I see a lot of interest and desire to adapt and some good examples of adaption in BC. Barriers may be institutional - no framework to facilitate change (status quo protected, penalized if try something new), limited funding to implement studies, or not enough information about the current situation. A good example for us of the last barrier would be water use from small streams and from groundwater. Thus adapting for the future is difficult if you don't know where you are now. Also, need to convey information from research in a form that people can use. Managers look at the world in a different way than researchers. Finally, it may be sufficient at present to get people to at least think about adapting to climate change in their planning. Not every management decision has long-term implications. 

For me when it come to climate change adaptation bringing  local knowledge, adaptation strategies  on board  to policies formulation and implementation is very very important. Recently experiences had shows that without matching practicality to adaptation all the plan campaigns, cops  will ever achieve their aims. Should start looking in forward by by making this plan, policies and implementation very local.  

I believe that all of the above you mentioned answer to the most of the way of the research . the magnitude of each event, policy or reform etc.is the problem. how can we consider scalable growth(in some countries)  and at the same time investigate possible manifestations to be ordered around growth when our specie is not informed and willing to make the right thing at a local level be it sustainable or sthng else, if we do not  find out that  is better to save than to destroy the landscape and all of its content. I believe that the paradigm shift involves transdisciplinarity to those that are eligible and to the rest aid to be developed as science is a key component for development and judicious research.

My biggest concern with climate change adaptation is that we need to more fully assess the short term as well as long term implications of adaptation strategies. For example, discussions of head-starting species scare me because we could be creating invasive species that in the short term cause problems with continued maintenance of native species while at the same time setting the stage for a particular species to be more successful than others simply because we head-start it. We could be "engineering" ecosystems by our actions. The cost and practicality of many adaptation strategies is also a major issue. There is a finite amount of money for conservation and we could either squander it or use it wisely. Finally, I have great faith in establishing protected corridors that facilitate dispersal and allow species to flow naturally across the landscape as change dictates.

This is actually a follow up question. i  will be conducting a research on the topic '' cost benefit analysis of selected measures of climate change adaptation in Northern Ghana''. selected measures includes Soil and Water Conservation and soil fertility, Erosion control measures where adapted, Compost production and application, establishment of community tree nurseries to produce trees for Agroforestry and afforestation, including the establishment of the trees.

I am still looking at the right methodology for this research and also some literature to guide me as well.

Stewart, excellent question as it comes now that UNFCCC state parties are working towards a binding agreement. Perhaps the answer lies in linking what happens at UNFCCC cops to work is happining nationally and locally. Community-based adaptation would therefore offer the framework of bringing together what happens or discussions at the different policy domains. Our negotiators need to be as practical as possible as the negotiate a binding agreement foreseable end 2015.

I am very interested in expression my opinion about the question of the best way for research to enable the implementation of climate change adaptation plans. To begin with, it is important to identify the specific level(s) of implementation of the adaptation plan.

First, any adaptation plan must be informed by research.

There are several levels to consider. For example, individual, household, community, district, firm (plant or company), institutional, national, sub-regional, regional, and global (international).

At the same time, the need to create or raise public awareness of climate change adaptation issues is itself a very crucial factor in soliciting public interest on the research problem or subject. Public awareness is a vital incentive for actions.

This awareness may develop during the study design which takes into consideration participatory methods or approaches. The ultimate objective of the research should be to inform the current climate change policy, if any, or to inform climate change adaptation policy development and dissemination.

It is also possible that an adaptation plan may be implemented at a community level a research pilot project which can be replicated successfully in other communities or elsewhere for similar objectives.

I think, an adaptation plan at any level begins with research whose findings (results) are presented, discussed, reviewed, and adopted for implementation. There are also national guidelines that should be well consulted.

Implementation process is normally overseen by a committee or committees approved by the relevant authorities or target beneficiaries. For example, if the research is being done to benefit the implementation of a national policy, plan of activities, or plan of actions in any part of the country; it should be consistent with the prescribed national strategies on climate change adaptation for the country.

There are some issues which climate researchers may consider for the success of their work. The design of the study should consider ethics about the multicultural dimensions of most communities.

It is important to create or develop community or public participation in the research outreach process. In this connection, gender equality and women empowerment are of paramount importance.

