Adapting to Climate Change in Europe: Exploring Sustainable Pathways - From Local Measures to Wider Policies

Adapting to Climate Change in Europe

Exploring Sustainable Pathways - From Local Measures to Wider Policies

Edited by

Hans Sanderson

Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark

Mikael Hildén

Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Duncan Russel

University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom

Gil Penha-Lopes

University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Alessio Capriolo

Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, ISPRA, Rome, Italy

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

Foreword

Preface

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Rationale—Needs to Bridge the Knowledge Gaps

1.2 The Aim of This Book

1.3 Approach and Structure

References

Chapter 2. Storylines and Pathways for Adaptation in Europe

Abstract

2.1 Introduction

2.2 RCPs and SSPs: A Brief Review

2.3 European Regional Diversity

2.4 The Unfolding of Adaptation Pathways at Different Levels

2.5 Conclusions

References

Chapter 3. The Diversity of Adaptation in a Multilevel Governance Setting

Abstract

3.1 Introduction

3.2 The Diversity of Climate Change Impacts at the Local (Case) Level

3.3 Local and Sectoral Climate Change Adaptation in Europe

3.4 The Role of Participatory Processes in Climate Change Adaptation

3.5 How to Find the Best Adaptation Option: Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Options—A Guideline and Demonstrative Results From European Case Studies

3.6 Barriers, Opportunities, and Good Practices in Implementation—Exemplified by Six Case Studies on Agricultural/Rural Climate Adaptation

3.7 Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria for Climate Adaptation Measures

3.8 Conclusion

References

Further Reading

Annexes

Chapter 4. Upscaling the Impacts of Climate Change in Different Sectors and Adaptation Strategies

Abstract

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Dealing With River Flood Risks and Adaptation

4.3 Agricultural Adaptation

4.4 Addressing Health Impacts and Adaptation

4.5 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

Further Reading

Chapter 5. Economy-Wide Impacts of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Across European Regions

Abstract

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Methods

5.3 Revised Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Adaptation and Mitigation

5.4 Results From the Updated AD-WITCH Model

5.5 Conclusions

References

Further Reading

Chapter 6. Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

6.1 Introduction

6.2 The National and Supranational Policy Frameworks

6.3 Coherent and Effective Climate Adaptation Policies

6.4 Integrating Adaptation Into Key Sectoral Policies

6.5 Conclusions

References

Further Reading

Chapter 7. Conclusion

7.1 Diversity Rules

7.2 Barriers Slow Down Progress

7.3 Scope for Cross-Sector and Cross-Regional Learning

7.4 Storylines Can Help in Understanding What Lies Ahead

7.5 There Is a Need for Diversity in Economic Assessments

7.6 The Importance of Uncertainties

7.7 Participation Requires Careful Planning

7.8 Policy-Making Needs to Consider Multiple Pathways

7.9 Looking Forward

References

Glossary

Author Index

Subject Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-849887-3

For Information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisition Editor: Kelleher, Laura S (ELS-CMA)

Editorial Project Manager: Frank, Tasha (ELS-CMA)

Production Project Manager: Vijayaraj Purushothaman

Cover Designer: Bilbow, Christian J. (ELS-OXF)

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

List of Contributors

Filipe M. Alves,     University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Silke Beck,     Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany

Francesco Bosello,     Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy

Laurens Bouwer,     Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands

Inês Campos,     University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Alessio Capriolo,     Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, ISPRA, Rome, Italy

Sergio Castellari

Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Bologna, Italy

Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

Aline Chiabai,     Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain

Enrica De Cian,     Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy

Roos M. den Uyl

University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom

VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Sebastien Foudi,     Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain

Luis Garrote,     Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain

Oliver Gebhardt,     Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany

Zuzana V. Harmáčkov,     The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Mikael Hildén,     Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Ana Iglesias,     Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain

Pedro Iglesias,     UPM (Technical University of Madrid), Madrid, Spain

Anne Jensen,     Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Ad Jeuken,     Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands

Eleni Karali,     Fondazione CMCC–Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy

Eliška K. Lorencová,     The Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic

Milla Mäenpää,     Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Kirsi Mäkinen,     Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Katriona McGlade,     Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

Volker Meyer,     Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany

Kiat Ng,     University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Helle Ø. Nielsen,     Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Marta Olazabal,     Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain

Anders B. Pedersen,     Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Gil Penha-Lopes,     University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Olivia Rendón,     Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, United Kingdom

Duncan Russel,     University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom

Anne-Mari Rytkönen,     Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Hans Sanderson,     Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark

Joseph Spadaro,     Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain

Tim Taylor,     University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, United Kingdom

Mette Termansen,     Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Jenny Troeltzsch,     Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

Jenny Tröltzsch,     Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany

David Vačkář,     The Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic

André Vizinho,     University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Sabine Weiland,     Université Catholique de Lille, Lille, France

Hessel Winsemius,     Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands

Marianne Zandersen

Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark

Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Mark Zandvoort,     Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Foreword

Andre’ Jol, Head of Section on Climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

EU and national monitoring and research have over the past decades greatly contributed to a better understanding of climate change, the associated impacts and risks, as well as the needs and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation actions.

