Explore the vast range of titles available.

Long-term global scenarios have underpinned research and assessment of global environmental change for four decades. Over the past ten years, the climate change research community has developed a scenario framework combining alternative futures of climate and society to facilitate integrated research and consistent assessment to inform policy. Here we assess how well this framework is working and what challenges it faces. We synthesize insights from scenario-based literature, community discussions and recent experience in assessments, concluding that the framework has been widely adopted across research communities and is largely meeting immediate needs. However, some mixed successes and a changing policy and research landscape present key challenges, and we recommend several new directions for the development and use of this framework.The SSP–RCP scenario framework has been an important component of physical, social and integrated climate change research for the past decade. This Perspective reviews the successes of the framework and the challenges it faces, and provides suggestions for improvement moving forward.

There is growing demand among stakeholders across public and private institutions for spatially-explicit information regarding vulnerability to climate change at the local scale. However, the challenges associated with mapping the geography of climate change vulnerability are non-trivial, both conceptually and technically, suggesting the need for more critical evaluation of this practice. Here, we review climate change vulnerability mapping in the context of four key questions that are fundamental to assessment design. First, what are the goals of the assessment? A review of published assessments yields a range of objective statements that emphasize problem orientation or decision-making about adaptation actions. Second, how is the assessment of vulnerability framed? Assessments vary with respect to what values are assessed (vulnerability of what) and the underlying determinants of vulnerability that are considered (vulnerability to what). The selected frame ultimately influences perceptions of the primary driving forces of vulnerability as well as preferences regarding management alternatives. Third, what are the technical methods by which an assessment is conducted? The integration of vulnerability determinants into a common map remains an emergent and subjective practice associated with a number of methodological challenges. Fourth, who participates in the assessment and how will it be used to facilitate change? Assessments are often conducted under the auspices of benefiting stakeholders, yet many lack direct engagement with stakeholders. Each of these questions is reviewed in turn by drawing on an illustrative set of 45 vulnerability mapping studies appearing in the literature. A number of pathways for placing vulnerability mapping on a more robust footing are also identified.

Formal planning for climate change adaptation is emerging rapidly at a range of geo-political scales. This first generation of adaptation plans provides useful information regarding how institutions are framing the issue of adaptation and the range of processes that are recognized as being part of an adaptation response. To better understand adaptation planning among developed nations, a set of 57 adaptation plans from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States was evaluated against a suite of 19 planning processes identified from existing guidance instruments for adaptation planning. Total scores among evaluated plans ranged from 16% of the maximum possible score to 61%, with an average of 37%. These results suggest adaptation plans are largely under-developed. Critical weaknesses in adaptation planning are related to limited consideration for non-climatic factors as well as neglect for issues of adaptive capacity including entitlements to various forms of capital needed for effective adaptation. Such gaps in planning suggest there are opportunities for institutions to make better use of existing guidance for adaptation planning and the need to consider the broader governance context in which adaptation will occur. In addition, the adaptation options prescribed by adaptation plans reflect a preferential bias toward low-risk capacity-building (72% of identified options) over the delivery of specific actions to reduce vulnerability. To the extent these findings are representative of the state of developed nation adaptation planning, there appear to be significant deficiencies in climate change preparedness, even among those nations often assumed to have the greatest adaptive capacity.

Municipal planning represents a key avenue for local adaptation, but is subject to recognised constraints. To date, these constraints have focused on simplistic factors such as limited resources and lack of information. In this paper we argue that this focus has obscured a wider set of constraints which need to be acknowledged and addressed if adaptation is likely to advance through municipal planning. Although these recognised constraints are relevant, we argue that what underpins these issues are more fundamental challenges affecting local, placed-based planning by drawing on the related field of community-based environmental planning (CBEP). In considering a wider set of constraints to practical attempts towards adaptation, the paper considers planning based on a case study of three municipalities in Sydney, Australia in 2008. The results demonstrate that climate adaptation was widely accepted as an important issue for planning conducted by local governments. However, it was yet to be embedded in planning practice which retained a strong mitigation bias in relation to climate change. In considering the case study, we draw attention to factors thus far under-acknowledged in the climate adaptation literature. These include leadership, institutional context and competing planning agendas. These factors can serve as constraints or enabling mechanisms for achieving climate adaptation depending upon how they are exploited in any given situation. The paper concludes that, through addressing these issues, local, place-based planning can play a greater role in achieving climate adaptation.

The parallel scenario process enables characterization of climate-related risks and response options to climate change under different socio-economic futures and development prospects. The process is based on representative concentration pathways, shared socio-economic pathways, and shared policy assumptions. Although this scenario architecture is a powerful tool for evaluating the intersection of climate and society at the regional and global level, more specific context is needed to explore and understand risks, drivers, and enablers of change at the national and local level. We discuss the need for a stronger recognition of such national-scale characteristics to make climate change scenarios more relevant at the national and local scale, and propose ways to enrich the scenario architecture with locally relevant details that enhance salience, legitimacy, and credibility for stakeholders. Dynamic adaptive pathways are introduced as useful tools to draw out which elements of a potentially infinite scenario space connect with decision-relevant aspects of particular climate-related and non-climate-related risks and response options. Reviewing adaptation pathways for New Zealand case studies, we demonstrate how this approach could bring the global-scale scenario architecture within reach of local-scale decision-making. Such a process would enhance the utility of scenarios for mapping climate-related risks and adaptation options at the local scale, involving appropriate stakeholder involvement.