The research project should highlight the benefits and shortcomings of adaptation plans to the locals. We know that adaptation is a short-term measure which might crumble under the increasing intensity, frequency, and ferocity of the climate change disaster risks.

As such, an adaptation plan is more or less an emergency intervention for either a short-term or medium-term term limits. Adaptation is always defensive in nature.

In this respect, an adaptation research should also examine mitigation issues and options which may apply.

There should be a simultaneous adaptation plan done in tandem with mitigation plan as well. Unlike, adaptation, mitigation is offensive. It tackles the specific root causes of the climate change phenomena.

As stated above, the Levels of implementation should be specific to individuals, households, companies, communities, institutions, districts, national, sub-regional, regional, and global.

Global demands have to do with financing climate research, projects, policies, and other issues such as loss and damage. So, there is a need to link the research with policies, NAPAs, and NAPs, as they should be the research stakeholders.

We climate change researchers are quite aware of the relevance of the social, economic, environment, and political issues attributed to climate change; which the public must clearly know and be familiar with. This means climate change adaptation and mitigation concepts are well clarified to the target community. The issue of language and communication strategy are extremely important in climate adaptation research.

As a result, the media (especially community radio) is a complimentary ally in raising and sustaining awareness on the issue. Awareness leads to interest, which in turn leads to early adoption and widespread diffusion of the new idea (innovation).

Community participation is the key to community ownership of the idea or project, which in this case is, implementation of adaptation plan for the community or the district.

Policy and decision makers, the civil society organisations, community leaders, private sector especially SMEs, UN agencies, regional agencies, governments (local, regional, national, or federal), the media, donors, and OECD are in one way or another, very important partners in any climate change adaptation research.

The research approach and active involvement of the key stakeholders will convince the concerned parties that a viable climate change adaptation implementation plan should be guided by a research data (findngs).

In Chapter six of a book titled ''Managing Natural Resources for Development in Africa'', Prof. Pius Panda, I and other two scientists present policy domains for institutional adaptation to climate change. I am uploading the book for your reading.

I see a lot of interest and desire to adapt and some good examples of adaption in BC. Barriers may be institutional - no framework to facilitate change (status quo protected, penalized if try something new), limited funding to implement studies, or not enough information about the current situation. A good example for us of the last barrier would be water use from small streams and from groundwater. Thus adapting for the future is difficult if you don't know where you are now. Also, need to convey information from research in a form that people can use. Managers look at the world in a different way than researchers. Finally, it may be sufficient at present to get people to at least think about adapting to climate change in their planning. Not every management decision has long-term implications. 

We have found using dynamic adaptive policy pathways approach with decision makers in a flood management context has real traction. They understand it as a way of managing uncertainty and it relates well to staging of the implementation of flood schemes and highlights how other measures like planning regulations can complement their flood management activities. See the method in Haasnoot et al GEC 2013 as applied in the Netherlands and Barnett Nature CC 2014 for an Australian example based on community values.

In Israel I see one main institutional barrier, and that is the government authority that is responsible for nature conservation. Although many researchers indicate that climate change poses a serious threat to all of our country's ecosystems, this authority has not yet formulated any kind of climate change strategy, because it views climate change as a minor threat compared to more immediate and existential threats such as urban development and habitat loss.

I would think there is need for a strategy that would be linked to national planning and development as the central planning unit. Embedding adaptation plans ino national develoment and planning and ensuring a role for ministries responsible for key thematic areas would push their implementation. This is because what comes from the national unit in charge of planning would be funded by the national treasury. The magic word, I think, is mainstreaming adapation plans. 

Great discussion so far!!!  Thank you very much!!!

One theme that seems to be emerging here is the importance of local scale information, and the challenges of integrating or merging this knowledge with information from global climate change research.  Ultimately, for a climate change adaptation decision to be implemented, there will need to be support for this from the level of governance (or private sector) with a mandate to carry out this decision (local? local-national partnership? resource management board?).  So when 'mainstreaming' is mentioned, I start thinking about process of planning and decision making, and the role of research outcomes in such processes.

