Today it has become a common feature to link everything with climate change. Adaptation, basically is a long evolutionary process to cope with the environment. Specifically for climate related adaptation, the proxies of climate has to be identified, their effect has to be monitored  and finally the adaptation can be justified.

Farmers are always adapting, modifying, trying new varieties etc. Some of these are responses to weather/climate and some are not. 

Each case is site-specific and needs to be evaluated - e.g. by asking farmers themselves. I would suspect that in most cases, late sowing is a response to weather conditions, which could be linked to climate change or just part of normal variation.

Frequently rainfall will be a major criterion and it's extremely difficult to link this to climate change, there are some indications that rainfall is changing in some/many localities, but finding statistically significant data is extremely difficult.

Is it safe to assume that any adaptation is primarly in response to and an attempt to cope with environmntal change (if we exclude socio-political changes or changes induced by land use patterms such as defiorestation, overgrazing  and mismanagement of rangelands)? Does it then follow that any non-anthropogenic environmental change is in essence a manifestation of climatic /weather patterns? If so then it is safe to argue that all adapatation to environmntal change is adapatation to climate change and can only be distinguished from adaptation to direct antropogenic effects on land through land use patterns which is not mediated by effect on the climatic forcing. This will then become circular if we assume climate change to be huma induced, but as long as the local enviromenatl change results from a global/regional climatic patterns (natural or human induced) we have to classify it as adaptation to climatic change. When the adaptation is to local habitat loss, local deforestation directly resulting from human effects on the local scale (without being mediated by climatic change), then it can be divorced from adaptation to climate change.    

I am not sure if there were any specific traits were identified in the past that respond to climate change per se. Based on generic G×E interactions certain traits were labelled as adaptive traits. Long term observations have also indicated changes in plant phenology as well as phenotype. I am also not sure if there have been any studies have been carried out if such changes in phenology and phenotype were a normal product of plant evolution or due to climate change. If we look at the crop plant species, most of the present traits have evolved under minimal stress conditions – under farmers’ care and hence they may be more susceptible to climate change as some of the recent studies have shown. Resilience of some of these traits under changing climatic conditions, may lead to better adaptation for the changed conditions.

I think the question is more specifically directed to human adaptive strategies as opposed to speciation, phenotypic or genetic traits in species.

Thank you Dears all. 

In climate change literature, every adaptation is attributed to climate change and non-climatic factors are ignored. My research is focusing on diagnosing that wrong attributions. How can we identify the adaptation strategies which are purely response to climate change? For example late sowing, always attributed to changing climate, may be, in my opinion, a response to crop intensification and not CC. In my opinion this wrong attribution comes from the wrong method of survey wherein the farmers are, at the very onset, asked "do you perceive climate change? inducing them every strategy to be attributed to climate changing. I'm designing a small survey (kind of pilot study) on the issue discussed above. How can I do it in a better way? Having your opinion on this will be a great help.

 @TOWE. Thank you. I'm aware of this error and my prime interest is in identifying the adaptations which are not a response to climate change or weather variability but to non-climatic factors such as the one mentioned earlier "late sowing". 

Adaptation (to some impact) is not only linked to the cause(s) of impacts, but also to the sector (agriculture vs. commerce vs. industry..etc)., as well as to the geo-environment (e.g. coastal vs. inland with whatever ecosystems there are), & of course, to socio-economic character. Therefore, certainly, there are different adaptations with different situations.... over & above climate. 

Intentionality... ie whether they are consciously contemplating potential climate change impacts (eg. 50 years out), monitoring, asking questions, thinking, trying... ?

the farmers are, at the very onset, asked "do you perceive climate change? You should not ask farmers leading questions like that initially.

In our work, we simply ask them 'what are your main farming problems?' You then analyse the results and can start to group them into weather/climate related and other factors.

Sometimes we have found it's quite clear that farmers are experiencing increased difficulties, which on subsequent questioning they attribute to climate change. By consulting the meteorological record (if it exists) you can see if the data supports their beliefs.

Thank you Peter, Exactly that I'm doing. I'm going one step ahead. At first stage I ask them simply what are "farming" problems and how do you adjust them? and then once all the information is collected on yields, decline in yield (if any) and the reasons for decline and the step to taken to tackle that decline in yield... 

I ask them, at the end of questionnaire, that how do they perceive climate change and how the climate is affecting agriculture and what steps (adaptations) the are taking to combat it. Finally I compare the responses under two different scenario to diagnose the wrong attributions. 