Climate change is a reality and the extent and speed of change are becoming ever more evident: temperatures are rising; rainfall patterns are shifting; sea ice, glaciers, and snow are melting, and the sea level is rising. Climate-related extremes such as heat waves, heavy precipitation, and droughts are increasing in frequency and intensity in many regions. These changes, in interaction with economic and demographic developments and land use changes, have already had many impacts on ecosystems, economic sectors, infrastructure, and human health and well-being across Europe. Such impacts are projected to continue unless actions are taken.

The global Paris climate agreement is a major step forward, aiming to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C compared to preindustrial levels and requiring substantial reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. However, the current emission reduction commitments from participating countries are not yet sufficient and may lead to higher global temperature increases. A discussion on more ambitious long-term global emission reduction actions will take place, for example, in the context of the global stocktake under the Paris Agreement, due in 2018.

Even achieving the goal of limiting temperature increase to well below 2°C will need complementary actions to adapt, prevent or minimize the impacts. The EU climate change adaptation strategy of 2013 encourages countries to adopt adaptation strategies; promotes action in cities; mainstreams adaptation in EU policies; enhances research and information-sharing and provides funding. During 2017–18 the European Commission will be assessing whether action being taken so far has been sufficient.

An increasing number of EEA member countries have adopted national adaptation strategies and are implementing action plans. Strategies and actions also emerge in many cities and transnational regions across Europe. Technological and ecosystem-based measures, and measures addressing behavioral changes are being taken. Ecosystem-based measures, with multiple benefits, such as enhancing biodiversity, nature protection and recreation, in addition to climate change adaptation, have received increasing attention.

The EEA provides information to support these developments. For example through a 2016 report on urban adaptation which shows that a range of front-runner cities have started to act, although many have not yet taken action. The report recommends taking a systemic approach including, for example, better urban planning, with more green areas that can retain excess rainwater or cool built-up city centers in the summer, or by preventing the construction of houses in flood-prone areas. This can transform cities into much more attractive, climate-resilient, and sustainable places. In 2017 EEA published an assessment of key climate change impacts and vulnerabilities across Europe, based on many information sources including the results of a range of recent EU research projects.

The European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT), managed by the European Commission and EEA, supports policymakers in developing and implementing adaptation strategies and actions at different governance levels. It provides, for example, information on planning support tools, adaptation case studies, and national policies and actions. New EU research results over recent years have become available in particular on adaptation, including the very relevant BASE project. Climate-ADAPT aims to make such knowledge more accessible to policymakers.

This adaptation book, compiling results from the EU-funded research project BASE, is an excellent example of the expanding knowledge on the social and economic benefits of adaptation measures for sectors of great economic importance in Europe. Such knowledge is still limited, not systematic, and unevenly distributed across sectors and countries, making it difficult to assess and justify adaptation options. Moreover, there are difficulties in determining how to address the equity of impacts and adaptation policies and measures—proactive adaptation necessitates accepting costs today to avoid greater future costs.

This book aims to bridge the gap between top-down adaptation assessments and planning, and bottom-up local and contextual expert knowledge, which is much needed. The book brings together insights gained from many case studies across Europe and the world. It shares experiences on how the availability of specific knowledge, integration, and utilization can be improved, provides insights into how stakeholder participation can be promoted and strengthened, and examines how coherent, multilevel, multisector integrated adaptation policies can be developed. The book also demonstrates how different disciplines and approaches can be brought together to achieve faster learning, innovation, and robust decision-making.

All these elements are expected to make this book very useful to interested actors who aim to advance action on adaptation policies and actions across different governance levels and sectors in Europe.

