methods for climate decision support 9 change...

9Decision SupportMethods for ClimateChange Adaptation

AdaptationTurning Points

Summary of Methods and Case Study Examplesfrom the MEDIATION Project

• Concerned decision makers increasingly askwhether current management is able to copewith climate change or whether alternativestrategies are needed. They urgently demandtools to assess and communicate theimplications of climate change andopportunities for adaptation.

• The European MEDIATION project hasundertaken a detailed review of methods andtools for adaptation, and has tested them in aseries of case studies. It has assessed theirapplicability for adaptation and analysed howthey consider uncertainty. The findings aresummarised on the MEDIATION AdaptationPlatform and in a set of Policy Briefing Notes.

• The method presented in this Policy BriefingNote focuses on the specific situation whereclimate change induces policy failure andalternative strategies have to be considered. Ifsuch a situation is thinkable, there is animperative to act and climate changebecomes particularly relevant to decisionmakers. We call this situation an ‘adaptationturning point’.

• The assessment of adaptation turning pointstranslates uncertainty about the magnitude ofclimate impacts into a time range over whichit is likely that an unacceptable situationoccurs. This time range can be used to adapt.

• Knowledge on adaptation turning points helpsto combine potential adaptation measuresinto adaptation pathways. Adaptationpathways encourage taking short-termactions to sustain the current system, whilstplanning longer-term adaptation that may berequired in the future.

• Practical experience shows that theassessment of adaptation turning pointsallows for a meaningful dialogue betweenstakeholders and scientists about the amountof change that is acceptable, when conditionscould be reached that are unacceptable ormore favourable, how likely these conditionsare and what adaptation pathways toconsider.

• The main strength of assessing turning pointsfor adaptation is that the approach is highly

policy-orientated, and uses scenarios todelineate uncertainties in time. It is also veryflexible and can consider a range ofobjectives, which encourages discussion onacceptable change and critical values.Weaknesses relate to a potential focus onexisting objectives, rather than newchallenges. In addition, simplicity is lost whenthresholds are less-well defined and whenturning points have multiple drivers.

• Summarising, an assessment of adaptationturning points focusses on the specificthreshold situation that policy becomesuntenable due to climate change. Theassessment translates uncertainty aboutclimate impacts into a time range that can beused to plan adequate responses. Adaptationpathways offer flexibility by allowing forprogressive implementation.

Key Messages

IntroductionAdaptation has become an integral part ofclimate change policy. The ultimate scale of thechallenge will largely be defined by thedevelopment of the world’s economy andgreenhouse gas emissions reductions. Both areuncertain, suggesting that planners may have torespond to rises in global mean temperature of4°C or more (Parry et al., 2009). Adapting to suchconditions would be challenging at best(Smith etal., 2011), and may face practicallyinsurmountable physical limits in many placesdue to loss of ecosystem services andinteracting impacts. Climate change shifts thesustainability challenge from preserving naturalresources for future generations to strengtheningresilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. The challenge for policymaking and sustainable resources managementshifts from conservation to managing changeand adaptation.

The European Commission FP7 fundedMEDIATION project (Methodology for EffectiveDecision-making on Impacts and AdaptaTION) isadvancing the analysis of adaptation issuesthrough its objectives of analysing impacts,vulnerability and adaptation, and promotingknowledge sharing through a MEDIATIONAdaptation Platform (http://www.mediation-project.eu/platform/). To complement theinformation on the Platform, a series of PolicyBriefing Notes have been produced on DecisionSupport Methods for Climate ChangeAdaptation.

This Policy Briefing Note (Note 9) provides asummary of the assessment of adaptationturning points. It provides a brief synthesis ofthe approach, its strengths and weaknesses, therelevance for adaptation, how it considersuncertainty, and presents case study examples.It is stressed that this note only provides anoverview: more detailed information is availablein MEDIATION deliverables, and sources andlinks on the MEDIATION Adaptation Platform.

Description of the MethodThe assessment of adaptation turning pointsstarts from the perspective that managementaims to sustain conditions for society and nature.A critical threshold is reached, the moment thatclimate change renders policy untenable orresults in conditions that society perceives asundesirable. At such a threshold situation, it isnot only important to know the extent of theimpact, but at least equally important is to knowwhen and how likely it is that this situationoccurs. Thus the analysis focusses on thequestion of whether or not current managementis sustainable under a changing climate, andwhen adjustments are required.

