With the exception of Chapter and Section headings, all coloured text has been inserted by AccessIPCC. The non-coloured text is the IPCC original.

A number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were published on the Internet in November 2009. This has provided a window into the world of climate science.

We have identified a number of key individuals involved in the emails whom we have designated as Persons of Concern [PoC]; a Journal in which a PoC has published has been designated as a Journal of Concern [JoC].

This is not to suggest that we believe such papers are necessarily flawed, but rather that, as Joseph Alcamo noted at Bali in October 2009, "as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy".

References occur in a list at the end of each chapter. Citations are within the normal text of sections and paragraphs.

Definition of Tags Used

Tag	Explanation	Where Used	References	Citations
PoC	Person of Concern Key individual involved in CRU emails as defined in this spreadsheet. NOTE: we anticipate that this definition will be expanded as more data is coded.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	1	1
JoC	Journal of Concern A Journal which has published articles by one or more PoCs (Person of Concern)	References, Citations	43	55
MoS	Model or Simulation Reference appears to be a model or simulation, not observation or experiment	References, Citations	12	20
NPR	Non Peer Reviewed Reference has no Journal or no Volume or no Pages or it has Editors.	References, Citations	101	150
SRC	Self Reference Concern Author of a chapter containing references to own work.	References, Citations, IPCC Roles	28	51
ARC	Paper authored or co-authored by person who is also in list of Authors of another chapter.	References, Citations	53	68
2007	Paper dated 2007, when IPCC policy stated cutoff was December 2005 with mid-February 2006 for exceptions.	References, Citations	4	10
Ambiguous	The short inline citation matched with more than one reference; however, AccessIPCC will link to the first reference found.	Citations	-	9
NotFound	The short inline citation was not matched with any reference. Believed to be caused by typing errors.	Citations	-	6
Clean	The reference was probably peer reviewed. The reference was dated before the cutoff (2005-2006). Its authors were not members of the Team. It was not published in a Journal of Concern. Its authors were not AR4 Authors.	References, Citations	55	66

Chapter Table of Contents

Title	Clean	Tagged	NotFound	Ambiguous
Chapter 20: Perspectives on Climate Change and Sustainability	-	-	-	-
20.1 Introduction – setting the context	2	20	-	-
20.2 A synthesis of new knowledge relating to impacts and adaptation	-	8	-	-
20.3 Impacts and adaptation in the context of multiple stresses	-	-	-	-
20.3.1 A catalogue of multiple stresses	-	5	-	-
20.3.2 Factors that support sustainable development	5	2	-	-
20.3.3 Two-way causality between sustainable development and adaptive capacity	6	23	2	2
20.4 Implications for environmental quality	12	11	-	1
20.5 Implications for risk, hazard and disaster management	12	18	-	-
20.6 Global and aggregate impacts	-	-	-	1
20.6.1 History and present state of aggregate impact estimates	3	41	-	-
20.6.2 Spatially-explicit methods: global impacts of climate change	-	14	-	3
20.7 Implications for regional, sub-regional, local and sectoral development; access to resources and technology; equity	-	-	-	-
20.7.1 Millennium Development Goals – a 2015 time slice	-	10	1	-
20.7.2 Sectoral and regional implications	-	2	-	1
20.7.3 The complementarity roles of mitigation and enhanced adaptive capacity	-	6	-	-
20.8 Opportunities, co-benefits and challenges for adaptation	-	1	-	-
20.8.1 Challenges and opportunities for mainstreaming adaptation into national, regional and local development processes	1	10	-	-
20.8.2 Participatory processes in research and practice	18	28	2	-
20.8.3 Bringing climate-change adaptation and development communities together to promote sustainable development	7	38	1	1
20.9 Uncertainties, unknowns and priorities for research	-	-	-	-
Number of citations of various credibilities	66	237	6	9
Percentages of citations of various credibilities	20.8%	74.5%	1.9%	2.8%

Executive summary

Vulnerability to specific impacts of climate change will be most severe when and where they are felt together with stresses from other sources [ 20.3 , 20.4 , 20.7 , Chapter 17 Section 17.3.3 ] (very high confidence).