Preface

Hans Sanderson, BASE Coordinator, Department for Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark

Climate change is a challenge to the world and humankind. Much is known about our changing climate, and the need for policy developments to mitigate and adapt to climate change is recognized globally as seen in the UN Sustainable Development Goal 13—to take urgent action against climate change. The recent Paris Agreement with the aims of keeping global temperature rise below 2°C by the end of this century and to strengthen the ability of countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change are examples of the global commitment to this challenge. In 2012, the European Union requested research and data on two main knowledge gaps in support of their policy development: (1) full cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of adaptation in key sectors in Europe; and (2) illustration of the analysis via case studies. The research team behind this book developed The Bottom-up Climate Adaptation Strategies towards a Sustainable Europe (BASE) project (www.base-adapt.eu) (2012–16) to address the research needs on sustainable climate adaptation strategies, which promote interactions between bottom-up and top-down assessments. The intention was to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts, the costs and benefits, policy coherence, and stakeholder perceptions of different climate adaptation pathways from an interdisciplinary perspective. We wanted to make sure that feedback from the bottom-up perspective was included in CBAs and other economic analyses. BASE produced 23 comparable adaptation case studies across Europe, as well as three cases from overseas to demonstrate examples of adaptation with comparable economic analysis to contribute to a better understanding of the full cost–benefit of adaptation. The case studies from BASE were incorporated into the European portal on adaption (www.climate-adapt.eu) as the vehicle for the implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy (https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en). This book is the culmination of the joint work efforts from the BASE project work covering more than 50 researchers from nine different countries for more than 4 years. This book documents the main findings of BASE with the purpose of enhancing knowledge on the benefits and costs of adaptation by improving the integration between the bottom-up nature of adaptation and top-down strategic policy-making, and through collecting unevenly spread information from across sectors and countries.

The book consists of seven chapters. First, a brief introduction to the European climate change adaptation research needs is provided in Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 2, Storylines and Pathways for Adaptation in Europe, focuses on the existing knowledge and experience of the current and future possibilities of climate change impact and societal development in relation to adaptation pathways and scenarios. Based on the 23 European case studies, Chapter 3, The Diversity of Adaptation in a Multilevel Governance Setting, demonstrates how different climate change impacts are perceived at the local level and among societal sectors, what strategies and plans exist, and how adaptation is manifesting at the local level. In this chapter, the role of participatory methodologies and tools, and the usability of different economic assessment methods are discussed. Chapter 4, Upscaling the Impacts of Climate Change in Different Sectors and Adaptation Strategies, provides estimates of how different economic impacts of climate change and different methodological frameworks for upscaling data from bottom-up adaptation processes in case studies, to assess the costs and benefits of adaptation at sectoral level in Europe. This work leads into Chapter 5, Economy-Wide Impacts of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Across European Regions, where the quantification and assessment of the full economic costs and benefits of current and alternative European climate mitigation and adaptation pathways are explored, as well as their effectiveness in climate proofing. Chapter 6, Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation, identifies and compares procedures, methods, measures, and policy instruments or decision support tools to enhance policy coherence and efficiency for adaptation policy. Chapter 7, Conclusion, the final chapter, explores how policies and policy-making can be improved to enhance climate change adaptation. It reflects on the different approaches that have been presented in Chapters 2–6 and that can be deployed to support decision-making.

Happy reading.

Acknowledgments

The editors and authors of this book wish to thank the European Commission for their support. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 308337 (Project BASE). We want to thank in particular our Project Officers at the European Commission for their continuous stimulus and support in the BASE team over these 4 years. We also want to thank Elsevier for the opportunity to publish our work with them and, in particular, thanks to our technical editor at Elsevier, Tasha Frank, for her professionalism, patience, and persistence. Lastly we want to thank all the wonderful people we have met in our case studies over the years who have opened their doors and worked with us and thereby allowing us to learn so much from them and from our collaboration.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Hans Sanderson¹ and Mikael Hildén²,    ¹Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark,    ²Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

1.1 Rationale—Needs to Bridge the Knowledge Gaps

The impacts of a changing climate are likely to disrupt many ecological, social, and economic systems. Some regions and sectors in Europe are likely to suffer greater adverse effects than others, whereas some may see new opportunities emerging. Within regions, both beneficial and adverse developments are possible, depending on the sector, season, and local conditions. In all situations, adaptation to climate change presents a critical challenge to society.

The EU adaptation strategy (EC, 2013) highlighted the need for new knowledge on adaptation. The progress of climate change has not halted and the Paris Agreement from the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) further highlights the importance of adaptation. The 17 Sustainable Developmental Goals adopted by the UN in 2015 (UN, 2015) also raise the issue of adaptation to climate change—Goal 13 demands urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. It notes that affordable, scalable solutions are now available to enable countries to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies. The pace of change is quickening as more people are turning to renewable energy and a range of other measures that will reduce emissions and increase adaptation efforts (http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/).