I'm curious about how 'mainstreaming' of climate change adaptation within ongoing governance could be enabled.  Judy Lawrence's idea of 'dynamic adaptive policy pathways' sounds interesting.  I read the paper by Barnett et al (2014) on coastal adaptation, with the identification of a sequence of 'triggers' of actions.  When a threshold is reached, this triggers a response.  When a higher threshold is reached, this triggers a larger, longer term response.  This sounds logical for coastal adaptation, where triggers can be easily identified by science/research, in collaboration with local knowledge holders. 

But what about for other issues, such as options for agriculture, forestry, natural areas/parks, marine ecosystems, water resources, etc.?  How could this 'pathways' process enable dialogue on these triggers, and on recommended responses when these triggers are reached? 

Stewart, good question on mainstreaming. For why mainstreaming at strategic planning levels, please see OECD (2009a)(http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/browseit/4309171E.PDF). As regards the tools for mainstreaming climate change adaptation, I would think that 1st you will need to raise awareness for purposes of laying a good foundation (UNDP-UNEP(2011). Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change into Development Planning: A guide for practictioners. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative) and some of the tools I would recommend include inter alia Climate Risk Screening (UNDP, UNEP, UNEP RISO Centre (2011). Climate Risk Screening tools and their application. CC DARE) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for purposes of ensuring that environmental considerations are taken into account EARLY in the policy and planning processes. Stewart, I hope these and other suggestions by colleagues will help.

Dear Stewart , dear ambitious discussing colleagues,

I would like to give my statement with firstly handing over the link to one of my theoretical research, I´m fulfilling now within practical field study application here in Germany:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237007108_Sustaining_Landscapes_-_Landscape_Units_for_Climate_Adaptive_Regional_Planning

Five Pillars have to be acknowledged for Climate Change Adaptation and Implementing AdaptationmDevelopment Plans:

1. The applicability of adaptation plans in planning manners, principles and the diversified formal as well as informal planning procedures and from state to state different organization-procedures and structures on governmental site is one of the five pillars I would suggest to bring forward in the mission of adapting to climate change. Therefore your mentioned local level activities is preferred, including assessment, development missions and for sure monitoring processes and the implementation of global to downscaled regional and local adaptive capacities and aims to climate change. Yes, this level is most important for a successful implementation of adaptation plans (may the plans be in sorts of specific development maps, local management plans, agendas, “road maps” or local administrative declarations). But:

2. For over bridging global as well as local needs and a successful implementation of CC development planning a transferor is needed, which is able to compensate the different detail grades and scales to be worked on. As already confirmed (please go ahead in link sent above), the regional level is stated as being the optimized level for implementing sustainable processes. If I might summarize, that climate adaptation (and also mitigation!!!) is one part of sustainable processing, then I would prefer to take the regional level as being the optimized one for implementing strategies and implementation measures and being best able to down- and up-scale again (and fulfilling the very important countercurrent principle in planning manners) with getting, transferable, transparent datasets (dependent on methodologies) and being applied informations then further on.

3. I mentioned the methodologies as well as planning procedures and principles. In sorts of climate adaptation the by your site – Stewart – stated insecurity factors in CC Adaptation (CCA) should be over bridged within different tools and instruments. Within my planning background and experience I would prefer not to invent new tools and instruments, but to screen existing tools for new CCAdaptation-“being part of the tool”.  because of the different worldwide planning structures on national level and to “adapt” also within these national systems. So for example EIA should be proofed to implement parts of the “Insecurity CCA manners”, but again then to be proofed the legal instances and background on national level. More efficient as you - Thomas T.B. Yatich – stated, is the SEA with already implementing in sorts of precautionary principle in forward and not like with EIA on project level (, which is also important for sure). With all instruments and tools like hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments, climate check (including Mitigation and adaptation, combined view and assessment very important!), climate proof amongst a variety of others already mentioned, the most pending part is the implementation in formal (and or informal) planning structures on each national level , as planning procedures and traditions cannot be neglected, but being proofed in their efficiency.

4. Methodologies applied on landscape scale means to apply in a holistic and sustainable processes inhabiting way. We need to observe CCA possibilities for all pending pillars of sustainability, which means the ecological, economical, social and cultural part. The landscape scale is the optimsed level for implementing all these to be acknowledged parts also perfectly on regional level with the tool of the landscape units (including land use manners).

