literature review on aligning climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction

Content Search

Literature review on aligning climate change adaptation (cca) and disaster risk reduction (drr), attachments.

INTRODUCTION

Resolutions and reports adopted at the international level in the last few years provide that a more consistent and sustainable alignment between climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) is today considered a global priority. The present review offers a comprehensive and up-todate overview of existing knowledge on the topic and looks into an array of potential avenues for solutions from the literature that could be relevant for law and policy at the national and sub-national level, as reported in the literature.

As commonly stated in the literature, the basic connection between CCA and DRR lies in the overarching goals of both sectors, namely reduction of losses due to climate-related hazards (including both slow-onset and extreme events) and the improvement of communities’ resilience (i.e. their capacity to regain equilibrium after critical system disruptions). In that perspective, several implementing actions could indistinguishably relate to DRR and CCA and can, therefore, be mutually beneficial.

Furthermore, both sectors can have direct and intertwined implications in the adoption of sustainable development measures, as well as in other fields of action (e.g. food security; reduction of social inequalities; protection of vulnerable groups; and safety of ecosystems). The two sectors also recognize that the impact of hydrometeorological and climate-related hazards is felt most intensely by the poorest and more marginalised sectors of populations. Further, the humanitarian “cost” of the lack of integrated and effective strategies to prevent climate-related disasters could almost double by 2050.

For all these reasons, the literature widely acknowledges that a comprehensive understanding of the two sectors within national and sub-national institutions, normative frameworks and implementation mechanisms would allow for: greater impact by law and policies; more efficient use of available resources (both human and material); and more effective action in reducing vulnerabilities. This appears as pivotal for the improvement of governmental and societal responses against climate risks that threaten human beings and ecosystems all around the globe.

However, while the conceptual boundaries in normative development, policymaking and programming have progressively lessened in the past few years, a sustainable and practical approach to integrating CCA and DRR appears to still be “in its infancy”. The most emblematic evidence of the persistence of these gaps at the national level is the lack of a clear understanding of how existing climate risks relate to the sector of disaster risk management (DRM),11 and how DRR norms, policies and actions systematically considers future climate change patterns.

Indeed, the literature suggests the way in which the different disaster management phases (preparation, response, recovery and mitigation) are designed, incorporate new or predicted impacts and accommodate changes in the frequency and magnitude of climate-related events over time, indicates how (and if) CCA-DRR combination is taking place

Related Content

Plan stratégique de l'omm 2024-2027, wmo strategic plan 2024-2027 [en/ar/ru/zh].

World + 4 more

Voice out loud #37: Anticipatory action: Shaping the future of humanitarian response (June 2024)

Fourth international conference on small island developing states: the antigua and barbuda agenda for sids (abas) - a renewed declaration for resilient prosperity - agreed ad ref.

Literature Review on Aligning Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

The enablers of adaptation: A systematic review

• Tia Brullo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1293-3257 1 ,
• Jon Barnett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0862-0808 1 ,
• Elissa Waters 2 &
• Sarah Boulter 3  

npj Climate Action volume  3 , Article number:  40 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

436 Accesses

Metrics details

• Climate-change adaptation
• Climate-change policy

Knowledge of the practice of climate change adaptation is slowly shifting from a focus on barriers and limits to an understanding of its enablers. Here we take stock of the knowledge on the enablers of adaptation through a systematic review of the literature. Our review of empirical articles explaining how adaptation is enabled finds that there is a tendency in the literature to focus on local-scale case studies. Across all studies, some factors seem to be more important than others, including resources (particularly money), awareness of climate risks and responses, leadership, bridging and bonding social capital, and the support of higher-level institutions. Our analysis also highlights significant gaps in knowledge about enablers, including those that affect change in regional/provincial and national governments, in the private sector, and in non-local not-for-profit and non-governmental organisations.

Similar content being viewed by others

A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change

A global assessment of actors and their roles in climate change adaptation

Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions

Introduction.

Over the past two decades, considerable effort has been devoted to identifying the barriers to climate change adaptation, with the intention of overcoming the impediments to institutional changes that reduce vulnerability 1 , 2 , 3 . Less prominent, but of growing importance, is research that explores the factors that create and promote opportunities for adaptation action 4 . The published research on these “enablers” of climate change adaptation has grown in recent years 5 , 6 . In this paper, we present the results of a systematic review of the literature on the enablers of climate change adaptation in human systems. We focus on empirical studies that identify factors that enabled the implementation of adaptation to reduce the vulnerability of people and social systems. This review seeks to understand how adaptation practitioners might positively influence the adaptation cycle, to understand the scope of current empirical literature and to identify gaps in existing knowledge on enabling adaptation.

Search Criteria

We conducted a systematic search of the Scopus database for peer reviewed literature on enablers of climate change adaptation. The purpose of this review was to analyse the existing knowledge of factors shown to enable climate change adaptation, identifying key trends and gaps that have emerged in recent years. A process of trial and error was used to identify the most appropriate search terms, which are shown in Table 1 .

The key search terms used for this review are applicable to a variety of other contexts where searching title, abstract, and key words returned over 27,000 results, hence these terms were searched in title-only to help limit results to the most relevant. This reflects the sparse and diverse literature on adaptation and the challenges of using systematic approaches in adaptation research 7 and demonstrates a limitation of our search. Nonetheless, a systematic approach was helpful in ensuring our review was transparent and replicable.

The search was conducted in February 2023 and was limited to literature from 2013 to 2023 (inclusive). Most literature on adaptation has been produced within the past fifteen years, such that limiting this search to the past ten years only eliminated 10% of the search results. Earlier literature does introduce the idea of the enablers of climate change adaptation and its theoretical underpinnings, however limiting our search by year helped to ensure the results we reviewed draw on more recent empirical understandings of adaptation and illustrate the current state of knowledge.

Using the filters provided within Scopus, we screened the results by removing keywords related to ‘autonomous’ adaptations within biophysical systems and non-human species, such as ‘genetics’ ‘phylogeny’ ‘acclimation’ or ‘nonhuman’, which are beyond the scope of this study’s focus. With these filters applied, and removing corrections and commentaries, the search produced 320 papers for further review (see Fig. 1 for the selection process as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 8 ).

An outline of the systematic review approach that resulted in a total of 144 papers matching inclusion criteria, reported using the PRISMA guidelines 8 .

The titles, keywords, and abstracts for the remaining 320 papers were then screened for eligibility against our criteria for empirical papers that identified enablers, drivers or determinants of adaptation in human systems.

Rejected articles

At total of 202 search results were removed at screening and a further 176 papers were removed after initial review. This included: 114 papers that upon closer reading were not in any way about enablers of adaptation; 33 papers about adaptation in biological systems (see below); 20 papers that were about adaptive capacity and not adaptation practices per se; and 18 papers that were not empirical. We excluded papers that theorise about enablers or investigate adaptive capacity, given the recognition that there is often a significant gap between what is thought to cause adaptation and actual adaptation practice 9 .

Included articles

Over 100 of the papers matching our inclusion criteria investigated drivers or determinants of adaptation in agricultural households (or by agricultural landholders). To avoid skewing results through the experience of this particular sector and set of actors, we chose to review these papers separately and draw on several existing reviews which had previously analysed the findings and methods of these papers (drawn from the existing search results, see Fig. 1 ). The remaining 38 papers that were included describe the enablers of adaptation among various actors working at different scales and sectors, allowing for a clearer analysis of patterns in the research.

Coding and data extraction

The results were coded according to key criteria including research focus, case study location, scale of analysis, and methodology. Qualitative data on the key enablers, determinants or drivers identified in each paper was extracted, analysed, and grouped into common or reoccurring themes.

The literature predominantly consisted of empirical case studies investigating how to enable adaptation at a specific scale, and most often focussing on a specific type of actor (as opposed to networks of actors). Our analysis is therefore coded according to the actors whom the findings primarily apply to. This differentiation is important because it is not always straightforward: for example, Lawrence et al. explore local government adaptation to climate risk by taking into consideration the role of federal and regional governments 10 .

In some cases, articles employed mixed-method approaches to understand enablers of adaptation, which included literature reviews or reviews of adaptation policy in conjunction with empirical data. In these circumstances, the research team only extracted data based on empirical findings. This is similar to the approach of Berrang-Ford et al. who tested whether theorised determinants of adaptive capacity are associated with adaptation policy outcomes 11 .

Drivers of adaptation in agricultural households

Over 70% of the papers matching our inclusion criteria ( n  = 105) were investigating the drivers or determinants of adaptation decision-making or outcomes in agricultural households (or by agricultural landholders). Of these papers, 54% are case studies from the Sub-Saharan Africa region, and over 35% are case studies from across Asia (Fig. 2 ). This body of literature has been growing in recent years, with 4 papers published in 2013 and 23 papers published in 2022 (Fig. 3 ). These articles shared similar research approaches and had similar findings, as has been shown in four reviews of this literature 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 .

The geographic regions in which case studies were conducted, for the 105 articles looking at drivers or determinants of agricultural households’ adaptation decision-making, showing a concentration in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The number of papers per year, for the 105 articles looking at drivers or determinants of agricultural households’ adaptation decision-making, showing a gradual increase.

The review of the research on enablers of adaptation among agricultural households by Ajala and Chagwiza classifies the determinants of agricultural household adaptation into socio-economic and demographic factors (i.e. age, gender, literacy levels, household size, wealth), institutional factors (i.e. access to extension services, access to credit facilities, government policies), technological factors (i.e. information on climate, new farming technologies), socio-cultural factors (i.e. shared values) and cognitive factors (i.e. relationship with risk) 13 . Similarly, the review from García de Jalón and colleagues grouped drivers of adaptation into human capital, financial resources, infrastructure and technology, social interaction and governance, food security, dependence on agriculture, and attitudes towards the environment and climate change 14 . These enabling factors were echoed in the papers across Africa 12 , 15 and in other regions 16 .

The importance of knowledge and access to information was particularly emphasised in these studies, as was stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches for successful knowledge integration 12 , 15 . The importance of financial resources was also recognised across the studies: for example, Seidl et al.’s study of irrigators in Australia found financial capital to be the most statistically significant driver of adaptation actions 16 .

Trends in the empirical research from other actors

From here forward, our findings refer only to the 38 papers not focused on agriculture.

There were no clear trends in the date of publication of the 38 remaining articles: the most published in any given year was seven (in 2018), and the least was 2016 (1 paper). A large share (41.6%) of the studies were from journals Scopus categorised as primarily being in the field of environmental studies, such as Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability or Environmental Science and Policy , closely followed by those identified as being in the social sciences, such as Climate and Development (32.5%). The empirical case studies reviewed were predominantly reporting on cases in Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and North America.

We grouped the enabling factors identified according to common or reoccurring themes, which are discussed in detail below. Figure 4 summarises the enabling factors identified in the literature according to the number of papers in which they were discussed and the main actors in each paper. It shows that there were a disproportionate number of studies focussing on local actors, be they local governments ( n  = 15) or local communities ( n  = 8). Studies of enablers applied to local communities and local governments both tended to emphasise the importance of leadership and social capital but made little mention of incentives or values.

In contrast, the literature provides little evidence about what enables adaptation at the level of individuals, in the private sector, in regional or provincial levels of government, and among national governments. Though there was mention of factors such as institutional support, risk perception, and trigger events, there was limited empirical evidence to justify that these were important enabling factors for these actors. Moreover, despite some insightful findings, there was no compelling evidence about the importance of some enabling factors, such as values and place attachment 17 , laws, and regulations 18 , or mainstreaming 19 .

Below we summarise the ten most mentioned enabling factors in the 38 articles reviewed (Fig. 4 ). These should not be read as definitive given the number of empirical papers is small and the absence of many studies beyond the local scale (Fig. 4 ), as is discussed further below.

a The number of references to different enabling factors and the actors those factors are primarily applied to (most papers refer to more than one enabler). b The total number of papers for each actor, ordered by scale.

Proactive Leaders

The idea of leadership was widely examined in this literature. In most cases, leadership referred to individuals who champion adaptation and who work to overcome barriers or create enabling conditions 4 , 20 , 21 , 22 . This enabler was particularly prominent in cases of adaptation in local communities and local governments (Fig. 4 ).

It is clear from the literature that government and private sector personnel who are committed, dedicated, and motivated to pursue adaptation in a professional capacity can play a significant role in enabling change 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 . Typically, these individuals understand the importance of climate change, are often involved in climate change research, and notice climate change impacts in their environment 25 , 27 . Such leaders often initiate change by putting in place adaptation policies, strategies and guiding documents, and ensuring these become normalised through their organisations 4 , 28 , 29 , 30 .

