Decision support platforms for climate change adaptation: an overview and introduction

Urban Governance and Decision-making under Climate Change: a Critical Review of Frameworks, Methods and Tools from the Perspectives of Ecological Economics and Sustainability Science

“…Based on the analysis of the results, it was possible to identify three general axes over which the frameworks, methods and tools aimed to support urban climate governance and decision-making have developed. The fi rst signifi es the transition from data monitoring and accumulation to action-focus (Palutikof et al, 2019a). With the increasing accessibility of data, its mere presence is becoming less signifi cant compared to the extraction of relevant insights.…”

“…A signifi cant challenge, however, is that many of the shifts happened much more vividly in the theoretical realm, while practical transitions are often still underway (Piggott-McKellar, McNamara, Nunn & Watson, 2019). The prevalence of scientifi c over practical focus is highly obvious, despite the fact of essentially practical necessity for climate action (Palutikof, Street & Gardiner, 2019a). Hewitson et al (2017) suggest that available resources are often far more complex for users than perceived by their developers, while the review by Newman et al (2017) suggests a signifi cant gap between the development of decision-support systems and their actual use.…”

“…Hewitson et al (2017) suggest that available resources are often far more complex for users than perceived by their developers, while the review by Newman et al (2017) suggests a signifi cant gap between the development of decision-support systems and their actual use. It is particularly important to consider the nonhomogeneous nature of users, which is challenging to address with tools developed from a global perspective, leading to the case that some tools may not always be considered legitimate or relevant by local users (Palutikof et al 2019a). There are also emerging examples of effective application of complex and hybrid methods (such as the combination of ROA, MCDA and DAPP), which however requires highly supportive conditions, leadership and effective monitoring (Lawrence et al, 2019).…”

“…Despite signifi cant theoretical progress and networking, only a small share of leading cities bear the benefi ts of most up to date developments, while those with limited access to expertise are left to catch up in the increasingly complex landscape (Lamb et al, 2019). Rapid development, commercialization and tendency towards «black-box» confi guration may undermine the availability of novel tools to those who have limited capacities and are often most vulnerable towards climate change (Palutikof et al, 2019a). Developers are not interested in disclosing their methodologies with full detail, which can undermine progress, transparency and integration.…”

A three-tier risk assessment process for climate change adaptation at a local scale

“…Further, they have moved away from the linear, 'top-down' approach that begins with observed and modelled climate data, evaluates the impacts and considers and selects appropriate adaptation options, towards a 'bottom-up' approach that begins with evaluation of exposure and vulnerability, leading to the assessment of risk, and resulting in the identification and implementation of adaptation options. An overview of such approaches is provided by Palutikof et al (2019a) and Street et al (2019). In general, they are iterative in nature, facilitating learning and adopting changes as the process progresses.…”