Sajid,

I agree with most answers, farming systems are dynamic constantly adapting to a wide range of stressors, climate being just one of them, and therefore hard to isolate. I would say avoiding directing the question towards climate is surely a safer way to grasp if indeed farmers do spot climate as a major stressor. Finally, a lot needs to be done on understanding perception of climate change in order to project adaptation strategies. One problem however appears when trying to compare observed climate data with climate perception, since there is often a time lag between the two, or other factors may (or may not) affect perception. Hence, an interesting approach would be to find out how perception of CC changes due to a number of variables other than CC.  

Sajid, we tried this in Pakistan, but clearly climate change had little effect according to our sample of respondents. I would be interested in reading what you find. Which region of Pakistan are you working in?

Henri  

Dear Dr. Henri,

Thank you for the response. Currently, as pilot, I'm doing it in four districts of Pakistan (two from Sindh, two from Punajb). My point is exactly on asking on perceptions in surveys at the very beginning of interview. I think when we ask a farmer "do you perceive any change in temp., precipitation over the last 10 or 20 years" at the very beginning of the interview, it biases the response for the subsequent questions on agricultural; practices. For example I have come across almost all surveys asking, having completed the perception section at the very beginning,

"is reduction in yield due to i)increase in temperature, ii) Increase/decrease in precipitation iii) erratic patterns of precipitation... etc.

In this we are limiting the response biased towards attribution to climate change two fold. Firstly already inducing/probing the climate change as major responsible and secondly by highlighting the options straightway linking to climate change. 

Positive time preferences, though applied in economics (inter-temporal substitution) in some other way (current consumption preferred over future consumption), may explain somewhat bias here as people attribute to the causes discussed pretty earlier before taking their response. 

In my opinion, the results may vary (in attribution of outcomes and adaptation to climate change) if we first simply ask "what do you think is the reason for reduction in yield (if any)?"..."how do you deal this decline (adaptation strategy)?"... and even we don't ask/use the word "climate change". once the information on agriculture practices is finished. At the end of the interview (agricultural section), we can have information on perceptions regarding climate change. This will give a fair ground for comparison of what actually was wrongly attributed to climate change. your expert opinion is requested.

Note: The ideal way is though to run an experiment where in the same farmer is interviewed twice with a break of almost two weeks with out linking the two interviews i.e first interview with no information on climate change, and second interview on climate change perception asked at very beginning of interview (traditional style) but resources unavailability is limiting me opting this experiment. Also the option is Randomized Controlled trail wherein the two group of farmers are interviewed at the same point of time in which treatment group is not asked any information on climate change while the control group is asked on climate change (homogeneous in all other aspects). Rest of the information on agricultural practices remain same for both the groups

Dear Sajid, 

You are right, the best is to avoid mentioning climate change, and see if CC appears in the respondents' answers. Sometimes, some qualitative analyses can do the trick, especially discussing with elders the level of change in general. The RCT can be logistically difficult to implement and costly. Henri

Key question: Is it a response to changes in temperature and/or precipitation regime which are clearly (statistically) linked to climate change or anticipation of climate change?  Farmers make incremental adjustments to their practices and varieties cultivated all of the time to enhance yeilds.  Given that much of the aberrant weather can not be statistically attributed to climate change, I tread carefully as to whether I attribute a change in practice to climate change. 

In Maine USA (north temperate climate), there is a clear link between length of growth season and climate change.  Hence, I am willing to attribute earlier planting to begin an adaptation to climate change.  Historically, Maine has had little irrigation but it use has increased in the last five years.  Why?  Farmers see it as a hedge in dry year.  It assures a given level of production.  Is it climate change adaptation? Probably not.  However, we might look back 20 to 50 years from now and be able to say, yes actually, it was a nascent effort at climate change adaption.

@Andrew A. Whitman..Thank you.

Absolutely right you are Henri. 

• In my opinion; the climate change adaption practiced or written or find out from the research is like to add more  load to a donkey!  We experts are exaggerating the things and pressurize farmers or digging answers them as Are you feeling increasing temperature increases past few years? Farmers says yes some how feeling increasing; Than experts pressurize them ya you are harvesting crops late or early? it is? then farmer is not clear; he forget past years history that he harvest crops as their convenient and tell them yes may be? Then expert rise this question oh we record data from farmers off course! this is climate friendly adaptation.....