The high-level goals raise key questions on what specific knowledge is needed and how adaptation knowledge production, as well as actual adaptation, can be enhanced. This book fills a particular knowledge gap by bringing together insights from real action at the local level to improve adaptive capacity and resilience, with the broad-brush analysis of global and regional models of adaptation and analyses of policies that frame the actions. This dual view provides new insights into the challenges of adaptation.

This book expands on the knowledge of the social and economic benefits of adaptation measures for sectors of great economic importance in Europe, and addresses issues and needs in policy making. The chosen approach bridges the gap between top-down adaptation assessments and planning, and bottom-up local and contextual expert knowledge. The book brings together insights gained from 23 case studies across Europe, and five additional ones from across the world. A specific focus is on the economic assessments behind the adaptation measures, as well as participatory efforts and the policy dimension of adaptation.

The EU Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2013) encourages Member States to develop national and regional adaptation strategies, and it stresses the need to build a knowledge base on climate change impacts and vulnerability, including the sharing of existing data and information (among stakeholders) through platforms such as Climate-ADAPT (http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/). The sharing of knowledge and learning is necessary as adaptation has been proven to be a multisector and multiscale decision-making problem, characterized by substantial uncertainty. Uncertainties arise both with respect to the actual impacts of climate change but also with respect to the wider developments in society. These uncertainties and ambiguities present critical challenges for the development of robust adaptation strategies.

When designing adaptation policies, decision-makers are faced with particular and still unresolved difficulties, in addition to the complexities common to all climate policies. This context, the understanding of policy efficiency, is a critical issue. Empirical studies utilizing cost–benefit and multicriteria analysis of climate change adaptation measures are increasingly used to shed light on the efficiency of adaptation policy measures. Integrated economic modeling used in this book has shown that uncertainty in future socioeconomic scenarios could significantly affect adaptation cost estimates, which in Europe could vary between €30 and 50 billion in 2050, but the uncertainties are significant. The fact that knowledge on the benefits and costs of adaptation is still limited, not systematic, and unevenly distributed across sectors and countries, makes it difficult to assess and justify adaptation options. Moreover, there are difficulties in determining how to address the equity of impacts and adaptation policies and measures; proactive adaptation necessitates accepting costs today to avoid greater future costs.

Uncertainties related to the underlying impacts of climate change, as well as to those impacts associated with proposed preventive interventions, create difficulties for the design and choice of adaptation options. The complexity of climate change adaptation calls for a multilevel, multisectoral, and multiactor governance approach. Adaptation is a process whose characteristics are sector-, scale-, society-, and ultimately time-specific. The policies necessary to promote successful adaptation need to consider both the impacts and the related adaptive responses from a bottom-up perspective—e.g., there is a considerable gap between the research effort on integrated assessment models for guiding adaptation, and context-specific local adaptation. At the heart of the problem is the need to understand how interactions between top-down and bottom-up approaches add another layer of complexity to adaptation processes. It is still far from clear how one should deal with uncertainties embedded in all adaptation actions, and with the challenges that arise from the bottom-up nature of adaptation. Adaptation pathways that allow for gradual progress and learning are likely to provide one of the ways forward in responding to these challenges to develop an adaptation narrative and common storyline in planning and managing adaptation.

Models supporting adaptation should ideally build on high-quality data, but in practice models are often based on aggregate and unsatisfactory data coverage. Model outputs should therefore not be taken at face value. The reliability of the analyses can greatly benefit from refining the data input and through the critical assessment of the appropriate scale of analysis, which accounts for in-depth understanding that can be gained from bottom-up case study analysis. There is also a need to improve the design of bottom-up analyses to strengthen the lessons learned from individual case studies and to ensure comparability between them. The dialogue between modeling that generalizes and aggregates the detailed study of cases that explore context-dependent situations can overcome critical knowledge gaps.

Citizen and stakeholder participation is an important way to anchor adaptation measures in the local context. In some countries and instances, policy makers have struggled to engage citizens and stakeholders, while at the same time the latter do not feel heard or included in the decision-making process. New tools and approaches that can promote the engagement and involvement of citizens and stakeholders should therefore continue to be explored. Improving the articulation between bottom-up and top-down analysis should allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the critical choices that have to be made, and for pin-pointing the appropriate point of intervention to achieve robust, cost-effective climate change adaptation policies. A comprehensive review of case studies can help to find ways of integrating adaptation strategies into sectors, which may have different needs, constituencies, vulnerabilities, and risks.