Assessing climate impacts in terms of thefiniteness of policy objectives has the importantconsequence that it invites to elicit and discussthe thresholds that society should not transgress.Ultimately, this question is a normative one – howmuch change and risk is society willing toaccept? Many studies of adaptation view thelegal and political system as boundaryconditions. Yet, by focusing on those boundariesand how to move them, greater realisation ofadaptation can be achieved (c.f. Cosens andWilliams, 2012; Adger et al., 2013). The focus onthresholds highlights that adaptation operates attwo distinct levels: changes to the physicalenvironment, and changes to the decisionenvironment, including policy objectives. An oftenoverlooked strategy in adaptation planning is foractors to accept changes and adjust policyobjectives accordingly.

Starting from the threshold situation where thecurrent management strategy can no longermeet its objectives, the concept of ‘adaptationtipping points’ was advanced for a policy studyof long-term water management in theNetherlands (Kwadijk et al., 2010). It has provensuccessful in assessing and communicatingwater related risks, and it has become one of thescientific concepts underpinning the Dutch long-term water strategy (Haasnoot et al., 2013). Asimilar planning approach was developed andtested for flood risk in the Thames estuary(Lavery and Donovan, 2005; Smith et al., 2011).Reported studies so far have focused onhydrological and technical thresholds for policysuccess (Kwadijk et al., 2010; Reeder and

Adaptation Turning Points

1

Ranger, 2011; Lempert, 2013). More recently,cases with social-ecologically defined policyobjectives have become available (Bölscher etal., 2013; Werners et al., 2013b).

• Although the studies differ methodologically,they address at least the following questions:

• What defines unacceptable change: whichtargets and thresholds exist for differentactors?

• Under which climatic conditions arethresholds reached?

• When are thresholds reached (includingcapturing uncertainty in a time range)?

• When and how to respond?

To avoid confusion with the popular term ‘tippingpoint’ that people tend to associate with majorchange in biophysical systems, MEDIATION uses‘adaptation turning point’ for the situation inwhich a social-political threshold is reached dueto climate change. Social-political thresholdsinclude formal policy objectives as well asinformal societal preferences, stakes andinterests, such as willingness to invest andprotection of cultural identity (Werners et al.,2013a). Importantly, reaching a turning point canbe due to a biophysical tipping point, but not

necessarily so. Essentially, an adaptation turningpoint signifies a moment in time at which athreshold of concern is likely to be exceeded.Figure 1a illustrates that an adaptation turningpoint does not mean that management isimpossible and that catastrophic consequencesare to be faced. Yet, it implies progressive failureof the current management (the “rocky road”),such that actors may wish to turn to alternativestrategies (the “unexplored land”). Figure 1billustrates how scenario uncertainty can betranslated into a time range in which theadaptation turning point is likely to occur.

The Application to AdaptationThis section shows how the assessment ofadaptation turning points can help to planadequate responses. In the face of thresholdbehaviour and uncertainty, authors have called fora shift in perspective from the aspiration to controlchange in a system assumed stable, to sustainand generate desirable pathways for societaldevelopment (Downing, 2012; Weaver et al.,2013). Given the uncertain changing conditionsthat many decision-makers face nowadays, asustainable plan is not only one that is able toachieve objectives related to society, economy,and environment, but a sustainable plan should

DecisionSupport 9

2

Illustration of an adaptation turning point

Figure 1: a) the current direction is becoming unattractive in time (the “rocky road”) and a turn toalternative routes is for consideration (the “unexplored land”), b) a threshold (here: failing safetystandards at a sea level rise of 0.2 m relative to 1990) is translated into a time range in which it islikely to be reached. The figure uses projected global-averaged sea-level rise for the 21st centuryfrom the IPCC assessment report (2001) (the dark shading is the model average envelope for allIPCC SRES greenhouse gas scenarios, the light shading is the envelope for all models and all SRESscenarios, and the outer lines include an allowance for an additional land-ice uncertainty (Church etal., 2008))

3

also be robust, meaning that it performssatisfactorily under a wide variety of futures, andadaptive, meaning that it can be adapted tochanging (unforeseen) future conditions.