Now the question is not for adaptation. It depends on your research and quality of data. It is crude research, experimental and severe areas of study. Thus the fact depends on your research, study area, length of research as well as instrumentation.

Thank you

Dear Sajid,

There is some literature dealing with what is called the "adaptation deficit" which represents the lack of adaptive capacity to current climate variability, without considering climate change. See for example Burton et al. (2004). In fact this author believes that without a successful adaptation to current climate, it would not be possible to implement an effective adaptation to climate change.

Parry et al. (2009) have linked this adaptation deficit to a "development deficit" in their study for UNFCCC on the costs of adaptation to climate change.

I hope you find this info useful.

Elisa

References:

• Burton, I., 2004. Climate Change and the Adaptation Deficit. Environment Canada.
• Parry, M., Arnell, N., Berry, P., Dodman, D., Fankhauser, S., Hope, C., Kovats, S., Nicholls, R., Satterthwhite, D., Tiffin, R., Wheeler, T., 2009. Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates. International Institute for Environment and Development and Grantham Institute for Climate Change, London.

Hello

I suggest a methodological two folded approach. Firstly, try to scope the study, defining the region, area. Then, get data about temperatures and precipitation records for the last 30 years or more. Analyse such data under statistical criteria. Secondly, try to get sensitive data from farmers, as you have suggested, and compare results from the first step of the research with the sensitive analysis. I also suggest to include farmers from different generations (ages), so you will likely find diverse perceptions. Climate change have both physical aspects (linked to natural environment), but has also a contextual aspect (historic), which depends on the evolvement of generations perceptions about temperature and waether conditions patterns along time (see Mike Hulme study, University of East Anglia, called "Why we disagree about climate change?")

Thank you Elisa and Claudia. Yeah I'm following the same approach. I have already collected the 40 years historical data on  temperature, precipitations and the crop yields (average per hectare). I shall be collecting household farm level data in august and then will complete the analysis. Thank you both for referring some very useful studies. 

In agreement I'm with you Kenneth. 

Sajid 

Hi Sajid,

Have you had a look at any of the Palanpur behavioural economics literature? Kind of a classic micro-economics case but it is always the first thing that comes to mind for me with sowing dilemmas. Here, there is a large advantage to sowing early, but if you sow before the other farmers the birds eat your seeds and you lose the crop. So a coordination problem. Maybe a red herring, but maybe also an alternative explanation of why, in this one instance, farmers have adapted to sow late...   

The coordination problems section of this text has a brief intro to the issue. http://www.coreeconomics.org/course_pilots_microeconomics

Hope it helps!

David

Nice alternative idea. Thank you David. I have been teaching Behavioral and Experimental economics for quite a long time. 

Sajid

It could be a chore to differentiate the different factors causing change, especially since many of these factors would be interrelated to Climate Change, which influences life across such a broad scale. This would have to be a meticulously designed experiment.

Hello Sajid,

You have a good set of answers here. My two cents: I agree with Downer that it may be necessary to identify the different factors influencing climate, then assess to what extent it is a matter of variability or of change. I would suggest seeking information on atmospheric sciences research done for your region. That way you can have reference points. (But... this question is specialized question for a climate scientist to discern, and it is not my area. I study social science. I think journals like Climatic Science have published work on regional climate analysis. ) You could use regional climate research to put the data you have gathered in context, and then carry out the economic analysis. Maybe relying on their work could help you better assess which factors are influencing which decisions. 

It seems that you have a variety of local data sources. Generally, studies in atmospheric sciences  deal with coarser data sets, gathered for relatively large regions or nations. It seems you are gathering primary, farm-level data, that has not been collected before. This could be a very important addition to regional research, of data that is difficult to collect and can add a missing aspect to studies of your region.

Good luck!

Myriam

Kenneth - when it comes to climate change, you shouldn't arbitrarily pick a shorter period to look for trends. With 1998 you are deliberately picking a warm El Nino year; this is what denialists do. The standard period is 30 years. If you do that for the US, all parts have warmed over that period.

Thank you, Mryiam, Kenneth & Peter. Yeah Peter you are right. On climate change trends, I'm using data for more than 50 years. Kenneth, I'm using observed station level data on precipitation and temperature to undertake comparative analysis across climatic zones and cropping patterns. 