The litmus test of successful adaptation policies and measures lies in the real world implementation. It faces conflicts over existing sector policy objectives, time and resource constraints, as well as competing priorities among implementers. Policy strategies balancing human well-being, ecosystem services, and economic growth present further challenges. Top-down strategies may lead to a mismatch between national and regional adaptation policy needs, and the more context-specific adaptation measures needs required at local scales. Top-down adaptation strategies are typically based on aggregate costs and benefits across sectors to reach nation-wide economic figures. The challenge is thus to avoid a one size fits all policy approach, which is not sufficiently sensitive to actual environmental, social, and economic characteristics and climate change impacts in specific localities and sectors (the bottom-up perspective). Top-down strategies frequently fail to embrace and/or foster bottom-up processes. Bottom-up processes usually require trust, raised through community building, and include knowledge sharing, codesign of local decisions between citizens, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Moreover, they require more integral adaptation measures and implementation with consequent feedback and participatory actions.

A systematic generation of empirical data allows for a combination, revision, and development of sectorial and integrated economic assessment models with real-world data in place of default model assumptions, thus improving the predictability of these. There is also a need for frameworks to allow for the systematic analysis of adaptation policies, and for examining the significance of policies at case level. Such frameworks can be used to characterize different policy areas and to identify challenges in the relationship between and within EU and national policies, as well as opportunities and barriers in relation to the implementation of policies at a local level. This analyses should elucidate why and how adaptation evolves differently across Europe. Such analyses are needed in the development of meaningful broad regional adaptation strategies such as the EU’s 2013 Adaptation Strategy. The strength of the EU Adaptation Strategy lies in its effort to mainstream adaptation into all relevant policy areas. But this also requires information on conflicts and synergies of adaptation policies at different levels of policy making with other policies (including climate change mitigation) within and between sectors.

1.2 The Aim of This Book

The overall aim of this book is to provide a much-needed research-based overview of adaptation in action. It has three specific aims. First, it brings together new information on the background and justification to adaptation. Second, it reconciles the bottom-up nature of adaptation with top-down strategic analysis and policy making. Third, it identifies topics and challenges for future adaptation research.

To strengthen the base for adaptation, this book makes new results on benefits and costs of adaptation accessible and compiles and collates information that so far has been unevenly spread across sectors and countries. To fulfill the aim of bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up analyses and actions, the book shares experiences on how the availability of specific knowledge, integration, and utilization can be improved, provides insights into how stakeholder participation can be promoted and strengthened, and examines how coherent, multilevel, multisector integrated adaptation policies can be developed.

Adaptation research is challenging. Climate change has short- and long-term impacts, local socioecological context and specific vulnerabilities are relevant, and complex networks of causes and effects and a wide diversity of adaptation capacity of local regions make it difficult to compile and integrate empirical data and information. The book demonstrates how different disciplines and approaches can be brought together to achieve faster learning, innovation, and robust decision-making.

Taken together the goal is to support the emergence of informed and well-designed adaptation measures and policies that evolve dynamically with adaptation needs and capacities. With the accompanying twitter handle @EUAdaptation we also encourage readers to go to the BASE website (www.base-adapt.eu) for further information, models, and data.

1.3 Approach and Structure

The book consists of seven main chapters. This chapter, is the introduction. Chapter 2, Storylines and Pathways for Adaptation in Europe, sets the scene by providing an overview of storylines and pathways for adaptation in Europe. Chapter 3, The Diversity of Adaptation in a Multilevel Governance Setting, focuses on the diversity of adaptation in a multilevel governance setting. Chapter 4, Upscaling the Impacts of Climate Change in Different Sectors and Adaptation Strategies, addresses the challenges of upscaling climate impacts in different sectors. In Chapter 5, Economy Wide Impacts of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Across European Regions, economy-wide impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies across European regions are explored. Chapter 6, Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation, explores the policy implications of the insights that have been gained, and outlines possible future policy developments. Chapter 7, Conclusion, provides a synthesis of the themes and topics covered.

Each chapter identifies and compares different methodological frameworks and analytical assessments that support learning from diverse approaches and actual applications. Frequent references are made to the 23 in-depth case studies that were at different stages of the adaptation cycle and that illustrate multilevel governance scales and/or multisectoral cases across Europe and beyond.

Each chapter shows different aspects and ways of tackling the availability of information, internalization of intangible and nonvalued goods and services, treatment of uncertainty, monitoring, short- versus long-term time horizons, incremental versus transformational adaptation, and intergenerational responsibilities. Of particular interest is the combination of challenges that full economic assessments have to deal with in order to support robust policies and decisions. Different ways of valuing benefits, costs, effectiveness, and efficiency, among others parameters, are explored within the confines of the availability of data and information. The use of economic assessment to support decision-making is discussed in the light of descriptions of sectoral and intersectoral models that have been calibrated/developed and linked to the case studies.