Local communities have also been shown to lead adaptation themselves through ‘bottom-up’ approaches 31 , which can achieve outcomes that are better suited to their local context 21 , 32 . Such efforts are even more effective when supported by leaders at higher levels 33 .

Sufficient resourcing

Much of the literature demonstrates the need for financial, human, and natural resources, as well as technology, to enable adaptation 4 , 10 , 20 , 23 , 28 , 34 , 35 . These factors were seen to be particularly important for local governments.

The importance of resources is self-evident, though the discussion tends to focus on the financial resources 23 , 33 , which perhaps reflects the emphasis placed on adaptation funding in the climate change regime, as well as the chronic problem of insufficient funding for local governments in most countries. The literature shows that because finance is so important, those who control its supply have disproportionate power in the adaptation process, often to the detriment of the priorities of lower-level stakeholders 32 , 34 , 36 . There is not only a tendency of donors to ignore local priorities (e.g. as presented by Westoby et al 32 .), but also for international donors to ignore national priorities 34 .

Resources are also shown to matter for the private sector, where actors are of course motivated to pursue climate change adaptation when it delivers economic benefits such as a reduction in costs, increased competitive advantage, or increasing property values 37 , though the literature regarding the private sector is small. The literature also fails to explore the influence of resources on the adaptation behaviour of individuals.

Some studies recognise that sufficient resourcing does not guarantee action on adaptation, let alone effective action. The study by Birchall and colleagues of regional governments reveals that although sufficient resources were guaranteed toward adaptation, conflicting priorities caused momentum to be lost before implementation was complete 28 . This suggests resources are best considered to be important among a larger set of conditions that contribute to an enabling environment for adaptation.

Adaptation knowledge

The literature often demonstrates that knowledge of climate risk and of possible adaptation responses is necessary to enable adaptation across almost all actors 21 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 . Considerable focus is placed on how knowledge is transferred into the adaptation process, including by engineers, consultants, extension services, and academics 4 , 10 , 27 . Training courses and other programs that develop the capacity of individuals working on climate change are considered important, as trained people are better equipped to find and handle the information necessary to make informed adaptation decisions 21 , 36 .

Coordination

Often mentioned in the literature about adaptation in governments, horizontal and vertical coordination between and within levels of government has been shown to enable consistent and efficient adaptation action 10 , 22 , 28 , 29 , 40 . The means of such coordination varies, as to be effective it should take into consideration factors including the physical environment, social structure, and local economy, and should be developed to fit the particular context 41 , 42 . In government, defining clear roles and responsibilities for different actors can allow lower levels of government to be more proactive, help share the risks of action and inaction, and promote knowledge sharing 10 , 22 , 29 , 30 , 36 . Conversely, the literature suggests that a lack of communication across levels of government can lead to poor planning decisions or maladaptation 22 .

Institutional support

The literature suggests that adaptation is enabled when the goals, policies and priorities of actors align to support those (leaders) who seek to implement adaptation. This was said to be most important at all levels of government (Fig. 4 ).

Shared goals, policies, and priorities give adaptation practitioners the independence necessary to progress adaptation, and the confidence that they are aligning with mandated priorities 25 , 26 , 28 . A well-integrated mandate for adaptation action within a governing body allows for a gradual increase in investment and capacity development 23 , 34 , 36 . It can also help to streamline the incorporation of adaptation across an organisation and incentivise policy actors to implement adaptation more actively and explicitly 26 , 36 . This is all, however, dependent on the support of elected officials, which in turn hinges on a mandate (or at least not popular opposition) for climate change adaptation. Political stability is also important as it creates a stable operating environment that gives governments the ability to make decisions and see them through 4 , 20 , 23 , 24 .

In Bowen et al.’s study of adaptation in the health sector in Cambodia, interviewees identified the formation of a National Climate Change Committee as the key change that enabled adaptation activities 34 . In this case, the Prime Minister was named Honorary Chair of the committee, which created significant buy-in from diverse actors and meant that higher levels of government had political incentives to commit to adaptation activities 34 .

Risk perception

The literature consistently shows that people, institutions, and organisations who perceive their climate risk to be high are most likely to take action to reduce their vulnerability 20 , 23 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 . Information that increases awareness of climate risks and a sense of urgency to responses can therefore help enable adaptation action 44 . There is also some evidence that those who know and understand the causes and consequences of climate change are more concerned about its potential effects, and so more likely to seek to implement change 38 . Understanding risk can lead to understanding that climate change can result in costly impacts, which can lead to financial arguments in favour of adaptation 4 , 41 , even in the absence of other external motivators 23 . Knowledge of effective adaptation measures can also overcome information barriers, and increase expectation of success, and in these ways helps enable adaptation actions 39 , 44 . Similar to financial resources, the influence of other external factors on these processes is important to consider, as is discussed below in trigger events .

Social capital (Networks)

The literature emphasizes the role of both bonding and bridging networks in enabling adaptation 4 , 21 , 32 , 46 . These social connections were most often discussed in relation to adaptation by local communities and local governments (Fig. 4 ).

Bonding social capital is shown to be important in building community resilience to climate shocks 46 , 47 , 48 . For example, community groups can be important in connecting vulnerable households to the resources and support they need to achieve sustainable adaptation 46 . Bonding social capital also helps foster collective action by increasing participation, cooperation, and problem solving 32 , 48 . Bridging social capital was shown to be important in systems of government, where networked individuals and organisations enable cooperation, knowledge sharing, and skill transfers that help promote adaptation 25 , 35 , 36 , 49 . Partnerships and networks can also help overcome human, financial, and knowledge resource barriers 25 .

Effective communication

Closely related to the issue of consultation or community participation (below), the literature also highlights the need for clear and accessible communication of climate risk and adaptation information in enabling adaptation decisions 10 , 20 , 33 , 38 , 45 , 47 . Communicating information helps to build a mandate for change, alleviate opposition to change, and allows stakeholders to participate and contribute purposefully to adaptation plans 33 , 41 , 42 , 50 .

Participation

Stakeholder participation as an enabler of adaptation is strongly tied to activities conducted by local governments (see Fig. 4 ), which likely reflects their role as key liaison to communities on new initiatives. The literature demonstrates that active engagement of stakeholders in decision-making processes (beyond more basic consultation processes) for adaptation policy and project development can promote the inclusion of different knowledges, perspectives, and experiences 10 , 26 , 32 , 42 , 50 . The evidence demonstrates that local people usually have the best understanding of the adaptation context, are best placed to anticipate and account for unintended effects of adaptation, and devise better responses 20 , 32 , 50 . Engagement can therefore improve the quality of decision-making processes, helping to assure the legitimacy and acceptance of adaptation amongst local communities 50 , or clarify the expectations and objectives of the private sector 37 . Participation in a collaborative and open adaptation process can also build capacity 34 , 35 .

Trigger events

Finally, the literature demonstrates that there are triggering events or windows of opportunity in which the environment is more favourable for the implementation of adaptation 20 , 25 , 27 , 30 . The influence of trigger events was particularly emphasised in reports of local-scale action 20 , 25 . Understanding their influence on private sector and national governments appears to be a significant gap in the literature (Fig. 4 ).

Certain events can trigger a change in the perception of climate risk and the need to adapt, and these most often include focussing events such as extreme weather and disasters but can also include other drivers such as Conferences of Parties to the UNFCCC, increases in funding, or energy crises 23 , 25 , 34 , 43 , 45 . The influence of trigger events is linked to risk perception and the tendency of people to distance themselves from climate risks over time 45 . The literature suggests that trigger events increase the salience and valence of climate risks, and so give leaders a stronger mandate to implement adaptation, innovation, and new communication strategies 4 , 45 . Whether these outcomes can be sustained during recurrent or increasingly severe climate events, political instability or other influential circumstances is, however, important to consider, though the literature reviewed here is not conclusive on this. While trigger events are therefore recognised as important for enabling adaptation, they are not sufficient by themselves 23 , and change is greatly enabled when pre-determined ideas and plans are able to be drawn on at short notice. For example, in their study of adaptation in local government in South Africa, Spires, and Shackleton explore how it was important for the momentum created by certain events to be used to drive the institutionalisation of adaptation and/or long-term interventions rather than allowing reactive responses 25 .

Other enabling factors

Adjacent to the idea of ‘risk perception’, several papers mention that experience with responding to climate variability can positively influence a community or person’s sense of self-efficacy and in turn its propensity to adapt 21 , 34 , 44 , 45 . For example, in their study of fishing communities in North-eastern USA, Maltby et al. note that the community’s historical experiences with adjusting to variability in fish stocks significantly influenced their ability to adapt to new challenges 21 . This suggests that experiential learning plays a role in enabling climate change adaptation and links to additional evidence that was not captured by this review, discussed below.

A number of other important enabling factors were identified in our review of the literature including mainstreaming: the practice of integrating adaptation policies and planning throughout government or business 42 , 51 , laws and regulations: which have the power to both enable and constrain adaptation 37 , 42 and environmental values: which can influence a person to be more amenable to supporting adaptation actions 38 , 39 . The evidence found in this review for these remaining enabling factors was sparse and not sufficient to draw any conclusions.

Interrogating the scope of the literature

It is possible that a proliferation of evidence about the enablers of adaptation comes from research at the local scale because this is where most action happens, which would be consistent with the common understanding that adaptation is a local issue that influences local populations and geographies and requires planning at the local level 4 , 22 , 50 , 52 . Nevertheless, this bias in evidence seems to miss more than it includes given it is also widely understood (and is confirmed by the studies reviewed here) that adaptation is enabled and more effective when it is a collective activity that works across scales and sectors. The relative lack of studies from higher scales and other sectors therefore suggests a need for much more research with non-local government actors, and with civil society and private actors at all scales. Indeed, there are surprisingly few studies focused on not-for-profit or non-government organisations beyond those rooted in local communities 32 . Similarly, it is important to consider the drivers or enablers of individual adaptation actions and the role they may play in generating demand for adaptation policies and projects from the government. It is very likely that more detail on factors enabling adaptation for these actors, as well as national governments, could be found in grey literature case studies which were not reviewed in this paper.

Limitations to our approach may also have influenced this evidence about the enablers of adaptation, and the distribution shown in Fig. 4 . In using Scopus we no doubt excluded articles from journals not listed in Scopus, which may explain the lack of literature from law, medical, or health journals. Thus it is likely that laws and regulations as enablers have been explained more than is been represented in our study. It is also possible that our use of keywords omitted some insights on enablers from environmental conservation and biological fields of study.

Given the overlap of research on adaptation with other disciplines, future work should seek to capture a wider body of literature from databases such as PubMed, and from those that better capture grey literature (such as Google Scholar). This is especially important for some fields such as law and health sciences which tend to have their own bespoke databases, and capture outputs produced by non-profit organisations, national governments, and the private sector. Alternate methodologies such as scoping review could also be used to identify relevant papers that use different language or keywords to discuss factors important to enabling adaptation, such as the paper by Porter et al. discussing the importance of high-level political support 53 or work on the importance of experiential learning by Baird et al. among others 54 , 55 . Finally, the link between adaptive capacity and actual adaptation implementation has not been well represented here and could be a focus of future investigations.

Considering barriers and enablers

As their counterpart, several papers take the approach of identifying enabling factors and barriers concurrently 20 , 25 , 30 , and enabling factors are sometimes posed as the opposite of the well-researched barriers to adaptation. While there is undoubtedly a strong correlation between enabling factors and barriers to adaptation, our review suggests that enabling factors are not independent of one another and may not directly remove barriers. Instead, the existing literature suggests that to promote adaptation a combination of enabling conditions must be facilitated to create an enabling environment. This was demonstrated, for example, by Birchall and colleagues highlighting the need for other enablers alongside financial resources 28 .

While our approach of grouping the literature helps to demonstrate that there are likely many combinations of associations between enabling factors and actors that mutually enable change, it was not able to fully capture these connections or highlight which factors are most influential, given the still small number of empirical studies from which to learn. These processes were explained well in two papers in particular 10 , 22 . Further work to translate this knowledge of enabling factors into a tangible and accessible resource of benefit to different actors would require frameworks or models that show how these sequencing of factors can affect change, as has been done extensively regarding barriers 5 , 6 or when developing decision making frameworks 56 .