Sajid Amin

In my experience, it is difficult to find the directional changes in climatic factors. These are becoming erratic than before and experienced of frequent extreme events as direct effect of climate change. So finding direction for adaptation is difficult sometimes: depending upon location and time, we may need drought tolerant or flood tolerant varieties of rice because both (drought and flooding) are equally likely happen. But one thing is true that farmers should always be alert and strategic to adapt CC. You will not find any complete solution for any crops because of ever changing situation: new pests are emerging and the variety performing better this year may fail in the next year. Agricultural practices which are resource use efficient and viable to up-scaling and have mitigation potentials while contributing to increasing/maintaining production and productivity guide the direction of adaptation. If you are promoting the practices considering these aspects could always be an adaptation.

Thank you Kenneth, good point. 

Shankar,  Thank you.  

Sajid Amin

Prof. Javed,

Dr. Mike Hulme just posted a paper you might find useful. Here is the reference:

Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability. University of Oxford, Oxford, England, United Kingdom

Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 02/1999; 397(6721):688-691. DOI: 10.1038/17789.

Myriam

Well Kenneth, I don't know what this climatological community is that you speak of. Have they published papers about this? 30 years is a standard period in climatology. e.g. NOAA. Perhaps you can link to a recognized authority that has decided to pick 1998?

It just looks very strange to draw such a short line on such a long graph, it cannot be described as a trend. If it is, then so is ocean heat content since 1998, which is a much more reliable indicator of warming.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data 

Kenneth - the latest research suggests that the pause is a myth. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/   there is no credible change point.

 NOAA also uses 30 years https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data 

LAND temperatures are obviously subject to large variation caused by movement of polar and tropical air masses and they only absorb about 3% of excess temperature. SEA temps are a much better indicator of warming trends since they absorb over 90%.

Yes 1998 is a focus of discussion, fostered by the denialist community, which thanks to large contributions from fossil fuel industry has the means to influence the media, which is notoriously biased  in the US.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

1998 is loved by the denier community. Although that community is vanishingly small, funny how one always pops up whenever climate change is discussed.

I live in a part of the world where seasonal weather variations (and hence agricultural production) are strongly affected by El Nino/La Nina (aka ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation). People may argue about temperature variations until the cows come home but one thing that is much less arguable is rainfall statistics. Basic meteorology: when it's wet it's warm, when it's dry it's cooler. The status of ENSO is in turn strongly influenced by the state of the North Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation (IPO) which is basically due to warm water sloshing backwards and forwards across the North Pacific over decadal time scales. Interdecadal rainfall and river flow data in New Zealand match IPO swings quite nicely but in the North Pacific it's much more pronounced. In its current state (since about 2000) the warm water has spent most of its time on the western side, hence we see floods in China, nasty typhoons to the south and droughts in California. This probably also accounts for the observed small decline in average land temperatures in North America, likely due to reduced cloud cover at night. Once the IPO flicks back (sometime in the next 5 - 15 years) watch out - droughts in China are likely to significantly compromise crop production and large quantities of California wash into the sea (in between the heat waves). The role of climate change in all this? Warming ocean temperatures intensify the effect. The arctic is isolated from the IPO by circumpolar winds and being virtually surrounded by land, hence steady ocean warming continues to further reduce sea ice and the Greenland ice cap year after year.

Hi Kenneth

Not sure I see your point. Sure, ENSO's have possibly been going on ever since Antarctica separated from Australia, as has maybe the IPO (can be tracked a little way back with tree ring data). How climate change will affect these phenomena is still up for debate but one thing that is not in dispute is that warmer oceans stimulate a more vigorous water cycle - that's basic meteorology. Also not in dispute is that warming subtropical water allows tropical storms to maintain their intensity and track further. As far as arctic climate is concerned, lets not forget that for the first time in recorded human history the north-west passage is now reliably navigable in summer.

Fossil fuels have undoubtedly powered a great expansion in economic activity in the past 200 years (most of which has been captured by a relatively small proportion of those 7 billion humans) but I suspect the party is coming to an end, as is my contribution to this debate.

Okay Kenneth, since you don't like Real Climate, here's a quote from Kevin Trenberth, of whom you clearly approve: 

Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways. 

[Trenberth, K. E., and J. T. Fasullo (2013), An apparent hiatus in global warming?

Earth’s Future doi:10.1002/2013EF000165]

As Alan Thatcher explains, there are long term oscillations that play out over many years, meaning that cherry-picking short term data from an arbitrary point proves nothing.

