Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice
Recent systematic reviews show that, overall, and across governance levels and sectors, climate change adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are rarely programmed and implemented. As a result, there is a generalized lack of knowledge and practice regarding the definition and use of...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Ecological Indicators |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2201130X |
| _version_ | 1797985357277429760 |
|---|---|
| author | Sascha M. Goonesekera Marta Olazabal |
| author_facet | Sascha M. Goonesekera Marta Olazabal |
| author_sort | Sascha M. Goonesekera |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Recent systematic reviews show that, overall, and across governance levels and sectors, climate change adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are rarely programmed and implemented. As a result, there is a generalized lack of knowledge and practice regarding the definition and use of adaptation indicators and metrics from which to effectively learn. This paper focuses on understanding the emergent state of practice regarding adaptation indicators and metrics at the local level: what indicators and metrics are used? What aspects of the adaptation process are they measuring? How will they be monitored, evaluated, and reported? Out of a sample of the largest 136 coastal cities worldwide, only 59 cities have adaptation-related plans and only 11 (Athens, Auckland, Barcelona, Glasgow, Lima, Montreal, Nagoya, New York City, Portland, Tokyo, and Vancouver) list indicators and metrics. Sourced from these documents, we compile and code a total of 1971 indicators, of which 1841 focus fully or partially on adaptation-related aspects. We study the level of detail (objective, indicator, metric), type (target, input, output, outcome, or impact), scale, dimension, units of measurement, target, and proposed monitoring timeframe, among other aspects. Data shows that current adaptation measurement frameworks are tied to the degree to which each city integrates and addresses adaptation in its policies. A majority of adaptation indicators and metrics measure outputs, i.e. implementation aspects. Outcome indicators are generally connected to users or beneficiaries of adaptation measures and impact indicators are mostly related to health (e.g. hospitalizations). Targets and monitoring timeframes, as well as data sources, are rarely defined. We connect this to a lack of definition of local adaptation goals and a poor understanding of how specific adaptation actions lead to vulnerability reductions and resilience increases. Based on the identified gaps, we propose a metric development guiding framework to stimulate discussion around effective and feasible approaches to measure adaptation progress based on improved adaptation decision-making. We argue, that our results should fuel a critical revision of current adaptation planning practices that might ultimately facilitate processes of learning, experimentation and innovation in this embryonic field. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:16:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8770a23edfce42bc85fcc8fd9e9326c3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1470-160X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:16:54Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecological Indicators |
| spelling | doaj.art-8770a23edfce42bc85fcc8fd9e9326c32022-12-22T04:37:56ZengElsevierEcological Indicators1470-160X2022-12-01145109657Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practiceSascha M. Goonesekera0Marta Olazabal1University of Groningen, the NetherlandsBasque Centre for Climate Change, BC3, Spain; IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain; Corresponding author at: Basque Centre for Climate Change, BC3, Sede Building 1, 1st floor, Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country, 48940 Leioa, Spain.Recent systematic reviews show that, overall, and across governance levels and sectors, climate change adaptation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are rarely programmed and implemented. As a result, there is a generalized lack of knowledge and practice regarding the definition and use of adaptation indicators and metrics from which to effectively learn. This paper focuses on understanding the emergent state of practice regarding adaptation indicators and metrics at the local level: what indicators and metrics are used? What aspects of the adaptation process are they measuring? How will they be monitored, evaluated, and reported? Out of a sample of the largest 136 coastal cities worldwide, only 59 cities have adaptation-related plans and only 11 (Athens, Auckland, Barcelona, Glasgow, Lima, Montreal, Nagoya, New York City, Portland, Tokyo, and Vancouver) list indicators and metrics. Sourced from these documents, we compile and code a total of 1971 indicators, of which 1841 focus fully or partially on adaptation-related aspects. We study the level of detail (objective, indicator, metric), type (target, input, output, outcome, or impact), scale, dimension, units of measurement, target, and proposed monitoring timeframe, among other aspects. Data shows that current adaptation measurement frameworks are tied to the degree to which each city integrates and addresses adaptation in its policies. A majority of adaptation indicators and metrics measure outputs, i.e. implementation aspects. Outcome indicators are generally connected to users or beneficiaries of adaptation measures and impact indicators are mostly related to health (e.g. hospitalizations). Targets and monitoring timeframes, as well as data sources, are rarely defined. We connect this to a lack of definition of local adaptation goals and a poor understanding of how specific adaptation actions lead to vulnerability reductions and resilience increases. Based on the identified gaps, we propose a metric development guiding framework to stimulate discussion around effective and feasible approaches to measure adaptation progress based on improved adaptation decision-making. We argue, that our results should fuel a critical revision of current adaptation planning practices that might ultimately facilitate processes of learning, experimentation and innovation in this embryonic field.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2201130XAdaptation metricsAdaptation indicatorsMonitoring and evaluationLearningLocal climate policy |
| spellingShingle | Sascha M. Goonesekera Marta Olazabal Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice Ecological Indicators Adaptation metrics Adaptation indicators Monitoring and evaluation Learning Local climate policy |
| title | Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice |
| title_full | Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice |
| title_fullStr | Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice |
| title_full_unstemmed | Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice |
| title_short | Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice |
| title_sort | climate adaptation indicators and metrics state of local policy practice |
| topic | Adaptation metrics Adaptation indicators Monitoring and evaluation Learning Local climate policy |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2201130X |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT saschamgoonesekera climateadaptationindicatorsandmetricsstateoflocalpolicypractice AT martaolazabal climateadaptationindicatorsandmetricsstateoflocalpolicypractice |