Much of the traditional scientific work has beenbuilt on the supposition that the uncertaintiesresult from a lack of information. This has led toan emphasis on uncertainty reduction throughever-increasing information seeking andprocessing. However, most strategic planningproblems face uncertainties that cannot bereduced by gathering more information and arenot statistical in nature (Hallegatte et al., 2012).

These deep uncertainties are unknowable atpresent, and will only dissolve as time unfolds.

This is particularly problematic for planning long-lived and costly investments (Hallegatte, 2009).Here it is recommended to incorporate flexibilityby designing so-called adaptation route-mapsand pathways that sequence measures over timeand allow for progressive implementationdepending on when pre-identified thresholds arereached (Reeder and Ranger, 2011; Haasnoot etal., 2013).

Route-maps stimulate planners to explicitly thinkabout decision lifetime and taking short-termactions, while keeping options open and avoidinglock-ins. Thus, the inevitable changes becomepart of a recognized process and correctiveactions can be taken based on monitoring and asnew information becomes available.


Figure 2: Adaptation route-map illustrating how different adaptation options (here: raise dikes (blue),broaden dikes (green) and retreat (red)) are combined into adaptation pathways (for adaptationturning point and scenario information see Figure 1. For adaptation pathways see (Reeder andRanger, 2011; Haasnoot et al., 2013))

Adaptation route-map

Figure 2 illustrates how potential adaptationoptions can be combined into adaptationpathways. This is particularly useful foradaptation options with a longer decision andimplementation lifetime (c.f. Smith et al., 2011). InFigure 2 each option is effective for a distinctiverange of sea level rise after which a shift toanother option is needed (indicated by arrows).Pathways are implemented depending onobserved climate change or improvedprojections. The possibility to switch betweenadaptation options in response to newinformation is a measure of flexibility.

Strengths and WeaknessesA key part of the MEDIATION project has been toidentify the strengths and weaknesses ofdifferent approaches for adaptation. Table 1 listsstrengths and weaknesses of an assessment ofadaptation turning points.

A strength is that the focus on conditions thatsociety perceives as undesirable helps to identifystakeholders, policy plans and the spatial andtemporal boundaries of the assessment. Startingthe assessment from an existing policy processfacilitates the engagement of actors and provide

an well-communicable starting point. Yet acomprehensive analysis of climate changeimpacts and possible adaptation turning pointsmay require putting this policy process in a widerperspective, including the exploration of thevarious ways stakeholders frame the issues to beaddressed. Another strength is that assessmentof adaptation turning points allows for nestingadaptation options within a longer time frame.The concept can also be used to assessthresholds in taking adaptive action.

A weakness is that policy goals are not alwaysclearly defined, especially with respect topotential impacts of climate change onecosystems. Turning points for engineeredsystems (like a coast protected by dikes) arerelatively well delimited by norms and standards.For ecological systems it often is more difficult toformulate thresholds. Thresholds that have beenincluded in policy (such as water temperatureranges) may ultimately not be indicative forecological success or failure (e.g. as in the casestudy for salmon on the next page). In any case,a statement about whether an adaptation turningpoint will be reached will always have to indicateclearly with respect to which set of policyobjectives and societal preferences.

DecisionSupport 9

4

Key strengths

• Can synthesize available information for theprioritization of research and adaptationplanning.

• Is more policy-oriented and stakeholdermotivated than typical impact and vulnerabilityassessments. Actors define stakes to beconsidered.

• Is flexible in considering a range of social-economic objectives.

• Uses scenarios not to predict the future, but todelineate uncertainties.

• Encourages discussion with society about(un)acceptable change and definition of criticalindicator values.

Potential weaknesses

• Focuses on existing management objectives.Unknown impacts and new challenges may beoverlooked.

• Gains complexity with multiple drivers wherethere is an indirect link with climate change. Atpresent only relatively simple / driverthresholds have been identified with sufficientcertainty for policy support.

• Requires identification of social-politicalthresholds that are often ill-defined.

• Loses simplicity for communication whenthresholds are less-well defined and whenturning points have multiple drivers.

Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses of the adaptation turning point assessments


5

Case StudiesThe MEDIATION study has assessed adaptation turning points in different adaptation case studies.Two of these case studies are summarised below.