Understanding of how adaptation is enabled is constrained by the relatively small number of empirical studies that explain actual instances of adaptation. Our review finds that some factors seem to be more important than others, including resources (and especially money), knowledge of climate risks and responses, leadership, social capital, and the support of institutions in which adaptation actors are nested. Together, the literature suggests that to promote adaptation a combination of different enabling factors is necessary to create an enabling environment amenable to change. These findings have explanatory power when applied to adaptation at local and household levels, which is the focus of much of the research. There is a need, however, for further research that can explain the factors and processes that enable adaptation in institutions that are not ‘local’, in regional/provincial and national governments, in the private sector, and non-local not-for profit and non-governmental organisations.

Data availability

The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Biesbroek, G. R., Klostermann, J. E. M., Termeer, C. J. A. M. & Kabat, P. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 13 , 1119–1129 (2013).

Article   Google Scholar  

Measham, T. G. et al. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers and challenges. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 16 , 889–909 (2011).

Moser, S. C. & Ekstrom, J. A. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 107 , 22026–22031 (2010).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pasquini, L., Ziervogel, G., Cowling, R. M. & Shearing, C. What enables local governments to mainstream climate change adaptation? Lessons learned from two municipal case studies in the Western Cape, South Africa. Clim. Dev. 7 , 60–70 (2015).

IPCC. Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Klein, R. J. T. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

IPCC. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2022).

Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T. & Ford, J. D. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg. Environ. Change 15 , 755–769 (2015).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 88 , 105906 (2021).

Mortreux, C., O’Neill, S. & Barnett, J. Between adaptive capacity and action: new insights into climate change adaptation at the household scale. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 074035 (2020).

Lawrence, J. et al. Adapting to changing climate risk by local government in New Zealand: institutional practice barriers and enablers. Local Environ. 20 , 298–320 (2015).

Berrang-Ford, L. et al. What drives national adaptation? A global assessment. Clim. Change 124 , 441–450 (2014).

Jellason, N. P. et al. A systematic review of smallholder farmers’ climate change adaptation and enabling conditions for knowledge integration in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) drylands. Environ. Dev. 43 , 100733 (2022).

Ajala, S. B. & Chagwiza, C. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies in response to a changing climate: a review of Sub-Saharan Africa Agriculture. Int J Clim. Change Impacts Resp. 15 , 57–71 (2022).

Google Scholar  

García de Jalón, S., Iglesias, A. & Barnes, A. P. Drivers of farm-level adaptation to climate change in Africa: an evaluation by a composite index of potential adoption. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 21 , 779–798 (2016).

Menghistu, H. T., Abraha, A. Z., Tesfay, G. & Mawcha, G. T. Determinant factors of climate change adaptation by pastoral/agro-pastoral communities and smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 12 , 305–321 (2020).

Seidl, C., Wheeler, S. A. & Zuo, A. The drivers associated with Murray-Darling Basin irrigators’ future farm adaptation strategies. J. Rural Stud. 83 , 187–200 (2021).

Amundsen, H. Place attachment as a driver of adaptation in coastal communities in Northern Norway. Local Environ. 20 , 257–276 (2015).

Rezende, C. L. et al. Land use policy as a driver for climate change adaptation: A case in the domain of the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Land Use Policy 72 , 563–569 (2018).

Milhorance, C., Sabourin, E., Le Coq, J. F. & Mendes, P. Unpacking the policy mix of adaptation to climate change in Brazil’s semiarid region: enabling instruments and coordination mechanisms. Clim. Policy 20 , 593–608 (2020).

Thaler, T. et al. Drivers and barriers of adaptation initiatives – How societal transformation affects natural hazard management and risk mitigation in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 650 , 1073–1082 (2019).

Maltby, K. M., Kerin, S. & Mills, K. E. Barriers and enablers of climate adaptation in fisheries: Insights from Northeast US fishing communities. Mar. Policy 147 , 105331 (2023).

Oulahen, G., Klein, Y., Mortsch, L., O’Connell, E. & Harford, D. Barriers and drivers of planning for climate change adaptation across three levels of Government in Canada. Plan Theory Pract. 19 , 405–421 (2018).

Dilling, L., Pizzi, E., Berggren, J., Ravikumar, A. & Andersson, K. Drivers of adaptation: Responses to weather- and climate-related hazards in 60 local governments in the Intermountain Western U.S. Environ. Plan A 49 , 2628–2648 (2017).

Patterson, J. J. More than planning: Diversity and drivers of institutional adaptation under climate change in 96 major cities. Glob. Environ. Change 68 , 102279 (2021).

Spires, M. & Shackleton, S. E. A synthesis of barriers to and enablers of pro-poor climate change adaptation in four South African municipalities. Clim. Dev. 10 , 432–447 (2018).

Wijaya, N., Nitivattananon, V., Shrestha, R. P. & Kim, S. M. Drivers and benefits of integrating climate adaptation measures into urban development: Experience from coastal cities of Indonesia. Sustain 12 , 750 (2020).

Dannevig, H., Hovelsrud, G. K. & Husabø, I. A. Driving the agenda for climate change adaptation in Norwegian municipalities. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 31 , 490–505 (2013).

Birchall, S. J., Bonnett, N. & Kehler, S. The influence of governance structure on local resilience: Enabling and constraining factors for climate change adaptation in practice. Urban Clim. 47 , 101348 (2023).

Pecl, G. T. et al. Autonomous adaptation to climate-driven change in marine biodiversity in a global marine hotspot. Ambio 48 , 1498–1515 (2019).

Vicuña, S., Scott, C. A., Borgias, S., Bonelli, S. & Bustos, E. Assessing barriers and enablers in the institutionalization of river-basin adaptive management: Evidence from the Maipo Basin, Chile. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 44 , 93–103 (2020).

Cloutier, G., Papin, M. & Bizier, C. Do-it-yourself (DIY) adaptation: Civic initiatives as drivers to address climate change at the urban scale. Cities 74 , 284–291 (2018).

Westoby, R. et al. Locally led adaptation: drivers for appropriate grassroots initiatives. Local Environ. 26 , 313–319 (2021).

Serrao-Neumann, S., Crick, F., Harman, B., Schuch, G. & Choy, D. L. Maximising synergies between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Potential enablers for improved planning outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 50 , 46–61 (2015).

Bowen, K. J., Miller, F., Dany, V., McMichael, A. J. & Friel, S. Enabling environments? Insights into the policy context for climate change and health adaptation decision-making in Cambodia. Clim. Dev. 5 , 277–287 (2013).

Valdivieso, P., Andersson, K. P. & Villena-Roldán, B. Institutional drivers of adaptation in local government decision-making: evidence from Chile. Clim. Change 143 , 157–171 (2017).

Phuong, L. T. H., Biesbroek, G. R. & Wals, A. E. J. Barriers and enablers to climate change adaptation in hierarchical governance systems: the case of Vietnam. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 20 , 518–532 (2018).

ten Brinke, N., Kruijf, J. V. D., Volker, L. & Prins, N. Mainstreaming climate adaptation into urban development projects in the Netherlands: private sector drivers and municipal policy instruments. Clim. Policy 22 , 1155–1168 (2022).

Bremer, J. & Linnenluecke, M. K. Determinants of the perceived importance of organisational adaptation to climate change in the Australian energy industry. Aust. J. Manag. 42 , 502–521 (2017).

Flórez Bossio, C., Coomes, O. T. & Ford, J. What motivates urban dwellers to adapt to climate-driven water insecurity? An empirical study from Lima, Peru. Environ. Sci. Policy 136 , 136–146 (2022).

Gonzales-Iwanciw, J., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. & Dewulf, A. How does the UNFCCC enable multi-level learning for the governance of adaptation? Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 23 , 1–25 (2023).

Simonet, G. & Leseur, A. Barriers and drivers to adaptation to climate change—a field study of ten French local authorities. Clim. Change 155 , 621–637 (2019).

Celliers, L., Rosendo, S., Coetzee, I. & Daniels, G. Pathways of integrated coastal management from national policy to local implementation: Enabling climate change adaptation. Mar. Policy 39 , 72–86 (2013).

Miao, Q., Welch, E. W., Zhang, F. & Sriraj, P. S. What drives public transit organizations in the United States to adapt to extreme weather events? J. Environ. Manage. 225 , 252–260 (2018).

Xue, M., Zhao, Y., Wang, Z. & Zhang, B. Behavioural determinants of an individual’s intention to adapt to climate change: Both internal and external perspectives. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 91 , 106672 (2021).

Madsen, H. M., Mikkelsen, P. S. & Blok, A. Framing professional climate risk knowledge: Extreme weather events as drivers of adaptation innovation in Copenhagen, Denmark. Environ. Sci. Policy 98 , 30–38 (2019).

Holler, J. Is Sustainable adaptation possible? Determinants of adaptation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Prof. Geogr. 66 , 526–537 (2014).

Deshpande, T., Michael, K. & Bhaskara, K. Barriers and enablers of local adaptive measures: A case study of Bengaluru’s informal settlement dwellers. Local Environ. 24 , 167–179 (2019).

Nyahunda, L. & Tirivangasi, H. M. Harnessing of social capital as a determinant for climate change adaptation in Mazungunye Communal Lands in Bikita, Zimbabwe. Scientifica 2021 , 1–9 (2021).

Reckien, D., Flacke, J., Olazabal, M. & Heidrich, O. The influence of drivers and barriers on urban adaptation and mitigation plans-an empirical analysis of European Cities. PLoS ONE 10 , e0135597 (2015).

Luís, S. et al. Psychosocial drivers for change: Understanding and promoting stakeholder engagement in local adaptation to climate change in three European Mediterranean case studies. J. Environ. Manage. 223 , 165–174 (2018).

Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y. & Byrne, J. A. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138 , 155–163 (2015).

Hamin, E. & Gurran, N. Climbing the adaptation planning ladder: Barriers and enablers in municipal planning. Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation (eds Filho, W. L.) (Springer, 2015).

Porter, J. J., Demeritt, D. & Dessai, S. The right stuff? Informing adaptation to climate change in British local government. Glob. Environ. Change 35 , 411–422 (2015).

Baird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C. & Huitema, D. Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 27 , 51–63 (2014).

Lawrence, J. & Haasnoot, M. What it took to catalyse uptake of dynamic adaptive pathways planning to address climate change uncertainty. Environ. Sci. Policy , 68 , 47–57 (2017).

Palutikof, J. P., Street, R. B. & Gardiner, E. P. Decision support platforms for climate change adaptation: an overview and introduction. Clim. Change 153 , 459–476 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Climate Systems Hub for conducting this review as part of the project Enabling Best Practice Adaptation .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Tia Brullo & Jon Barnett

Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Elissa Waters

University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Sarah Boulter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Tia Brullo: conceptualisation, methodology, data collection, analysis, writing, review and editing, final approval of completed version, project administration. Jon Barnett: conceptualisation, methodology, writing, review and editing, final approval of completed version, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. Elissa Waters: conceptualisation, review, editing, final approval of completed version. Sarah Boulter: conceptualisation, review and editing, project management, funding acquisition, final approval of completed version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tia Brullo .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Brullo, T., Barnett, J., Waters, E. et al. The enablers of adaptation: A systematic review. npj Clim. Action 3 , 40 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00128-y

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2023

Accepted : 19 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00128-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Their Linkages with Sustainable Development over the Past 30 Years: A Review

Jiahong wen.

1 School of Environment and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234 China

Chengcheng Wan

2 Integrated Risk Governance Project, Beijing, 100875 China

Jianping Yan

3 Rodel Risk Solutions Inc., Toronto, ON M1W1J3 Canada

Weijiang Li

The severe damage and impacts caused by extreme events in a changing climate will not only make the sustainable development goals difficult to achieve, but also erode the hard-won development gains of the past. This article reviews the major impacts and challenges of disaster and climate change risks on sustainable development, and summarizes the courses and linkages of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and sustainable development over the past 30 years. Our findings show that the conceptual development of DRR actions has gone through three general phases: disaster management in the 1990s, risk management in the 2000s, and resilient management and development in the 2010s. Gradually, CCA has been widely implemented to overcome the adverse effects of climate change. A framework is proposed for tackling climate change and disaster risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development, indicating that CCA is not a subset of DRR while they have similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis. It is crucial to transform governance mechanisms at different levels, so as to integrate CCA and DRR to reduce disaster and climate change risks, and achieve safe growth and a resilient future in the era of the Anthropocene.

Introduction

Frequent disasters triggered by natural hazards around the world have caused huge losses of life and property to human society (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). Climate change is further exacerbating disaster risks, increasing the frequency and severity of disaster damage and losses, and seriously hindering our efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (IPCC 2022 ). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) have become significant common challenges facing the international community in the era of the Anthropocene.

