Chapter 31: Adaptation from the Fifth National Climate Assessment claims climate adaptation should address historical inaccuracies, engage diverse groups of people, focus on equity, address differential access, leverage different governance systems, and finally address both extreme climate events and continual, gradual climate stressors. As a general statement, these claims are excellent starting points, but for real communities and local governments to engage with this assessment, there needs to be a clearer climate risk assessment, perception, and management framework.
As it currently stands, the assessment provides an introduction, with evidence of progress of the five stages, and key messages pertaining to: Transformative Adaptation, Adaptation and Equity, Adaptation Governance, Science and Services in Support of Adaptation, and Economics of Adaptation and Adaptation Finances. In terms of a proper climate risk assessment, some key terms are not defined for the reader in the chapter (eg. equity). For the climate risk perception to match the climate risk assessment, the chapter should communicate with clarity and brevity. Defining key terms allows for a more accessible assessment, as well as, a better foundation for how climate risk management will not only involve the experts, but local actors as well.
The transformative adaptation section acknowledges the importance of not perpetuating climate injustices by addressing a necessity for transformative adaptation: planning for the future, so that incremental adaptation does not lead to maladaptation. However, there is no clear definition of historical, social, and climate injustices. These terms may be defined differently by different groups of people. While the necessity for transformative adaptation was clearly explained, it is unclear how that adaptation may actually address injustices since there is currently no explicit definition of injustice in the assessment. If climate justice actors are meant to use this assessment to conduct their own climate risk management, then clear definitions and considerations of how to engage with transformative adaptation should be communicated for the general public.
Another consideration for climate risk management is to give more priority to the ways funding could propel climate adaptation. While this assessment does highlight the ways funding lacks in each key message, there is no explicit demonstration of scientific evidence that claims how an increase in funding would lead to more climate adaptation. In the Economics of Adaptation and Adaptation Finance section there are plenty of statements of how different sectors are or are not investing in climate adaptation, but no clear understanding of how an increase in funding would benefit these sectors. Figure 31.6 demonstrates the annual cost of climate change across adaptation scenarios, but this focuses on what happens to a lack of investment. For climate risk perception to align with this climate risk assessment, an understanding of how beneficial climate adaptation investment is needed just as much as an understanding of how detrimental a lack of funding would be.
On a similar note, the Adaptation Governance section does an excellent job highlighting the importance of a bottom up approach where a single governing body leads interagency group coordination and encourages horizontal linkage, but this statement does not highlight how an increase in funding and recognition could improve said governance. Again, this is where a definition of equity and justice are particularly crucial because adaptation governance requires an in-depth understanding of those terms, so that funding and recognition may be properly utilized for effective action. This assessment highlights sufficient evidence for why a lack of funding and recognition are inhibiting adaptation governance, but more scientific evidence is needed to highlight how an increase in funding and recognition will improve a bottom up approach and horizontal linkage. Either more research must be conducted or evaluated to achieve this goal.
While the attention to equity and justice are incredibly necessary for understanding climate adaptation, this assessment fails to acknowledge the work that has been done in liberation. Climate justice liberation work is integral to grassroots initiatives and the failure to include how that work plays into any of the key messages does a great disservice to the very communities that are meant to benefit from this assessment. More authors from the different sectors described in the assessment (eg. front-line community leaders) should contribute to its creation to have a more holistic understanding of how climate adaptation is actually conducted and managed. Including more of these voices would bring a greater understanding of key terms such as equity, justice, and liberation.
In summary this assessment requires the definition of a few key terms (equity, justice, and liberation are of highest importance, but other terms such as transformative would also be beneficial), an address of how increase in funding will benefit climate adaptation, and more collaboration with authors from various diverse backgrounds. These suggestions will ensure a more accessible and dynamic assessment that communicates with the utmost clarity. Considering the topic of climate adaptation may be foreign to most readers, especially the general public, an attention to how this assessment is read and understood would encourage more engagement. As the assessment currently stands, it does not read as engaging since there are limited graphics and a plethora of terminology not necessarily circulated outside of academia. Contribution from more authors, while requiring more coordination, would address some of the gaps of research outlined in the assessment, as well as, the concerns outlined in this comment. Ultimately for more actors to engage with climate adaptation, an understanding of the benefits must be explicit, so that more attention can be given to elements such as funding and recognition. This sentiment should be reflected in the assessment with the proper scientific evidence to demonstrate said benefits while keeping in mind a clear, concise language for the general public.