Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

==== 1.3.2.2 Perceiving Climate Risk and Human Response ====

<div id="h3-8-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Since AR5, social science literature on how individuals and societies perceive and respond to climate risk has advanced dramatically ( [[#Renn--2008|Renn, 2008]] ; [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ; [[#taylor--2014|Taylor et al., 2014]] ; [[#Neaves--2017|Neaves and Royer, 2017]] ; [[#Van%20Valkengoed--2019|Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019]] ). The literature is increasingly integrating and advancing long-standing scholarship on environmental and social governance, human dimensions of environmental change, risk perception and communication, and enabling conditions for effective policymaking. These emergent literatures on climate risk, human action and solution are reflected in three broad areas of analysis: (a) root drivers (i.e., role of cultural norms and social practice, social structures and economic development status that shape physical and social vulnerability; (b) context-specific barriers and enablers (i.e., governance structures, institutional structure and function, risk perceptions, access to financing and knowledge availability and needs) and (c) the solution-proximate decision space (i.e., climate urgency and catalysing conditions, risk communication strategies, M&amp;E strategies) (see [[#Solecki--2017|Solecki et al., 2017]] ; [[#Jorgenson--2019|Jorgenson et al., 2019]] ).

These three areas are deeply embedded in the social sciences and reflect fundamental questions of how and why humans and their institutions act and respond (Chapter 17). In the past two decades, these basic issues have been applied to research of climate change, dynamic risk and adaptation. Underlying this analysis, particularly of root drivers, barriers and enablers, are assertions regarding the foundational properties of individual and collective behaviour (i.e., self-interest, optimisation, rationality, bounded rationality), how they are structured and how these properties can be revealed. This literature draws on several academic disciplines, including anthropology, economics, geography, political science, psychology, sociology and urban studies. Climate change social science research is often interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary and hence utilises a variety of methods to derive new knowledge ( [[#Orlove--2020|Orlove et al., 2020]] ).

In contrast to previous assessments, AR6 is increasingly focused on the needs for and challenges of assessing the societal response to climate change. The accurate tabulation of adaptation, a key question for examining the solution space, is difficult (Chapter 16; Cross-Chapter Box ADAPT in Chapter 1), since many forms of adaptation activity are under-represented in the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Moreover, the related question of assessing the effectiveness of adaptation, that is, the extent to which it reduces risk, is also difficult. Estimating risk reduction often involves counterfactuals, for instance, quantifying the damage a flood would have caused had a community not adapted prior to a storm or projecting the damage averted by today’s adaptation in some future storm (see Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS in Chapter 17). Many socioeconomic drivers affect risk, so attribution for any observed or projected changes must be allocated among those that are due to adaptation and those due to economic development, cultural changes and other types of policies and trends. For instance, many measures of sustainable development overlap with those for adaptive capacity and both can reduce climate risk while also yielding benefits irrespective of future climate regimes ( [[#UNEP--2018|UNEP, 2018]] ). There are also many different goals for adaptation both among and within different jurisdictions, so that adaptation efforts deemed effective by some individuals may not be deemed effective by others ( [[#Dilling--2019|Dilling et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="1.3.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge"></span>