In December 1989, the United Nations adopted a historical resolution, declaring that the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) would be launched on 1 January 1990 (United Nations 1989 ). Since then, international disaster reduction efforts have been developing vigorously for more than 30 years. Global actions on climate change mitigation and adaptation also go back more than 30 years. In November 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1 In December 1990, the 45th session of the United Nations General Assembly endorsed resolution 45/212, deciding to establish the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (United Nations 1992a ) with the participation of all member states of the United Nations, to negotiate international conventions on climate change, which was finally adopted in May 1992 (United Nations 1992a ). Since then DRR and CCA have become the core themes for international sustainable development.

Some previous studies have considered that CCA is a subset of disaster risk reduction and one of many processes within disaster risk reduction (Kelman 2015 ; Kelman et al. 2015 ). This may not be the case, however, in many ways, disaster risk reduction and CCA have overlapping aims and involve similar kinds of intervention (Twigg 2015 ; Islam et al. 2020 ). Therefore, many studies have suggested that addressing CCA and DRR together could be more beneficial (Clegg et al. 2019 ), and various studies have also explored ways and barriers of integrating DRR with CCA, as well as mainstreaming both into development (Mitchell et al. 2010 ; Florano 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ; Hore et al. 2018 ; Mal et al. 2018 ; Gabriel et al. 2021 ).

In the context that more than three years of the COVID-19 pandemic have affected all dimensions of social-ecological systems, and the proposed 2015−2030 sustainable development agenda has already been implemented halfway, the three main objectives of this study are to: (1) review the challenges, impacts, and risks of climate change and extreme events; (2) summarize the agenda and concept evolution of international DRR, CCA, and sustainable development since 1990; and (3) discuss the governance mechanisms and practices of integration of DRR and CCA—and their linkages with sustainable and resilient development—employed by the members of the international community over the past 30 years. Such work could help us find ways to achieve the goals set by the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (United Nations 2015a ), the Paris Agreement (United Nations 2015b ), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015c ).

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development

From 2000 to 2019, 7,348 disaster events were recorded worldwide by EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). These disasters claimed approximately 1.23 million lives, an annual average of 60,000 lost lives, and affected a total of over 4 billion people (many on more than one occasion) (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). These disasters also led to approximately USD 2.97 trillion in direct economic losses worldwide. If the expected annual losses induced by natural hazards were shared equally among the world’s population, it would be equivalent to an annual loss of almost USD 70 for each individual of working age, or two months’ income for people living below the poverty line (UNISDR 2015 ). Clearly, sustainable development cannot be achieved without taking account of disaster risk reduction (UNDP 2004 ; UNDRR 2022 ). To do so, however, there are three major obstacles that need to be addressed.

First, there is still a lack of scientific and technological capabilities (including risk monitoring, risk assessment, early warning, and so on) and risk governance mechanisms to reduce the loss of life and property caused by very large-scale disasters globally. The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China caused a total of 87,150 deaths and missing persons; in 2010, the Haiti Earthquake killed 222,500 people; the 2015/2016 droughts in India affected 330 million people; the direct economic losses caused by the 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami were as high as USD 210 billion (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ).

Second, EM-DAT does not record many small-scale but recurring disasters caused by extensive risks (minor but recurrent disaster risks) (UNISDR 2015 ), as well as indirect losses. From 2005 to 2014, direct economic losses due to extensive risks in 85 countries and territories were equivalent to a total of USD 94 billion (UNISDR 2015 ). Extensive risks are responsible for most disaster morbidity and displacement, and represent an ongoing erosion of development assets, such as houses, schools, health facilities, and local infrastructures. However, the cost of extensive risk is not visible and tends to be underestimated, as it is usually absorbed by low-income households and communities and small businesses. In addition, better recording and sharing of disaster information is needed for disaster loss accounting, forensics, and risk modeling (De Groeve et al. 2013 ; De Groeve et al. 2015 ; Hallegatte 2015 ; Khadka 2022 ; UNDRR 2022 ).

Third, in today’s crowded and interconnected world, indirect, cascading impacts can also be significant, and disaster impacts increasingly cascade across geographies and sectors (UNDRR 2022 ). Indirect losses, including output losses (such as business interruptions, supply-chain disruptions, and lost production due to capital damages), and macroeconomic feedbacks, may extend over a longer period of time than the event, and affect a larger spatial scale or different economic sectors (Hallegatte 2015 ). Therefore, indirect, cascading impacts may cause more serious harm to socioeconomic development in a region or society (Khadka 2022 ; UNDRR 2022 ).

Climate Change Risks and Sustainable Development

The best estimate of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is around 1.1 °C, and each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850 (IPCC 2021 ; WMO 2021 ). If the temperature continues to rise at the current rate, global warming could reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 (IPCC 2018 ). Increasing risks associated with health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are all expected in a rapidly changing climate (Carleton and Hsiang 2016 ; IPCC 2018 ). The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) has identified over 130 key risks (KRs) that may become severe under particular conditions of climate hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. These key risks are represented in eight so-called Representative Key Risk (RKR) clusters of key risks relating to low-lying coastal systems; terrestrial and ocean ecosystems; critical physical infrastructure, networks, and services; living standards; human health; food security; water security; and peace and mobility (IPCC 2022 ). The international scientific community has warned that without quick actions on the following three urgent issues, the severe damage and impacts of climate change and extreme events will not only put the achievement of the SDGs out of reach but also erode the hard-won development gains of the past.

The first issue is that as human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has affected and will continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions to billions of people, the challenges of how to significantly reduce the emerging risks of climate change are enormous ((IPCC 2018 , 2022 ; Rising et al. 2022 ). Currently, climate-related disasters account for more than 80% of disasters caused by natural hazards (UNDRR 2021 ). Around the world 3.3−3.6 billion people live in areas of high vulnerability to climate change (IPCC 2022 ).

The second issue is that under higher warming scenarios (for example, 3−4 °C) it is almost certain that Planet Earth will cross tipping points, leading to irreversible changes in ecosystems or climate patterns, which will significantly limit our ability to adapt (Steffen et al. 2018 ; Lenton et al. 2019 ; Ritchie et al. 2021 ). The challenges of how to address the adaptation limits that are already being confronted across the world will only increase (Future Earth et al. 2022 ). For example, in high-emission scenarios, week-long heat extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations are two to seven times more probable in 2021–2050 and three to 21 times more probable in 2051–2080, compared to the last three decades (Fischer et al. 2021 ). Building codes in many areas have to be modified and even redesigned.

The third issue is the lack of scientific research to better understand the mechanisms of systemic risks caused by climate change in the context of deep uncertainty. For example, record-shattering extremes—nearly impossible in the absence of warming—are likely to occur in the coming decades (Fischer et al. 2021 ), which may lead to the emergence of systemic risks with large-scale, non-linear, and cascading consequences in socioeconomic systems (Helbing 2012 ; Renn et al. 2019 ). Deep uncertainty is mainly reflected in three aspects, including uncertain scenarios of climate change, uncertain consequences of decision making, and uncertain schemes of decision making. Due to the deep uncertainty of the changes, over- or under-adaptation can occur, leading policymakers and planners to make suboptimal decisions (Linstone 2004 ; Kwakkel et al. 2016 ; Marchau et al. 2019 ; Webber and Samaras 2022 ).

Agenda and Evolution of International Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, and Sustainable Development

A landmark year for DRR, CCA, and sustainable development was 2015 because three important events occurred in that year—the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC (United Nations 2015a ; United Nations 2015b ; United Nations 2015c ) were adopted by the international community. Looking back in history can help us understand the governance of international DRR and CCA, and their important processes and context (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 ).

Important events of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and sustainable development since 1990. IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Source Modified from Mal et al. ( 2018 )

International Disaster Risk Reduction Action Framework and Concept Evolution

In 1987, the 42nd session of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution and decided to designate the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) (United Nations 1987 ), calling on governments from all over the world to actively participate in and support this action. The main goal of the IDNDR was to minimize the losses of life and property, as well as the impacts and damage to the economy and society caused by disasters. In 1999, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the UNISDR Secretariat were established as the successor arrangements for the IDNDR to be responsible for the implementation of DRR plans and strategies among UN member states, with a view to further strengthening international disaster reduction efforts. In 2019, the Secretariat changed its name to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). 2

The First World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held at Yokohama, Japan in 1994 adopted the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World (IDNDR 1994 ), reiterating the focus of the IDNDR. The Yokohama Plan of Action urged the incorporation of disaster prevention, preparedness, early warning, recovery, local capacity building, and improvement of disaster response mechanisms into national policies in order to reduce the impacts of disasters.

In 2005, the Second World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held at Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, adopted the Hyogo Declaration and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (United Nations 2005 ). The goals of the Hyogo Framework were to substantially reduce the loss of human, socioeconomic, and environmental assets of communities and countries from disasters by 2015 by integrating DRR into strategies and planning processes, and by promoting the effective role of local knowledge, resilience building, and climate adaptation. The action framework includes an expected outcome, three strategic goals, and five priorities for actions (Fig. ​ (Fig.2 2 ).

The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015: Expected outcome, strategic goals, and priorities for action (United Nations 2005 )

In March 2015, the Third World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held in Sendai, Japan, adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (United Nations 2015a ). The Sendai Framework set out an expected outcome and seven quantitative goals to be achieved in the following 15 years, together with four priorities for actions—understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk, investing in DRR for resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (Fig. ​ (Fig.3). 3 ). The endorsement of the Sendai Framework opened a new chapter for DRR and sustainable development.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030: Expected outcome, strategic goals, and priorities for action (United Nations 2015a )

Over the past 30 years, in general, the development of DRR and related goals and priorities for action can be divided into three stages of disaster management in the 1990s, disaster risk management in the 2000s, and resilience management and development in the 2010s. The three stages reflect the key characteristics and important conceptual development of DRR actions at different stages rather than being separated from each other. Disaster management focuses on disaster-centered approaches (Fig. ​ (Fig.4), 4 ), and countermeasures are focused on disaster preparedness and response. Disaster risk management is to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk, and manage residual risk on the basis of risk-based decisions. It emphasizes risk-centered approaches (Fig. ​ (Fig.4), 4 ), and prevention and reduction are superior to response and relief. Resilience management (Fig. ​ (Fig.4) 4 ) is a new paradigm, which puts the emphasis on enhancing the ability of a system, community, or society to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform, and recover from the effects of a hazard (predictable or unpredictable) in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management. 3 These ideas are embodied in the three World Conferences on Natural Disaster Reduction held by the United Nations and the adopted disaster risk reduction strategies and action frameworks.

A comparison between disaster management, risk management, and resilience management

The 1990s coincided with the IDNDR, which emphasized the enhancement of national disaster management capabilities in disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and relief. The Yokohama Strategy urged the enhancement of disaster management for achieving sustainable development, and clarified that to achieve the goals of the IDNDR, disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness were more effective than disaster relief (IDNDR 1994 ). The 2000s witnessed the transition from disaster management to risk management. The Hyogo Framework emphasized that the focus of DRR should shift to disaster risk management and that DRR should be a national and a local priority and incorporated into national development policies (United Nations 2005 ). In the 2010s, the concept of the DRR field further shifted to resilience building. Researchers and practitioners at different levels worked a lot on the theory and practice of resilience, and gradually resilient management and development became an international consensus (Cutter et al. 2013 ; Florin and Linkov 2016 ; Gencer 2017 ).

Climate Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation

Over the past 30 years, the IPCC has issued a series of comprehensive assessment reports about the state of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic knowledge on climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation. The adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC have also made significant progress, and gradually, CCA has been widely implemented to overcome the adverse effects of climate change at all levels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

Since 1988, every 6−7 years, nearly a thousand scientists around the world have engaged in various fields of climate change and socioeconomic and sustainable development to provide policymakers with a comprehensive explanation of the current international scientific community’s latest understanding of climate system changes in so far six assessment reports (see Fig. ​ Fig.1). 1 ). Since 1990, IPCC’s six climate change assessment reports have made fruitful evaluations of the scientific progress of climate system changes, the impacts and risks of climate change on natural and socioeconomic systems, and the options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change. The reports have become authoritative documents for the international community’s combat of climate change, providing a scientific basis for the negotiations of the UNFCCC, and an important scientific basis for governments to formulate policies and take actions on climate change mitigation and adaptation (Qin 2018 ). In order to assess the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events, and their impacts on the sustainable development of society, the IPCC issued a special report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” in February 2012 (IPCC 2012 ). The report pointed out that the extent of damage caused by extreme weather to elements at risk depends not only on the extreme events, but also on the exposure and vulnerability of the social-ecological systems. The report also systematically explains the paths and methods of disaster risk management to adapt to climate change.