The chapters also reflect on the need for ground-truthing of the model parameterization assumptions in light of high-quality comparable empirical evidence from real-world case studies. The empirical knowledge gathered from the 23 case studies, combined with a generic assessment of numerous implemented adaptation measures, provides a robust base for sectoral and upscaling modeling and better comprehension of the challenges at national, regional, and European scale. Finally, given the diversity of case studies, the book also comments on a suite of different tools and methods that can be applicable to different stages of adaptation with respect to economic assessments, prioritization, adaptation pathways, adaptation storyline, participatory methods, and policy.

References

1. UN. (2015). Sustainable development goals – United Nations [WWW Document]. U.N. Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 6.25.17).

2. EC. An EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. COM. 2013;2013 2016 final.

Chapter 2

Storylines and Pathways for Adaptation in Europe

Mikael Hildén¹, Ad Jeuken² and Marianne Zandersen³,    ¹Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland,    ²Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands,    ³Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark

Abstract

This chapter focuses on how one can place climate change and adaptation actions in a wider context of societal change. It examines ways of conceptualizing the societal context for adaptation actions and illustrates how it plays out in different regions and substance areas in Europe and how this information can be used in reflecting on possibilities for adaptation at different levels. It places adaptation to climate change in the frame of Representative Concentration Pathways and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, taking into account regional differences within Europe. The adaptation pathways are used as a central concept that helps to understand the range of available actions and the sequence of actions that can be taken under different scenarios of climate change and societal development. The chapter stresses the need to broadly understand the factors that affect adaptation challenges and that determine what one needs to consider in outlining future adaptation action.

Keywords

Representative Concentration Pathways; Shared Socioeconomic Pathways; adaptation pathways; incremental adaptation; transformational adaptation

2.1 Introduction

A scenario is described by the IPCC as a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold (IPCC, 2013). The same source specifies a storyline to be a narrative description of a scenario (or a family of scenarios), highlighting the main scenario characteristics and dynamics, and the relationships between key driving forces. Scenarios have been extensively used to provide descriptions of how climate may change and to drive assessments of possible impacts. To understand how scenarios evolve in practice and how they relate to adaptation, there is a need for storylines that highlight salient features of the conditions, needs, and opportunities for adaptation. By extracting information from the work on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (Moss et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2011) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al., 2017), a general context can be obtained for thinking about adaptation actions and their evolution in the form of adaptation pathways that describe how choices can be made in adapting to climate change. This chapter presents the conceptual development, from a review of RCPs and SSPs to their combination, into particular storylines. These storylines are examined at a regional level in Europe for agriculture, water and flood risk management, health, and urban development. They build on general literature and the detailed analyses that have been carried out in cases (Chapter 3: The Diversity of Adaptation in a Multilevel Governance Setting), for sectors (Chapter 4: Upscaling the Impacts of Climate Change in Different Sectors and Adaptation Strategies), and in aggregate modeling (Chapter 5: Economy Wide Impacts of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Across European Regions). This information is then used to analyze how adaptation pathways can be formed and what factors affect them. Finally, the findings are brought together in a discussion on policies, adaptation pathways, and storylines. The Chapter contributes to the general policy discussion in Chapter 6 (Chapter 6: Analyzing the Policy Framework for Climate Change Adaptation).

2.2 RCPs and SSPs: A Brief Review

This section summarizes current thinking on climate and socioeconomic scenarios, and highlights how RCPs (Moss et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2011) and SSPs (O’Neill et al., 2017) can be operationalized as a base for general storylines. This chapter illustrates how storylines can be developed by combining different scenarios. It then illustrates how they help in thinking about adaptation to climate change, in creating understanding about the diversity of adaptation challenges at a regional and even local level, and in providing a foundation for identifying the conditions that affect different local, national, and EU-wide adaptation measures. The storylines are, however, not normative, but aim at supporting reflexive thinking on available options. There are also elements of subjective consideration in each interpretation and application of the storylines.