Case Study 1:Turning points for salmon restoration programmes, Rhine river basin

Social-political thresholds of interestThis case study investigates whether climate change could render the policy to reintroduce thesalmon in the River Rhine untenable. Thus the case offers an adaptation turning point assessmentfor nature policies. Atlantic salmon was a common anadromous fish species in the Rhine that wentextinct in the 1950s. Reintroduction started when the Rhine state governments accepted the RhineAction Plan in 1987. Not only the Rhine national governments, but also regional authorities andNGOs are involved in the implementation effort. Bringing back the salmon is therefore not only anabstract water policy objective, but also an inspiration for many small scale public and privateinitiatives along the Rhine streams and rivers.

In 2001 the Rhine ministers adopted the ‘Rhine 2020 – Programme on the sustainable developmentof the Rhine’ (ICPR, 2001), which resulted in an action plan ‘Rhine Salmon 2020’ (ICPR, 2004). Themain objective is the re-establishment of a self-sustaining, wild Atlantic salmon population in theRhine by 2020. As such it contributes to policy efforts to enable fish migration in the Rhine river basinand improve habitat conditions. In total, investments of €528 million for the adaptation ofinfrastructure (weirs, dams) and habitat restoration are planned until 2015.

Climatic conditions for reaching thresholdsThese programs do not consider climate change. However, some of the factors that salmon dependson are projected to be affected by climate change (Bölscher et al., 2013). The most direct linkbetween climate change and the success of the reintroduction programme is through watertemperature, which affects the propagation and spawning migration of the salmon. In theory waterdischarge also influences migration, yet in larger rivers, like the Rhine, it is not physically limiting(Todd et al., 2010).

Literature reports diverse thermal boundary conditions for Atlantic salmon (for an overview see Table2 in Bölscher et al. (2013)). Two boundary conditions have been identified from literature and expertinterviews as particularly relevant for threatening the reintroduction of the salmon: 1) Short butregularly occurring periods with potentially lethal temperatures between 25°C and 33°C, 2) Longperiods with mean water temperatures higher than 23°C. In the latter case the time window forsalmon to migrate from the sea into the Rhine may become too small.

Following the inventory of critical climate conditions, it is concluded that a water temperature of 23°Cis a meaningful threshold value for the success of the reintroduction program. However, it is largelyunknown how migration depends on the duration and timing of the period of time that watertemperatures are above this threshold. Thus, the finiteness of policy success can only beapproximated. Summarizing, the likeliness of an adaptation turning point increases with the numberof days that the water temperature is above 23°C.

Adaptation turning points and lessonsTo identify turning points associated with the number of days that the water temperature exceeds23°C, model results were used of van Vliet et al. (2013). Figure 3 shows a distinct increase in thisnumber of days at Lobith, where the Rhine enters the Netherlands from Germany. The figure

DecisionSupport 9

6

illustrates the adaptation turning point, assuming that the reintroduction of salmon becomesproblematic at a doubling of the number of days with temperature above 23°C from the current 20days to 40 days.

Figure 3: Adaptation turning point for the reintroduction of Salmon. The figure shows number of dayswith daily water temperatures exceeding 23°C at Lobith for 1980-2099 (15 year average). Thin linesshow individual results for three climate models (CNCM3, ECHAM and IPSL model), colouredpolygons show the range in results across the models and thick line shows the average result fromthe models for the SRES A2 and B1 climate change scenario (2000-2099).

This implies the need to rethink salmon policies and consider adaptive action. At the European andnational scale, already temperature standards for cooling water discharge have been defined thatought to safeguard the ecological status of the river. It is questionable to what extend these standardcan warrant policy success as in practice the standards prove to be the result of negotiations inwhich social-economic considerations have the lead and increasingly administrators can makereasoned deviations in implementation, for example during extreme weather events.

An adaptation option relevant for smaller river branches is replanting of trees and creation of shade.Another notable adaptation option mentioned by stakeholders is to change objectives. For instance,to give up reintroduction of the salmon and decide to take another species as an indicator forecological improvements. Here the sturgeon could be an example.

Summarising, exposure increases to long periods with mean water temperatures higher than 23°C.Thus, the time window for salmon to migrate upstream may become too small to re-establish asustainable population. The timing of a turning point for salmon policy remains uncertain due to a.o.climate variability, local water temperature differences and the adaptive capacity of Atlantic salmon.These uncertainties can direct future research.