Adaptation is an important part of the IPCC reports. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) summarizes the adaptation needs, options, plans, and measures of climate change, and assesses the role of adaptation, the limitations of adaptation, and the transformation of adaptation in four chapters. The report gives a variety of adaptation measures, which can be grouped into three categories—measures to reduce exposure, incremental adaptation measures, and transformational adaptation measures (IPCC 2014 ). The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II (WGII) report describes the current status of adaptation and its benefit, future adaptation options and their feasibility, adaptation limitations, and maladaptation and how to avoid it. The feasibility of 23 adaptation measures is evaluated, which shows adaptation is subject to hard and soft limits (IPCC 2022 ).

Adaptation Negotiations Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Damage and loss associated with climate change impacts have emerged as key issues underpinning climate change adaptation at the global level during recent climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC (Prabhakar et al. 2015 ). Along with the rise in climate-related hazards, and the impacts and risks of fast-onset extremes and slow-onset changes (such as sea level rise) in the climate system, adaptation started attracting more attention at COP 10 (Conference of the Parties in 2004), then received successive boosts from the adoption of the Bali Action Plan in 2007 and the following COPs in Cancun (Mexico) in 2010 and others leading up to the 2015 Paris Agreement (Shaw et al. 2016 ) (see Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 ).

In December 2015, the Paris Climate Change Conference reached a series of results centered on the Paris Agreement, which became an important historical and binding international framework aiming to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change (United Nations 2015b ).The Paris Agreement puts forward three goals:

• Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and striving to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial levels;
• Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and
• Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

In terms of adaptation and reduction of the damage and loss caused by climate change, global adaptation goals have been proposed to enhance adaptability, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Over the past 30 years, the adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC can be roughly divided into three stages of early slow progress, equal emphasis on adaptation and mitigation, and enhanced adaptation action. The climate negotiations were characterized by “emphasis on mitigation, neglect of adaptation” in the early stage. After the 2007 Bali Roadmap adopted by the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) that put equal emphasis on mitigation and adaptation, the adaptation-related agenda and its importance were increased under the UNFCCC negotiation regime. The 2010 Cancun Adaptation Framework and the 2015 Paris Agreement put forward specific action frameworks to enhance global adaptation actions, and to establish an international governance and mechanism for global adaptation to climate change, which laid a good foundation for enhancing climate resilience, reducing vulnerability, and achieving the goals of the UNFCCC (Tao 2014 ; Chen et al. 2016 ; Chen 2020 ).

Linkages of Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, and the Sustainable Development Goals

In 1987, the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future” put forward the strategy of sustainable development, marking the birth of a new concept of development (WCED 1987 ). In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Summit) adopted a series of important documents—the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Charter); Agenda 21; the Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification was adopted on 17 June 1994. The Earth Summit established a road map of sustainable development with harmonious coexistence between humans and nature (United Nations 1992b ; Cicin-Sain 1996 ). A considerable incentive for rethinking disaster risk as an integral part of the development process comes from the aim of achieving the goals laid out in the Millennium Declaration. The Declaration sets forth a road map for human development supported by 191 nations in 2000 (UNDP 2004 ). Following the end of the 2000−2015 Millennium Development Goals (United Nations 2000 ), the United Nations Development Summit in September 2015 unanimously adopted the draft resolution “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” submitted by the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly (United Nations 2015c ). The SDGs in the United Nations 2030 Agenda replaced the Millennium Development Goals launched by the United Nations at the beginning of the 21st century.

The agenda includes 17 SDGs and 169 associated targets. These development goals all closely interact and influence climate change and disaster risks. For example, Goal 9 building resilient infrastructure, Goal 11 building inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements, and Goal 13 taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, all are directly related to DRR and CCA. Many of these 169 associated targets also involve reducing disaster risks and disaster impacts. For example, one of the specific targets of Goal 1 is to build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social, and environmental shocks and disasters by 2030. Disasters put development at risk, and losses caused by climate change and extreme events may severely hinder many countries from achieving SDGs. At the same time, the realization of the SDGs will also help reduce human vulnerability to climate change and disasters, thereby greatly reducing disaster risks.

Climate change adaptation and DRR have similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis (Twigg 2015 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ). The common aim of CCA and DRR is to manage the risk induced by weather/climate-related hazards, including extreme events and climate-related creeping environmental changes, which is part of climate risk management (see Fig. ​ Fig.4). 4 ). Their difference is that DRR not only deals with hydrometeorological disaster risk closely related to climate change, but also manages risks caused by other natural hazards, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (Twigg 2015 ). In addition, DRR focuses more on reducing the potential losses of people and assets. Climate change adaptation also has its focus areas, such as the impact of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity, and infectious diseases and health (IPCC 2022 ). According to the Adaptation Gap Report 2022 (UNEP 2022 ), CCA actions are currently mainly focused on agriculture, water, ecosystems, and cross-cutting sectors. Disaster risk reduction and CCA are two major areas of integrated risk management (Fig. ​ (Fig.5), 5 ), thus both should be joined within the integrated risk management that is an important pillar and field of resilient, sustainable development. Under the framework of resilient development, there are two areas that are closely related to climate change and DRR, that is, emergency management and climate change mitigation (Fig. ​ (Fig.5). 5 ). The synergistic effects of integrated risk management, emergency management, and climate change mitigation will effectively ensure safe growth and resilient development.

A framework for addressing disaster and climate change risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development

In many ways, DRR and CCA have overlapping aims and involve similar kinds of intervention (Begum et al. 2014 ; Forino et al. 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ; Amaratunga et al. 2017 ).

People and ecosystems across the world are already confronted with limits to adaptation, and if the planet warms beyond 1.5 °C or even 2 °C, more widespread breaching of adaptation limits is expected (Forino et al. 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ).

Addressing climate change may have the potential to create or exacerbate other development concerns (Kelman et al. 2015 ). Large dams might contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation through reduced dependence on fossil fuels and regulating floods. But large dams tend to increase flood risk over the long term in a process termed ‘‘risk transference’’ (Etkin 1999 ). Seawalls and infrastructural development along coastlines may also induce changes in water currents, destruction of natural ecosystems, and increased or shifted erosion from protected to unprotected areas (Dahl et al. 2017 ; Rahman and Hickey 2019 ; Piggott-Mckellar et al. 2020 ; Simon et al. 2020 ). Seawalls may effectively reduce impacts to people and assets in the short term but may also result in lock-ins and increase exposure to coastal hazards in the long term unless they are integrated into a long-term climate risk management plan. Although fire suppression in naturally fire-adapted ecosystems prevents fire damage, such action reduces the space for natural processes, thus reducing the ecosystem’s resistance to climate change and its ecosystem service value (Ruffault and Mouillot 2015 ; Hope et al. 2016 ).

Therefore, DRR and CCA should be addressed together under integrated risk management to overcome limits and maladaptation, and optimize the use of limited resources (Mitchell et al. 2010 ; Twigg 2015 ; Flood et al. 2022 ). Thus, the integration of CCA and DRR can contribute to achieving the goals of international frameworks such as the SDGs (Kelman and Gaillard 2010 ; UN DESA 2014 ; Kelman 2017 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ), the Sendai Framework, and the Paris Agreement (Amaratunga et al. 2017 ).

However, there are many factors that hinder successful integration of CCA and DRR (Amaratunga et al. 2017 ; Seidler et al. 2018 ; Dias et al. 2020 ; Islam et al. 2020 ). Barriers include poor communication between organizations, coordination challenges, lack of political willingness, lack of capacity among actors and institutions, policy gaps, mismatches, different funding systems, fund shortages, and so on. Disaster risk reduction and CCA are frequently addressed, studied, and analyzed independently (O’Brien and Li 2006 ; Ireland 2010 ; Kelman et al. 2015 ; Chmutina et al. 2016 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ), separated by institutional and administrative boundaries (Schipper and Pelling 2006 ; Kelman 2017 ; Pilli-Sihvola 2020 ). For historical and political reasons, internationally, the way we are currently working addresses climate change, DRR, development-related projects, and humanitarian relief separately (Fig. ​ (Fig.6). 6 ). International funding mechanisms establish and implement independent projects of CCA, DRR, and so on in target countries through international organizations (such as different agencies of the United Nations), resulting in segmented practices.

A scheme showing international funding mechanisms for target countries

At the national level, CCA and DRR are also frequently handled independently, separated by institutional and administrative boundaries (Schipper and Pelling 2006 ; Kelman 2017 ; Dias et al. 2018 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ). In China, for example, the Fourteenth Five Year Plan for National Comprehensive Disaster Prevention and Reduction (2021−2025) was formulated by the National Disaster Reduction Commission, which is only a deliberative body and thus it is difficult to promote the implementation of the plan. In 2022, 17 national departments jointly issued the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2035, with the Ministry of Ecology and Environment as the leading department. Climate change adaptation and DRR efforts are still addressed by two sets of organizations in China. In the Philippines, DRR and CCA are operationalized independently of one another (Florano 2015 ; De Leon and Pittock 2017 ). There are two separate laws on climate change and disaster risk reduction and management—the Climate Change Act of 2009 and the Philippine National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, respectively. This is also the case in national level arrangements in the UK, where DRR and CCA are managed by separate government departments (Dias et al. 2018 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ).

To change this situation, effective governance mechanisms, such as policy, agreement, culture, leadership, and coordination need to be established among international organizations, as well as between international organizations and target countries, while countries also need to establish overarching national risk governance systems (Fig. ​ (Fig.7). 7 ). Thus, tailored country programs can be established through international risk governance solutions, and implemented in target countries by a unified mechanism under the national risk governance system.

Integrated risk governance solution among international organizations and countries

Moreover, a wide range of climate change impacts and disaster risks (especially the cascading and systemic risks) are understudied or challenging to quantify, and are missing from current evaluations of climate change and other disaster risks to lives and assets (Mamuji and Etkin 2019 ; Mcglade et al. 2019 ; Rising et al. 2022 ). Importantly, integrated risk and resilience management is about managing known risks but also about preparing for the unpredictable (Pirani and Tolkoff 2015 ). Thus, better data, actionable information, and relevant knowledge on climate change and disaster risk are needed to promote the integration of CCA and DRR (Mysiak et al. 2018 ; Zuccaro et al. 2020 ).

This study reviews the major impacts and challenges of disaster and climate change risks on sustainable development, summarizes the important events and evolution of international disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation over the past 30 years, and reviews the linkages of DRR and CCA to sustainable development. The three main conclusions are:

• Disasters caused by both intensive and extensive disaster risks have a huge impact on lives and livelihoods. Indirect losses and cascading effects may cause even more serious damage to the socioeconomic development of a region or a society. Most disasters triggered by natural hazards are related to weather/climate events. Especially under a changing climate, compound events and systemic risks are increasing, and record-shattering extremes are likely to occur in the coming decades, which will significantly limit our ability to adapt.
• Over the past 30 years, the evolution of paradigms in DRR actions can be roughly divided into three stages—disaster management in the 1990s, disaster risk management in the 2000s, and resilient management and development in the 2010s. These ideas are embodied in the three World Conferences on Natural Disaster Reduction held by the United Nations and the adopted disaster reduction strategies and action frameworks. The adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC over the past 30 years also can be roughly divided into three stages of early slow progress, equal emphasis on adaptation and mitigation, and enhanced adaptation action. Climate change adaptation has been widely carried out to overcome the adverse effects of climate change. The integrated risk management community has also learned the current status of adaptation and its benefit, future adaptation options and their feasibility, adaptation limitations, and maladaptation and how to avoid it.
• This article proposes a framework for addressing climate change and disaster risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development. Climate change adaptation is not a subset of DRR, and they have both similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis. Disaster risk reduction and CCA should be joined under the integrated risk management that is an important pillar of resilient and sustainable development. Under the umbrella of resilient development, there are two areas that are closely related to climate change and DRR—disaster management and climate change mitigation. The synergistic effects of integrated risk management, emergency management, and climate change mitigation will effectively support safe growth and resilient development.

To successfully integrate CCA and DRR, it is urgently needed to transform governance mechanisms, and to strengthen cooperation among international organizations, as well as between international organizations and countries, while countries also need to establish overarching national risk governance systems. Moreover, better data, actionable information, and relevant knowledge are needed for understanding climate change and disaster risks in a context of deep uncertainty.

