Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-14 (section)

==== 14.7.2.1 Incremental Adaptation, Barriers and Limits ====

<div id="h3-39-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Adaptation actions to moderate the effects of climate impacts are well documented in North America and have buffered much of the past and currently observed climate impacts (e.g., [[#Lempert--2018|Lempert et al., 2018]] ; [[#Lemmen--2021|Lemmen et al., 2021]] ). While it is challenging to catalogue adaptation activities, as many are not published or are not necessarily undertaken with climate adaptation as the primary rationale ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.3.2.2|Section 1.3.2.2]] ), most of the activities identified by sector in this chapter have been primarily incremental adaptation measures ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). Many actions are extensions of existing practices for managing climate variability and there is broad agreement that worsening future conditions will exceed the capacity of many of these efforts ( [[#Kates--2012|Kates et al., 2012]] ; [[#Termeer--2017|Termeer et al., 2017]] ; [[#Fazey--2018|Fazey et al., 2018]] ; [[#Fedele--2019|Fedele et al., 2019]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ).

Progress in adaptation planning and implementation between regions in North America is uneven (Table 14.6; see Box 14.7; [[#Bierbaum--2013|Bierbaum et al., 2013]] ; [[#Moser--2017|Moser et al., 2017]] ; Auditors General, 2018; [[#INECC%20and%20Semarnat--2018|INECC and Semarnat, 2018]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ). At the local level (cities) in the USA, commitment of elected officials, financial resources and awareness of climate-change hazards and risks have been identified as driving the variation in climate adaptation ( [[#Shi--2015|Shi et al., 2015]] ). Adaptation programmes have come under budgetary and political pressures that limit continuity of efforts ( [[#Moss--2019|Moss et al., 2019]] ). Implementation of adaptation has also faced challenges due to institutional arrangements, constraints and gaps that prevent different levels of government, social organisations and academia to act in an integrated and timely way to consider biodiversity, agriculture and water systems (e.g., see Box 14.7; [[#Bourne--2016|Bourne et al., 2016]] ; [[#Nalau--2018|Nalau et al., 2018]] )

'''Table 14.6 |''' Adaptation trends and progress across sectors. Adaptation progress consists of assessment (A), planning (P), implementation of strategies (I) and evaluation of efficacy (E).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="3"|
! colspan="4"| Adaptation progress

! colspan="2"| Limits

|-
! Sector

! Strategies

! Cases

! A

! P

! I

! E

! Soft

! Hard

|-
| Terrestrial ecosystems ( [[#14.5.1.1|Section 14.5.1.1]] )

| Broad use of tools such as scenario planning, structured decision making and adaptation planning frameworks

| Planning for climate refugia in the Sierra Nevada of California, USA ( [[#Morelli--2016|Morelli et al., 2016]] )

| H

| H

| L to M

| L

| Management agency internal policies which may prevent the flexibility required for implementation of adaptation strategies

| Some species may face local extirpation or even extinction if adaptive capacity is overwhelmed

|-
| Oceans ( [[#14.5.2|Section 14.5.2]] )

| Proactive and rapid management approaches to minimise impacts of increasingly frequent entanglements of protected species, caused by climate-driven changes in prey and fishery activities

| Dynamic closure areas to reduce loggerhead turtle bycatch in Hawaiian shallow-set longline fisheries ( [[#Howell--2015|Howell et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lewison--2015|Lewison et al., 2015]] ), blue whale ship-strike risk in near-real time ( [[#Hazen--2017|Hazen et al., 2017]] ; [[#Abrahms--2019a|Abrahms et al., 2019a]] ) and bycatch of multiple top predator species in a West Coast drift gillnet fishery ( [[#Hazen--2018|Hazen et al., 2018]] )

| H

| H

| M

| M

| Lack of coordination and planning at multiple scales as species redistribute across fishery areas, marine protected zones and international and jurisdictional boundaries

| Marine species mortality events

|-
| Freshwater resources ( [[#14.5.3|Section 14.5.3]] )

| Forecasting and warning of harmful algal blooms (HABs) that affect water quality

| Reduced human exposure to the increased risk of toxins from HABs in the Great Lakes

| M

| L to M

| L to M

| L to M

| Financial resources required to enhance water treatment facilities to deal with HABs, technological innovation to improve treatment and removal of HABs, closure of recreational water use

| Severe human health effects, mortality of aquatic species

|-
| Water availability ( [[#14.5.3|Section 14.5.3]] )

| Water allocation policies reassessed to enhance equity, sustainability and flexibility in times of shortage through sharing agreements, improved groundwater regulation and voluntary water transfers

| US Colorado River interstate shortage sharing agreement

| H

| H

| M

| L to M

| Complex legal and administrative challenges, heightening lengthy disputes and costly interstate legal battles

| Depletion of finite groundwater resources and reduced flow in hydrologically connected rivers

|-
| Food and fibre ( [[#14.5.4|Section 14.5.4]] )

| Improved climate resilience through increasing income and harvest/crop portfolio diversification

| Fishing communities in the US-SW and US-NE through nature-based aquaculture solutions ( [[#Messier--2019|Messier et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rogers--2019|Rogers et al., 2019]] ; [[#Young--2019|Young et al., 2019]] ; [[#Fisher--2021|Fisher et al., 2021]] )

| H

| H

| M to H

| M

| Lack of high-resolution and locally tailored climate-change information

| Collapse of fisheries and loss of crops due to excessive warming and extreme events

|-
| Cities and infrastructure ( [[#14.5.5|Section 14.5.5]] )

| Consideration of the value of green infrastructure and natural assets to meet a range of adaptation needs related to flooding, extreme urban heat, SLR and drought