Dears All, 

It is wonderful debate on and I acknowledge some very fruitful points emerging.  This debate is on though, but I would like to move to another direction also i.e. exactly what do you think are the adaptation strategies in agriculture which potentially might have explanation other than climate change. Like, in the very beginning, I identified the one namely "Late Sowing"  which can be explained in the context of "multi cropping" . Can you come up with clear example of adaptation strategy(ies) like this? 

Sajid

Wow! So Trenberth hero to zero in one post!

Sad that you take the US media as your guide ...the tail wagging the dog.

What would it have to take for you to change your mind? 

Stop thinking like a reductionist and realise that climate change is better understood in the context of complex adaptive systems.

That is, with all due respect, ask a better question! It will provide less angst.

Cheers.

I can give a couple of examples of the influence of climate change on farming here in New Zealand. In recent years there has been considerable expansion of dairy farming  in the south. The primary driver has been economics (and I suspect with most types of farming that is the case) as the value of sheep farming has fallen dramatically and the value of milk risen. However, without an average 1 degree rise in temperature extending the growing season, the viability of dairying in the far south would be marginal. As it is, the rise is an only average and the area is still subject to periodic winter snow storms and severe inland frosts, the chill increasing feed costs. At the other end of the country summer drought is becoming a more regular occurrence as the subtropical high pressure zone shifts further southwards. In an area called the Waikato where drought has been uncommon in the past, dairy farmers are having to reconsider summer feed strategies - irrigation opportunities are limited and incur a serious capital cost. Simply buying in feed puts a big strain on the bottom line especially in years of low milk payout.

Mussel farming is a significant source of local income in the sheltered inlets of the northern South Island. Sea temperature rise is slowly reducing mussel harvests below viability to the extent that a large export processing plant recently closed due to lack of product. On the positive side, increasing sea temperatures have resulted in summer migration of tropical and subtropical fish down the west coast of the South Island resulting in a boom in sports fishing. But this year that same rise has also resulted in the appearance of facial eczema, a fungal toxicity virtually unique to New Zealand's North Island (producing liver damage and photosensitivity in herbivores) for the first time on the west coast. Dosing animals with zinc compounds prevents the disease, at a cost.

Exactly Kenneth. Time will tell, so statements such as “In the US temperatures are declining” as you wrote earlier, is disingenuous.

Sea temperatures are rising though, steadily, no sign of a decline so it clearly belies your statement that 'the entire direction of climate changed' – would you care to comment on that?

You are too focused on short term land temperatures. If sea temperatures start declining, that would indeed be interesting, but until then, it’s best to prepare farmers for the sort of chaotic climate that increasingly we are seeing in the US and elsewhere.

Dear, Alan, That,s really nice example. A reduction in livestock is not  a response to changing climate rather is an outcome of increasing feeding costs (inflation which primarily may emerge from excess money supply or excess demand in goods market). Thank you! 

Important:

Dears all I'm designing the instrument for the survey to capture the wrong attribution of adaptation strategies to climate change (as discussed in my earlier posts above). Most of the surveys ask:

QS (Question asked in common surveys)

• What was the yield of (crop name) in last harvest? (above average, average, below average 
• What are the reasons for low yield? ( a list provided clearly marking also the climate  variable at very first in the list)
• What are the adaptation strategies you adapt? (tick from the list) and then these strategies are termed as adaptation to climate change.
• The attribution even becomes stronger as at the very onset of the interview, the farmer had already been probed on perceptions on climate change so inducing a response/attribution bias towards climate change. 

In my opinion, our responses are more sensitive to the most recent events so I first ask the question for the yield in the last 20 years yield (on average).

QM (question asked in My survey)

what was wheat  yield over last 20 years (above average, average,, below average)

What is the reason you think for below average yield" (give three major reasons).

And then they are asked about the adaptation strategy they adopted. (the list of strategies is marked)

Then I ask QS. But most important is the fact that contrary to the current methods in surveys on climate change, I did not speak the word "climate change, temperature, perceptions etc" so far and the farmer is not probed on it. Till the point of time answering these questions, farmer is not let to know that we are surveying the impact of or adaptation to climate change

Once the response are marked for QS, QM, then I introduce the perceptions on climate change and ask the farmers their strategies to deal the impact of climate change on agriculture (say QCP=Question probing former for climate change). 

So this gives me a framework of analysis comparing the response (and identified adaptation strategies) in the context of positive time preferences impact, and the probing impact (QS and QMM) with long  term response not probed for climate change (QCP). This way, I think, I will be able to analyse the wrong attribution. Another filter for comparison is the "perceptions" and "adaptation". For further analysis the response of farmers will be matched with actual observed data in climate change over the time. 