2.2.1 What Are the RCPs and SSPs?

Projections and scenarios of climate change are important for all adaptation activities. The current reference scenarios of climate change are the RCPs. The RCPs provide a consistent set of trajectories for future atmospheric composition and land use change up to the year 2100 against which adaptation policies and measures can be judged. The four chosen RCPs illustrate different emission levels, land uses and resulting greenhouse gas concentrations (GHGs), and are named according to their radiative forcing level in the year 2100 (Fuss et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2011). From the lowest to the highest radiative forcing these are the following:

• In RCP 2.6 low GHG levels are reached. The radiative forcing level peaks at around 3 W/m² by mid-century, and declines to 2.6 W/m² by 2100, corresponding to approximately 1°C (T increase 0.9–2.3°C at the end of century (EOC)) temperature increase above preindustrial levels. This will require net negative CO2 emissions in the second half of the 21st century.

• In RCP 4.5 the total radiative forcing is stabilized at 4.5 W/m² shortly after 2100 without overshooting the long-run radiative forcing target level. It is based on an assumption of more rapid reduction of GHGs than under RCP 6.0 (T increase 1.7–3.2°C at EOC).

• In RCP 6.0 the total radiative forcing is stabilized at 6.0 W/m² (T increase 2.0–3.7°C at EOC) shortly after 2100 and the scenario assumes that GHG emissions are gradually curbed.

• In RCP 8.5 GHG emissions increase over time, and the scenario represents developments leading to high GHG levels and a temperature increase in the range of 3.2–5.4°C at EOC.

The Paris agreement of 2015 seeks to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and [to pursue efforts] to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (Article 2). It thus implies radiative forcing close to RCP 2.6. The current emission trajectories suggest possibly reaching temperatures corresponding to an RCP 4.5 trajectory by the end of the century (Climate Action Tracker, 2017). The trajectories of the consequences of the forcing are being explored in broad international cooperative research efforts, in particular in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Eyring et al., 2016). It explores how the Earth system responds to forcing, the origins and consequences of systematic model biases, and the possibilities of assessing future climate change given internal climate variability, predictability, and uncertainties in scenarios.

Adaptation is, however, not solely driven by climate change. From the local to the global level, climate-related risks and vulnerabilities depend on the interaction of changing climatic conditions with socioeconomic changes. Thus demographic, economic, technological, environmental, and political changes are important for the consequences of climate change (van Ruijven et al., 2014). Tinch et al. (2015) argue for a distinction between coping and adaptive capacity, and that the different capacities can be measured through the identification of five capitals (human, social, manufactured, natural, and financial) of societal wealth.

The integration of climatic and socioeconomic information allows for a richer understanding of adaptation challenges and pathways, provided that future socioeconomic conditions can be projected. Integrated analyses enable a discussion of the relative importance of changes in different dimensions, such as the accumulation of assets in flood-prone areas versus changes in the frequency of floods of a certain magnitude. At the same time, the inclusion of socioeconomic scenarios increases the number of variables, making the choice between adaptation actions potentially more difficult.

A coherent set of five global pathways describing potential alternative socioeconomic futures has been developed to provide a frame for the socioeconomic reflections. These are known as Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al., 2017). The five SSPs have not been set up to illustrate climate policies or the impact of climate change. Instead their main purpose is to describe plausible future evolutions in key socioeconomic variables that together create challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation (see Fig. 2.1). Each SSP has been developed using combinations of qualitative descriptions of potential future changes in demographics, human development, economy and lifestyle, policies and institutions, technology, environment and natural resources, and quantifications of some of these key variables such as population growth, GDP, and urbanization. The SSP storylines have been developed based on expert opinions (O’Neill et al., 2017) and the quantified variables have been produced through modeling efforts (Crespo Cuaresma, 2017; Dellink, Chateau, Lanzi, & Magné, 2017; Jiang & O’Neill, 2017; Kc & Lutz, 2017; Riahi et al., 2017).

Figure 2.1 The mapping of the SSPs relative to challenges for mitigation and adaptation based on O’Neill et al. (2017).

The five SSPs have been generally described as follows:

• SSP1 Sustainability—Taking the Green Road: low population growth associated with educational and health improvements, reductions in global inequality, increasingly effective international cooperation. Increasing environmental awareness that leads to improved resource efficiency, a boost in green technologies, and low energy demand.

• SSP2 Middle of the Road: social, economic, and technological trends do not significantly differ from historical patterns. Moderate population growth, slow progress towards achieving sustainability goals, and the persistence of fossil fuel dependency as well as income inequalities.

• SSP3 Regional Rivalry—A Rocky Road: increased nationalism, regional conflict, weak international cooperation, and more authoritarian forms of government in parts of the world. Strong population growth in developing countries, low economic development with islands of moderate growth but also widespread poverty, limited environmental concerns, and growing resource intensity and fossil fuel use.

