Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.3.2 The Adaptation Gap in Cities and Settlements ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The adaptation gap is the difference between the ability to manage risk and loss and experienced risk and loss (Chen et al., 2016; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). It describes both levels of capacity and residual risk. Figure 6.4 presents an analysis by IPCC World Region for urban populations and current levels for risk and loss. The analysis seeks to draw out equity considerations by comparing the poorest and wealthiest quintiles for each region and for adaptation to the direct impacts of flooding and heatwave, as well as impacts felt in cities that include climate change impacts on supply chains; water and food security. Figure 6.4 should not be used to compare regions but can be used to contrast adaptation gaps by hazard type within regions.

<div id="_idContainer018" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:700174251ccb7e743dc8b8066b71ff4f IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_6_004.png]]

'''Figure 6.4 |''' '''The Urban Adaptation Gap.''' This is a qualitative assessment presenting individual, non-comparative data for world regions from 25 AR6 Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs) and Lead Authors (LAs), the majority from regional chapters. Respondents were asked to make expert summary statements based on the data included within their chapters and across the AR6 report augmented by their expert knowledge. Multiple iterations allowed opportunity for individual and group judgement. Urban populations and risks are very diverse within regions making the presented results indicative only. Variability in data coverage leads to the overall analysis having ''medium agreement'' , ''medium evidence'' . Major trends identified in 6.3.1 at least meet this level of confidence. Analysis is presented for current observed climate change associated hazards and for three adaptation scenarios: (1) current adaptation (based on current levels of risk management and climate adaptation), (2) planned adaptation (assessing the level of adaptation that could be realised if all national, city and neighbourhood plans and policies were fully enacted), (3) transformative adaptation (if all possible adaptation measures were to be enacted). Assessments were made for the lowest and highest quintile by income. Residual risk levels achieved for each income class under each adaptation scenario are indicated by five adaptation levels: no risk, occasional discomfort, occasional impacts on well-being, frequent impacts on well-being, extreme events and/or chronic risk. The urban adaptation gap is revealed when levels of achieved adaptation fall short of delivering ‘no risk’. The graphic uses IPCC Regions, and has split Asia into two regions: North and East Asia, and Central and South Asia. Technical support is acknowledged from Greg Dodds and Sophie Wang

The key finding from Figure 6.4 is that for all urban populations, both ''currently deployed'' and ''currently planned'' adaptations are not able to meet current levels of risk associated with climate change. Even if ''all conceivabl'' e adaptation was to be deployed, the majority of risks faced by the urban rich and poor today would not be fully resolved. This clearly emphasizes the fundamental importance of climate change mitigation to avoid urban risk and loss.

The urban adaptation gap is also found to be unequal. The poorest quintile has a larger adaptation gap than the richest quintile. Reported inequality in the application of urban adaptation is greatest in North, East and Southeast Asia, reflecting rapid urbanisation in this region. Reported inequality is lowest in Europe and Australasia. Observed inequalities indicate that the markets, government actions and civil society investments available to reduce vulnerability and risk among the poor have not been observed to offset inequalities based on individual and household capacities.

There is some catch-up as analysis moves through ''actually deployed'' to ''planned'' and ''all conceivable'' deployment, particularly for water and food security, but even here, inequality in risk is not fully resolved. Africa and South and Central Asia in particular show considerable disparity in adaptation to urban food security even with ''all conceivable adaptation'' . This means that even if all available adaptation was to be deployed, inequality in ability to adapt to climate change would remain. This highlights the significance of addressing underlying inequalities in development that shape differential vulnerability (see [[#6.2.3.1|Section 6.2.3.1]] , 6.2.3.3, 6.3.5.1 and 6.4) as part of vision and action on reducing risk to climate change so that no one is left behind.

Some hazard types and regions show strong capacity to close the adaptation gap if ''all planned'' adaptation was to be deployed: for example, Europe for heatwave and Europe and Central and South America for riverine and coastal flooding (particularly for wealthier populations). This reveals capacity within the current approaches to climate risk management, but also highlights the importance of resolving challenges that prevent planned adaptation from being deployed and deployed equitably.

<div id="6.3.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-through-social-infrastructure"></span>