Source: Bölscher et al. (2013)


7

Case Study 2: Turning points for wine production in Tuscany, Italy

Social-political thresholds of interestThis case study explores wine production in Tuscany, Italy under climate change. Wine production inthe region is progressively changing from mixed farming system to specialized viticulture. Part of thischange is the rediscovery and improvement of traditional and autochthonous vines and a switch toquality production with lower yields, less chemicals and increased value of produced wine. Thenumber of vine-growing farms has been reduced by half over the last 20 years, while average farmsize has increased. Significantly, more than half of the total regional vineyard surface is labelled asDesignation of Origin (DO).

The associations and unions in the region offer incentives in support of the above mentionedspecialisation. Regione Toscana encourages the renewal of old vineyards, on the basis of farmersapplication and selection. Associations also create awareness that agriculture has created a uniquelandscape in Tuscany that is both productive and internationally recognised for its beauty. The imageof the vineyard, surrounded by the classic, quiet and clean Tuscan landscape, offers a competitiveadvantage for the wine that is produced there. Thus, agriculture has both an economic, andenvironmental and landscape value in Tuscany. At the same time the strict landscape conservationand production rules can limit adaptation.

Farmers in Tuscany already observe consequences of climate change and express an increasinginterest in adaptation. A key question is whether climate change will make farmers change grapevarieties, move to other locations or switch to other livelihoods. Here it is feared that changes inviniculture could have detrimental effects on the landscape, and therefore on tourism and quality ofliving. After stakeholder consultation the main questions and thresholds of interest are:

• (when) does wine production in its current form become unviable in the region?

• (when) does adaptation become attractive?

Farmers expressed an immediate interest in two adaption strategies: moving production to higherelevations and changing to new varieties. These adaptive actions have a response time of at least 4-10years (the time it takes for a new wine yard to become productive). Farmers and government represent-atives stress the crucial importance of assessing wine quality, rather than the more typically modelledproduction quantity, as the survival of Tuscan viticulture is strictly linked to its high-quality wines.

Climatic conditions for reaching thresholdsFarmers already observe a strong relationship between an increase in temperature and the reduction ofthe vegetative cycle of the vine. The grapes are ripening earlier compared to twenty years ago, withconsequent advance of harvest operations. Literature finds improvement of wine quality with risingtemperature at first, yet falling beyond a certain threshold, depending on variety. This corresponds witha shift in the area best suitable for grapevine cultivation either to higher elevations or to higher latitudes.

Adaptation turning points and lessonsA farmer reaches an adaptation turning point the moment that wine quality drops below a desiredquality or wine of a higher quality can be produced at a higher elevation. To assess whether andwhen this may happen the study used a modelling framework for investigating climate changeimpacts on viticulture in the Tuscany region (Moriondo et al., 2011). Downscaled climate data(temperature, precipitation and CO2 level from observations and the IPCC SRES scenarios A2 andB2 from different climate models) are input to a vintage quality model for climate change impactassessment. The vintage quality model uses a multi-regressive approach and vintage ratingsobtained from the most recently published Sotheby’s vintage ratings. The ratings are on a scale from0 to 100, with the general categories of 0–39 disastrous, 40–59 very bad, 60–69 disappointing, 70–79average to good, 80–89 good to very good, 90–100 excellent to superb.

DecisionSupport 9

8

Figure 4 shows that in the coming century the quality at higher altitudes is likely to surpass that ofthe lower altitudes. Best-quality grapevine production areas are projected to gradually moveupwards. For the coming two decades the entire area between 200 and 500 m above sea level isprojected to be viable for best-quality wine production above 85. Beyond 2045, grapevines in thelower altitude classes progressively move out of the desired quality range of 85, whilst grapevinesabove 500 m show an excellent quality score.

Figure 4 can also be used to identify turning points for viniculture to move to a higher altitude. Forthe altitude class of 300 m the figure shows that around 2040 it becomes attractive to move 100 mupwards. Higher altitudes become attractive progressively. Beyond 2060 quality at 300 m may dropbelow the desired quality score of 85, accentuating the need for adaptation .

