• Energy Research
• National Science Foundation close
• 1. No poverty close
• GB close

Record climate extremes are reducing urban liveability, compounding inequality, and threatening infrastructure. Adaptation measures that integrate technological, nature-based, and social solutions can provide multiple co-benefits to address complex socioecological issues in cities while increasing resilience to potential impacts. However, there remain many challenges to developing and implementing integrated solutions. In this Viewpoint, we consider the value of integrating across the three solution sets, the challenges and potential enablers for integrating solution sets, and present examples of challenges and adopted solutions in three cities with different urban contexts and climates (Freiburg, Germany; Durban, South Africa; and Singapore). We conclude with a discussion of research directions and provide a road map to identify the actions that enable successful implementation of integrated climate solutions. We highlight the need for more systematic research that targets enabling environments for integration; achieving integrated solutions in different contexts to avoid maladaptation; simultaneously improving liveability, sustainability, and equality; and replicating via transfer and scale-up of local solutions. Cities in systematically disadvantaged countries (sometimes referred to as the Global South) are central to future urban development and must be prioritised. Helping decision makers and communities understand the potential opportunities associated with integrated solutions for climate change will encourage urgent and deliberate strides towards adapting cities to the dynamic climate reality.

Global human health threats, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, necessitate coordinated responses at multiple levels. Public health professionals and other experts broadly agree about actions needed to address such threats, but implementation of this advice is stymied by systemic factors such as prejudice, resource deficits, and high inequality. In these cases, crises like epidemics may be viewed as opportunities to spark structural changes that will improve future prevention efforts. However, crises can also weaken governance and reinforce systemic failures. In this paper, we use the concept of the governance treadmill to demonstrate cross-level dynamics that help or hinder the alignment of capacities toward prevention during public health crises. We find that variation in capacities and responses across local, national, and international levels contributes to the complex evolution of global and local health governance. Where capacities are misaligned, effective local prevention of global pandemic impacts tends to be elusive in the short term, and multiple cycles of crisis and response may be required before capacities align toward healthy governance. We demonstrate that this transition requires broader societal adaptation, particularly towards social justice and participatory democracy.

Abstract. In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5 °C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).

Coastal regions have long been settled by humans due to their abundant resources for livelihoods, including agriculture, transportation, and rich biodiversity. However, natural and anthropogenic factors, such as climate change and sea-level rise, and land subsidence, population pressure, developmental activities, pose threats to coastal sustainability. Natural hazards, such as fluvial or coastal floods, impact poorer and more vulnerable communities greater than more affluent communities. Quantitative assessments of how natural hazards affect vulnerable communities in deltaic regions are still limited, hampering the design of effective management strategies to increase household and community resilience. Drawing from Driving Forces–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR), we quantify the associations between household poverty and the likelihood of material and human loss following a natural hazard using new survey data from 783 households within Indian Sundarban Delta community. The results suggest that the poorest households are significantly more likely to endure material and human losses following a natural hazard and repeated losses of livelihood make them more vulnerable to future risk. The results further suggest that salinization, tidal surge, erosion, and household location are also significant predictors of economic and human losses. Given the current and projected impact of climate change and importance of delta regions as the world’s food baskets, poverty reduction and increase societal resilience should be a primary pathway to strengthen the resilience of the poorest populations inhabiting deltas.

Ensuring food security requires food production and distribution systems function throughout disruptions. Understanding the factors that contribute to the global food system's ability to respond and adapt to such disruptions (i.e. resilience) is critical for understanding the long-term sustainability of human populations. Variable impacts of production shocks on food supply between countries indicate a need for national-scale resilience indicators that can provide global comparisons. However, methods for tracking changes in resilience have had limited application to food systems. We developed an indicator-based analysis of food systems resilience for the years 1992-2011. Our approach is based on three dimensions of resilience: socio-economic access to food in terms of income of the poorest quintile relative to food prices, biophysical capacity to intensify or extensify food production, and the magnitude and diversity of current domestic food production. The socio-economic indicator has large variability, but with low values concentrated in Africa and Asia. The biophysical capacity indicator is highest in Africa and Eastern Europe, in part because of high potential for extensification of cropland and for yield gap closure in cultivated areas. However, the biophysical capacity indicator has declined globally in recent years. The production diversity indicator has increased slightly, with a relatively even geographic distribution. Few countries had exclusively high or low values for all indicators. Collectively, these results are the basis for global comparisons of resilience between nations, and provide necessary context for developing generalizations about the resilience in the global food system.