5. Next to the formal aspects already mentioned in point 3, the informal planning aspects are most pending for a successful implementation of CCA development plans. Within these informal processes, the one outstanding would be to foster participatory processes, networking and data as well as open sourced experience exchange and platforms for boosting the fragile subject of spare timeframing in Adaptation and Mitigation for Climate Change.

So right away I`m in the verifying process on field level, so sorry for not giving a more precise answer. But hopefully it is helping you. Thank you very much also for further comments and statements on your very interesting request, Stewart, thank you very much.

Conference Paper Sustaining Landscapes - Landscape Units for Climate Adaptive...

I believe that the chief problem with implementation of adaptation, at least in forest ecosystems, is that many of the planning tools, publications, frameworks, systems, etc. that are supposed to aid managers in adapting to climate change are nebulous and not sufficiently practical.  A strategy should provide a clear path to a management plan without being too complex and getting into the paralysis of analysis and uncertainty.

Compared to mitigation, adaptation demands much more detailed and accurate scientific information. I think that prediction or projection of climate in two to three decades to come should be a priority in local and regional adaptation to climate change and variability. Any adaptation measures and strategies on the local and regional scales would be groundless without the reliable prediction of future climatic conditions. Scientific understanding and advanced prediction technologies for climate change and variability will play a key role in this regard.

I read Sandra's paper on ''Sustaining Landscapes-Landscape units for Climate Adaptive Regional Planning'' and to me I consider her paper as providing the theoretical formation for planning for climate change. She lays the basis for how research can translate into regional planning and therefore presents an innovative approach to new thinking in landscape/regional planning. Currently, adaptation plans follows the traditional planning approach.

Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas Yatich, for this statement in concerns of my paper. As being one of the “parts” of my doctoral research, I`m sure to continue in this field and will try to contribute in the best even a lot of different kind of barriers are there. I also agree to the statement of Mr. Guoyu Ren, that prediction of future climate variabilities on local and regional level is playing a key role next to accurate scientific research implementation on this field level. Another key role for sure is the transferable, simplifying character of research publications etc into best-practice field outcome and implementation. Therefore I recommend, as I am right away practicing after this firstly theoretical framework, to have the theoretical research translated into field studies and applying there with double reconnection to scientific as well as practical (in which background? Forest ecosystems? Regional Planning/ land use manners? Landscape Protection? And all these parts of different perspectives/practitioners interests coupled with climate adaptive planning?) universities, ministerial, national, regional local levels` and other stakeholders interests. Then paralyzing analyzing could be decoded as being the first step to order (sometimes disordered) multivarious next to each other missions (, which is one of the problems being faced while combating global climate change).

Sandra - it seems to me that what you are suggesting is very much aligned with the principles of 'participatory action research' which emphasizes a collaborative and 'collective enquiry' approach to problem-solving. This is, indeed, a valuable element in building the kinds of broad-based legitimacy necessary for fundamental policy change. It is, though, only one piece of the research-to-policy conundrum – progressive solutions to which must also struggle against the formidable challenges presented by myriad vested interests committed to maintaining any given policy status quo.

This, of course, also raises the fundamental ethical questions behind the mitigation/adaptation debate – since adaptation effectively concedes the mitigation ground to those same vested interests by focusing on ex post measures that pose little threat their various enterprises. Perhaps an important tipping point might be achieved, though, if progressively successful adaptation measures grounded in the kinds of participatory action you suggest were able to gradually build a collective awareness of the corollary need for stronger mitigation.

So maybe, in answer to Stewart’s original question regarding the best way for research to enable adaptation, one possible answer is to use participatory research approaches to researching adaptation to build and sustain a collective realization of the need for forceful mitigation.

I agree, more participatory approach is needed, what is missing I think is the dissemination of the research findings to real life solutions on ground. As long as all the concerned parties do not "feel" that it's their problem, the solution is not going to be implemented or even if implemented not going to be effective/ successful. So I think involving the stakeholders in research through to implementation and evaluation is important. Involving political and community leadership in scientific conferences and seminars are important first step. 