The Tuscan analysis shows that turning points in wine cultivation may well occur in the second half ofthis century, depending on the location of the vineyards. Around the same time that presentproduction may start to become unviable, the production at higher elevation becomes more attractive,opening up an avenue of adaptive action. Such an adaptive pathway will not be taken lightly and thedecision will have to be studied in the light of many factors, including the existence of other options toadapt. Changing management practices can reduce the risk and postpone the time by which anadaptation turning point is reached. Yet, there is no guarantee that turning points can be avoidedultimately.

Concluding, the turning points studied for Tuscany were stakeholders motivated. The assessmentand the illustrations produces were useful as a discussion tool, both for scientist trying tocommunicate their insights, and for decision-makers to explore an adaptation strategy.

Source: Moriondo et al (2011),Werners et al (2012)

Figure 4: Adaptation turning point for Chianti production in Tuscany. The figure shows quality scoresin different elevation classes (average of four climate models (DMI-HIRHAM, ETHZ-CLM, MPI-M-REMO, SMHIRCA) for SRES scenario A2)).


9

Discussion and ApplicabilityThis section discusses how a focus onthresholds and turning points can meetinformation needs for policy making. Thetraditional view within science has often beenthat scientists should deliver their best possibleprojections to the decision process as detachedspecialist (c.f. Ravetz, 2006). This is reflected inthe more typical process of adaptation planning,which begins with the generation of climateprojections, then an analysis of their impacts andfinally the design and assessment of options toadapt to those impacts. Many researchersconsider this mode of science-policy interactionoutdated. Recent studies have suggested thatthe process should be inverted and start fromthe adaptation problem in its decision context inorder to satisfy information needs of decision-makers in the face of uncertainty (Cash et al.,2006; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Brown, 2011; Reederand Ranger, 2011; Hanger et al., 2013).

Tailoring scientific information to the problems towhich it will be applied implies an exchangebetween information providers and users withthe aim to support governance decisions. Forinformation to be useful, it must have three broadcharacteristics (Cash et al., 2003): salience,credibility and legitimacy. Salience means thatthe information is context-specific and relevantfor the decision at hand. It entails ensuring thatinformation provided is needed by those takingactions on it, and in a form that isunderstandable and can be acted on a timelymanner. Credibility means that users perceive theinformation to be accurate, dependable and ofhigh quality, while legitimacy means that theproducers of information are seen to bepolitically unbiased and that they keep the users‘interests in mind. Decision support forsustainability under climate change has thefurther difficulty of communicating deepuncertainty (Hallegatte et al., 2012). This arisesnot only from uncertainty in scientific models orincomplete understanding of particular natural orsocietal processes, but also from the presence ofmultiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, waysof framing a problem.

The assessment of thresholds and adaptationturning points can produce information that islegitimate, salient and credible for decision-

making. Salience is derived from focussing onactor concerns and in particular what actorsdefine as unacceptable change. This allowsactors to reframe and understand climate changein terms of pre-existing interests or policycompetences (c.f. Termeer et al., 2011). Salienceis also supported by the work on adaptationpathways, which shows that the information isactionable and appropriate (even) in the face ofdeep uncertainty. Legitimacy stems from thecentral position that the concerns and values ofactors take in the assessment. In additionlegitimacy results from facilitating the discoursearound potential changes in objectives andresponsibilities (c.f. Adger et al., 2013).Adaptation governance has an important role toplay in the definition and renegotiation of rulesand policy objectives untenable under climatechange. Credibility results from combiningbottom-up elicited social-political preferenceswith top-down impact projections to assess whenand how likely it is that unacceptable conditionsoccur. It is also aided by the intensified efforts ofresearchers and policy-makers to coproduceknowledge that includes values and criteria fromboth communities (c.f. Cash et al., 2006; Hangeret al., 2013). Making this link between actorvalues, policy objectives and projections of globalchange is one of the most challenging aspects ofthe assessment (c.f. Offermans et al., 2011) asmultiple links often have to be considered andtransient scenario runs at an appropriate scaleare scarce. Thus there may be a trade-offbetween the complexity of the social-politicalconcern (salience) and the accuracy andscientific rigor that can be achieved (credibility) aspresently the impact of climate change on morecomplex social-ecological systems and policyobjectives is poorly understood. Here the studyof thresholds and adaptation turning points canhelp set the research agenda.

ConclusionsClimate change requires long-term planning inthe face of uncertainty where conservation mayno longer be the sustainable option. Thus,decision making has to shift its attention toadaptation and strengthening resilience in social-ecological systems.

