Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-2 (section)

=== 2.7.3 Adaptation and Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-26-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

There are significant evidence gaps in developing adaptation, both for biodiversity conservation and EbA. In particular, while many adaptation measures have been proposed and implementation is starting, there are very few evaluations of success in the scientific literature ( [[#Morecroft--2019|Morecroft et al., 2019]] ; [[#Prober--2019|Prober et al., 2019]] ). As detailed in [[#2.6.2|Section 2.6.2]] , there is a strong body of literature on conceptual approaches to climate change adaptation for biodiversity but very little empirical testing of which approaches actually work best. Going forward, it is important to put in place good monitoring and evaluation of adaptation strategies. For EbA, there are good examples of measuring changes in response to new adaptation measures, but these remain relatively rare globally.

Human factors which promote or hinder adaptation are important as well as the technical issues. Only a few studies incorporate climate change and ecosystem services in integrated decision-making, and even fewer aim to identify solutions robust to uncertainty ( [[#Runting--2017|Runting et al., 2017]] ).

Over the last decades, losses due to natural disasters including those from events related to extreme weather have strongly increased ( [[#Mechler--2015|Mechler and Bouwer, 2015]] ). There is a need for better assessment of global adaptation costs, funding and investment ( [[#Micale--2018|Micale et al., 2018]] ). Potential synergies between international finance for disaster risk management (DRM) and adaptation have not yet been fully realised. Research has almost exclusively focused on normalising losses for changes in exposure, but not for vulnerability, which is a major gap, given the dynamic nature of vulnerability ( [[#Mechler--2015|Mechler and Bouwer, 2015]] ).

<div id="references" class="h1-container"></div>