Talk:Climate change adaptation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Image size

@ActivelyDisinterested: I noticed you made a few images smaller in this edit. Can you explain a bit? For me, it looked better on both mobile and desktop before. The graph has become unreadable, and the images too small to really discern.

Neither option is really in line with

WP:IMGSIZE, as we're not using upright. Easily fixible for the second image, but I'm not sure how to fix that for the multimage one. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

That should have been 350 not 250, I'll update that. IMGSIZE says no more than 400 pixels wide, and multi image adds a frame to the image. Switching to upright might help, as the auto-formatter deals with that better. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't see that criterion. Seems like we need a better picture anyway, as it still displays poorly in the maximum size allowed.. Not sure if upright has the same restrictions.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Figure 1- Relationships among Risks, Resilience, Hazard Mitigation, and Climate Change Adaptation (27242486244)
Which picture do you mean when you say "Seems like we need a better picture anyway" - is it the schematic under "Aims" or is it one of the collage images from the lead? If it's this one (on the right), then I think perhaps we should drop it. It's not easy to read and seems to overly focus on weather-related issues. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken that schematic out now and have moved it to climate risk instead. EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section sizes, potential for condensing

I've added to the top of the talk page a template to show the section sizes. It shows that the largest section is now "Options by type of impact" and here in particular the one on "migration pressures of humans". We could probably cull and condense that one a bit. The article is slowly getting to a size where it's on the long side (52 kB now). Still not too long but 60 kB would probably be too long. EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the template - very useful. Yes, I think it would be good to cull that section. Migration pressures doesn't altogether fit with the other impacts in the section, which are climate hazards. Migration responses are triggered by some combination of climate impacts + other factors but doesn't fit very neatly into one category or sector - I think this is why IPCC has it in a cross chapter box! Richarit (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed these two paragraphs which were using old sources and were not about the pressures or responses so much as the impacts and outcomes of migration (as disaster response) and so goes a bit off topic I think:
"Focusing on climate change as the issue may frame the debate around migration in terms of projections, causing the research to be speculative. Migration as tool for climate change adaptation is projected to be a more pressing issue in the decade to come.[1] In Africa, specifically, migrant social networks can help to build social capital to increase the social resilience in the communities of origin and trigger innovations across regions by the transfer of knowledge, technology, remittances and other resources.[2]
In Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe are clear examples of adaptation strategies because they have implemented relocation policies that have reduced the exposure of populations and migrants to disaster. Tools can be put in place that limit forced displacement after a disaster; promote employment programs, even if only temporary, for internally displaced people or establish funding plans to ensure their security; to minimize the vulnerability of populations from risk areas. This can limit the displacement caused by environmental shocks and better channel the positive spillovers (money transfers, experiences, etc.) from the migration to the origin countries/communities.[3]" Richarit (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made further changes to the organisation of the section and added more recent thinking and sources on human migration and shortened it a bit.
I was thinking that the "of ecosystems" subsection might work better if it were located in the options by sector->ecosystems. Any thoughts on that ? @EMsmile ? Richarit (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and have made that change. I was also wondering in which sense ecosystems can be called a "sector" but then looking at the WG II report I see there two chapters which mention "and their services" in their section titles. I think that makes sense so I have added "and their services" to our section heading, too. Please check if you agree with my recent changes. Your edits on the section about human migration are excellent. EMsmile (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good like this I think. Assisted migration is mentioned in chapter 3 (assisted migration of butterflies has been studied) so I will add a link to the report in that section. Richarit (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adamo, Susana B. (2008). Addressing Environmentally Induced Population Displacements. A Delicate Task. Population-Environment Research Network Cyberseminar on "Environmentally Induced Population Displacements.". Population Environment Research Network.
  2. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.002
    .
  3. ^ Ionesco, Dina; Mokhnacheva, Daria; Gemenne, François (2013). Atlas des migrations environnementales. Presses de Sciences Po.[page needed]

Need elaboration for certain wordings

Adaptive ideas include: Taking advantage of global transportation systems to delivering surplus food to where it is needed (though this does not help subsistence farmers unless aid is given). Can anybody help explain reasons behind the wordings in bold? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, ThomasYehYeh. I've deleted that sentence now. It was unclear and used an unreliable/old source. But the entire section still needs an overhaul. EMsmile (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is far too vague

I appreciate the effort to date, but at this point, it is more like a long laundry list of floaty suggestions with relatively little concrete, actionable information. The entire article seems to consist of wordings like

> Exposure can be decreased

> the average sea level in a port might not be as important as the height of water during a storm surge. which causes flooding); the average rainfall in an area might not be as important as how frequent and severe droughts and extreme precipitation events become

> climate change adaptation is sometimes seen as one of many processes

> Disasters are often triggered

> As climate change is projected to increase (how much?) the frequency and severity of extreme weather events and disasters, adaptation may also include

> For humans, adaptation aims to moderate or avoid harm, and exploit opportunities [which ones? when?]; for natural systems, humans may intervene to help adjustment

> Vulnerability can be decreased in urban settings through using green garden spaces to reduce heat stress and food insecurity for low-income neighbourhoods.

