Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-10 (section)

==== 10.4.6.5 Enabling Urban Adaptation Across Asia ====

<div id="h3-27-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is growing empirical evidence of conditions enabling and constraining urban adaptation (Table 10.3) with relatively more literature from South, Southeast and East Asia. Governance and capacity-related deficits are repeatedly identified as significant barriers to urban adaptation ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) and interact with financial and informational constraints to mediate adaptation action.

'''Table 10.3 |''' Barriers and enablers to climate adaptation across Asian cities

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Indicator

! As an enabler

! As a barrier

|-
| Governance and planning

| National policy directives to adapt: for example, strong national climate commitments in China, India and Thailand ( [[#Dulal--2019|Dulal, 2019]] ); and dedicated public–private councils on climate change in Seoul, Republic of Korea ( [[#Lee--2015|Lee and Painter, 2015]] )

Participatory planning, co-producing solutions and engaging multiple stakeholders: for example, Surat ( [[#Anguelovski--2014|Anguelovski et al., 2014]] ; [[#Karanth--2014|Karanth and Archer, 2014]] ; [[#Chu--2017|Chu et al., 2017]] ) and Guwahati ( [[#Archer--2014|Archer et al., 2014]] ) in India; Bandar Lampung and Semarang in Indonesia ( [[#Archer--2014|Archer et al., 2014]] ); and Seoul, Republic of Korea ( [[#Lee--2015|Lee and Painter, 2015]] )

Devolving decision making to city governments ( [[#ADB--2013|ADB, 2013]] ) and strong political leadership helps to institutionalise adaptation programmes ( [[#Anguelovski--2014|Anguelovski et al., 2014]] ; [[#Friend--2014|Friend et al., 2014]] ; [[#Lee--2015|Lee and Painter, 2015]] ): for example, in Moscow where the city mayor has spearheaded climate action ( [[#van%20der%20Heijden--2019|van der Heijden et al., 2019]] ).

Mainstreaming climate adaptation in city plans ( [[#UN-HABITAT%20and%20UNESCAP--2018|UN-HABITAT and UNESCAP, 2018]] )

| Low accountability and transparency in planning processes with inadequate spaces for public dialogue ( [[#Friend--2014|Friend et al., 2014]] ) and limited accountability to the most economically and politically marginalised people within cities ( [[#Garschagen--2019|Garschagen and Marks, 2019]] )

Of 180 urban adaptation interventions across Asia, 65% are reactive in nature ( [[#Dulal--2019|Dulal, 2019]] ), thus missing opportunities for risk prevention and preparedness ( [[#Francisco--2019|Francisco and Zakaria, 2019]] ).

Lack of forward-looking, learning-oriented processes constrain adaptation with short-term development priorities often overshadowing long-term climate-action needs ( [[#Friend--2014|Friend et al., 2014]] ; [[#de%20Leon--2017|de Leon and Pittock, 2017]] ; [[#Gajjar--2018|Gajjar et al., 2018]] ; [[#Khaling--2018|Khaling et al., 2018]] ; [[#Garschagen--2019|Garschagen and Marks, 2019]] ; [[#Jain--2021|Jain et al., 2021]] ).

Fragmented governance, lack of mainstreaming between CCA and DRR ( [[#Fuhr--2018|Fuhr et al., 2018]] ; [[#Khaling--2018|Khaling et al., 2018]] ): for example, in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia ( [[#Friend--2014|Friend et al., 2014]] ) and greater Manila ( [[#Meerow--2017|Meerow, 2017]] )

|-
| Information

| Knowledge sharing through transnational municipal networks such as C40, ACCRN and A-PLAT ( [[#Fünfgeld--2015|Fünfgeld, 2015]] )

City-level knowledge creation and knowledge-transfer institutions ( [[#Lee--2015|Lee and Painter, 2015]] )

| Data gaps on projected climate risks and impacts in certain sub-regions and small settlements ( [[#Revi--2014|Revi et al., 2014]] )

Numerous tools for assessing vulnerability and adaptation planning ( [[#Nordgren--2016|Nordgren et al., 2016]] )

|-
| Technology and infrastructure

| Early warning systems, climate information and modelling studies inform adaptation decision making ( [[#Reed--2015|Reed et al., 2015]] ; [[#Singh--2018a|Singh et al., 2018a]] )

| Inadequate regional downscaled data at the city scale ( [[#ADB--2013|ADB, 2013]] ; [[#Khaling--2018|Khaling et al., 2018]] );

inadequate cost–benefit analyses of different adaptation strategies (Khaling et al. 2018)

|-
| Capacity and awareness

| A focus on learning, experimentation, awareness and capacity building leads to more sustained, legitimate and inclusive adaptation ( [[#ADB--2013|ADB, 2013]] ; [[#Anguelovski--2014|Anguelovski et al., 2014]] ; [[#Reed--2015|Reed et al. (2015)]] .

| Limited access to, and capacity to use, risk assessment tools ( [[#ADB--2013|ADB, 2013]] ; [[#Shaw--2016b|Shaw et al., 2016b]] )

|-
| Finance

| Dedicated adaptation financing (e.g., in Beijing, adaptation spending is 0.33% of the city’s GDP) ( [[#Georgeson--2016|Georgeson et al., 2016]] ); steering international and local funding to leverage adaptation benefits in urban development programmes such as in Surat (India) ( [[#Cook--2019|Cook and Chu, 2019]] ); mainstreaming climate adaptation into development programming to leverage developmental finance for adaptation action ( [[#Cuevas--2016|Cuevas et al., 2016]] ; [[#Narender--2018|Narender and Sethi, 2018]] )

| Inadequate adaptation funding and lack of financial devolution to city governments ( [[#Fuhr--2018|Fuhr et al., 2018]] ; [[#Garschagen--2019|Garschagen and Marks, 2019]] )

|}

<div id="10.4.7" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="health-and-well-being"></span>