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-3
(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!
===== 3.5.4.1.3 Indicators of resilience and adaptive capacity ===== Well-crafted and effectively communicated indicators of polar geophysical, ecological and human systems have the potential to make complex issues more easily understood by society, including local residents and policy makers seeking to assess the implication of climate change (Petrov et al., 2016; Carson and Sommerkorn, 2017) ( ''medium confidence'' ). Having indicators of change is no guarantee they will be used; access to information, awareness of changing conditions, and the motivation to act are also important (e.g., van der Linden et al., 2015). Indicators of the state of polar geophysical systems, biodiversity, ecosystems and human well-being are monitored as part of polar programs. For example, indicators are reported by the Arctic Council working groups Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (e.g., Odland et al., 2016; CAFF, 2017; Box et al., 2019), the International Arctic Social Science Association (e.g., AHDR, 2014), the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (e.g., Reid et al., 2005) and the Southern Ocean Observing System (e.g., Meredith et al., 2013). There is limited development of indicators of social-ecological resilience (Jarvis et al., 2013; Carson and Sommerkorn, 2017). As well, indicators of human adaptive capacity are typically based on qualitative case studies with limited quantitative data, and thus have limited comparability and generalisability (Ford and King, 2013; Petrov et al., 2016; Berman et al., 2017) ( ''high confidence'' ). The identification and on-going use of indicators of social-ecological resilience are theoretically best achieved through highly participatory processes that engage stakeholders of a locale, with those processes potentially resulting in self-reflection and actions that improve adaptive capacity (Quinlan et al., 2016; Carson and Sommerkorn, 2017), however, this is untested empirically ( ''low confidence'' ). <div id="section-3-5-4-2linking-knowledge-with-decision-making"></div> <span id="linking-knowledge-with-decision-making"></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-3
(section)
Add languages
Add topic