I agree Kenneth, that's why engaging "decision makers"in scientific discourse will allow them to have a more global perspective on this issue, and hopefully they will have a "feel" for the problem. Well,not to mention there are geo-political "games" often played...certainly not an easy task.

There is a level of uncertainty in climate projections and downscaling, but we must be proactive in taking adaptive measures regardless the level of uncertainty because the impacts are already seen. implementing the solutions locally, first place to start would be to align all our policies in such a way that they can bring synergistic effects in all sectors. For example, In terms of Ontario, starting from provincial policy statement (PPS) would be a good starting point. Recently Ontario Climate Consortium is trying to collaborate between academia, municipalities and other stakeholders to streamline the efforts in climate change adaptation.

Hi Stewart, I realise that this question is already a few months old, but in case you're still looking for additional information, I'd like to alert you to some relevant long-term research that colleagues of mine at SEI have done on and with the Swedish forestry sector. Various papers are still in preparation but the attached paper by Swartling and Vulturius already gives you an idea of the scope and potential of the work.

In addition, I'd like to point to a paper I recently published with Sirkku Juhola from the University of Helsinki, which identifies five bottlenecks to the use of adaptation research in adaptation practice and policy (also attached). The paper focuses on the Nordic countries but I would think that the bottlenecks are not unique to that region. The paper also presents a framework for actor-oriented adaptation research that is being conducted within the Nordic Centre of Excellence for Strategic Adaptation Research (NORD-STAR).

Article A framework for Nordic actor-oriented climate adaptation research

Article Overcoming social barriers to learning and engagement with c...

Hi Richard:

Thank you so much for your response, and for posting these publications.

The bottlenecks you identify seem to be as much about human relationships, in addition to challenges in science. I like very much the opportunity offered by visualization, decision models and decision games to bring together the climate change adaptation research and stakeholder/practitioner communities.

In Canada, we are seeing professional associations posting information promoting greater engagement of practitioners in climate change adaptation.  Examples include:

Engineers Canada, http://www.engineerscanada.ca/climate-change

Insurance Bureau of Canada, http://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/studies

Association of BC Forest Professionals, http://www.abcfp.ca/practice_development/climate_change/Climate_Change.asp

Canadian Institute of Planners, http://www.cip-icu.ca/Topics-in-Planning/Climate-Change#

Is this happening in other countries?

Hi Stewart, thanks for the interesting links. Yes, in various European countries adaptation action is no longer seen as the exclusive domain of public policy. Examples similar to the ones you show for Canada have emerged in Europe as well, although it's still early days, definitely too early to establish a pattern or understand motivations. In most cases there is still a strong expectation or reliance on public sector initiative, perhaps more so than in Canada.

However, there are surprisingly big differences among European countries in the role governments see for themselves in informing, facilitating, incentivising or initiating adaptation action. If you want to find out more about what's happening over here, I'd encourage you to participate in the second European Climate Change Adaptation conference, in Copenhagen, 12-14 May 2015. See http://www.ecca2015.eu for more information.

http://www.ecca2015.eu

Hi Stewart,

Your question captures come of the conundrums and challenges I'm seeing in my research as well. My focus is on coastal cities and the role that membership in a transnational city network play in that city's adaptation to the hazards of sea-level rise.  An interesting article by Taedong Lee and Susan van de Meene entitled "Who Teaches and Who Learns? Learning Policy through the C40 Cities Climate Network" (attached). They define the policy learning process into three stages and conduct a network analysis to correlate city characteristics and the density of network ties.  For example they found that regional proximity correlated positively to more active engagement between cities seeking information and those that are sources.  This is a bit tangental to your question, but I think the 3-stage learning process may be useful as a theoretical way of understanding why access to information alone does not always/usually lead to policy change.

Excellent string on conversation.

Claudia

Hi Stewart, I think you touched upon an important issue. It seems that envisioning robust climate change adaptation futures as well as developing strategies as robust pathways that could lead to the implementation of these futures is not sufficient. Especially when it comes to local climate change adaptation effort, institutional embeddedness is crucial for follow-up and spin-off.  More info can be found at:  Van der Voorn, T., Quist, J., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Haasnoot, M. In press. Envisioning robust climate change adaptation futures for coastal regions: a comparative evaluation of cases in three continents. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. doi: 10.1007/s11027-015-9686-4

Hi Tom:  Thank you for pointing out the role of institutions in climate change adaptation.  There is an article by Oberlack (2016) in the same journal that is offering a taxonomy of institutional attributes:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-015-9699-z/fulltext.html

Oberlack identifies a number of 'traps' which inhibit institutions from effectively enabling climate change adaptation actions to be implemented (see Figure 3 and Table 4).

