|by Mareen E. Hofmann|
Identifying and characterising different types of studies, depending on the aspect of CCIVA investigated by the study, was one important outcome of this work. The types of studies are: change observation, impact attribution, impact projection, vulnerability indication, adaptation options assessment, adaptation practice description, risk communication, risk perception assessment, and scenario development. Each type of study usually applied certain methods and tools. Across all sectors, the impact attributions and impact projections were by far the most often found types.
There are, however, sectoral differences. In the health sector, the impact attribution is most common and projections of impacts are rarely found, whereas impact projections are dominant in the agriculture and fisheries sector as well as in the water resources sector. The studies furthermore showed that the kind of research questions addressed differed between the types of studies applied. For example, impact projection studies in the agriculture and fisheries sector were mostly concerned with crop production questions. In contrast, studies of type impact attribution mainly investigated the already observable impacts of climate change on coastal and marine ecosystems. Within the sectors, the different aspects of CCIVA addressed by the types of studies are rarely put together to present a comprehensive view.
Further knowledge gaps and research needs that had not been clearly presented in the IPCC Chapter are:
One further interesting observation is that the concepts of vulnerability and adaptive capacity did not play an important role in the studies analysed. In fact, the knowledge on CCIVA generated by the analysed studies can be represented without these concepts. This finding is in line with the linguistic analysis of the different theoretical and operational definitions of these concepts also conducted within ADAM for the development of the general mathematical framework. Thereby it was found that there is little coherence between the theoretical definitions of vulnerability and related concepts and the methodologies that makes these concepts operational. From these two findings we conclude that CCIVA research should not be driven by theoretical definitions of these concepts, but rather by a clear definition of the subject matter and the research question analysed.
© 2009 ADAM, Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European climate policy