Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-5 (section)

=== 5.3.2 Methodologies for Assessing Vulnerabilities and Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-7-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Methods for monitoring vulnerability and adaptation are under-researched but have increased since AR5. Increasingly, projections move from individual crops to assessing risks across the food systems and the relative vulnerability of different systems ( [[#Campbell--2016|Campbell et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gil--2017|Gil et al., 2017]] ; [[#Lipper--2017|Lipper et al., 2017]] ; [[#Richardson--2018|Richardson et al., 2018]] ). Adaptation options can be considered as parameters in integrated models, such as those used in ISI-MIP, while others use systematic assessments of case studies, such as the application of agent-based household models to assessments of adaptation in livestock systems ( [[#5.5.4|Section 5.5.4]] ). Quantitative studies are less common than qualitative assessments, and there is a need to combine modelling and qualitative approaches more effectively ( [[#Beveridge--2018a|Beveridge et al., 2018a]] ; [[#Vermeulen--2018|Vermeulen et al., 2018]] ).

The food system is dynamic, with changes in management practices driven by many factors, including climate adaptation ( [[#Iizumi--2019|Iizumi, 2019]] ; [[#Iizumi--2021a|Iizumi et al., 2021a]] ). Adaptation potential, such as expected advances in crop breeding, are often not explicitly accounted for in modelling studies, but more recent studies do quantify the potential for adaptation ( [[#Iizumi--2017|Iizumi et al., 2017]] ; [[#Tao--2017|Tao et al., 2017]] ; [[#Aggarwal--2019|Aggarwal et al., 2019]] ; [[#Minoli--2019|Minoli et al., 2019]] ). To account for this complexity, case studies rely on data derived from the perception and practices of stakeholders who are engaged in adaptation (usually autonomous adaptation) ( [[#Hussain--2016|Hussain et al., 2016]] ; [[#Lipper--2017|Lipper et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ankrah--2018|Ankrah, 2018]] ; [[#Sousa-Silva--2018|Sousa-Silva et al., 2018]] ). Case studies use a range of different indicators to monitor climate response options, making quantitative comparisons more difficult ( [[#Gil--2017|Gil et al., 2017]] ; [[#Vermeulen--2018|Vermeulen et al., 2018]] ). However, systematic comparisons have provided valuable insights ( [[#Descheemaeker--2018|Descheemaeker et al., 2018]] ; [[#Shaffril--2018|Shaffril et al., 2018]] ; [[#Aggarwal--2019|Aggarwal et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bene--2019|Bene et al., 2019]] ); for example, the sustainable livelihood framework has been applied widely to diverse aquatic systems ( [[#Bueno--2017|Bueno and Soto, 2017]] ; [[#Barange--2018|Barange and Cochrane, 2018]] ) and the Livelihood Vulnerability Index is well used across systems ( [[#5.1|Section 5.1]] 4). Coordinated efforts such as the AgMIP also provide systematic assessments ( [[#Blanchard--2017|Blanchard et al., 2017]] ; [[#Lipper--2017|Lipper et al., 2017]] ; [[#Antle--2018|Antle et al., 2018]] ). Nonetheless, the full effectiveness of different adaptation options is difficult to assess given that many impacts have not yet occurred (due to the cumulative nature of impacts and the inertia in the climate system) ( [[#Stocker--2013|Stocker et al., 2013]] ; [[#Zickfeld--2013|Zickfeld et al., 2013]] ).

Transformation of the food system that addresses all dimensions of ecosystem services is discussed in this chapter, including risk management and the communication of uncertainties ( [[#5.1|Section 5.1]] 4). The focus is on flexible approaches to risk and uncertainty, assessing trends, drivers and trade-offs under different future scenarios ( [[#Campbell--2016|Campbell et al., 2016]] ).

<div id="5.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="crop-based-systems"></span>