Adaptation to climate change variability and change - methodological issues

Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE:
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
RICHARD J.T. KLEIN1 and DONALD C. MACIVER2
1Potsdam

Institute for Climate Impact Research, P.O. Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
Environment Service, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario
M3H 5T4, Canada

2Atmospheric

Abstract. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) convened a
Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change in Costa Rica in 1998 that
involved more than 200 expects and incorporated views from many research communities. This paper summarizes the recommendations from the Workshop and profiles the
contributions to the advancement of methodologies for adaptation science.
Key words: IPCC, adaptation science, methodologies, recommendations.

1. Introduction
In its Second Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) concluded that:
“There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by
greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. This
evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on
global climate” (Santer et al., 1996, p. 412).
This “discernible human influence on global climate” is particularly important in the
light of the considerable time lags between the emission of greenhouse gases and their
consequent effects on global temperature and especially sea level. Even if atmospheric

greenhouse-gas concentrations are stabilised over the next decades, global temperatures
are still projected to increase for another few decades, while sea level will continue to rise
for a number of centuries (Wigley, 1995; Raper et al., 1996). These lagged effects, attributable to past emissions, are often termed the “commitment to climate change” that
nature and society have to face.
The awareness of this “commitment”, combined with the notion that it is unlikely that
current patterns of greenhouse-gas emission will soon be curbed, has led scientists and
policymakers to recognise the increasing need for adaptation to climate change, while
continuing mitigation efforts. However, climate adaptation has a considerably longer history, focusing on hazards resulting from natural variability and weather extremes. In fact,
there is a large literature on weather-related hazards that is highly relevant when studyMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4: 189–198, 1999.
c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.

190

RICHARD J.T. KLEIN AND DONALD C. MACIVER

ing adaptation to climate change (cf. Burton et al., 1993). To date, however, it has been
largely ignored by those focusing on climate change, in part perhaps because it uses a
somewhat different terminology. For example, in the hazard literature, activities that
equate with climate adaptation are termed hazard mitigation.

2. Rationale for the Workshop
To bring together the various fields relevant to climate adaptation, the IPCC Workshop on
Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (San José, Costa Rica, 29 March - 1 April
1998) involved over 200 experts and incorporated views from many research communities. Relevant fields included those of hazard mitigation and climate variability, even
though the mandate of IPCC is limited to assessing climate change. However, the participants in the IPCC Expert Meeting on Adaptation (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22

March 1997), which served as a preparatory meeting for the IPCC Workshop, concluded
that adaptation to climate change cannot be meaningfully studied and conducted without
considering climate variability. The IPCC Bureau subsequently adopted this conclusion.
Some may ask why, irrespective of the consideration of climate variability, it has
taken IPCC ten years to organise a workshop on adaptation to climate change. To a large
extent, adaptation has played only a marginal part in the reports produced by IPCC thus
far. This reflects the limited attention given to adaptation by scientists worldwide. In his
review of the Working Group II volume of the IPCC Second Assessment Report, Kates
(1997) suggested the reason for this lies in the existence of two distinct schools of thought
about climate change, both of which have chosen not to encourage adaptation research.
On the one extreme Kates identified the “preventionist” school, which argues that the
ongoing increase of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations could be catastrophic and
that drastic action is required to reduce emissions. Preventionists fear that increased
emphasis on adaptation will weaken society’s willingness to reduce emissions and thus
delay or diminish mitigation efforts. On the other extreme, one finds what Kates referred
to as the “adaptationist” school, which sees no need to focus on either adaptation or
mitigation. Adaptationists argue that both natural and human systems have a long history
of adapting naturally to changing circumstances and that active adaptation would constitute interference with these systems, bringing with it high social costs.
Following the publication of the IPCC Second Assessment Report, a distinct third
school of thought has emerged, which we will label the “realist” school. The realist
school positions itself in between the two extreme views of the preventionists and adaptationists. Realists regard climate change as a fact, but acknowledge that impacts are still
uncertain. Further, realists appreciate that the planning and implementation of effective
adaptation options takes time. Therefore, they understand that a process must be set in
motion to consider adaptation as a crucial and realistic response option along with mitigation (e.g., Parry et al., 1998; Pielke, 1998). The IPCC Workshop on Adaptation was a
first step in this process.


ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

191

3. Recommendations of the Workshop
The following recommendations and messages represent a summary of issues that were
identified at the Workshop for consideration by the IPCC for possible inclusion in the
contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (MacIver, 1998).
3.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IPCC
•

•

•

•

•

Adaptation Science, Adaptive Management and Adaptation Options Framework
This Workshop Framework, as illustrated in the Working Paper on Adaptation to
Climate Variability and Change (Wheaton and MacIver, 1998) worked extremely well
and it is recommended that Working Group II follow a similar subdivision of Adaptation
Science (Theory); Adaptive Management (Practice) and Adaptation Options (Solutions)
for the TAR. Further subsections within Science include Adaptation Research,
Scenarios, Monitoring/Data Management, and Adaptation Science Assessments.
Adaptive Management subsections include Socio-Economic Sectors, Ecosystems/
Species Environments and Integrated Assessments; and within Adaptation Options subsections include Reducing Vulnerabilities, Enhancing Opportunities and Options
Assessments. It is suggested that Regional Impact Studies be integrated into the
Adaptation Science and Adaptive Management sectors, respectively.
Assessments of the Use of Traditional and Local Knowledge
The IPCC needs to incorporate traditional and local knowledge into the TAR. A
considerable wealth of traditional knowledge exists and various mechanisms,

including Workshops, need to be initiated to synthesise and summarise this information,
especially adaptation to extreme events.
Assessments of the Use of Proprietary and Industrial Knowledge
Considerable proprietary information, industrial analytical reports and management
plans contain relevant and critical information on adaptation, even though this may
not always be recognised. This information, such as managerial codes
and practices (e.g., building codes, forest management agreements, engineering
designs), requires independent assessment and incorporation within the TAR.
Adaptation Monitoring, Data Management and Early-Warning Indicators
A recurring issue at the Workshop was the need for consistent monitoring networks
for adaptation, adaptation data management, baseline analysis, literature reviews,
information and the development of early-warning indicators. The IPCC is
recommended to develop guidelines for adaptation monitoring, data management and
early-warning indicators.
Assessment of Analogies
The 1997/98 El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event and other natural hazards
have provided global opportunities to identify lessons in impact assessment and
adaptation options. The IPCC needs to assess the literature on a world-wide series of
case studies of specific ENSO-related events. Such science assessments should not
only evaluate all aspects of the event, but also address the question of how one would


Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.

192

•

•

•

•

•

RICHARD J.T. KLEIN AND DONALD C. MACIVER

respond to exactly the same event, should one know that it would occur again in a
number of years' time.
Integrated Assessments for Adaptation
Building adaptation beyond the traditional socio-economic sectors and natural
systems into integrated assessments is strongly recommended for the contribution of
Working Group II to the TAR. Recommended chapters include biodiversity, social
vulnerability, water resources, coastal zones, human health, and trade and equity
issues.
Assessment on Adaptation to Climate Variability
Many participants recognise that reducing vulnerability to current climate variability
is an essential step towards reducing vulnerability to climate change. The TAR should
therefore include an assessment of the scientific literature on impacts of and
adaptation to current climate variability. This will enhance the TAR's relevance to
policy-makers with respect to their current investment decisions and international cooperation, while also providing a framework to assist longer-term choices related to
climate change.
Adaptation Options Assessment
Science assessments on specific issues are a recognised process to capture the state of
knowledge. It is recommended that Working Group II develop the methodologies to
assess adaptation options, with particular attention to the role of technology, technology
transfer, risk assessments and cost/benefit analysis.

