• Energy Research

Abstract Climate change is catalyzing responses for innovation in the built environment. Architecture and design firms are at the forefront of these endeavors, applying cutting-edge technologies to shape and visualize potential futures in ways they claim to be revolutionary or transformational. Despite the proliferation of such proposals, little analysis of this work has emerged. This paper seeks to assess this field of ‘climatopias,’ that is, projects that propose a form of utopian thinking or planning for climate-responsive design, and evaluate their transformational potential for the built environment. For 66 such architectural and urban planning projects, we analyze their types and attributes, with a focus on dominant motivations and the extent of sociopolitical transformation. Six key types of climatopias emerge: projects that (1) Fortify, (2) Forest, (3) Float, (4) Reduce, (5) Re-use, or (6) Retreat in pursuit of climate solutions for the built environment. 41% of the projects evaluated do not have any sociopolitical transformation present in their designs, meaning they do not rigorously qualify as climatopias despite their visual appearances and could risk reinforcing sociopolitical inequities and harms. Of projects rigorously fulfilling climatopia criteria for sociopolitical transformation, only 4 projects (10%) are all-encompassing in their proposed transformation, especially through engaging with political aspects of the design, such as ownership and governance. The Forest type demonstrates the least sociopolitical transformation across design proposals and projects, while the Reduce and Re-use types demonstrate the most. Despite growing calls for climate-resilient solutions combining mitigation and adaptation goals, decarbonization and climate risk reduction motivations rarely appear together in climate-responsive designs and projects. As designers advance this work, the typology presented here can serve as a reference guide to assist in expanding considerations of the range of transformational change and co-benefits required to address and adapt to climate change.

AbstractPeople affected by conflict are particularly vulnerable to climate shocks and climate change, yet little is known about climate change adaptation in fragile contexts. While climate events are one of the many contributing drivers of conflict, feedback from conflict increases vulnerability, thereby creating conditions for a vicious cycle of conflict. In this study, we carry out a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature, taking from the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) dataset to documenting climate change adaptation occurring in 15 conflict-affected countries and compare the findings with records of climate adaptation finance flows and climate-related disasters in each country. Academic literature is sparse for most conflict-affected countries, and available studies tend to have a narrow focus, particularly on agriculture-related adaptation in rural contexts and adaptation by low-income actors. In contrast, multilateral and bilateral funding for climate change adaptation addresses a greater diversity of adaptation needs, including water systems, humanitarian programming, and urban areas. Even among the conflict-affected countries selected, we find disparity, with several countries being the focus of substantial research and funding, and others seeing little to none. Results indicate that people in conflict-affected contexts are adapting to climate change, but there is a pressing need for diverse scholarship across various sectors that documents a broader range of adaptation types and their results.