Non-climatic stresses can include poverty, unequal access to resources, food security, environmental degradation and risks from natural hazards [ 20.3 , 20.4 , 20.7 , Chapter 17 Section 17.3.3 ]. Climate change itself can, in some places, produce its own set of multiple stresses; total vulnerability to climate change, per se, is greater than the sum of vulnerabilities to specific impacts in these cases [ 20.7.2 ].

Efforts to cope with the impacts of climate change and attempts to promote sustainable development share common goals and determinants including access to resources (including information and technology), equity in the distribution of resources, stocks of human and social capital, access to risk-sharing mechanisms and abilities of decision-support mechanisms to cope with uncertainty [ 20.3.2 , Chapter 17 Section 17.3.3 , Chapter 18 Sections 18.6 and 18.7 ] (very high confidence). Nonetheless, some development activities exacerbate climate-related vulnerabilities [ 20.8.2 , 20.8.3 ] (very high confidence).

It is very likely that significant synergies can be exploited in bringing climate change to the development community and critical development issues to the climate-change community [ 20.3.3 , 20.8.2 , 20.8.3 ]. Effective communication in assessment, appraisal and action are likely to be important tools, both in participatory assessment and governance as well as in identifying productive areas for shared learning initiatives. Despite these synergies, few discussions about promoting sustainability have thus far explicitly included adapting to climate impacts, reducing hazard risks and/or promoting adaptive capacity [ 20.4 , 20.5 , 20.8.3 ].

Climate change will result in net costs into the future, aggregated across the globe and discounted to today; these costs will grow over time [ 20.6.1 , 20.6.2 ] (very high confidence).

More than 100 estimates of the social cost of carbon are available. They run from US$-10 to US$+350 per tonne of carbon. Peer-reviewed estimates have a mean value of US$43 per tonne of carbon with a standard deviation of US$83 per tonne. Uncertainties in climate sensitivity, response lags, discount rates, the treatment of equity, the valuation of economic and non-economic impacts and the treatment of possible catastrophic losses explain much of this variation including, for example, the US$310 per tonne of carbon estimate published by Stern 2007 [NPR, 2007] ). Other estimates of the social cost of carbon span at least three orders of magnitude, from less than US$1 per tonne of carbon to over US$1,500 per tonne [ 20.6.1 ]. It is likely that the globally-aggregated figures from integrated assessment models underestimate climate costs because they do not include significant impacts that have not yet been monetised [ 20.6.1 , 20.6.2 , 20.7.2 , 20.8 , Chapter 17 Section 17.2.3 , Chapter 19 ]. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates mask significant differences in impacts across sectors and across regions, countries and locally [ 20.6 , 20.7 , 20.8 , Chapter 17 Section 17.3.3 ]. It is virtually certain that the real social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases will rise over time; it is very likely that the rate of increase will be 2% to 4% per year [ 20.6 , 20.7 ]. By 2080, it is likely that 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will be experiencing water scarcity (depending on scenario); 200 to 600 million, hunger; 2 to 7 million more per year, coastal flooding [ 20.6.2 ].

Reducing vulnerability to the hazards associated with current and future climate variability and extremes through specific policies and programmes, individual initiatives, participatory planning processes and other community approaches can reduce vulnerability to climate change [ 20.8.1 , 20.8.2 , Chapter 17 Sections 17.2.1 , 17.2.2 and 17.2.3 ] (high confidence). Efforts to reduce vulnerability will be not be sufficient to eliminate all damages associated with climate change [ 20.5 , 20.7.2 , 20.7.3 ] (very high confidence).

Climate change will impede nations’ abilities to achieve sustainable development pathways as measured, for example, by long-term progress towards the Millennium Development Goals [ 20.7.1 ] (very high confidence).

Over the next half-century, it is very likely that climate change will make it more difficult for nations to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for the middle of the century. It is very likely that climate change attributed with high confidence to anthropogenic sources, per se, will not be a significant extra impediment to nations reaching their 2015 Millennium Development Targets since many other obstacles with more immediate impacts stand in the way [ 20.7.1 ].