International Impacts and Adaptation Training
Participants recognised the urgent need for International Training Programmes on
Impacts and Adaptation and, in some countries, the development of Facilities. In this
latter case, it was emphasised that impact studies, adaptation theories, practices and
options must be regionally oriented in their training, education and awareness
programmes. It is suggested that the IPCC First Assessment Report, Second
Assessment Report, interim up-dates and special reports could provide the basic
curriculum.
Linking Mechanisms
There needs to be a specific section in the TAR that addresses the linkages between
(i) Impacts and Adaptation, (ii) Adaptation and Mitigation, (iii) Climate Science and
Impacts, and (iv) Climate Science and Adaptation. This will require close collaboration
between the three Working Groups of IPCC.

3.2 ADAPTATION MESSAGES
•

Global losses due to climate-related disasters have increased by a factor of 40
since the 1960s. The current uncertainty surrounding climate-change impacts, including their interaction with climate variability and non-climatic stresses, requires an
assessment of risks and opportunities. High-impact-low-probability events present
special challenges and should be included in the risk analysis.


Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

193

Many lessons can be learned from past and current experiences to cope with
climate variability and natural hazards, most notably in agriculture, water resources,
human settlements, human health and coastal zones. It is important to build on these
experiences in order to improve capabilities to anticipate or respond to climatechange impacts. The identification of indicators can act as early-warning systems of
climate change.
Adaptation to climate variability and change can be "autonomous" or "planned".
Autonomous adaptation takes place without intervention of an informed decision
maker. Planned adaptation requires strategic actions, based on an awareness that climate is changing and that action is needed to better respond to such changes. The possibility of rapid climate change poses new challenges for adaptive management and
adaptation options.
Adaptation can be either "reactive" or "pro-active", depending on the timing,
goal and motive of its implementation,. Reactive adaptation takes place after impacts
of climate change have occurred, while pro-active adaptation takes place before
impacts are apparent. Autonomous adaptation, in both natural and human systems, is

by definition reactive, while planned adaptation in human systems can be both reactive and pro-active.
Planning for adaptation will take time and should therefore not be postponed
until impacts of climate change occur. In spite of the current uncertainty, a range of
adaptation options can be employed to increase the flexibility and adaptability of vulnerable systems, and reverse trends that increase vulnerability. Many of these options
will be of immediate benefit, and can therefore be considered "no-regret" adaptation.
Consideration of adaptation costs and benefits must include consideration of intergenerational and intragenerational equity.
Data and information are critical for climate-change adaptation. They can come
from a wide variety of sources, including risk and natural-disaster management, but
accessibility is often constrained (e.g., disparate sources, proprietary holdings, costs
and other restrictions on exchanges).
"Maladaptation" describes the extent to which adaptation fails, and is part of a
dynamic learning process. Maladaptation can be reduced or avoided by greater consideration of external drivers, cross-sectoral and cross-regional impacts, analysis of
case studies of specific situations and areas, and equity issues. Maladaptation may be
encouraged by insurance and disaster-relief measures. The establishment and enforcement of standards (e.g., building codes), taking account of climate change, is crucial.
Social vulnerability refers to the susceptibility of groups or individuals to stress
as a result of social and environmental change. Important elements of social vulnerability include food security, resource dependency, risks to human health, migration,
and economic factors. In many places, social vulnerability is increased by climate
variability and change, particularly extreme-weather events.
Many technologies that can be used to adapt to climate change are already in use
to adapt to climate variability. Technology needs and technology-transfer mechanisms
should be more fully assessed and reported to increase the role of technology in climate adaptation.


Edited by Foxit Reader
Copyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2008
For Evaluation Only.