> On the other hand, climate resilience-focused projects can be seen as activities to promote and support transformational adaptation, since transformational adaptation is connected with implementation at scale and ideally at the system-level.

> Wildfires and increased pest infestations due to climate change caused much of the recent tree mortality in North America

"May, can, sometimes, might." It's all hedging, vague, generalizing language. A casual reader would go through this article and walk away with absolutely no idea how much different adaptation options are likely to cost individually (outside of that aggregate IPCC estimate at the end of the article) nor what those options can actually achieve for them for all the money spent. Can we really not do better on the specifics? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia for lay readers, who generally seek Knowledge, not Information, User:InformationToKnowledge, and definitely not piles of Data. Moreover, numbers will be different from different sources, and the numbers will keep changing over time—a nightmare for an understaffed Wikipedian force. For example, it's not useful for lay readers to experience the mind-numbing quantity of numbers in Extinction risk from climate change, which has a percent sign "%" 253 (two hundred fifty-three) times. This is an encyclopedia article, not a literature review. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback from both of you, much appreciated (I was feeling a bit lonely with this article, with mostly just User:Richarit and I talk about it and trying to improve it...) With regards to vagueness, well this is mostly how the pertinent literature (as summarised in IPCC reports) writes it, isn't it? And as it's a "global" high-level article it would not be easy to say much "concrete" stuff. It mainly talks about options that we have at our disposal. Or are you aware of other, better publications that we have not utilised for this article yet?
I do think the article now needs a review with regards to reading ease aspects (the new script for readability is great).
For example, this sentence that you picked out above is too "academic" and would be very difficult to understand for lay persons: "On the other hand, climate resilience-focused projects can be seen as activities to promote and support transformational adaptation, since transformational adaptation is connected with implementation at scale and ideally at the system-level." We should strive to make it simpler; as a starting point, let's look for ways to change passive voice to active voice. This would force us to think about "who sees it like this?" Is it scholars, politicians, the general public, or who? EMsmile (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add some content to maladaptation section?

I came across this article today: "Climate adaptation projects sometimes exacerbate the problems they try to solve – a new tool hopes to correct that". If someone has time, we could use some content from there to update/expand the current section on "maladaptation"? Pinging User:Richarit EMsmile (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some content moved from History of climate change policy and politics

I've taken out this paragraph from History of climate change policy and politics as I think it didn't fit there. It's not well written though, more like a literature review. Is there anything in this that is worth saving? 

++++++++

Adaptation based policy focuses on adjusting environmental and human systems to respond to the predicted impacts of global warming.[1] According to Klein, Schipper and Dessai, adaptation is necessary to accommodate permanent changes to the human environment that, regardless of mitigation attempts, cannot be reversed.[1] Haibach and Schneider suggest that climate policy continues to move towards 'crisis management and plans for preventative measures'.[2] Ford also states that the UNFCCC has evolved to address 'exposure to predicted climate change impacts' by stressing the need to adapt.[3] EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.010
    .
  2. ^ Haibach, H. and Schneider, K., 2013. The Politics of Climate Change: Review and Future Challenges. In: O. Ruppel, C. Roschmann and K. Ruppel-Schlichting, ed., Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance: Volume II: Policy, Diplomacy and Governance in a Changing Environment, 1st ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, p.372.
  3. ^ Ford, James (2007). "Emerging trends in climate change policy: the role of adaptation". Journal of Climate. 3: 5–14.

EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about indigenous knowledge removed

I've removed this recently added paragraph as I felt it was too detailed for this high-level article, and at the same time not really saying very much. All from one primary source.

++++++++++ The role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation has gained increasing recognition in recent years. Traditional ecological knowledge, accumulated over generations, can provide valuable insights into local environmental conditions, climate variability, and sustainable practices. Makondo and Thomas (2018) argue that linking indigenous knowledge with western science can lead to more effective adaptation strategies. They propose a framework that integrates indigenous and scientific knowledge systems to develop context-specific, culturally relevant, and sustainable adaptation measures. By combining the strengths of both knowledge systems, communities can enhance their adaptive capacity and better respond to the challenges posed by climate change.[1] EMsmile (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.014
    .

EMsmile (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9 edits I do not understand - Is somebody trying to wreck this page?

Twice this person did something today, I do not understand: IsaacYunusa

Cbarlow (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_adaptation&oldid=1218535066"