The severe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health and socioeconomic well-being are a stark warning of the dangers of insufficient actions, prevention, and preparedness—but people and societies can adopt new behaviors when the problems and situations are changing. In the context of climate emergency, the feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation measures will decrease with increasing warming. It is urgently needed to leverage the synergies of CCA and DRR, together with climate change mitigation and disaster management, in order to prevent new risks, reduce and mitigate existing vulnerabilities and risks, and to realize the goals of the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 42171080, 41771540), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 18ZDA105), and the Humanities and Social Sciences Program of the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 21YJC630146).

1 https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/ .

2 https://www.undrr.org/about-undrr/history .

3 https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience .

• Amaratunga, D., R. Haigh, C. Malalgoda, and M. Dias. 2017. Synthesis report of legal, policy and science approaches within the frame of CCA and DRR: Global perspectives. Project report. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/33429/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• Begum, R.A., M.S.K. Sarkar, A.H. Jaafar, and J.J. Pereira. 2014. Toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10(Part A): 362–373.
• Carleton, T.A., and S.M. Hsiang. 2016. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353(6304): Article aad9837. [ PubMed ]
• Chen M. Progress and outlook of adaptation negotiation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Climate Change Research. 2020; 16 (1):105–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen MP, Zhang YC, Li B, Li YE. Interpretation of adaptation and loss and damage elements in Paris Agreement and possible solution for China. Climate Change Research. 2016; 12 (1):251–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chmutina, K., R. Jigyasu, and L. Bosher. 2016. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into the built environment. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Building Resilience 2016 , 7–9 September 2016, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
• Cicin-Sain B. Earth summit implementation: Progress since Rio. Marine Policy. 1996; 20 (2):123–143. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(96)00002-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clegg, G., N. Dias, D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, and A. Panda. 2019. Integration of CCA and DRR for flood resilience: A review of good practices in the United Kingdom. Contributing paper to Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2019). https://www.unisdr.org/files/66296_f337finalcleggintegrationofccaanddr.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023
• CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters), and UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2020. Human cost of disasters: An overview of the last 20 years (2000–2019). Brussels: CRED and Geneva: UNDRR. https://www.undrr.org/sites/default/files/inlineiles/Human%20Cost%20of%20Disasters%202000-2019%20FINAL.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.
• Cutter, S.L., J.A. Ahearn, B. Amadei, P. Crawford, E.A. Eide, G.E. Galloway, M.F. Goodchild, H.C. Kunreuther, et al. 2013. Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55(2): 25–29.
• Dahl, K.A., E. Spanger-Siegfried, A. Caldas, and S. Udvardy. 2017. Effective inundation of continental united states communities with 21st century sea level rise. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 5: Article 37.
• De Groeve, T., K. Poljansek, and D. Ehrlich. 2013. Recording disaster losses. Recommendations for a European Research. European Commission, Joint Research Centre scientific and policy reports. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• De Groeve, T., C. Corbane, and D. Ehrlich. 2015. Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data: Towards the development of operational indicators to translate the Sendai Framework into action. Report by the European Commission, Joint Research Centre. EUR 27192. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• De Leon EG, Pittock J. Integrating climate change adaptation and climate-related disaster risk-reduction policy in developing countries: A case study in the Philippines. Climate and Development. 2017; 9 (5):471–478. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2016.1174659. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias N, Amaratunga D, Haigh R. Challenges associated with integrating CCA and DRR in the UK – A review on the existing legal and policy background. Procedia Engineering. 2018; 212 :978–985. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.126. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias N, Amaratunga D, Haigh R, Clegg G, Malalgoda C. Critical factors that hinder integration of CCA and DRR: Global perspective. In: Filho WL, Luetz J, Ayal D, editors. Handbook of climate change management: Research, leadership, transformation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. pp. 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Etkin D. Risk transference and related trends: Driving forces towards more mega-disasters. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards. 1999; 1 (2):69–75. doi: 10.1016/S1464-2867(00)00002-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer EM, Sippel S, Knutti R. Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nature Climate Change. 2021; 11 (8):689–695. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01092-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flood, S., Y. Jerez Columbié, M. Le Tissier, and B. O’Dwyer. 2022. Creating resilient futures: Integrating disaster risk reduction, sustainable development goals and climate change adaptation agendas . Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
• Florano ER. Mainstreaming integrated climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in local development plans in the Philippines. In: Filho WL, editor. Handbook of climate change adaptation. Berlin: Springer; 2015. pp. 433–456. [ Google Scholar ]
• Florin, M., and I. Linkov. 2016. IRGC resource guide on resilience. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC).
• Forino G, von Meding J, Brewer GJ. A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction integration. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2015; 6 (4):372–384. doi: 10.1007/s13753-015-0076-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Future Earth, The Earth League, and WCRP (World Climate Research Programme). 2022. 10 New Insights in Climate Science 2022.10.5281/zenodo.7228926. Accessed 30 Jan 2023.
• Gabriel AG, Santiago PNM, Casimiro RR. Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in comprehensive development planning of the cities in Nueva Ecija in the Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2021; 12 (3):367–380. doi: 10.1007/s13753-021-00351-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gencer, E. 2017. How to make cities more resilient: A handbook for local government leaders. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).
• Hallegatte, S. 2015. The indirect cost of natural disasters and an economic definition of macroeconomic resilience. World Bank policy research working paper No.7357. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Helbing, D. 2012. Systemic risks in society and economics. In Social self-organization: Agent-based simulation and experiments to study emergent social behavior , ed. D. Helbing, 261–284: New York: Springer.
• Hope, E.S., D.W. Mckenney, J.H. Pedlar, B.J. Stocks, and S. Gauthier. 2016. Wildfire suppression costs for Canada under a changing climate. PloS One 11(8): Article e157425. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Hore K, Kelman I, Mercer J, Gaillard JC. Climate change and disasters. In: Rodríguez H, Donner W, Trainor JE, editors. Handbook of disaster research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018. pp. 145–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• IDNDR (International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction). 1994. Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a safer world: Guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. In Proceedings of World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction , 23–27 May, Yokohama, Japan. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/8241_doc6841contenido1.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Summary for policymakers. In Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , ed. C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, et al., 1–19. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Part A: Global and sectoral aspects . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C . An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , ed. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, et al. 3−32. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.
• Ireland P. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: Contested spaces and emerging opportunities in development theory and practice. Climate and Development. 2010; 2 (4):332–345. doi: 10.3763/cdev.2010.0053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Islam S, Chu C, Smart JC, Liew L. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: A systematic literature review. Climate and Development. 2020; 12 (3):255–267. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1613217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelman I. Climate change and the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2015; 6 (2):117–127. doi: 10.1007/s13753-015-0046-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelman I. Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change, and the sustainable development goals. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 2017; 26 (3):254–258. doi: 10.1108/DPM-02-2017-0043. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelman I, Gaillard JC. Embedding climate change adaptation within disaster risk reduction. In: Shaw R, Pulhin JM, Pereira JJ, editors. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: Issues and challenges. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing; 2010. pp. 23–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelman I, Gaillard J, Mercer J. Climate change’s role in disaster risk reduction’s future: Beyond vulnerability and resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2015; 6 (1):21–27. doi: 10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khadka, K. 2022. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and stakeholder engagement mechanism value proposition. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2391961/united-nations-office-for-disaster-risk-reduction-and-stakeholder-engagement-mechanism-value-proposition/3413390/ . Accessed 17 Dec 2022.
• Kwakkel JH, Haasnoot M, Walker WE. Comparing robust decision-making and dynamic adaptive policy pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2016; 86 :168–183. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenton TM, Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rahmstorf S, Richardson K, Steffen W, Schellnhuber HJ. Climate tipping points – Too risky to bet against. Nature. 2019; 575 (7784):592–595. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linstone, H.A. 2004. Review of: Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis . R.J. Lempert, S.W. Popper, and S.C. Bankes, Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 2003. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71(3): 305–307.
• Mal, S., R.B. Singh, C. Huggel, and A. Grover. 2018. Introducing linkages between climate change, extreme events, and disaster risk reduction. In Climate change, extreme events and disaster risk reduction , ed. S. Mal, R.B. Singh, and C. Huggel, 1–14. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
• Mamuji AA, Etkin D. Disaster risk analysis part 2: The systemic underestimation of risk. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2019; 16 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1515/jhsem-2017-0006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchau VA, Walker WE, Bloemen PJ, Popper SW. Decision making under deep uncertainty: From theory to practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mcglade J, Bankoff G, Abrahams J, Cooper-Knock S-J, Cotecchia F, Desanker P, Erian W, Gencer E, et al. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2019. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell, T., M. van Aalst, and P. Silva Villanueva. 2010. Assessing progress on integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development processes. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper No. 2. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
• Mysiak J, Castellari S, Kurnik B, Swart R, Pringle P, Schwarze R, Wolters H, Jeuken A, van der Linden P. Brief communication: Strengthening coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 2018; 18 (11):3137–3143. doi: 10.5194/nhess-18-3137-2018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien KJ, Li L. Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piggott-Mckellar AE, Nunn PD, Mcnamara KE, Sekinini ST. Dam(n) seawalls: A case of climate change maladaptation in Fiji. In: Filho WL, editor. Managing climate change adaptation in the Pacific region. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. pp. 69–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pilli-Sihvola, K. 2020. Building a bridge between inundated shores: Analyses on integrated disaster risk management and climate change adaptation policies and measures. Finnish Meteorological Institute Contributions No. 168. Helsinki: Finnish Meteorological Institute.
• Pirani R, Tolkoff L. Lessons from Sandy: Federal policies to build climate-resilient coastal regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prabhakar, S.V.R.K, K. Kamat, A. Hakimov, Y. Chiba, and M. Nakata. 2015. Loss and damage associated with climate change: What and why, stakeholder perspectives, and a way forward. The Paris Climate Agreement and beyond: Linking short-term climate actions to long-term goals, ed. K. Tamura, and S. Kojima, 101–125. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
• Qin DH. Introduction to climate change science. Beijing: Science Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman, H.M.T., and G.M. Hickey. 2019. What does autonomous adaptation to climate change have to teach public policy and planning about avoiding the risks of maladaptation in Bangladesh? Frontiers in Environmental Science 7: Article 2.
• Renn O, Lucas K, Haas A, Jaeger C. Things are different today: The challenge of global systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research. 2019; 22 (4):401–415. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1409252. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rising J, Tedesco M, Piontek F, Stainforth DA. The missing risks of climate change. Nature. 2022; 610 (7933):643–651. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05243-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie PDL, Clarke JJ, Cox PM, Huntingford C. Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate. Nature. 2021; 592 (7855):517–523. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03263-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruffault J, Mouillot F. How a new fire-suppression policy can abruptly reshape the fire-weather relationship. Ecosphere. 2015; 6 (10):1–19. doi: 10.1890/ES15-00182.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schipper L, Pelling M. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: Scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters. 2006; 30 (1):19–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00304.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidler R, Dietrich K, Schweizer S, Bawa KS, Chopde S, Zaman F, Sharma A, Bhattacharya S, et al. Progress on integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction for sustainable development pathways in South Asia: Evidence from six research projects. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2018; 31 :92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw, R., S. Prabhakar, and Y. Chiba. 2016. SDGs, DRR and CCA: Potential for strengthening inter-linkages. Policy Brief Number 34. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
• Simon, K., G. Diprose, and A.C. Thomas. 2020. Community-led initiatives for climate adaptation and mitigation. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 15(1): 93–105.
• Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Folke C, Liverman D, Summerhayes CP, Barnosky AD, et al. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018; 115 (33):8252–8259. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810141115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tao L. The international climate adaptation regime process and its outlook. Journal of Nanjing University. 2014; 51 :52–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Twigg, J. 2015 Disaster risk reduction . New edition. Good Practice Review 9. London: Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute.
• UN Desa (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) TST Issues Briefs: A compendium of issues briefs prepared by the United Nations inter-agency technical support team for the United Nations General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. New York: UN DESA; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) A global report: Reducing disaster risk a challenge for development. New York: United Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2022. Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too little, too slow – Climate adaptation failure puts world at risk. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2022 . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2021. UNDRR Strategic Framework 2022–2025. https://www.undrr.org/publication/undrr-strategic-framework-2022-2025 . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2022. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future. Geneva, Switzerland: UNDRR.
• UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2015. Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).
• United Nations. 1987. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/42/169. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/resolutions/42_169.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 1989. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/44/236. New York: United Nations.
• United Nations. 1992a. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 1992b. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, 3–14 June 1992b, Rio de Jeneiro, Brazil. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992b . Accessed 29 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 2015a. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015a–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• United Nations. 2015b. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. UNFCCC COP 21st Session, 30 November–11 December 2015b, Paris, France.
• United Nations. 2015c. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations.
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future . New York: United Nations. https://idl-bncidrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/152/WCED_v17_doc149.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.
• Webber MK, Samaras C. A review of decision making under deep uncertainty applications using green infrastructure for flood management. Earth’s Future. 2022; 10 (7):e2021E–e2322E. doi: 10.1029/2021EF002322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2021. State of the global climate 2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.
• Zuccaro, G., M.F. Leone, and C. Martucci. 2020. Future research and innovation priorities in the field of natural hazards, disaster risk reduction, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation: A shared vision from the ESPREssO project. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51: Article 101783.