194

•

•

•

•

•

•

RICHARD J.T. KLEIN AND DONALD C. MACIVER

Institutional and financial arrangements should give greater support to
adaptation. Adaptation assessment should be included early in vulnerability studies in
co-operation with a wide range of stakeholders.
Water resources could be seriously impacted by increased droughts and high-water
events. Priority should be given to adaptation in catchments where water is close to
full utilisation. A regional and integrated approach to adaptation, incorporating market and non-market values, multiple stakeholders, groundwater and vegetation, is
expected to be most effective.
Many coastal zones and small islands face erosion, inundation, saltwater
intrusion and increased flood risk as sea level rises. These stresses are already occurring now and are aggravated by current socio-economic trends. Adaptation to climate
change and sea-level rise must therefore be integrated with coastal zone management
and development plans, and should reduce maladaptation.
Biodiversity, forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems with non-mobile species
are particularly susceptible to multiple stresses such as fire, pest outbreaks, storm
damage and sediment changes. A number of pre-adaptive measures may exist to
cope with climate change, but important constraints limit potential adaptation for biodiversity.
Climate-related impacts on human health are strongly related with other factors.
While primary sensitivities to climate change are known, increased understanding of

indirect effects and cross-linkages to, for example, food, air, water and natural hazards are needed. Co-ordinated health and climate data, monitoring, assessment and
other functions are also required.
Access to insurance as a means to adapt to climate variability and change is severely
limited for most of the Earth's population. Some adaptation measures within the
insurance industry (e.g., reduced coverage) may not be beneficial to society as a whole.

4. The Special Issue
Around thirty papers were presented at the IPCC Workshop, covering a wide variety of
relevant science issues, ranging from data requirements for adaptation and the role of biodiversity to adaptation decision techniques and methods for assessing social vulnerability
and resilience. These and other papers were subjected to peer review and most have now
been published as two special journal issues. Roughly, a division has been made between the
theory and practice of adaptation. Most papers found in a special issue of Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment (MacIver and Dallmeier, 1999) present adaptive management
and sectoral issues. All papers in this special issue (MacIver and Klein, 1999) contribute to
the advancement of methodologies for adaptation science. They propose, discuss or apply
methodological concepts or frameworks for assessing adaptation research and for planning
and implementing adaptation options from a range of perspectives.
Smit et al. (1999) examine the conceptual basis of adaptation assessment. They distinguish between two types of adaptation assessment: positive and normative, both of


ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

195

which are relevant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Positive assessment is a predictive exercise, estimating the likelihood of adaptations
given plausible impact scenarios (what adaptations could take place?). Normative assessment extends this exercise with an evaluation of the likely options and thus results in
policy recommendations (what adaptations should take place?). The framework presented
by Smit et al. (1999) will help to inform and structure the treatment of adaptation in IPCC
and other assessments.

Basher (1999) discusses the important aspect of data availability for adaptation
purposes. Effective adaptation relies on relevant, accurate and up-to-date data to inform
scientists and managers. Data and information are required for adaptation research, for
the development and testing of adaptation methods, and for the routine operation of adaptations. Basher (1999) identifies a number of constraints to the accessibility and use of
data and information, including data charges, inadequate monitoring networks and lack
of awareness of relevant data, leading to incomplete or inappropriate data collection.
Wheaton and MacIver (1999) identify the critical need to understand and develop
adaptation options and to reduce the social and economic vulnerabilities induced by
climate variability and change. They use key questions to build a framework for adaptation by organising the questions into three major areas: adaptation science, adaptive management and adaptation options. The authors identify that the move towards adaptation
research, management and options needs to be fully supported along with mitigation.
Klein et al. (1999) evaluate the applicability of the IPCC Technical Guidelines for
Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations (Carter et al., 1994) to assess adaptation in coastal zones. Based on case studies from The Netherlands, the United Kingdom
and Japan, they develop a framework for coastal adaptation that comprises four steps:
(i) information collection and awareness raising, (ii) planning and design, (iii) implementation and (iv) monitoring and evaluation. They conclude that the IPCC Technical
Guidelines consider adaptation assessment primarily to be the evaluation of implementable options, rather than the assessment of a system’s adaptive capacity. To assess a
system’s adaptive capacity, the entire process of adaptation must be considered.
Adger and Kelly (1999) present a conceptual model of vulnerability at the level of
individuals and communities. Instead of using impact scenarios of a future climate, they
study adaptive processes in communities to today’s climate and socio-economic context,
and investigate how these processes serve to increase or decrease vulnerability to climate
change. Using poverty, inequality and institutional adaptation as indicators of vulnerability, they find remarkable differences in relative vulnerability between groups within
eleven Vietnamese coastal communities. They conclude that vulnerability at this level is
determined by the availability of resources and by the entitlement of individuals or
communities to call on these resources.
Handmer et al. (1999) also approach vulnerability and adaptation to climate variability and change from a societal perspective. From studying food supply security, the emergency planning and management industry and a case study of Australia, they identify five
themes that determine societal adaptive capacity: (i) vulnerability and resilience,
(ii) globalisation and markets, (iii) institutional responses, (iv) uncertainty and (v) the


