Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

===== 17.5.1.1.2 Empirical evidence on success of adaptation vis a vis maladaptation =====

<div id="h4-21-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Although the empirical evidence on current and potential successful adaptation and maladaptation remains small and fragmented ( [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ; [[#Berrang-Ford--2021|Berrang-Ford et al., 2021]] ; see [[#17.3.2|Section 17.3.2]] in this Chapter), the above framing allows for moving a step further in assessing the potential contribution of a wide range of adaptation-related options to success or maladaptation.

According to an assessment (Figure 17.11; see SM 17.1 for full descriptions) of maladaptation-relevant outcome dimensions, here called criteria, that is, benefits to people, benefits to ecosystem services, benefits to equity (marginalised ethnic groups, gender, low-income populations), transformational potential and contribution to GHG emission reduction, no option is located at one or the other end of the adaptation-maladaptation continuum (Figure 17.11, right panel), showing that all options have some maladaptation potential, that is, trade-offs ( ''very high confidence'' ). This is also shown by the wide confidence ranges of most options (right panel) signifying that most adaptation can be done in a way that involves a higher or a lower risk of maladaptation ( ''medium confidence'' ; see also Figure 17.3). The option of ‘coastal infrastructure’ signifies the highest risk for maladaptation. While it can be an efficient adaptation option in highly densely populated areas ( [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ; [https://www.ipcc.ch/chapter/17#CCP2.3 CCP2.3] ), it has potential trade-offs for natural system functioning and human vulnerability over time. The options most widely associated with successful adaptation are ‘nature restoration’, ‘social safety nets’, ‘change of farm/fishery practice’ and ‘change of diets/reducing food waste’ ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="_idContainer051" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1 Figure"></div>

[[File:3cf03d24488f0f754e05a695811a6773 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_011.png]]

'''Figure 17.11 |''' '''The potential contribution of 24 adaptation-related options to maladaptation and successful adaptation.'''

The figure builds on evidence provided in the underlying sectoral and regional chapters and the Cross-Chapter Papers (SM17.1) to map 24 adaptation options identified as relevant to the eight Representative Key Risks (see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.5|Section 16.5]] ) onto the adaptation–maladaptation continuum. It assesses the potential contribution of each of these adaptation options to successful adaptation and the risk of maladaptation. The figure permits a review of options in multiple ways: (a) looking at adaptation options (first column), one can see which adaptation options score highest across the criteria (the central rows). Results by options show which ones carry the highest risk of maladaptation (largest circles per row); (b): looking at criteria (top centre), one can see which criteria seem to be most influential to contribute to maladaptation outcomes (largest circles per central column); (c) panel on the right: merging the scores of each adaptation option across criteria helps highlight whether the options are likely to end up as successful adaptation or maladaptation.

Some options show the dominant influence of certain criteria (Figure 17.11, central panel rows). For example, ‘availability of health infrastructure’ and ‘access to health care’ are dominated by the criterion ‘greenhouse gas emissions’. Similarly, ‘spatial planning’ carries a high risk of disadvantages to marginalised ethnic and low-income groups. This means that these adaptations could be transformed into successful adaptations more easily than others, if attention is paid to the dominant criterion. For example, if health care could be provided with low GHG emissions, it would move closer towards successful adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ). For other options, the criteria’s influence is more evenly distributed, as illustrated for the ‘diversification of livelihoods’ and the three options to address climate risks to peace and mobility, denoting multiple entry points to reduce the risk of maladaptive outcomes for these options.

Some criteria score highly across a number of options (Figure 17.11, central panel columns), showing that many adaptations do not pay attention to different trade-offs. For example, particular attention should be paid to prioritising benefits to low-income groups and leveraging the transformational potential of adaptation (having the largest number of large circles), that is, many evaluated options become maladaptive by exacerbating the vulnerability of low-income groups and by fortifying the status quo ( ''medium confidence'' ). On the contrary, most evaluated adaptation options are widely applicable across populations (benefits to humans) and deliver ecosystem services, while some also respect gender equity (largest number of small bubbles across options). Through these criteria, a number of adaptation options contribute to a higher potential for successful adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ).

The results displayed in Figure 17.11 are not rigorous predictions but illustrate the maladaptive potential of options based on a synthesis of literature from underlying WGII chapters and cross-chapter papers. This leads to findings for general situations, potentially obscuring critical contextual specificities which can mediate successful adaptation or maladaptation outcomes. In a certain context, Figure 17.11 will appear different. Moreover, the analysis is based on a static interpretation of adaptation outcomes, while risk and risk reduction are dynamic. The current, underlying literature does not help understanding the temporal dimension of the options, their flexibility or risk of lock-in, and related potential contribution to long-term maladaptation or successful adaptation. The added value of the analysis lies in the approach to assess the potential contribution to maladaptation or successful adaptation (via the seven criteria at the top of the figure), rather than in the final results themselves. This overview illustrates how, in a particular context and for particular groups of people, adaptation options and their location on the adaptation–maladaptation continuum can be assessed for a set of outcome dimensions, focusing on assessing potential contributions per and across criteria as well as per and across options (critical information to support the identification of adaptation pathways; Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in this Chapter).

<div id="17.5.1.1.3" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-successful-adaptation-and-pre-empting-maladaptation"></span>