• Global Assessment Report (GAR)
• PreventionWeb

Special Events

• Global Platform
• International Day for Disaster Reduction
• World Tsunami Awareness Day
• Sendai Framework Monitor
• Voluntary Commitments
• UNDRR Africa
• Documents and publications

Editors' recommendations

• Integrating climate change and natural disasters in the economic analysis of projects: a disaster and climate risk stress test methodology
• Is national disaster legislation ready for climate change?
• Literature review on aligning climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
• A framework for complex climate change risk assessment

Explore further

Also featured on

Is this page useful.

Thank you. If you have 2 minutes, we would benefit from additional feedback (link opens in a new window) .

Climate change dynamics and adaptation strategies: insights from Dingapota Haor farmers in Bangladesh

• Brief Communication
• Open access
• Published: 06 June 2024
• Volume 2 , article number  22 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Md. Shajahan Kabir 1 ,
• Rahima Akther 3 ,
• Santa Islam 2 ,
• Saifur Rahman 4 ,
• Nazmus Sayadat 5 &
• Bristy Banik 2  

1 Altmetric

Bangladesh is a highly climate vulnerable region. Among the many areas of Bangladesh, the haor region is considered as one of the most climate change sensitive areas. Again, the nation greatly depends on the agricultural produce of the haor area. So, adoption to climate change strategies is vital for the farming community of Bangladesh. The current study was conducted based on the idea of understanding the depth of knowledge of farmers regarding climate change, identifying the currently practiced climate change adaptation strategies and to know the influential factors behind the adoption of those practices. The study was drawn on primary data collected from 300 farmers of the Dingapota haor of Mohanganj upazila under Netrokona district of Bangladesh through a structured interview schedule. Descriptive analysis, adaptation Strategy Index (ASI), and Pearson’s product correlation coefficient (r) were used to analyze data with the help of Excel and SPSS. The study found that the intensity of flash floods, short winter seasons, and unpredictable rainfall have significantly increased. Most respondents believe that certain parts of the climatic conditions are getting worse. Farmers’ knowledge about crop diversification secured first and floating agriculture secured second position in case of advanced proficiency to cope with climate change vulnerability. The research exposed that changes in planting and harvesting dates are the most efficient climate change adaptation strategy practiced by farmers and their experience of agricultural farming strongly influences adaptation choices in the study area.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Bangladesh is susceptible to sudden onset calamities such as floods, river erosion, cyclones, droughts, tornadoes, cold waves, earthquakes, drainage congestion/water logging, arsenic pollution, salinity intrusion, and global climate change [ 1 , 2 ] because of its geographic location, climate, and topography [ 3 ]. According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, BBS (2020), more than 40.60% of people work in the agriculture industry contributing 14.23% to Bangladesh’s GDP [ 4 ]. The production of crops and cattle is being affected by climate change and climate extremes throughout Bangladesh, with the coastal region, islands, and haor area being most affected [ 5 ]. The haor landscape in northeastern Bangladesh is a sizable depression in the shape of a bowl and a seasonal wetland created between the natural embankments of an alluvial fan-river network that, during the monsoon season, generates a significant influx of material from upstream India [ 6 ]. The Haor basin in Bangladesh comprises large areas of seven districts, namely Sylhet, Sunamganj, Habiganj, Moulvibazar, Kishoreganj, Brahmanbaria, and Netrokona covering an area of 20,022 square kilometers [ 7 ]. Among them, the Netrokona district is a flash flood hotspot according to the Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 [ 8 ] that substantially exacerbates the process of development. In 2016–17 total agricultural land damaged in Netrokona district due to flood and excessive rain was about 233 acres, loss of yield per acre 24.62 kg, and loss of production in 214 metric ton [ 4 ]. Leya et al. [ 9 ] studied that the Netrkona district experienced flash flooding over a period of 2 to 3 months resulting in damage to crops, livestock, and assets to some extent in 2017. Extreme natural hazards constitute a major threat to the local population’s way of life [ 10 ]. Adaptation is the most effective strategy for limiting climate change’s harmful effects while adjusting to changing climatic and socioeconomic situations, farmers can maintain their security of food, income, and livelihood [ 11 ]. Hence, it’s crucial to comprehend family adaptation to climate change in order to create and put into action efficient adaptation strategies [ 12 ]. Prior to adaptation, it is essential to comprehend how farmers perceive climate change [ 13 ]. Though several studies have been conducted on climate change, to illustrate [ 1 , 5 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], but only a few in-depth studies of climate change in Haor areas specially Netrokona district. Moreover, the literature falls short of providing a comprehensive knowledge of factors influencing farmers’ adaptation decisions. Addressing the existing gaps in the literature, this research focuses on Dingapota Haor in Netrokona district. Therefore, the study aims to bridge these gaps by conducting an in-depth exploration of farmers’ perspectives in Dingapota Haor regarding their perceptions, knowledge, and adaptation strategies practiced by farmers, and also factors that influence farmers’ adaptation decisions of climatic strategies. Finally, this study will contribute to further research on climate change.

2 Conceptual framework

Bangladesh faces a multitude of environmental challenges, including floods, cyclones, and climate change impacts, significantly affecting its predominantly agrarian economy. In instance, the haor areas like Dingapota Haor in the Netrokona district are more vulnerable. This study addresses a critical knowledge gap by delving into the perspectives, knowledge levels, and adaptation strategies of farmers in Dingapota Haor, shedding light on factors influencing their decisions in the face of climate change. With agriculture contributing substantially to the country’s GDP and a significant portion of the population dependent on it, understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptive measures becomes paramount. The study not only contributes to the empirical understanding of Dingapota Haor but also seeks to fill broader gaps in the literature on farmers’ adaptation decisions in haor areas, especially in the context of Netrokona district. The study examines the complexities of adaptation strategies and their relationship to socioeconomic variables using a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative insights and quantitative analysis. The conceptual framework integrates key elements such as farmers’ perceptions, knowledge, adaptation strategies, and influencing factors to offer valuable insights into climate change resilience in Dingapota Haor. By bridging these gaps, the research aims to inform more effective climate change adaptation strategies, ultimately contributing to the broader discourse on climate resilience in agricultural communities.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 study areas and data collection.

The study region is located in Bangladesh’s Netrokona District, more specifically in the Dingaputa haor of the Mohanganj upazila (smaller administrative unit) (Fig.  1 ). The Kongso River is the main source of water for the Dingapota haor, which is covered with water during the rainy season on an area of around 8000 ha. Two of the seven unions in Mohanganj upazila—Tetulia and Gaglajur—are fully contained inside the Dingapota haor, while Maghan Siadhar and Suair are partially enclosed [ 22 ]. Geographically this area is highly vulnerable to climate change issues like flood, flash flood etc. [ 23 ]. Thus, agricultural activity is hampered regularly due to climatic events. That’s why this area was chosen as the study area for this research.

Location of the study area

The farmers actively involved in farming comprise the population of the study area. The local Upazila Agriculture Office provided us a list of 1400 farmers (population) and from this list 300 farmers (sample) were randomly selected through simple random sampling. Qualtrics sample calculator was used to determine the sample size of 300 farmers having 95% confidence level, 5% error.

At first data was taken from 20 farmers using the draft questionnaire (Supplementary file 1 ). The structured interview schedule was improved based on feedback from 20 initial interviews with crop growers. Finally, data was collected in a face-to-face interaction with the respondents. Before data collection, informed consent to participate was taken from each of the participants.

Data were processed and analyzed with the help of Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package software (SPSS).

3.2 Empirical method

Descriptive analysis such as, number and percentages, and rank order were used. In this study, adaptation strategies to climate change practiced by farmers were calculated based on the following index formula [ 24 ]:

where ASI = Adaptation Strategy Index, ASn = frequency of farmers rating adaptation strategy as having no importance, ASl = frequency of farmers rating adaptation strategy as having low importance, ASm = frequency of farmers rating adaptation strategy as having moderate importance, ASh = frequency of farmers rating adaptation strategy as having high importance. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used in order to explore the relationship between the selected variables. The equation is:

where Yi = adaptation decision of climatic strategies; X1 = education (years of schooling); X2 = farm size (Acre); X3 = annual income (Tk./year); X4 = experience of agricultural farming (year); X5 = training on disaster management (number of days); X6 = technical and relief support (yes/no); X7 = extension media contact (yes/no); X8 = access to information (yes/no); β0 = intercept; β1 to β8 = regression coefficient of the independent variables; and εi = disturbance term or error term.

4.1 Farmers’ perceptions of climatic events

Farmers in the Dingapota haor region have noticed major shifts in a variety of climatic events over the past 10 years (Fig.  2 ). Flash floods have significantly increased (81%), which suggests a significant impact on the area that is similar to the other scholars [ 5 , 25 , 26 ]. With only 29% of farmers reporting a decline in rainfall and 67% reporting an increase, rainfall patterns have changed dramatically, reflecting a tendency toward higher showers. A change in seasonal predictability is also indicated by a decrease in short winter seasons (13.33%) and a considerable increase in unpredictable rainfall (92.33%) and temperature (74.33%). Tasnim et al. [ 27 ] and Mamun et al. [ 25 ] also reported respondents’ perception of increasing temperature. Farmers are concerned since storm frequency and intensity have increased as well. This trend shows that a majority of the respondents believe that certain parts of the climatic conditions are getting worse or harsher.

(Source: Field survey, 2021)

Farmers’ perceptions regarding different climatic events over the last 10 years

4.2 Farmers’ knowledge of agricultural adaptation to climate change

The level of knowledge among farmers in Bangladesh’s Dingapota haor region on agricultural adaptation to climate change varies. They demonstrate advanced proficiency in floating agriculture and crop diversification, demonstrating a solid understanding of diverse planting strategies suitable for their flood-prone region (Table  1 ). Although they have a fair comprehension of the causes and effects of climate change, there is still space for growth in their knowledge of the underlying problems. A foundational understanding is indicated by basic to moderate knowledge levels in climate-smart agriculture, environmental protection, and sustainable farming methods. However, there exist knowledge gaps, particularly when it comes to cutting-edge agricultural technologies like crop insurance and geographic information systems (GIS). Targeted education and awareness programs focusing on the most vulnerable populations will help them become more resilient to the effects of climate change.

Targeted education and awareness programs concentrating on the causes of climate change and sophisticated agricultural techniques, such as GIS and crop insurance, are crucial to enhancing their resilience against climate change vulnerabilities. It’s a matter of fact that most people have no idea why the floods are happening more and more frequently in recent years. Ferdushi et al. [ 3 ] and Fahim and Sikder [ 5 ] revealed that farmers didn’t know enough about climate change at the time. If farmers lack background knowledge regarding climate change, it would be difficult to approach and convince them to embrace adaptation techniques [ 28 ]. Anik and Khan [ 19 ], also uncovered in their study that a majority of people (41.67%) claimed to have unclear knowledge of climate change.

4.3 Current climate change adaptation strategies practiced by farmers

Table 2 represents the different climate change strategies that are practiced by the farmers in the study area. Changes in planting and harvesting dates are the most efficient climate change adaptation strategy used by farmers in the study area (ASI 663, Rank 1). This technique exhibits a high degree of success and was probably modified in response to changing weather patterns. Altering crop rotation and cropping patterns (ASI 608, Rank 2) also helps farmers adjust to shifting climatic conditions. Islam et al. [ 29 ] also identified the crop rotation as 2nd ranked in adaptation strategy. The moderately effective tactics of agricultural diversification (ASI 581, Rank 3) and using contemporary crop varieties (ASI 576, Rank 4) show a respectable degree of flexibility.

However, some tactics, such as quick relocation to cities (ASI 522, Rank 7) and obtaining agricultural credits (ASI 490, Rank 9), are less successful, maybe as a result of a lack of resources or difficulties with their implementation. Similar adaptation measures were found by other scholars [ 2 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 ]. Overall, even though some methods are quite successful, there is an opportunity for development and even a demand for more creative, context-specific methods to increase farmers’ adaptability to climate change on their farms.