Most scientific assessments for climate change adaptation and risk reduction are based on scenarios for climatic change. Scenarios for socio-economic development, particularly in terms of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, are largely lacking. This paper focuses on the utility of socio-economic scenarios for vulnerability, risk and adaptation research. The paper introduces the goals and functions of scenarios in general and reflects on the current global debate around shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs). It examines the options and constraints of scenario methods for risk and vulnerability assessments in the context of climate change and natural hazards. Two case studies are used to contrast the opportunities and current constraints in scenario methods at different scales: the global WorldRiskIndex, based on quantitative data and indicators; and a local participatory scenario development process in Jakarta, showing a qualitative approach. The juxtaposition of a quantitative approach with global data and a qualitative-participatory local approach provides new insights on how different methods and scenario techniques can be applied in vulnerability and risk research.

This paper discusses the role and relevance of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and the new scenarios that combine SSPs with representative concentration pathways (RCPs) for climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IAV) research. It first provides an overview of uses of social–environmental scenarios in IAV studies and identifies the main shortcomings of earlier such scenarios. Second, the paper elaborates on two aspects of the SSPs and new scenarios that would improve their usefulness for IAV studies compared to earlier scenario sets: (i) enhancing their applicability while retaining coherence across spatial scales, and (ii) adding indicators of importance for projecting vulnerability. The paper therefore presents an agenda for future research, recommending that SSPs incorporate not only the standard variables of population and gross domestic product, but also indicators such as income distribution, spatial population, human health and governance.

Technical assessments of vulnerability and/or risk are increasingly being undertaken to assess the impacts of climate change. Underlying this is the belief that they will bring clarity to questions regarding the scale of institutional investments required, plausible adaptation policies and measures, and the timing of their implementation. Despite the perceived importance of technical assessments in 'evidence-based' decision environments, assessments cannot be undertaken independent of values and politics, nor are they capable of eliminating the uncertainty that clouds decision-making on climate adaptation As such, assessments can trigger as many questions as they answer, leaving practitioners and stakeholders to question their value. This paper explores the value of vulnerability/risk assessments in climate change adaptation planning processes as a catalyst for learning in four case studies in Southeastern Australia. Data were collected using qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the assessments and analysed using a social learning framework. This analysis revealed that detailed and tangible strategies or actions often do not emerge directly from technical assessments. However, it also revealed that the assessments became important platforms for social learning. In providing these platforms, assessments present opportunities to question initial assumptions, explore multiple framings of an issue, generate new information, and galvanise support for collective actions. This study highlights the need for more explicit recognition and understanding of the important role social learning plays in climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning more broadly.

Worldwide economic losses from extreme weather events (EWE) have increased over recent decades, with significant geographic heterogeneity in damages. The IPCC defines the risk from EWE as a function of the climate hazard, socioeconomic exposure, and vulnerability. Although these three drivers vary at fine spatial scales, spatial variability largely has been overlooked in assessments of the drivers of economic loss from EWE. Using cluster analysis, we developed a novel socio-climate hazard typology (SCT) that integrates locally defined climate hazard and socioeconomic exposure and social vulnerability typologies. The results identified 838 unique SCT types impacted by EWE across the Gulf Coastal United States during 1981-2010. We regressed the SCT types and their constituent hazard and socioeconomic components against the cumulative economic loss (1981-2010) from EWE for each SCT type. Across the landscape, economic damages of SCT types were determined by unique, spatially explicit combinations of different risk factors, even in explaining the same level of economic loss. For example, multi-billion-dollar damages in the central Gulf Coast and peninsular Florida were explained by different drivers of risk, with damages in the former explained by additive interaction between climate hazard and multiplicative interaction between climate hazard and socioeconomic exposure and vulnerability, and in the latter explained by socioeconomic exposure and vulnerability. These results highlight the need to diagnose additive and multiplicative interactions among drivers of EWE risk in a spatially explicit context.

Increasing evidence highlights the importance of context-specific understanding of the impacts of climate change and the need to move beyond generalized assumptions regarding the nature and utility of adaptive capacity in facilitating adaptation. The household level of impact and response is an under-researched context, despite influential decisions affecting local and system vulnerability being made at this scale. Assessments of household adaptive capacity currently assess the influences of adaptive capacity or the influences on adaptive capacity in isolation. We argue that comprehensive assessments need to examine these influences in combination to capture a dynamic and integrated view of households that better reflects their positioning and role(s) in broader social-political contexts. To transition assessments away from examining households as discrete units to recognizing their role within a larger governance context, we outline four themes focused on: (1) analysis of governance contexts, (2) determination of adaptive capacity sources, (3) assessment of cross-scalar trade-offs, and (4) integrated goal setting to facilitate boundary critiques. By considering these themes, the relationships between capacities and actions are highlighted, and the simultaneous outcomes of adaptive choices at individual and broader system scales can be evaluated. We argue that such boundary critique has the potential to yield a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive capacity focused upon cross-scalar influences and impacts.