Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-13 (section)

==== 13.6.2.2 Adaptation Options as a Function of Impacts ====

<div id="h3-25-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Examples of adaptation options in Europe are presented in Figure 13.19.

<div id="_idContainer054" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:4b1c5d4ac3814629b4df85d86d0dd4f9 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_13_019.png]]

'''Figure 13.19 |''' '''Adaptation options in cities, settlements and key infrastructures in Europe''' ''(Table SM13.7)''

Both NbS and EbA, such as green spaces, ponds, wetlands and green roofs for urban stormwater management and vegetation for heat mitigation, represent an emerging adaptation option in cities. Combined with traditional water infrastructure, they can contribute to managing urban flood events ( [[#Kourtis--2021|Kourtis and Tsihrintzis, 2021]] ), playing a role in mitigating flood peaks ( [[#Pour--2020|Pour et al., 2020]] ) and protecting critical urban infrastructure ( [[#Ossa-Moreno--2017|Ossa-Moreno et al., 2017]] ). For example, in the Augustenborg district of Malmö, Sweden, using nature to manage stormwater runoff has resulted in capturing an estimated 90% of runoff from impervious surfaces and reduced the total annual runoff volume from the district by about 20% compared with the conventional system ( [[#EEA--2020b|EEA, 2020b]] ). Urban greening is associated with lower ambient air temperature and relatively higher thermal comfort during warm periods ( [[#Bowler--2010|Bowler et al., 2010]] ; [[#Oliveira--2011|Oliveira et al., 2011]] ; [[#Cohen--2012|Cohen et al., 2012]] ; [[#Cameron--2014|Cameron et al., 2014]] ). The scale and relative degree of management or integration of approaches drawing on nature with ‘engineered’ solutions affect their vulnerability to climate change. Small-scale urban NbS are relatively less vulnerable due to increased capacity for intervention, while the relatively greater contact between stakeholders and urban NbS (compared with larger-scale, rural approaches) provides greater opportunity for human intervention to ensure the survival of urban vegetation during droughts or heatwaves.

When selecting and combining adaptation options, challenges remain on how to address the uncertainties of climate projections and climatic extremes ( [[#Fowler--2021|Fowler et al., 2021]] ) and to translate scientific input into practical guidance for adaptation ( [[#13.11.1.3|Section 13.11.1.3]] ; [[#Dale--2021|Dale, 2021]] ).

An assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of the main adaptation options, based on the literature, is presented in Figure 13.20. (For adaptation to flood risk, see Figure 13.6.)

<div id="_idContainer056" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:3635c9789aec74888cf393c5b6acd904 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_13_020.png]]

'''Figure 13.20 |''' '''Effectiveness and feasibility of the main adaptation options for cities, settlements and key infrastructures in Europe''' (Section SM13.9; Table SM13.8)

There are gaps in knowledge on the social, environmental and geophysical dimensions of feasibility for many options, and a holistic assessment of different options is largely lacking. This latter issue could reveal unintended impacts from, and synergies or trade-offs between, options, as in water and wastewater services ( [[#Dobson--2020|Dobson and Mijic, 2020]] ).

<div id="13.6.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-limits-residual-risks-and-incremental-and-transformative-adaptation"></span>