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures will be effective until the middle of this century (high confidence), but even a combination of aggressive mitigation and significant investment in adaptive capacity could be overwhelmed by the end of the century along a likely development scenario [ 20.7.3 , Chapter 18 Sections 18.4 , 18.7 , Chapter 19 ] (high confidence).

Until around 2050, it is likely that global mitigation efforts designed to cap effective greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 ppm would benefit developing countries significantly, regardless of whether climate sensitivity turns out to be high or low and especially when combined with enhanced adaptation. Developed countries would also likely see significant benefits from an adaptation-mitigation intervention portfolio, especially for high climate sensitivities and in sectors and regions that are already showing signs of being vulnerable. However, by 2100, climate change will likely produce significant impacts across the globe, even if aggressive mitigation were implemented in combination with significantly enhanced adaptive capacity [ 20.7.3 ].

20.1 Introduction – setting the context

Consistent with the Bruntland Commission ( WCED, 1987 [NPR, MoS] ), the Third Assessment Report (TAR) ( IPCC, 2001b [NPR] ) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. There are many alternative definitions, of course, and none is universally accepted. Nonetheless, they all emphasise one or more of the following critical elements: identifying what to develop, identifying what to sustain, characterising links between entities to be sustained and entities to be developed and envisioning future contexts for these links ( NRC, 1999 [NPR] ). Goals, indicators, values and practices can also frame examinations of sustainable development ( Kates et al., 2005 [NPR, SRC] ). The essence of sustainable development throughout is meeting fundamental human needs in ways that preserve the life support systems of the planet ( Kates et al., 2000 [JoC, SRC] ). Its strength lies in reconciling real and perceived conflicts between the economy and the environment and between the present and the future ( NRC, 1999 [NPR] ). Authors have emphasised the economic, ecological and human/social dimensions that are the pillars of sustainable development ( Robinson and Herbert, 2001 [ARC] ; Munasinghe et al., 2003 [NPR, ARC] ; Kates et al., 2005 [NPR, SRC] ). The economic dimension aims at improving human welfare (such as real income). The ecological dimension seeks to protect the integrity and resilience of ecological systems, and the social dimension focuses on enriching human relationships and attaining individual and group aspirations ( Munasinghe and Swart, 2000 [NPR] ), as well as addressing concerns related to social justice and promotion of greater societal awareness of environmental issues ( (O’Riordan, 2004 ) ).

The concept of sustainable development has permeated mainstream thinking over the past two decades, especially after the 1992 Earth Summit where 178 governments adopted Agenda 21 ( UNDSD, 2006 [NPR] ). Ten years later, the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development ( WSSD, 2002 [NPR] ) made it clear that sustainable development had become a widely-held social and political goal. Even though, as illustrated in Asia by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies ( IGES, 2005 [NPR] ), implementation remains problematic, there is broad international agreement that development programmes should foster transitions to paths that meet human needs while preserving the Earth’s life-support systems and alleviating hunger and poverty ( ICSU, 2002 [NPR] ) by integrating these three dimensions (economic, ecological and human/social) of sustainable development. Researchers and practitioners in merging fields, such as ‘sustainability science’ ( Kates et al., 2000 [JoC, SRC] ), multi-scale decision analysis ( (Adger et al., 2003 ) ) and ‘sustainomics’ ( Munasinghe et al., 2003 [NPR, ARC] ), seek to increase our understanding of how societies can do just that.

Climate change adds to the list of stressors that challenge our ability to achieve the ecologic, economic and social objectives that define sustainable development. Chapter 20 builds on the assessments in earlier chapters to note the potential for climate change to affect development paths themselves. Figure 20.1 locates its key topics schematically in the context of the three pillars of sustainable development. Topics shown in the centre of the triangle (the ‘three-legged stool’ of sustainable development) are linked with all three pillars. Other topics, placed outside the triangle, are located closer to one leg or another. The arrows leading from the centre indicate that adaptation to climate change can influence the processes that join the pillars rather than the individual pillars themselves. For example, the technical and economic aspects of renewable resource management could illustrate efforts to support sustainable development by working with the economy-ecology connection – all nested within a decision space of other global development pressures, including poverty.

