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

==== 1.4.2.1 Adaptation Process and Expanding the Solution Space ====

<div id="h3-12-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Adaptation actions include those taken with the explicit intention of reducing climate risk, as well as actions taken without reference to climate change, for example, building community resilience irrespective of any particular hazard. Adaptation actions can include those aimed at reducing a specific risk or actions aimed at systemic changes, and also include adjustments to current practices or transformational changes. In addition, the success of adaptation in one place or jurisdiction can depend on activities in other places or jurisdictions.

Adaptation actions span a vast range of activities. Successful adaptation generally requires a portfolio of actions, often implemented by multiple actors in different sectors, often in different places and over time (Section 17.2.2). Useful taxonomies include categorising such actions around representative key risks (Figure 17.3), and by human systems and scenarios of adaptation extent for four components of adaptation (depth, scope, speed and limits) (Table 16.2). As shown in Chapter 17, for instance, ecosystem-based adaptation, hardening buildings and physical barriers, and changes to zoning and planned retreat can reduce risks to coastal socio-ecological systems. Restoration and protection of forests, enhancing ecosystem connectivity through corridors and ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce risks to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems. Increased use of grey, green and blue infrastructure and upgrading design standards, city plans and more redundancy in power systems and other networks can reduce risks associated with critical infrastructure. Insurance and diversified or changed livelihoods can reduce risks to living standards and equity. Improved health-care systems, disaster management and early warning can reduce risks to human health. Better management of land, soil and fisheries, and changing diets and reducing food waste can reduce risks to food security. Improved water efficiency and policies to reduce demand can reduce risks to water security.

Previous IPCC reports have described in detail adaptation for individual actors as an iterative risk management process of scoping (identifying risks, vulnerabilities, objectives and decision-making criteria), analysis (identifying options, assessing risks, evaluating trade-offs) and implementation (implementing chosen options, monitoring, and reviewing and learning) ( [[#Jones--2014|Jones et. al. 2014]] ). This AR6 report expands the focus to consider adaptation processes with multiple actors and a richer temporal dimension in which actions taken at one time can expand or contract the set of feasible, effective and just options available at another time, thereby increasing or decreasing the ability of adaptation to reduce risks (Section 17.1). This AR6 report also expands the focus to include decision processes the implement both adaptation and mitigation (Chapter 18), as well as heightened attention to M&amp;E, which is a key prerequisite for successful iterative risk management and achieving effective and just adaptation outcomes at local to global levels (Sections 1.4.3; 17.5.2). The challenges of implications for adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development outcomes result from decision-making process at different levels ( [[#Von-Stechow--2015|Von Stechow et al., 2015]] ; [[#Bertram--2016|Bertram et al., 2016]] ). Overcoming these challenges often requires significant learning and innovative ways of linking science, practice and policy at all scales ( [[#Shaw--2014|Shaw and Kristjanson, 2014]] ).

Two concepts—enabling conditions and catalysing conditions—help frame this report’s assessment of factors that over time can help expand the set of available solutions (Section 17.4). Enabling conditions enhance the feasibility of adaptation and mitigation options (AR6 Glossary, [[#IPCC--2021b|IPCC, 2021b]] ). Enablers include finance, technological innovation, strengthening policy instruments, institutional capacity, multi-level governance and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles. Chapter 17 (see also WGIII Figure 1.4) identifies three broad categories of enabling conditions: (Section 17.4): governance, finance and knowledge. Catalysing conditions motivate and accelerate the adaptation decision-making process, leading to more frequent and more substantial adaptation (Chapter 17). While enablers make adaptation more feasible and effective, catalysing conditions provide an impetus for action. These later conditions include a sense of urgency (Section 17.4.5.1), system shocks, such as those from natural disasters, policy entrepreneurs and social movements.

The concept of the '''solution space''' provides a framework for assessing how the options available for adaptation for any particular community are not constant over time and can depend on the past, current and future choices of many actors. The solution space is defined as the space within which opportunities and constraints determine why, how, when and who adapts to climate risks ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ). The concept aims to capture the dynamic inter-temporal, spatial and jurisdictional interconnections among adaptation actions. A larger solution space indicates people and organisations with more options for adapting to and reducing their risk from climate change. Both human choices and exogenous changes in human and natural systems affect the future solution space. For instance, changes such as the magnitude and rate of climate change may shrink the space. Economic growth can generate more resources that expand the solution space as can implemented adaptation actions such as pilot projects, awareness raising and changes in laws and regulations.

AR5 used the concept of solution space in its SPM Figure 8 ( [[#IPCC--2014c|IPCC, 2014c]] ). Several AR6 chapters, in particular Chapters 13, 14 and 18, use the concept to address challenges salient in AR6. In any assessment of solutions, what is feasible, effective and just depends not only on the potential solution itself but the particular biophysical and societal context in which it might occur (Section 17.5; [[#Wise--2014|Wise et al., 2014]] ; [[#Gorddard--2016|Gorddard et al., 2016]] ). Solutions can also be space and time dependent because the biophysical and societal context can change over space and time (Section 18.1.4). In addition, the large gap that exists between current climate action and that needed to meet policy goals suggests that decision makers may not only seek to implement available solutions but seek to actively expand the set of solutions (Chapters 17; 18). Finally, as used in this report, the concept of solution does not fully engage with questions of ‘by whom?’ and ‘for whom?’ In many cases solutions would necessarily be implemented by multiple, independent actors interacting with varying degrees of cooperation and competition (Sections 1.5.2).

<div id="1.4.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="governing-adaptation"></span>