196

RICHARD J.T. KLEIN AND DONALD C. MACIVER

physical environment. They conclude that human societies in general are highly adaptable and that constant adaptive behaviour is a characteristic of social, political and economic activity. However, large disparities exist between and within regions. In places
without strong institutions, well-functioning systems and economic power, even minor
climate variability may be catastrophic.
Bruce (1999) discusses the role of disaster loss mitigation in further detail. He reflects
on the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction and provides an overview of
a range of recent weather-related extremes. He argues that the occurrence of weatherrelated disasters has shown a sharper increase over the past three decades than that of
other, non-atmospheric, natural disasters. According to Bruce (1999), this shows that
changes in land use and increased exposure of population and infrastructure are not the
only factors contributing to a trend of increasing damages. At least on a regional scale,
changes in climate are also to blame. Based on the natural-hazard literature, Bruce (1999)
suggests six categories of adaptation aimed at minimising risks: (i) warning systems,
(ii) preparedness, (iii) safe buildings, (iv) water structure safety, (v) other infrastructure
safety and (vi) land-use planning.
Berz (1999) also presents statistics that show increasing trends of weather-related disasters and damages. He focuses on the impacts of these disasters on the insurance industry and on the possible responses of this industry to such disasters, particularly when they
would become more frequent or intense as climate changes. These responses could
include increasing deductibles or restricting cover. Berz (1999) also suggests that the
insurance industry become more active when it comes to climate protection and set its
clients an example of precautionary action.
Yohe and Dowlatabadi (1999) present IPCC with ten lessons drawn from adaptation
analyses under conditions of risk and uncertainty. They scold IPCC for its efforts of “science by consensus” and argue that for its Third Assessment Report, IPCC cannot afford
to continue in that tradition. According to Yohe and Dowlatabadi (1999), science by consensus fails to consider the low-probability-high-risk extremes associated with climate
change. Yet, robust adaptation to climate change depends on a better understanding of
these extremes. Yohe and Dowlatabadi (1999) also warn IPCC for too great a reliance on
integrated assessment, for this type of analysis will never accommodate adequately the
richness and diversity of climate adaptation across the world.
Leary (1999) develops a cost-benefit framework for evaluating the consequences of
climate adaptation on social welfare. In doing so, he distinguishes between autonomous

adaptation (i.e., actions taken by individual households or firms that are in their own
interest) and public adaptation (i.e., collective actions to protect public goods, or the provision thereof). Leary (1999) also discusses the optimal timing of adaptation. He shows
that when benefits of adaptation are uncertain (e.g., because of uncertainty about
impacts), it could be optimal to postpone irreversible investments until more information
is obtained. He therefore concludes that investing in research and in adaptation measures
that address both future and current concerns is to be preferred.
Smith (1999) combines climatic, hydrological and socio-economic information to
assess the policy implications of urban flooding in three Australian catchment areas. He


ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

197

finds that in each catchment there is a sharp increase in the number of flood-prone buildings above the flood level corresponding with the current 100-year return period. This
results in a climate-change damage curve that resembles a step function. Smith (1999)
therefore recommends both no-regret and precautionary measures, to be taken within the
current framework of local government response.
El-Raey et al. (1999) provide a brief summary of anticipated impacts of sea-level rise
in the Nile Delta and apply a decision matrix to evaluate adaptation options. They show
that the Nile Delta is one of the world’s most vulnerable areas to sea-level rise and that
adaptation can be very costly. They conclude that a combination of beach nourishment
and hard structures would be the optimal adaptation, to be carried out in a framework of
integrated coastal zone management.

