Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===== 4.4.2.3.6 Governance of ecosystem-based adaptation ===== The coastal protection benefits of natural ecosystems are increasingly being recognised within international discourse and national coastal adaptation, resilience and sustainable development plans and strategies (Section 4.4.2.3.1). In general, obtaining permits for EbA remains more difficult compared to established hard protection measures, in places like the USA (Bilkovic, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1736|1736]]</sup> ). However, there are examples of instruments specifically tailored to retain the protective function of EbA (Borges et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1737|1737]]</sup> ; Government of India, 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1738|1738]]</sup> ). The Living Shorelines Regulations of the state government of Maryland in the USA (Maryland DEP, 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1739|1739]]</sup> ), for instance, requires that private properties must include marsh creation or other non-structural measures when stabilising their shorelines, unless a waiver is obtained. There are an increasing number of public and private financial mechanisms and policy instruments to encourage the use and implementation of EbA measures (Colgan et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1740|1740]]</sup> ; Sutton-Grier et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1741|1741]]</sup> ). For example, a regulation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the USA, allows proponents of hazard mitigation projects, such as state, territorial and local governments, to take into account the co-benefits of EbA when assessing benefit-cost ratios of FEMA-funded recovery projects (FEMA, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1742|1742]]</sup> ). International guidelines are being developed for designing and implementing EbA measures, with the intention to support wider implementation of these responses (Hardaway Jr and Duhring, 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1743|1743]]</sup> ; Van Slobbe et al., 2013; Van Wesenbeeck et al., 2017; Bridges et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1744|1744]]</sup> ). <div id="section-4-4-2-3ecosystem-based-adaptation-block-7"></div> <span id="economic-efficiency-of-ecosystem-based-adaptation"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
Add languages
Add topic