4.4 Factors influencing farmers’ adaptation decision of climatic strategies in Dingapota haor

This study identifies a number of determinants that have an impact on farmers’ choices of climatic adaptation tactics. Table 3 shows the important factors behind farmers’ adaptation. The importance of education and resources is highlighted by the favorable effects of higher education levels (X1) and larger farm sizes (X2). This research is in line with some previous studies regarding education [ 32 , 33 ]. The importance of practical knowledge is highlighted by the strong impact of agricultural farming experience (years) on adaptability. This result agreed with the findings of other scholars’ studies that highlighted farmers are more likely to adapt climate change techniques if they have farming experience because knowledge of the advice and use of these tactics is acquired through time and via experience [ 27 , 31 , 34 ].

Access to information (yes/no) and training in disaster management (number of days) also play significant roles, highlighting the need for education and awareness campaigns. Even while annual income (X3) does not directly influence adoption choices, media engagement (yes/no) and organization-provided technical and relief support reveal interesting patterns. Similar findings are also reflected in the studies of Ahmed and Fatema [ 35 ], Piya et al. [ 36 ]. The findings highlight the complexity of adaptation techniques and point to the necessity for specialized support systems and educational initiatives to increase farmers’ adaptability to climate change in Dingapota haor.

5 Discussion

The study sheds light on the evolving climate dynamics, farmers’ knowledge levels, and current adaptation strategies in the Dingapota haor region. Farmers’ reports of an apparent rise in flash floods, changes in rainfall patterns, and an increase in storm frequency are consistent with concerns expressed in earlier research [ 5 , 25 , 26 ]. This highlights how urgent it is to comprehend and deal with how climate change is affecting the region’s agriculture.

Farmers demonstrate commendable proficiency in adapting to their flood-prone environment through practices like floating agriculture and crop diversification. However, knowledge gaps persist, particularly in advanced technologies such as GIS and crop insurance. The results emphasize how crucial it is to implement focused education and awareness campaigns that target the most vulnerable groups in order to increase resilience against the risks associated with climate change. This aligns with prior studies emphasizing the pivotal role of education in fostering adaptive capacity [ 3 , 5 ].

The analysis of current adaptation strategies reveals a mix of effective and less successful practices. Changes in planting and harvesting dates, along with crop rotation, emerge as highly efficient strategies, likely adapted in response to changing weather patterns. The less effective strategies, on the other hand, including moving quickly to a city and getting agricultural credits, point to possible implementation issues or resource limitations. This calls for further exploration of these barriers and the development of context-specific approaches to bolster farmers’ adaptability. Similar forms of adaptation measures were also discovered by other researchers in their investigations [ 2 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 ].

The identified factors influencing farmers’ adaptation decisions provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners. Higher education levels and larger farm sizes positively impact adaptability, emphasizing the role of knowledge and resources. Practical knowledge gained through agricultural farming experience significantly influences farmers’ adaptive choices, aligning with previous research highlighting the importance of experiential learning [ 27 , 31 , 34 ].

Access to information and training in disaster management emerge as crucial factors, emphasizing the need for targeted education campaigns. The study reveals the intricate nature of adaptation techniques, showcasing the importance of specialized support systems and educational initiatives tailored to the unique context of Dingapota haor. These findings contribute to the broader understanding of climate change adaptation strategies in agricultural communities and provide a basis for informed policy interventions to enhance resilience in the face of evolving climatic conditions.

6 Conclusion

Farmers’ knowledge on crop diversification, floating agriculture, consequences of climate change and reasons behind climate change provides an idea that they have gained some good amount of knowledge regarding the climate change issues. Again, the current practices of strategies like altering the planting and harvesting dates, changing cropping pattern, crop rotation and crop diversification shows that farmers of the study area are quite aware of combating the adverse effect of climate change. However, issues like crop insurance are still very unfamiliar in Bangladesh, which seems to be an effective tool in the climate change scenario. The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) can take initiative to disseminate the information regarding crop insurance to farmers and create sufficient linkage of the farmers with the insurance company. Furthermore, access to information and training on disaster management could play a significant role in adoption of the discussed strategies. So, proper facilities need to be provided to make sure farmers of climate vulnerable areas are having the proper access to information regarding weather and climatic events and it can be very obviously said that ensuring proper disaster management training could play a significant role in coping with climate change in the context of Bangladesh.

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request.

Haque MA, Moniruzzaman SM, Hossain MF, Alam MA. Assessment of climate change risks and adaptation of improved farming practices in Dekhar Haor of Sunamganj district. Bangladesh J Agric. 2022;47(1):39–65.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tripathi A, Mishra AK. Knowledge and passive adaptation to climate change: an example from Indian farmers. Clim Risk Manag. 2017;16:195–207.

Ferdushi KF, Ismail MT, Kamil AA. Perceptions, knowledge and adaptation about climate change: a study on farmers of Haor areas after a flash flood in Bangladesh. Climate. 2019;7(7):85.

BBS. Statistical year book of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh; 2020.

Fahim TC, Sikder BB. Exploring farmers’ perception of climate-induced events and adaptation practices to protect crop production and livestock farming in the Haor area of north-eastern Bangladesh. Theor Appl Climatol. 2022;148(1–2):441–54.

Islam MN, AtiqulHaq SM, Ahmed KJ, Best J. How do vulnerable people in Bangladesh experience environmental stress from sedimentation in the haor wetlands? An exploratory study. Water Resour Res. 2022;58(7): e2021WR030241.

Ma s ter plan of haor area. Ministry of water resources, Govt. of people Republic of Bangladesh, vol. II, main report. 2012.

Alamgir MS, Furuya J, Kobayashi S, Mostafiz RB, Ahmed MR. Farm income, inequality, and poverty among farm families of a flood-prone area in Bangladesh: climate change vulnerability assessment. Geo J. 2021;86:2861–85.

Google Scholar  

Leya RS, Saha D, Bala SK, Huq H. Gender vulnerability assessment due to flood in northern part of Bangladesh (a case study on 2017 flood). In: Water, flood management and water security under a changing climate: proceedings from the 7th international conference on water and flood management. Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 235–49.

Hoq MS, Raha SK, Hossain MI. Livelihood vulnerability to flood hazard: understanding from the flood-prone Haor ecosystem of Bangladesh. Environ Manag. 2021;67:532–52.

Marie M, Yirga F, Haile M, Tquabo F. Farmers’ choices and factors affecting adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: evidence from northwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2020;6(4): e03867.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Muzamhindo N, Mtabheni S, Jiri O, Mwakiwa E, Hanyani-Mlambo B. Factors influencing smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and variability in Chiredzi district of Zimbabwe. J Econ Sustain Dev. 2015;6(9):1–9.

Uddin MN, Bokelmann W, Dunn ES. Determinants of farmers’ perception of climate change: a case study from the coastal region of Bangladesh. Am J Clim Change. 2017;6(1):151–65.

Sufian MA, Kunda M, Islam MJ, Haque ATU, Pandit D. Socioeconomic conditions of fishermen of Dekar Haor in Sunamganj. J Sylhet Agril Univ. 2017;4(1):99–107.

Banerjee L. Effect of flood on agricultural wages in Bangladesh: an empirical analysis. World Dev. 2007;35(11):1989–2009.

Dasgupta S, Huq M, Khan ZH, Ahmed MMZ, Mukherjee N, Khan M, Pandey KD. Vulnerability of Bangladesh to cyclones in a changing climate: potential damages and adaptation cost. World Bank Policy research working paper (5280). 2010.

Islam A, Hossain MS, Hossain Z. Impacts of climate change on fishers’ livelihood in Kishoregonj haor region, Bangladesh. Asian J Med Biol Res. 2020;6(3):408–17. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v6i3.49788 .

Abedin J, Khatun H. Impacts of flash flood on livelihood and adaptation strategies of the haor inhabitants: a study in Tanguar haor of Sunamganj, Bangladesh. Dhaka Univ J Earth Environ Sci. 2019;8(1):41–51.

Anik SI, Khan MASA. Climate change adaptation through local knowledge in the north eastern region of Bangladesh. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2012;17:879–96.

Rahaman MM, Sajib KI, Alam I. Impacts of climate change on the livelihoods of the people in Tanguar Haor, Bangladesh. J Water Resour Eng Manag. 2019;3(1):1–9.

Baishakhy SD, Islam MA, Kamruzzaman M. Overcoming barriers to adapt rice farming to recurring flash floods in haor wetlands of Bangladesh. Heliyon. 2023;9(3): e14011.

Islam MM, Sarker UK, Monira S, Kheya SA, Kaysar MS, Ali MI, et al. Farmers’ understanding about impact of climate change on cropping systems and nutrition: a study on Dingaputa Haor of Netrokona district in Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2023;15(16):12378.

Kamruzzaman M, Shaw R. Flood and sustainable agriculture in the Haor basin of Bangladesh: a review paper. Univers J Agric Res. 2018;6(1):40–9.

Uddin MN. An analysis of farmers’ perception and adaptation strategies of climate change in Bangladesh. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2012.

Mamun AA, Roy S, Islam ARMT, Alam GM, Alam E, Chandra Pal S, Sattar MA, Mallick J. Smallholder farmers’ perceived climate-related risk, impact, and their choices of sustainable adaptation strategies. Sustainability. 2021;13(21):11922.

Alam GM, Alam K, Mushtaq S. Climate change perceptions and local adaptation strategies of hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Clim Risk Manag. 2017;17:52–63.

Tasnim Z, Saha SM, Hossain ME, Khan MA. Perception of and adaptation to climate change: the case of wheat farmers in northwest Bangladesh. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(12):32839–53.

Nor Diana MI, Zulkepli NA, Siwar C, Zainol MR. Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2022;14(6):3639.

Islam SM, Naher N, Roy N, Mahmud MK, Hossain MD, Modak S. Agricultural adaptation options against adverse effect of climate change in Shyamnagar Upazila in the Satkhira district, Bangladesh. Asian J Res Agric For. 2019;2(3):1–12.

Ahmed Z, Guha GS, Shew AM, Alam GM. Climate change risk perceptions and agricultural adaptation strategies in vulnerable riverine char islands of Bangladesh. Land Use Policy. 2021;103: 105295.

Kabir A, Amin MN, Roy K, Hossain MS. Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies in the coastal zone of Bangladesh: implications for adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2021;26(7):30.

Islam ARMT, Shill BK, Salam R, Siddik MNA, Patwary MA. Insight into farmers’ agricultural adaptive strategy to climate change in northern Bangladesh. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23:2439–64.

Ndamani F, Watanabe T. Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change: a micro level analysis in Ghana. Scientia Agricola. 2016;73:201–8.

Padhan N, Madheswaran S. Effectiveness of post-disaster coping strategies among the farming households in the coastal districts of Odisha, India. Nat Hazards Res. 2023;3(1):66–75.

Ahmed S, Fatema N. Factors and practices: farmers’ adaptation to climate change in Bangladesh. J Water Clim Change. 2023;14(1):123–41.

Piya L, Maharjan KL, Joshi NP. Determinants of adaptation practices to climate change by Chepang households in the rural Mid-Hills of Nepal. Reg Environ Change. 2013;13:437–47.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Rural Sociology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymenisngh, Bangladesh

Md. Shajahan Kabir

Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymenisngh, Bangladesh

Santa Islam & Bristy Banik

Bangladesh Institute of Professional Management, Mymenisngh, Bangladesh

Rahima Akther

Department of Agricultural Extension Education, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymenisngh, Bangladesh

Saifur Rahman

Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Nazmus Sayadat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Md. Shajahan Kabir: the main idea of the study, Directing the whole research; Rahima Akter: prepared the questionnaire and data collection plan; Santa Islam: data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation; Saifur Rahman: data collection, manuscript preparation; Nazmus Sayadat: data collection; Beisty Banik: manuscript preparation. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saifur Rahman .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Due to the absence of an institutional ethical board for approving social science research, there was no opportunity to apply for Research Ethics Board (REB) approval. However, the researchers carefully ensured that there were no ethical issues. Each participant was informed about the objective of the study and informed consent was taken from them each of them.

Competing interests

The authors disclosed no possible conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kabir, M.S., Akther, R., Islam, S. et al. Climate change dynamics and adaptation strategies: insights from Dingapota Haor farmers in Bangladesh. Discov Agric 2 , 22 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00027-0

Download citation

Received : 18 November 2023

Accepted : 01 April 2024

Published : 06 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00027-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Climate change
• Adaptation Strategy Index (ASI)

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research