The author than suggests some opportunities for addressing institutional barriers (Table 5).  Many of these opportunities relate to team building among participants.  It seems logical that our collective abilities to enable adaptation will depend on knowledge sharing and cooperation among various actors that have a stake in a particular location or activity.  Boundary organizations at the science-policy interface would be helpful. 

Kenneth:  Your statement is inaccurate.

Regarding climate trends, NOAA is reporting that 2015 was the warmest year in the instrumental record, with a mean temperature of +0.90 C above the long term annual average.  2014 was the second warmest in the record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015

So far, in 2016, this trend is continuing.  January- February 2016 recorded a global mean temperature of +1.2 C above the long term average for Jan-Feb.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201601-201602.gif

Arctic Ocean sea ice extent is at a record mid-winter low for the period of satellite record (1979-2016).  The National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported that the winter of 2015-2016 has set a record low for mid-winter Arctic sea ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This is not just a winter phenomena.  Arctic sea ice freeze-up is happening later than average.  This is part of the continuing decline in summer sea ice extent.  September sea ice extent has declined by 13% per decade since 1979. 

As for the 1970s, there was no consensus that the climate was going to cool towards an Ice Age.  Please read the paper by Peterson et al. (2009) published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, entitled "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus":

http://journals.ametsoc.org/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=c0zLelaV0I4LV9iqFGVq33OcZxtIHGaVjIgXENJ1cuc,&dl

A survey of 1965-1979 climate change literature archived in several data bases (AMS, Nature, Journal Storage - JSTOR) identified 44 papers on warming, 20 neutral, and 7 papers on cooling.  A survey of citations received by these papers (through 1983) identified 2,043 citations of the warming papers, 424 neutral, and 325 cooling.  Peterson et al also cited Charney et al (1979) report that was published by the US National Academy of Science.  The Charney report concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored, indicating that a warming of 1.5 C to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 was possible.

Yes, there was a minority in the 1970s that believed in cooling.  But Peterson et al conclude with this:  "Clearly, if a national report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global cooling."

Finally, regarding your statement on sea level rise, concerns are being raised by municipal governments that are already facing this problem.  One of these is New Orleans.  The Mayor is quoted as saying "I know that it's sacrilege to say the words 'climate change' in Louisiana, but you know what? The climate's changing and human actions are contributing to it."

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/03/mayor_landrieu_urges_coastal_a.html#incart_river_home

Whether it's the Mayor of New Orleans, or the representatives of 195 countries that crafted the climate change agreement in Paris last year, it's clear that governments, communities and businesses are taking this issue very seriously.  Mitigation of greenhouse gases will be difficult because carbon-based energy is so widely used around the world.  Fortunately, new technologies and non-carbon based sources of energy are attracting increasing interest from business and governments.  For example, the Globe 2016 exhibition attracted 250 exhibiting companies and delegates from 50 countries:

http://www.globeseries.com/

But adaptation will still be necessary to address climate-related risks.  New Orleans is not the only city raising concerns about how to adapt to sea level rise.  Miami has recently posted its Stormwater Management Master Plan, along with a Regional Climate Action Plan:

http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/green/default.aspx?id=74553

The question that I originally posted was on the process of bringing scientific research into the development and implementation of adaptation plans. 

Decision makers understand that there are uncertainties in climate change projections, but there are also uncertainties in economic and social projections.  To them, this is a question of risk management, which is decision making under conditions of uncertainty.  In that respect, climate change adaptation is no different from other long term planning issues.  However, climate change impacts may be of large magnitude, and cities won't be able to address this on their own.   My hope is that continued efforts at knowledge sharing will enable new adaptation ideas to be created, tested, and implemented.

I think the best way is the linkage that should exist between the research and the needs of the population, so that the institutional and government should support on the action ground. This at least in the local level.