L'examen externe est une composante fondamentale des évaluations environnementales mondiales, garantissant que leurs processus sont complets, objectifs, ouverts et transparents, et sont perçus comme tels. Ici, nous nous concentrons sur l'examen des rapports d'évaluation du Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC). Le processus d'examen a été peu examiné, bien que les commentaires d'examen et les réponses des auteurs soient publics. Nous analysons ici les documents d'examen des quatrième et cinquième évaluations, en nous concentrant principalement sur le Groupe de travail II. Nous répondons à trois questions : Le commentaire est-il représentatif ? Est-ce complet ? Est-ce perspicace ? Dans l'ensemble, nous avons estimé que le processus d'examen était adapté à l'objectif, bien qu'il y ait des problèmes en suspens. Tout d'abord, l'écrasante majorité des examinateurs sont originaires de pays développés, bien que les preuves suggèrent que la participation des examinateurs des pays en développement a augmenté entre les quatrième et cinquième évaluations. Deuxièmement, les sections antérieures des chapitres sont examinées de manière plus dense que les sections ultérieures. Cela est vrai même lorsque les résumés exécutifs sont supprimés de l'analyse. En conséquence, certaines sections sur des sujets spécialisés peuvent échapper à un examen approfondi. Troisièmement, les commentaires d'examen reçus apportent une contribution valable et précieuse au développement scientifique des chapitres. Nous suggérons comment les problèmes en suspens pourraient être résolus, notamment par une reconnaissance accrue des évaluateurs, un rôle plus large pour les éditeurs d'évaluation, le respect des longueurs de page obligatoires dès le début du processus, la formation des évaluateurs et la cohérence des rapports pour permettre une évaluation systématique. La réalisation de tels changements se traduira par des processus plus transparents, cohérents et représentatifs fournissant des examens qui contribuent efficacement à la crédibilité et à la légitimité des futures évaluations environnementales mondiales et, en fin de compte, à leur reconnaissance et à leur contribution. La revisión externa es un componente fundamental de las Evaluaciones Ambientales Globales, asegurando que sus procesos sean integrales, objetivos, abiertos y transparentes, y sean percibidos como tales. Aquí, nos centramos en la revisión de los informes de evaluación del Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC). El proceso de revisión ha recibido poco escrutinio, aunque los comentarios de revisión y las respuestas del autor son públicas. Aquí analizamos los documentos de revisión de la Cuarta y Quinta Evaluaciones, centrándonos principalmente en el Grupo de Trabajo II. Respondemos a tres preguntas: ¿Es el representante de la revisión? ¿Es exhaustivo? ¿Es perspicaz? En general, consideramos que el proceso de revisión es adecuado para el propósito, aunque hay problemas pendientes. En primer lugar, la abrumadora mayoría de los revisores son de países desarrollados, aunque la evidencia sugiere que la participación de los revisores de países en desarrollo aumentó entre la Cuarta y la Quinta Evaluaciones. En segundo lugar, las secciones anteriores de los capítulos se revisan más densamente que las posteriores. Esto es cierto incluso cuando los resúmenes ejecutivos se eliminan del análisis. En consecuencia, algunas secciones sobre temas especializados pueden escapar a una revisión en profundidad. En tercer lugar, los comentarios de revisión que se reciben hacen una contribución válida y valiosa al desarrollo científico de los capítulos. Sugerimos cómo se podrían abordar los problemas pendientes, incluso a través de un mayor reconocimiento del revisor, un papel más amplio para los editores de revisión, el cumplimiento de las longitudes de página obligatorias desde el principio del proceso, la capacitación del revisor y la coherencia en la presentación de informes para permitir una evaluación sistemática. Hacer tales cambios resultará en procesos más transparentes, consistentes y representativos que realicen revisiones que contribuyan efectivamente a la credibilidad y legitimidad de las futuras Evaluaciones Ambientales Globales y, en última instancia, a su reconocimiento y contribución. External review is a fundamental component of Global Environmental Assessments, ensuring their processes are comprehensive, objective, open and transparent, and are perceived as such. Here, we focus on review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports. The review process has received little scrutiny, although review comments and author responses are public. Here we analyse review documents from the Fourth and Fifth Assessments, focusing primarily on Working Group II. We address three questions: Is the review representative? Is it comprehensive? Is it insightful? Overall we found the review process to be fit for purpose, although there are outstanding issues. First, the overwhelming majority of reviewers are from developed countries, although evidence suggests participation by developing country reviewers increased between the Fourth and Fifth Assessments. Second, earlier sections of chapters are more densely reviewed than later ones. This is true even when executive summaries are removed from analysis. In consequence, some sections on specialised topics may escape in-depth review. Thirdly, those review comments which are received make a valid and valuable contribution to the scientific development of chapters. We suggest how outstanding issues could be addressed, including through enhanced reviewer recognition, a wider role for review editors, adherence to mandated page lengths from early in the process, reviewer training, and consistency in reporting to allow systematic evaluation. Making such changes will result in more transparent, consistent and representative processes delivering reviews which effectively contribute to the credibility and legitimacy of future Global Environmental Assessments and, ultimately, their recognition and contribution. تعد المراجعة الخارجية مكونًا أساسيًا في التقييمات البيئية العالمية، مما يضمن أن تكون عملياتها شاملة وموضوعية ومفتوحة وشفافة، ويُنظر إليها على هذا النحو. هنا، نركز على مراجعة تقارير تقييم الفريق الحكومي الدولي المعني بتغير المناخ (IPCC). لم تلق عملية المراجعة سوى القليل من التدقيق، على الرغم من أن تعليقات المراجعة وردود المؤلفين علنية. نقوم هنا بتحليل وثائق المراجعة من التقييمين الرابع والخامس، مع التركيز بشكل أساسي على مجموعة العمل الثانية. نتناول ثلاثة أسئلة: هل ممثل المراجعة ؟ هل هو شامل ؟ هل هو ثاقب ؟ بشكل عام، وجدنا أن عملية المراجعة مناسبة للغرض، على الرغم من وجود مشكلات معلقة. أولاً، الغالبية العظمى من المراجعين هم من البلدان المتقدمة، على الرغم من أن الأدلة تشير إلى زيادة مشاركة المراجعين من البلدان النامية بين التقييمين الرابع والخامس. ثانيًا، يتم مراجعة الأقسام السابقة من الفصول بشكل أكثر كثافة من الأقسام اللاحقة. هذا صحيح حتى عند إزالة الملخصات التنفيذية من التحليل. ونتيجة لذلك، قد تفلت بعض الأقسام حول الموضوعات المتخصصة من المراجعة المتعمقة. ثالثًا، تقدم تعليقات المراجعة التي يتم تلقيها مساهمة صالحة وقيمة في التطوير العلمي للفصول. نقترح كيفية معالجة القضايا العالقة، بما في ذلك من خلال تعزيز اعتراف المراجعين، ودور أوسع لمحرري المراجعين، والالتزام بطول الصفحات المطلوبة منذ وقت مبكر من العملية، وتدريب المراجعين، والاتساق في إعداد التقارير للسماح بالتقييم المنهجي. سيؤدي إجراء مثل هذه التغييرات إلى عمليات أكثر شفافية واتساقًا وتمثيلًا تقدم مراجعات تساهم بشكل فعال في مصداقية وشرعية التقييمات البيئية العالمية المستقبلية، وفي نهاية المطاف، الاعتراف بها ومساهمتها.