Climate change becomes particularly relevant todecision makers in the specific situation where

climate change induces policy failure andalternative strategies have to be considered. Wecall this situation an ‘adaptation turning point’.

The assessment of adaptation turning pointsprovides an important entry point for a dialoguebetween science and policy about why peoplecare, how much stress a system can absorbbefore an unacceptable situation is reached,when this is likely to happen, and what can bedone. After projecting an adaptation turningpoint, actors need to search for new options.

The identification of turning points helps inmapping practical adaptation pathways that pulltogether information on available options andpath-dependencies. These encourage taking thenecessary short-term actions to sustain thecurrent system, whilst keeping options open forplanning longer-term activities and morefundamental system change that may berequired depending on how time unfolds.

It is the combination of scientific underpinningand practical application that makes anassessment of adaptation turning points andadaptation pathways attractive for furtheringadaptation.

ReferencesAdger, W. N., T. Quinn, I. Lorenzoni, C. Murphyand J. Sweeney (2013) Changing socialcontracts in climate-change adaptation. NatureClim. Change 3 (4), 330-333.

Bölscher, T., E. van Slobbe, M. T. H. van Vliet andS. E. Werners (2013) Adaptation turning points inriver restoration? The Rhine salmon case.Sustainability 5 (6), 2288-2304.

Brown, C. (2011) Decision-scaling for RobustPlanning and Policy under Climate Uncertainty.World Resources Report. Washington DC, US.

Cash, D. W., J. C. Borck and A. G. Patt (2006)Countering the Loading-Dock Approach toLinking Science and Decision Making. Science,Technology & Human Values 31 (4), 465-494.

Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M.Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jäger and R.B. Mitchell (2003) Knowledge systems for

sustainable development. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 100 (14), 8086-8091.

Church, J. A., N. J. White, T. Aarup, W. S. Wilson,P. L. Woodworth, C. M. Domingues, J. R. Hunterand K. Lambeck (2008) Understanding globalsea levels: past, present and future.Sustainability Science 3 (1), 9-22.

Cosens, B. A. and M. K. Williams (2012)Resilience and Water Governance: AdaptiveGovernance in the Columbia River Basin.Ecology and Society 17 (4), 3.

Downing, T. E. (2012) Views of the frontiers inclimate change adaptation economics.WIREs:Climate Change 3 (2), 161-170.

Haasnoot, M., J. H. Kwakkel, W. E. Walker and J.t. Maat (2013) Dynamic Adaptive PolicyPathways: A Method for Crafting RobustDecisions for a Deeply Uncertain World. GlobalEnvironmental Change 23 (2), 485–498.

Hallegatte, S. (2009) Strategies to adapt to anuncertain climate change. Global EnvironmentalChange 19 (2), 240-247.

Hallegatte, S., A. Shah, R. Lempert, C. Brownand S. Gill (2012) Investment Decision MakingUnder Deep Uncertainty Application to ClimateChange. Policy Research Working Paper. TheWorld Bank.

Hanger, S., S. Pfenninger, M. Dreyfus and A. Patt(2013) Knowledge and information needs ofadaptation policy-makers: a European study.Regional Environmental Change 13 (1), 91-101.

ICPR (2001) Conference of Rhine Ministers 2001.Rhine 2020. Program on the sustainabledevelopment of the Rhine. InternationalCommission for the Protection of the Rhine(ICPR), Koblenz, DE.

ICPR (2004) Rhine Salmon 2020. InternationalCommission for the Protection of the Rhine(ICPR), Koblenz, DE.

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Third Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. McCarthy, J. J., O. F. Canziani, N. A.

DecisionSupport 9

10 10


Leary, D. J. Dokken and K. S. White, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kwadijk, J. C. J., M. Haasnoot, J. P. M. Mulder,M. M. C. Hoogvliet, A. B. M. Jeuken, R. A. A. vander Krogt, N. G. C. van Oostrom, H. A.Schelfhout, E. H. van Velzen, H. van Waverenand M. J. M. de Wit (2010) Using adaptationtipping points to prepare for climate change andsea level rise: a case study in the Netherlands.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change1 (5), 729-740.

Lavery, S. and B. Donovan (2005) Flood riskmanagement in the Thames Estuary lookingahead 100 years. Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical andEngineering Sciences 363 (1831), 1455-1474.