| Municipal Natural Assets Initiative to assist Canadian municipalities to integrate natural assets in financial planning and asset management programmes and consider projected climate changes ( [[#Municipal%20Natural%20Assets%20Initiative--2018|Municipal Natural Assets Initiative, 2018]] )

| H

| H

| M

| L to M

| Organisations’ willingness to take on solutions that are emergent and less tested;

capacity for municipalities to undertake the development and assessment of this new infrastructure

| Rate and magnitude of climate changes exceeding capacity of natural/green infrastructure to cope

|-
| Health and communities (Sections 14.5.5, 14.5.6)

| Access to green spaces, cooler infrastructure and cooling stations

| The heatwave plan for Montreal which includes visits to vulnerable populations, cooling shelters, monitoring of heat-related illness and extended hours for public pools ( [[#Lesnikowski--2017|Lesnikowski et al., 2017]] )

| H

| H

| L to M

| L to M

| Lack of effective warning and response systems, ability to reach at-risk populations, building designs, enhanced pollution controls, urban planning strategies, and affordable, resilient health infrastructure

| Extreme increase in heat-related mortality and morbidity

|-
| Tourism and recreation ( [[#14.5.7|Section 14.5.7]] )

| Diversification of winter-focused recreation and tourism opportunities

| Investments in climate-resilient infrastructure within Canadian National Parks which have increased visitation rates during the shoulder seasons ( [[#Fisichelli--2015|Fisichelli et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lemieux--2017|Lemieux et al., 2017]] ; [[#Wilkins--2018|Wilkins et al., 2018]] )

| H

| H

| M

| L

| Social inequalities generated by the tourism development process not considered, such as increased property taxes leading to the marginalisation of local residents in favour of wealthy tourists

| Lack of precipitation that falls as snow particularly in lower-elevation areas

|-
| Commerce and transportation ( [[#14.5.8|Section 14.5.8]] )

| Improved engineering and technological solutions, in addition to innovative policy, planning, management and maintenance approaches, to enhance climate resilience for transportation and related commerce

| For roads, changing pavement mixes to be more tolerant to heat or frost heaving, expanding drainage capacity, reducing flood risks, enhancing travel advisories and alerts, elevating or relocating new infrastructure where feasible and changing infrastructure design requirements ( [[#Natural%20Resources%20Conservation%20Service--2008|Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008]] ; [[#EPA--2017|EPA, 2017]] ; [[#Pendakur--2017|Pendakur, 2017]] )

| H

| H

| M

| L

| Lack of financial resources to build climate-resilient infrastructure, particularly in marginalised communities

| Extreme events which may cause significant and irreversible impacts on the transportation sector with major implications for supply chains and global trade

|}

Note:

L: low, M: moderate, H: high

Adaptive capacity in the face of climate risks and impacts has not been equal across North American communities ( [[#Sarkodie--2019|Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019]] ). Lack of representation, health inequities and economic constraints adversely affect the capacity to respond to change and further exacerbate marginalisation. For example, within many water basins in Canada and the USA, planning processes are often hampered by conflicting interests, asymmetrical information and differential power ( [[#ICLEI%20Canada--2016|ICLEI Canada, 2016]] ; [[#Nordgren--2016|Nordgren et al., 2016]] ; [[#Woodruff--2016|Woodruff and Stults, 2016]] ).

The absence of evidence about the current effectiveness of proposed adaptation actions to guide future actions and investments presents a serious risk to North America, especially at higher GWLs (medium confidence). Evaluating the limits to adaptation and the effectiveness of adaptation actions is hindered by a lack of monitoring and evaluation (Auditors General, 2018; [[#Dilling--2019|Dilling et al., 2019]] ; [[#Berrang-Ford--2021|Berrang-Ford et al., 2021]] ). Incremental, passive adaptations are often characterised by ''soft'' limits due to differing access to resources and by perceptions and tolerance of risk ( [[#Moser--2010|Moser, 2010]] ; [[#Dow--2013|Dow et al., 2013]] ). At current warming levels, social–ecological systems have been reaching limits to adaptation in regions with high exposure and high sensitivity ( ''medium confidence'' ). However, the implications for adaptation are unclear as soft adaptation limits are mutable and change with evolving knowledge, values, interests and perspectives involved in decision making ( [[#Adger--2009|Adger et al., 2009]] ; [[#Moser--2017|Moser et al., 2017]] ). ''Hard'' limits have been identified for some natural systems, such as species extinctions (Sections 14.5.2.1, 14.5.1.3; Table 14.2).

Adaptation actions in one place or sector can have adverse side effects elsewhere ( ''medium confidence'' ). For example, increased use of groundwater for irrigation in response to aridification can reduce baseflows into rivers with adverse impacts on stream ecology and water availability for communities far downstream ( [[#14.5.3|Section 14.5.3]] ). Additionally, across multiple sectors in North America, adaptation actions have tended to be sector specific rather than integrating across systems ( [[#Gao--2017|Gao and Bryan, 2017]] ; [[#Fulton--2019|Fulton et al., 2019]] ), despite the increasing awareness of cascading impacts and interdependencies ( [[#Zimmerman--2010|Zimmerman and Faris, 2010]] ; [[#C40%20Cities%20and%20AECOM--2017|C40 Cities and AECOM, 2017]] ) and risks from possible ecological and social thresholds that have been identified under higher GWL ( [[#14.6.3|Section 14.6.3]] ). For example, the water, energy and food nexus in North America has highlighted that food, water and energy security depend on transportation infrastructure ( [[#14.5.8.1.2|Section 14.5.8.1.2]] ; [[#Romero-Lankao--2018|Romero-Lankao et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="14.7.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-through-participatory-and-robust-decision-making-indicators-and-sustained-assessments"></span>