Governments, businesses, and civil society organizations have diverse policy tools to incentivize adaptation. Policy tools can shape the type and extent of adaptation, and therefore, function either as barriers or enablers for reducing risk and vulnerability. Using data from a systematic review of academic literature on global adaptation responses to climate change (n = 1549 peer-reviewed articles), we categorize the types of policy tools used to shape climate adaptation. We apply qualitative and quantitative analyses to assess the contexts where particular tools are used, along with equity implications for groups targeted by the tools, and the tools’ relationships with transformational adaptation indicators such as the depth, scope, and speed of adaptation. We find diverse types of tools documented across sectors and geographic regions. We also identify a mismatch between the tools that consider equity and those that yield more transformational adaptations. Direct regulations, plans, and capacity building are associated with higher depth and scope of adaptation (thus transformational adaptation), while economic instruments, information provisioning, and networks are not; the latter tools, however, are more likely to target marginalized groups in their design and implementation. We identify multiple research gaps, including a need to assess instrument mixes rather than single tools and to assess adaptations that result from policy implementation. Key policy insights Information-based approaches, networks, and economic instruments are the most frequently documented adaptation policy tools worldwide. Direct regulations, plans, and capacity building are associated with higher depth and scope of adaptation, and thus more transformational adaptation. Capacity building, economic instruments, networks, and information provisioning approaches are more likely to target specific marginalized groups and thus equity challenges. There are many regions and sectors where certain tools are not widely documented (e.g. regulations and plans in Africa and Asia), representing a key research gap.

AbstractThe potential links between climate and conflict are well studied, yet disagreement about the specific mechanisms and their significance for societies persists. Here, we build on assessment of the relationship between climate and organized armed conflict to define crosscutting priorities for future directions of research. They include (1) deepening insight into climate‐conflict linkages and conditions under which they manifest, (2) ambitiously integrating research designs, (3) systematically exploring future risks and response options, responsive to ongoing decision‐making, and (4) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to manage climate‐conflict links. The implications of this expanding scientific domain unfold in real time.

Abstract Extreme heat events impact people and ecosystems across the globe, and they are becoming more frequent and intense in a warming climate. Responses to heat span sectors and geographic boundaries. Prior research has documented technologies or options that can be deployed to manage extreme heat and examples of how individuals, communities, governments and other stakeholder groups are adapting to heat. However, a comprehensive understanding of the current state of implemented heat adaptations—where, why, how and to what extent they are occurring—has not been established. Here, we combine data from the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative with a heat-specific systematic review to analyze the global extent and diversity of documented heat adaptation actions (n = 301 peer-reviewed articles). Data from 98 countries suggest that documented heat adaptations fundamentally differ by geographic region and national income. In high-income, developed countries, heat is overwhelmingly treated as a health issue, particularly in urban areas. However, in low- and middle-income, developing countries, heat adaptations focus on agricultural and livelihood-based impacts, primarily considering heat as a compound hazard with drought and other hydrological hazards. 63% of the heat-adaptation articles feature individuals or communities autonomously adapting, highlighting how responses to date have largely consisted of coping strategies. The current global status of responses to intensifying extreme heat, largely autonomous and incremental yet widespread, establishes a foundation for informed decision-making as heat impacts around the world continue to increase.