Section 20.2 begins with a brief review of the current understanding of impacts and adaptive capacity as described earlier (see Chapter 17 ). Section 20.3 assesses impacts and adaptation in the context of multiple stresses. Section 20.4 focuses on links to environmental quality and explores the notion of adding climate-change impacts and adaptation to the list of components of environmental impact assessments. Section 20.5 addresses implications for risk, hazards and disaster management, including the challenge of reducing vulnerability to current climate variability and adapting to long-term climate change. Section 20.6 reviews global and regionally-aggregated estimates of economic impacts. Section 20.7 assesses the implications for achieving sustainable development across various time-scales. Section 20.8 considers opportunities, co-benefits and challenges for climate-change adaptation, and for linking (or mainstreaming) adaptation into national and regional development planning processes. Section 20.9 finally identifies research priorities.

This entire chapter should be read with the recognition that the first 19 chapters of this volume assess the regional and global impacts of climate change and the opportunities and challenges for adaptation. Chapters 17 and 19 in this volume offer synthetic overviews of this work that focus specifically on adaptation and key vulnerabilities. Chapter 20 in this volume expands the discussion to explore linkages with sustainable development, as do Chapters 2 and 12 in IPCC 2007a [NPR, 2007] ). Sustainable development was addressed in IPCC 2001b [NPR] ), but not in IPCC 2001a [NPR] ).

20.2 A synthesis of new knowledge relating to impacts and adaptation

Recent work at the intersection of impacts and adaptation has confirmed that adaptation to climate change is, to a limited extent, already happening ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.2 ). Perhaps more importantly for this chapter, recent work has also reconfirmed the utility of the prescription initially presented in Smit et al. 2001 [NPR, SRC] ) that (1) any system’s vulnerability to climate change and climate variability could be described productively in terms of its exposure to the impacts of climate and its baseline sensitivity to those impacts and that (2) both exposure and sensitivity can be influenced by that system’s adaptive capacity ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.3.3 ). The list of critical determinants of adaptive capacity was described in Smit et al. 2001 [NPR, SRC] ) and has been explored subsequently by, for example, Yohe and Tol 2002 [JoC, SRC] Adger and Vincent 2004 [NPR, ARC] Brenkert and Malone 2005 [JoC, MoS, SRC] and Brooks and Adger 2005 [NPR, ARC] ) – a list that includes access to economic and natural resources, entitlements (property rights), social networks, institutions and governance, human resources and technology ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.3.3 ).

It is, however, important to note that recent work has also emphasised the fundamental distinction between adaptive capacity and adaptation implementation. There are significant barriers to implementing adaptation ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.3.3 ) and they can arise almost anywhere. The description offered by Kates et al. 2006 [JoC, SRC] ) of the damages and costs caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, denominated in economic and human terms, provides a seminal example of this point. Notwithstanding the widely accepted assertion that the United States has high adaptive capacity, the impacts of Hurricane Katrina were fundamentally the result of a failure of adaptive infrastructure (improperly constructed levées that led to a false sense of security) and planning (deficiencies in evacuation plans, particularly in many of the poorer sections of the cities). The capacity provided by public and private investment over the past few decades was designed to handle a hurricane like Katrina; it was the anticipatory efforts to provide protection prior to landfall and response efforts after landfall that failed.

Nothing in the recent literature has undermined a fundamental conclusion in Smit et al. 2001 [NPR, SRC] ) that “current knowledge of adaptation and adaptive capacity is insufficient for reliable prediction of adaptations; it is also insufficient for rigorous evaluation of planned adaptation options, measures and policies of governments.” (page 880). This conclusion is often supported by noting the uneven distribution of adaptive capacity across and within societies ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.3.2 ), but strong support can also be derived from the paucity of estimates of the costs of adaptation ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.2.3 ). While many adaptations can be implemented at low costs, comprehensive estimates of costs and benefits of adaptation currently do not exist except, perhaps, for costs related to adapting to sea-level rise and changes in the temporal and spatial demand for energy (heating versus cooling). Global diversity is one problem in this regard, but there are others. Anticipating the discussion of multiple stresses that appears in the next section of this chapter, it is now understood that climate change poses novel risks that often lie outside the range of past experience ( Chapter 17 , Section 17.2.1 ) and that adaptation measures are seldom undertaken in response to climate change alone ( Chapter 17 , Sections 17.2.2 and 17.3.3 ).