Lempert, R. (2013) Scenarios that illuminatevulnerabilities and robust responses. ClimaticChange 117 (4), 627-646.

Moriondo, M., M. Bindi, C. Fagarazzi, R. Ferriseand G. Trombi (2011) Framework for high-resolution climate change impact assessment ongrapevines at a regional scale. RegionalEnvironmental Change 11 (3), 553-567.

Offermans, A., M. Haasnoot and P. Valkering(2011) A method to explore social response forsustainable water management strategies underchanging conditions. Sustainable Development19 (5), 312-324.

Parry, M., J. Lowe and C. Hanson (2009)Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature 458(7242), 1102-1103.

Ravetz, J. R. (2006) Post-Normal Science andthe complexity of transitions towardssustainability. Ecological Complexity 3 (4), 275-284.

Reeder, T. and N. Ranger (2011) How do youadapt in an uncertain world? Lessons from theThames Estuary 2100 project. World ResourcesReport. Washington DC, US.

Smith, M. S., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey and C.Hamilton (2011) Rethinking adaptation for a 4°Cworld. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety A: Mathematical, Physical andEngineering Sciences 369 (1934), 196-216.

Termeer, C., A. Dewulf, H. van Rijswick, A. vanBuuren, D. Huitema, S. Meijerink, T. Rayner andM. Wiering (2011) The regional governance ofclimate adaptation: A framework for developinglegitimate, effective, and resilient governancearrangements. Climate law 2 (2), 159-179.

Todd, C. D., K. D. Friedland, J. C. MacLean, N.Hazon and A. J. Jensen (2010) Getting into HotWater? Atlantic Salmon Responses to ClimateChange in Freshwater and Marine Environments.In Atlantic Salmon Ecology (eds Aas, Ø., S.Einum, A. Klemetsen and J. Skurdal), pp. 409-443. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, USA.

van Vliet, M. T. H., W. H. P. Franssen, J. R.Yearsley, F. Ludwig, I. Haddeland, D. P.Lettenmaier and P. Kabat (2013) Global riverdischarge and water temperature under climatechange. Global Environmental Change 23 (2),450-464.

Weaver, C. P., R. J. Lempert, C. Brown, J. A. Hall,D. Revell and D. Sarewitz (2013) Improving thecontribution of climate model information todecision making: the value and demands ofrobust decision frameworks.WileyInterdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (1),39-60.

Werners, S. E., M. Bindi, T. Bölscher, J. Hinkel,M. Moriondo, A. Oost, A. Patt, S. Pfenninger, E.van Slobbe and G. Trombi (2012) Adaptationturning points: Identification of impactthresholds, key risk factors and potential adaptiveresponses. Deliverable D2.3. Technical Report.MEDIATION Project, Wageningen, NL.

Werners, S. E., S. Pfenninger, R. Swart, E.van Slobbe, M. Haasnoot and J. Kwakkel (2013a)Thresholds, tipping and turning points forsustainability under climate change. JournalCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(Open Issue 2013), published online.10.1016/j.cosust.2013.1006.1005.

Werners, S. E., R. Swart, A. Oost, E. van Slobbe,T. Bölscher, S. Pfenninger, G. Trombi and M.Moriondo (2013b) Turning points in climatechange adaptation. Ecology and Society(submitted to Special Feature ‘The Governanceof Adaptation’).

to hans


11

The research leading to these results has receivedfunding from the European Union SeventhFramework Programme (FP7/2007- 2013) under grantagreement n° 244012.

To find out more about the MEDIATION project,please visit:http://mediation-project.eu/

For further information on the MEDIATION project:contact Rob Swart [email protected]

For further information on adaptation turning points:contact Saskia Werners [email protected]

The views expressed in this publication are the soleresponsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the European Commission. TheEuropean Community is not liable for any use madeof this information.

Citation: Werners et al. (2013). Adaptation TurningPoints: Decision Support Methods for Adaptation,MEDIATION Project, Briefing Note 9.

Funded by the EC’s 7FWP

Copyright: MEDIATION, 2013

First published May 2013

The MEDIATION project is co-ordinated byWageningen University and Research Centre - Alterraand involves 11 teams from across Europe

Cover Photo:I-Stock. ©iStockphoto.com

Further information

methods for climate decision support 9 change...

Documents