The risk of residential overheating and mortality is increasing due to the effects of global warming and the urban heat island effect and needs to be addressed through climate change adaptation. ‘Adaptation pathways’ have become widely recognized as an adaptation planning approach, but they have not been utilized for long-term planning for city-scale urban heat risk management. This paper applies adaptation pathway methodology to urban heat risk management.
There is growing evidence that projected climate change has the potential to significantly affect public health. In the UK, much of this impact is likely to arise by amplifying existing risks related to heat exposure, flooding, and chemical and biological contamination in buildings. Identifying the health effects of climate change on the indoor environment, and risks and opportunities related to climate change adaptation and mitigation can help protect public health.
As sovereign nations, Indian Tribes consistently strive to fully exercise their right of self-determination and to maintain their cultural identity, often in the face of the severe economic, societal, and environmental challenges confronting them. Their sovereignty, cultures, and ways of life are profoundly tested in these times by the added challenge of climate change.
The switch from climate change mitigation to the adaptation to its impacts or effects initially appears to be a promising strategy. Academics and practitioners, however, confront limits and barriers to the adaptation both in theory and practice. Despite the extensive efforts in understanding limits and barriers, little is still known about political and institutional barriers, more specifically political challenges in Indigenous communities that typically nullify the effect of adaptation strategies.
Increasing urban temperatures pose a public health threat and, in many cities, there is a disparity among neighborhoods with respect to access to cooling benefits. Residents may be unable to afford to operate cooling systems, and underserved communities are less likely and/or able to advocate for heat-reducing solutions. There is also a significant gap between adaptation theory and practice. This gap could be diminished by better understanding the barriers and limits to adaptation processes.
Coral reefs provide food and livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people as well as harbor some of the highest regions of biodiversity in the ocean. However, overexploitation, land‐use change and other local anthropogenic threats to coral reefs have left many degraded. Additionally, coral reefs are faced with the dual emerging threats of ocean warming and acidification due to rising CO2 emissions, with dire predictions that they will not survive the century.
Strong decreases in greenhouse gas emissions are required to meet the reduction trajectory resolved within the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, even these decreases will not avert serious stress and damage to life on Earth, and additional steps are needed to boost the resilience of ecosystems, safeguard their wildlife, and protect their capacity to supply vital goods and services.
This webinar took place 11/5/20 as part of the National Adaptation Forum's virtual Climate Displacement Series, organized by EcoAdapt.
Climate displacement and its associated adaptation strategies require effective policies across multiple governance scales. This webinar features recent policy recommendations for the Federal, state, and local levels. It discusses equity, justice, and human rights aspects to consider in policy-making as well as the funding landscape.
This is session four of the National Adaptation Forum's virtual Climate Displacement Series, organized by EcoAdapt.
Payments for Ecosystem Service or PES programs are defined as “formal and informal contracts in which landowners are remunerated for managing their land to produce one or more ecosystem service, [and that involve] actual payments between at least one willing buyer and one willing seller to produce or enhance a well-defined ecosystem service or bundle of services (Mercer, Cooley, & Hamilton, 2011, p. 1).” But what do PES programs look like in practice? How formal or informal does the payment mechanism need to be?