I'm looking forward for suggestions and comments for improvement as will be going into filed in August for survey. 

Thank you for your invaluable comments and response already available. 

sajid

Okay, final comments to Kenneth

Focusing on land because you live there is short-sighted. A bit like saying you live in the city so are not concerned about the countryside. Sea temperatures are of course a key influence on land climates, and the FACT that they are rising continuously and show no signs of a pause, and the FACT that sea levels are rising continuously and the FACT that the sea is becoming ever more acidic, should be enough to conclude that urgent action is needed. It’s much better to assume there is a problem and take action than to pretend it’s not happening.

It’s a bit alarming that you have twice referred to the same hundred year old paper, but ironic that Hildebrandsson was one of the first to recognize teleconnections, where the sea plays a key role.

Sajid,

Apologies for the diversions away from your topic.

It’s actually quite tricky to ask about a long period of time – wheat yields will have fluctuated and over 20 years due to a number of factors.

A lot depends on facilities and education level of farmers. Ideally if you have a group in a classroom situation you could get them to draw timelines of things like yield over 20 years. A long sheet of paper can be filled in with key events and they can write/draw in a lot of information.

Also, a horizontal line with a negative sign at one end (or an unhappy face) and a positive sign at the other (or smiley face) can be a good way to quantify reponses of a lot of people – they simply make a mark along the line that accords with their views. You can then quantify the responses.

If you are in the open with illiterate farmers, that’s much more difficult. Some farmers are put off by city folk with clipboards. So it would be good to know what sort of farmers you are dealing with. If this is the first time you are trying this, it is likely that you will need to try out different approaches first to see what works and then plan a final version.

Always give them time to hear them out, they will often get animated and it’s a great opportunity to get more information about what’s on their mind – take someone who is good at remembering or writing down what they say.

Thank you Peter. I'm enjoying the ongoing discussion between Kenneth and you. You are right, sea temperatures must be taken care of while looking into future.  

Coming back to my survey, I'm mostly with the farmers with lower/poor education levels; a vast majority of them is illiterate. On you suggestion listing and recording: Ye I'll be having focus group discussions with term and all shall be recorded on tape. 

Regarding your comment on 20 years as the reference period, it can be tried up to 10 years. The objective here is to capture the difference in response based on long run and short run (as explained in previous post). Off-course before finalization, I'll go for pretesting of the questionnaire. I'm open if any one could suggest some better modes and  methods to do the job.

Thank you!

sajid

what is best structure for community questionnaires on resilience?

Its gets confusing. We don't have a precise estimate of climate change impacts or futures, so we are limited in our ability to identify with any precision a strategy or practice which is solely aimed at tackling climate change. Moreover, the process of management of managed ecosystems (forestry and farming) is a process of optimization, managing synergies and tradeoffs. In theses setting one almost never goes "all in" for a single strategy or practice. Hence, there is a lot of overlap between thinking about resilience planning and climate change adaptation but they are not one and same.

This will be accomplished by comprehending climate change adaptation; by doing so, we will be able to distinguish climate change adaptations from non-climate change adaptations. Based on the question: I adapt to what? I propose an "anatomy of adaptation" to systematically specify and differentiate adaptations and taking into account non-climate forces and conditions (Stimuli).

The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, for example, specifies an anticipatory transformational adaptation (Environment Agency, 2009). Since 1984, the city of London and its surrounding suburbs have been protected from flooding, high tides, and storm surges in what is considered a model of current flood adaptation.

Examples:

Since 1984, the city of London and its surrounding suburbs have been protected from flooding, high tides, and storm surges on the Thames River estuary by an engineered barrier at Woolwich that can be raised or lowered.

Communities have a habit of felling trees in order to sell firewood to city dwellers, and this has become a significant source of income for them. In an ironic twist, this has resulted in deforestation. A shift away from traditional biomass and toward other energy sources, including more sustainable wood supply chains, would reduce forest pressure.

Here are some cases that we have developed, oriented on that topic:

Article Adaptation to climate change in indigenous food systems of t...

Article Analysis of climate types: Main strategies for sustainable d...

Global Warming is truly alarming and is a threat to nearly all life on Earth, perhaps ALL life on Earth. to treat this subject lightly or assign it a bottom priority is extremely foolish and really criminal. I consider it a Sin