|
?:abstract
|
-
In the face of the predicted and actual severity of climate change, there has been considerable interest in understanding what does and does not work to increase the ability of human and environmental systems to adapt to changing climate. This paper presents an evidence gap map and examines evidence on adaptation between 2007 and 2018. We analyse evidence related to the effectiveness of adaptation measures. The evidence gap map is derived from systematically and exhaustively reviewing adaptation-related high-quality evidence from evaluation and research in developing countries, from both peer-reviewed and grey literature. The resulting literature was mapped onto a conceptual framework that included the type of intervention, the sector of activity and types of outcome measured. We examined 464 papers in detail. The results show that there is a large share of adaptation-related evidence on agriculture, and within it on the economic returns of technological and nature-based solutions. The main evidence gaps include a scarcity of evidence on adaptation interventions in the water sector, and on measures aimed at reducing exposure to climate events. We also note there is a scarcity of studies that examine social and institutional outcomes of climate-change adaptation interventions. Not surprisingly, there are few studies that use experimental designs. Most studies use quasi-experimental designs and multivariate analyses. An online version of the evidence gap map can be found at: https://egmopenaccess.3ieimpact.org/evidence-maps/adaptegmieu.We alsointroduce an innovation: In international development cooperation, ideally projects/investments should be evidence-based and effective. For countries, donors and development actors, a comparison of the project/investment portfolio with the available evidence in the form of an Intervention Heat Map (IHM) indicates whether the portfolio operates in evidence-rich or evidence-scarce fields. It helps prioritizing the generation of new evidence for climate change adaptation, either through rigorous impact evaluations or through evidence synthesis such as meta-analyses or in-depth reviews. This study provides this systematic overlay of the evidence gap map with the CCA portfolios of the GCF and Germany’s bilateral commitments in international development cooperation (German Cooperation).In concordance with the evidence, the IHM shows that much of the CCA portfolios cover agriculture and the sector relating to society, economy and health and promotes adaptive capacity. However, these projects/investments are also aiming to improve the enabling environment, where there is a lack of evidence, suggesting a possibility to improve upon and generate further evidence in the future. Furthermore, the IHM shows few project/investment interventions in the GCF and German Cooperation portfolios aimed at adoption of CCA and decreasing exposure of shocks and stressors as well as intervention types in the water and land use and built environment sectors, and project/investment interventions related to financial and market mechanismsand built infrastructure and structural interventions. Compared to the evidence, while there is a wealth of information on adoption and some on financial mechanism, these aforementioned limited project/investment interventions are also gaps in evidence. The allocation of funds is balanced among sectors but also seems to more match the nature of the intervention types.The current evidence base on CCA suggests that efforts should be directed towards improving the evidence base in the water sector, which is one of the most important in CCA. Finally, given that the CCA portfolios examined mostly are aimed at outcomes within the enabling environment, evidence regarding these interventions should be improved. This is also the case for other areas where projects/investments are allocated but evidence is lacking.
(xsd:string)
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://data.gesis.org/gesiskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}