• SSP 4 Inequality—A Road Divided: highly unequal development across world regions and countries with increasing gaps between regions. Wealthy regions have high education levels, high technological development, and moderate economic growth, whereas poor regions are characterized by low levels of education, slow economic development, weak institutions, and increasing social unrest.

• SSP 5 Fossil-fueled Development—Taking the Highway: rapid economic, technological, and social development that is driven by increasingly integrated global markets, and based on the strong exploitation of fossil fuels and resource-intensive lifestyles. Global population growth peaks and declines in the 21st century. Technological development is expected to be able to address environmental consequences.

The combinations of RCPs and SSPs form joint storylines, being described as: the qualitative and descriptive component of a scenario, which creates images of future worlds. […] What they do try to achieve is to stimulate, provoke, and communicate visions of what the future could hold for us. They aim for creativity, rigor, internal coherence, and plausibility (Rounsevell & Metzger, 2010).

The value of such storylines is seen to be threefold (Berkhout, Hertin, & Jordan, 2002; Carlsen, Eriksson, Dreborg, Johansson, & Bodin, 2016; Mahlkow, Lakes, Donner, Köppel, & Schreurs, 2016):

1. When storylines are developed through engagement of experts and stakeholders, they combine multiple perspectives and sources of expertise;

2. Storylines are key for communicating the results of scenario exercises;

3. Storylines represent a much broader picture than quantitative models and encapsulate a number of subtler aspects, such as governance, institutional change, or specific behavior.

In this book, the storylines provide the backdrop against which adaptation to climate change can be assessed. This applies both to local actions that address potential specific local impacts and general policy-level actions that provide the frame for general adaptation activities dealing with broad categories of impacts.

2.2.2 The Storylines Describe Different Worlds and Dynamic Change

The combined RCP–SSP storylines convey very different worlds. Under RCP 8.5 that underlies the storylines Fossil-fueled development and Regional rivalry, many of the consequences of significant climate change are likely to be apparent by the middle of the century. Such a situation would pose significant challenges for societies in terms of adaptation. These challenges would be aggravated towards the end of the 21st century. The essential difference between the Fossil-fueled development, Regional rivalry, and the Middle of the road with active mitigation is that mitigation is assumed to be more successful under the Middle of the Road storyline. As a consequence climate change progresses more slowly with less pronounced extremes. This means that adaptation is easier and less demanding. One should, however, note that also under RCP 4.5 climate change will cause impacts that make nature and sectors of society change relative to the present and thus there is, also under RCP 4.5, a need for adaptation action. Some of these actions can seize opportunities created by climate change. For example, Orwin et al. (2015) have argued that intensively managed agricultural systems in temperate regions are among the most likely to benefit from climate change.

One can note that the Paris climate agreement envisions a world in which climate change mitigation is so successful that the radiative forcing level in the year 2100 is closer to that of RCP 2.6 than to RCP 4.5, with its aim to keep the average global temperature increase well below 2°C. The IPCC will provide a special report on the conditions for, and consequences of, such a world. In this book, however, RCP 4.5 is used as an achievable low-emission trajectory, recognizing that current pledges are not sufficient for reaching the goals of the Paris agreement.

Economic growth is assumed to be strongest in the storyline Fossil-fueled development (SSP 5), modest in Middle of the road with active mitigation and low or even negative in Regional rivalry. This creates very different conditions for adaptation (see Fig. 2.1). Under Fossil-fueled development and Middle of the road with active mitigation, countries are assumed, by and large, to have the means to respond to immediate adaptation needs. Adaptation need is here defined as the level of adaptation that is sufficient to avoid significant adverse consequences of climate change.

The adaptation responses should also to be considered in the light of the public sector development and the division of tasks and responsibilities between the public and private sectors. If societies aim for a reduction of the public sector and make adaptation an increasingly private sector task, adaptation actions will naturally focus on actions where private rather than societal cost–benefit ratios are high. Private interest and resources can be mobilized for profitable investments, including investments in opportunities to profit from climate change. Poor areas and countries will depend on innovative cheap adaptation actions, or suffer from the adverse consequences of climate change as private investors do generally require private returns on investments, except for charitable donations. This means that finding private climate finance is likely to be more difficult than reflected in the high hopes of, e.g., the Copenhagen accord. If the annual target of USD 100 billion of climate finance is maintained, any shortfall in private funding needs to be compensated for by more public finance than previously assumed (Pauw, Klein, Vellinga, & Biermann, 2016).

Under Regional rivalry poor economic conditions are assumed to prevail and these will most likely be reflected in accentuated internal inequalities as public resources to support adaptation are diminished. The