Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

==== 17.2.1.2 Governance of Adaptation Options ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

For each adaptation option identified for the RKRs (Table 17.1), this section presents an assessment of how decisions are made and how the adaptations are being governed. The following section then covers benefits to humans and ecosystems, and potential for maladaptation is covered in [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] . See SM17.1 for more information on the assessment methods and underlying citations.

The following analysis of adaptation options provides a synthesised overview of adaptation globally, but does not prescribe how important each adaptation should be in specific locations. [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] finds that the ‘scope’ and ‘speed’ of adaptation is limited in many areas.

When it comes to decision-making, most of these 24 adaptations rely strongly on formal decision-making ( ''high confidence'' ), which follows the procedures of a group of people rather than ad hoc individual action. Formal decisions play a particularly strong role in the adaptations identified for infrastructure, early-warning systems and water systems ( [[#Kolen--2014|Kolen and Helsloot, 2014]] ; [[#Calvello--2015|Calvello et al., 2015]] ; [[#Zhao--2017|Zhao et al., 2017]] ; [[#Belčáková--2019|Belčáková et al., 2019]] ; [[#Teo--2019|Teo et al., 2019]] ).

In contrast, informal or individual-led decision-making is more common in several food security-related and livelihood-related adaptations, such as changes to diets, livelihood diversification and seasonal migration ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Li--2017|Li et al., 2017]] ; [[#Radel--2018|Radel et al., 2018]] ; [[#Robinson--2020|Robinson et al., 2020]] ). People who have experienced climate shocks are more likely to take individual decisions to implement adaptation measures, and in countries where people are more exposed to extreme events, autonomous adaptation is more common ( [[#Koerth--2017|Koerth et al., 2017]] ; [[#Aerts--2018b|Aerts et al., 2018b]] ; [[#van%20Valkengoed--2019|van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019]] ).

All adaptation options can occur under a range of governance arrangements ( ''high confidence'' ), with cases of either private, public or community governance typically playing the dominant role, as depicted in Figure 17.2. Public governance is the most frequent governance type for most adaptations considered. This is particularly true for social safety nets and spatial planning, where governments are often required to lead adaptation efforts ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mesquita--2016|Mesquita and Bursztyn, 2016]] ; [[#Hssaisoune--2020|Hssaisoune et al., 2020]] ; [[#Wang--2021|Wang et al., 2021]] ). While government actors do the day-to-day management of these systems, civil society and international organisations also play a role in shaping agendas and priorities of government actors ( [[#Nagle%20Alverio--2021|Nagle Alverio et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="_idContainer008" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:571c4f480731825e8124cd58a563fa9c IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_002.png]]

'''Figure 17.2 |''' '''Governance of 24 major risk management options, grouped by relevance to the Representative Key Risks.''' Each option depicts the relative governance roles, between communities/individuals, private sector and public sector. The intensity of the colour refers to the level of confidence in the assessment.

The private sector plays a large role in governance of insurance, minimising ecosystem stressors, and livelihood diversification ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Allen--2018|Allen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mimet--2020|Mimet et al., 2020]] ; [[#Alam--2020a|Alam et al., 2020a]] ). While having a key role in shaping and implementing many other adaptations, the private sector is not often the governing entity.

There are a number of adaptation options that tend to be governed by communities and individuals, including adaptations to farming and fishery practices and ecosystem-based adaptations ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Reid--2016|Reid, 2016]] ; [[#Basupi--2019|Basupi et al., 2019]] ; [[#Giffin--2020|Giffin et al., 2020]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson and Mclean, 2020]] ). In rapidly urbanising areas of Asia and Africa, individual- or community-led adaptation is the norm in informal settlements that have poor governance structures. Residents of Mathare slum in Nairobi have established methods to pool risks, such as pooling labour to police looting during flood events and developing community health centres in churches ( [[#Thorn--2015|Thorn et al., 2015]] ). This is in addition to risk reduction measures such as building structures to withstand rising water levels ( [[#Thorn--2015|Thorn et al., 2015]] ). Residents in Bangkok have built walls around settlements, dug informal drainage channels to vacant lots, and filled areas of land ( [[#Limthongsakul--2017|Limthongsakul et al., 2017]] ). In these cases, individual-led adaptation can have negative side effects, such as the building of flood defences in affluent communities increasing the flood impacts in less affluent regions of a city ( [[#Limthongsakul--2017|Limthongsakul et al., 2017]] ).

<div id="17.2.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="benefit-to-humans-and-ecosystems"></span>