References
Adger, W.N. and Kelly, P.M.: 1999, ‘Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Basher, R.E.: 1999, ‘Data requirements for developing adaptations to climate variability and change’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.

Berz, G.A.: 1999, ‘Catastrophes and climate change: concerns and possible countermeasures of the insurance
industry’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Bruce, J.P.: 1999, ‘Disaster loss mitigation as an adaptation to climate variability and change’, Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Burton, I, Kates, R.W. and White, G.F.: 1993, The Environment as Hazard, Second edition, Guilford Press, New
York.
Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Nishioka, S. and Harasawa, H. (eds): 1994, Technical Guidelines for Assessing
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations, Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, University College London and Centre for Global Environmental Research, London and
Tsukuba, 59 pp.
El-Raey, M., Dewidar, Kh. and El-Hattab, M.: 1999, ‘Adaptation to the impacts of sea level rise in Egypt’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S. and Downing, T.E.: 1999, ‘Societal vulnerability to climate change and variability’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Kates, R.W.: 1997, ‘Climate change 1995–impacts, adaptations, and mitigation’, Environment, 39(9), 29-33.
Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J. and Mimura, N.: 1999, ‘Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC
Technical Guidelines be applied?’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Leary, N.A.: 1999, ‘A framework for benefit-cost analysis of adaptation to climate change and climate variability’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
MacIver, D.C. 1998, IPCC Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change: Summary Report to
IPCC. Environment Canada, 29 pp.
MacIver, D.C. (ed.) 1998, Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change: Workshop Summary. Environment
Canada, 55 pp.
MacIver, D.C. and Dallmeier, F. (eds): 1999, Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change: Adaptative
Management, Special Issue of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, in press.
MacIver, D.C. and Klein, R.J.T. (eds): 1999, IPCC Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change:
Methodological Issues, Special Issue of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Parry, M., Arnell, N., Hulme, M., Nicholls, R. and Livermore, M.: 1998, ‘Adapting to the inevitable’, Nature,
395, 741.
Pielke, R.A., Jr.: 1998, ‘Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy’, Global Environmental Change,
8(2), 159-170.

198

RICHARD J.T. KLEIN AND DONALD C. MACIVER

Raper, S.C.B., Wigley, T.M.L. and Warrick, R.A.: 1996, ‘Global sea level rise: past and future’, in J.D. Milliman
and B.U. Haq (eds), Sea Level Rise and Coastal Subsidence-Causes, Consequences, and Strategies,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 11-45.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Barnett, T.P. and Anyamba, E.: 1996, ‘Detection of climate change and
attribution of causes’, in J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and
K. Maskell (eds), Climate Change 1995-The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I
to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 407-443.
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T. and Street, R.: 1999, ‘The science of adaptation: a framework for assessment’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Smith, D.I.: 1999, ‘Urban flood damage and greenhouse scenarios-the implications for policy: an example from
Australia’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Wheaton E.E. and MacIver, D.C. 1998 Working Paper on Adaptation to Climate Varibaility and Change in
MacIver, D.C. IPCC Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change. Environment Canada, 29 pp.
Wheaton, E.E. and MacIver, D.C.: 1999, ‘A framework and key questions for adapting to climate variability
and change’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.
Wigley, T.M.L.: 1995, ‘Global-mean temperature and sea level consequences of greenhouse gas concentration
stabilization’, Geophysical Research Letters, 22(1), 45-48.
Yohe, G. and Dowlatabadi, H.: 1999, ‘Risk and uncertainties, analysis and evaluation: lessons for adaptation
and integration’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, this issue.