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/WGII/Chapter-2
(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!
==== 2.6.5.2 Case Study: Adaptation for Conservation and Natural Flood Management in England, UK ==== <div id="h3-50-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div> Scale: National Issue: National approach to adaptation in the natural environment Threats to biodiversity from climate change in England include range retractions of cold-adapted species and the effects of more frequent extreme weather events such as drought. These threats are exacerbated by land use and management, for example, fragmenting habitats, draining land and straightening rivers. There are also risks to people, which are exacerbated by environmental factors, including flooding and over-heating in urban areas. The National Adaptation Programme provides a broad policy framework for England and includes a chapter on the natural environment. There are also adaptation plans produced by public bodies such as Natural England and the UK Environment Agency, with a wide range of responsibilities including flood defence. The principles of adaptation to climate change are well established in the UK conservation community and resources are available. Natural England has published a Climate Change Adaptation Manual jointly with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (a major conservation NGO) ( [[#Natural%20England%20and%20RSPB--2020|Natural England and RSPB, 2020]] ) and a spatial mapping tool for vulnerability to climate change ( [[#Taylor--2014|Taylor et al., 2014]] ). Duffield et al. (2021) found that awareness of the need for adaptation was common amongst nature reserve managers and that they were implementing actions that might build resilience to climate change, such as restoring ecosystem processes and reducing habitat fragmentation. There was recognition that it will be necessary to change the management objectives of protected sites to adjust to changing circumstances, but little implementation of such changes. The main example of managing change was at the coast where the SLR is causing transitions from terrestrial and freshwater systems to coastal and marine ones. A range of EbA approaches are starting to contribute to adaptation in England, but the best-developed is Natural Flood Management (NFM): restoring natural processes and natural habitats to reduce flood risk ( [[#Wingfield--2019|Wingfield et al., 2019]] ). Over the last decade, a series of NFM projects have been established in local areas. The Environment Agency collated the evidence base for NFM ( [[#Burgess-Gamble--2021|Burgess-Gamble et al., 2021]] ) and was able to draw on 65 case studies ( [[#Ngai--2017|Ngai et al., 2017]] ) covering the management of rivers and floodplains, woodlands, runoff, and coasts and estuaries. NFM includes a broad range of techniques, some of which deliver real benefits for biodiversity and allow natural ecological processes to become re-established. Others, such as creating ‘woody debris dams’—barriers artificially constructed from tree trunks and branches in watercourses to slow the flow of water— have fewer benefits, although they may be good for some species. [[#Dadson--2017|Dadson et al. (2017)]] concluded that ‘the hazard associated with small floods in small catchments may be significantly reduced’ by NFM techniques. However, they noted that the most extreme flood events may overwhelm any risk management measures, and failed to find clear evidence of NFM reducing flood risk downstream in large catchments. Challenges in deploying large-scale NFM remain, which partly reflects the length of time necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of pilot studies and build confidence; building stakeholder support is important ( [[#Huq--2017|Huq et al., 2017]] ). There are now a number of examples of where collaborative initiatives between local communities, landowners and government agencies have been successful in establishing effective NFM schemes ( [[#Short--2019|Short et al., 2019]] ). <div id="2.6.5.3" class="h3-container"></div> <span id="case-study-protected-area-planning-in-response-to-climate-change-in-thailand"></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/WGII/Chapter-2
(section)
Add languages
Add topic