Three ways to bridge adaptation research gaps for a resilient future

To effectively build the resilience of vulnerable communities against increasingly intense climate change impacts, research needs to contribute to understanding adaptation’s place in the broader economic development and social evolution landscape, its behavioral and institutional constraints, and the impact of its solutions.

The world is witnessing a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, underscoring the vulnerability of poor communities. The multifaceted impacts of climate change demand an extensive research agenda spanning various disciplines, including climate and social science. There is much to be learned to inform adaptation action at scale.

On the physical science side, adaptation’s effectiveness hinges on a deep understanding of current and future climate-related risks and the inherent uncertainties of the future. There is still a significant gap in climate risk data and models, especially at a more granular level, that needs to be bridged to enhance adaptation planning. One pressing challenge, for example, is gaining insights into adapting to extreme climate change scenarios, such as those associated with 3 to 4°C of mean surface warming.

At the same time, there is an increasingly urgent demand for comprehensive social science research to inform and shape effective adaptation strategies. GCA’s State and Trends in Adaptation 2022 Report highlights three key contributions research can make to improving the effectiveness of adaptation strategies, which are summarized in this blog.

Climate change is slated to hit poor people particularly hard and will put development achievements at risk.  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the risks associated with a given climate hazard depend on how vulnerable and exposed an economy is to that hazard. At the same time, the climate risks countries face are also determined by the development decisions they take.

The practical question that follows is: How does climate-resilient development differ from conventional development? More research is required to embed adaptation thinking into economic development plans. In macroeconomic terms, one way to model this is as the simultaneous accumulation of productive and adaptation capital. Research can provide critical insights into the aggregate costs and benefits of adaptation, helping policymakers make informed decisions on how to channel funding into climate resilient development effectively.

Furthermore, the net effects of economic development and the shift in location of economic activities from rural to urban areas, on vulnerability and exposure are ambiguous.

Farmers and pastoralists in many parts of the world are already adapting their behavior to the changing climate. In Sub-Saharan Africa, smallholders are reducing their vulnerability to climate-related events on farms through adaptive production strategies, like adopting drought-tolerant or climate-smart varieties of staple crops. Subsistence farmers are also using adaptive income strategies, like diversifying their sources of livelihood beyond agriculture, which plays a significant role in withstanding the adverse impacts of climate change and reducing poverty.

Such adaptation processes involve the interdependence of agents through their relationships with each other, with the institutions in which they are situated, and with the resource base on which they depend. More research into these elements is needed. For example, incomplete markets shape the adaptation-related investments of smallholder farmers. Those facing constrained access to credit or insurance may choose to invest less, or differently, on their farms than they would under perfect markets.

Many adaptation interventions, such as enhancing the resilience of infrastructure or providing common resources without clearly enforceable property rights like biodiversity, have the traits of a public good, and their benefits are expected to accrue over a longer time horizon. Collective action is at the heart of many decisions regarding the management of natural resources and enhancing the adaptation benefits they can bring. In agriculture, forestry, and other resource-dependent livelihoods, resources frequently exist under multiple property rights regimes. Collective action for adaptation requires networks and flows of information between individuals and groups to oil the wheels of decision-making.

Decision-making for scaling or replication of adaptation actions needs to be informed by lessons from adaptation actions on the ground. Several projects have already introduced adaptation solutions, for example, a climate-smart adaptation technique or providing weather index-based insurance to farmers. However, drawing lessons from these actions can be difficult due to an intervention bias, the pilot or experimental nature of such initiatives, and a lack of methodologically sound impact studies.

Impact evaluation, which includes identifying impact pathways of adaptation actions, would shed light on the limits to adaptation and reduce the risk of maladaptation pathways. These evaluations could also be used to measure the strength of feedback loops of experience and learning from climate shocks to maintain welfare in the face of a shock to see whether adaptation could lead to resilience.

In addition to conventional impact evaluation, any new adaptation project or program, such as those under the Africa Adaptation Acceleration Program (AAAP), would have to be accompanied by research for the duration of its life cycle. Accompanying research is crucial for enhancing the impact of adaptation interventions.

In a world increasingly impacted by climate change, adaptation research is a critical tool in the global effort to mitigate climate risk. Many unknowns hamper investments at scale that protect vulnerable communities against the rapidly changing impacts of climate shocks. Research must work hand in hand with investment programs for accelerated learning and replication.