle for social

empowerment. Ecol. Soc., 24(2), doi:10.5751/ES-10854-240204.

Wrathall, D.J., etal., 2019: Meeting the looming policy challenge of sea-level change and human migration. Nat. Clim. Chang., 9(12), 898–901, doi:10.1038/

s41558-019-0640-4.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)

2807

Climate Resilient Development Pathways Chapter 18

Xuan, B.B., E.D. Sandorf and Q.T.K. Ngoc, 2021: Stakeholder perceptions towards sustainable shrimp aquaculture in Vietnam. J. Environ. Manag., 290,

112585, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112585.

Yumagulova, L., etal., 2021: The role of disaster volunteering in Indigenous communities. Environ. Hazards, 20(1), 45–62, doi:10.1080/17477891.2019

.1657791.

Zen, I.S., A.Q. Al-Amin and B. Doberstein, 2019: Mainstreaming Climate adaptation and Mitigation Policy: Towards Multi-Level Climate Governance in

Melaka, Malaysia. Elsevier B.V.

Zhang, C., L. Zhong and J. Wang, 2018: Decoupling between water use and thermoelectric power generation growth in China. Nat. Energy, 3, 792–799,

doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0236-7.

Zhang, Z., S. Meerow, J.P. Newell and M. Lindquist, 2019: Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling

and design. Urban For. Urban Green., 38, 305–317, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.014.

Zobeidi, T., etal., 2021: Factors affecting smallholder farmers’ technical and non-technical adaptation responses to drought in Iran. J. Environ. Manag.,

298, 113552, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113552.

Zomer, R.J., D.A. Bossio, R. Sommer and L.V. Verchot, 2017: Global sequestration potential of increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci. Rep., 7, 1–8,

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8.

Zwierzchowska, I., etal., 2019: Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy – facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań. Land Use Policy, 85, 161–175,

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.025.

Cross-Chapter BoxFEASIB (continued)