20.3 Impacts and adaptation in the context of multiple stresses

20.4 Implications for environmental quality

The inseparability of environment and development has been widely recognised ever since the Brundtland Commission ( WCED, 1987 [NPR, MoS] ). In the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), for example, environmental considerations are reflected in the 7th goal and the operative target, among others, is to reverse loss of environmental resources by 2015 . Overall, how to meet the target of integrating the principles of sustainable development in national policy and reversing the loss of environmental resources remains a partially answered question for most countries ( Kates et al., 2005 [NPR, SRC] ).

Interest in environmental indicators and performance indices to monitor change has increased recently. A compilation of different sustainable development indicators by Kates et al. 2005 [NPR, SRC] ) showed that most implicitly or explicitly build from reflections of the health of environmental and ecological resources and/or the quality of environmental and ecological services. This is relevant in both developed and developing countries, but the drivers encouraging sustainable management are arguably strongest in the developed world. Huq and Reid 2004 [ARC] and Agrawala 2004 [ARC] ) have noted, though, that climate change is being increasingly recognised as a key factor that could affect the (sustainable) development of developed and developing countries alike. The Philippine Country Report ( 1999 ) identified 153 sustainable development indicators; some pertain to climate-change variables such as level of greenhouse gas emissions, but none refer explicitly to adaptation. There is, for example, no mention within the MDGs of potential changes in climate-related disasters or of the need to include climate-change adaptation within development programmes ( Reid and Alam, 2005 [ARC] ). This is not unusual, because links between sustainable development and climate change have historically been defined primarily in terms of mitigation.

Promoting environmental quality is about more than encouraging sustainable development or adaptive capacity. It is also about transforming use practices for environmental resources into sustainable management practices. In many countries and sectors, stakeholders who manage natural resources (such as individual farmers, small businesses or major international corporations) are susceptible, over time, to variations in resource availability and hazards; they are currently seeking to revise management practices to make their actions more sustainable. ( Hilson 2001 ) ), for example, describes efforts in the mineral extraction industry where the relevant players include public agencies operating at many scales (from local to national to international). Definitions of sustainability vary across sectors, but their common theme is to change the way resources are exploited or hazards are managed so that adverse impacts downstream or for subsequent generations are reduced. Climate change is, however, seldom listed among the stressors that might influence sustainability. Arnell and Delaney 2006 [JoC, SRC] ) note, though, that water management in the United Kingdom is an exception.

Published literature on the links between sustainable management of natural resources and the impacts of and adaptation to climate change is extremely sparse. Most focuses on engineering and management techniques which achieve management objectives, such as a degree of protection against flood hazard or a volume of crop production, while having smaller impacts on the environment. ( Turner 2004 ) ( and Harman et al. 2002 ) ) speak to this point, but very few engineering analyses consider explicitly how the performance of these measures is affected by climate change or how suitable they would be in the face of a changing climate. Kundzewicz 2002 [ARC] ) demonstrated how non-structural flood management measures can be sustainable adaptations to climate change because they are relatively robust to uncertainty. On the other hand, as shown in ( Clark 2002 ) ( and Kashyap 2004 ) ), much of the literature on integrated water management in the broadest sense emphasises adaptation to climatic variability and change through the adoption of sustainable and integrated approaches.

Several studies have highlighted the benefits of adopting more sustainable practices, in terms of reduced costs, increased efficiency or financial performance more broadly interpreted. ( Johnson and Walck 2004 ) ) offer an example from forestry while ( Epstein and Roy 2003 ) ) are illustrative of a more expansive context. None of these studies explicitly consider the effects of climate change on the benefits of adopting more sustainable practices; and none of the literature on mechanisms for incorporating sustainable behaviour into organisational practice and monitoring its implementation (e.g., ( Jasch, 2003; ) ( Figge and Hahn, 2004 ) ) consider how to incorporate the effects of climate change into mechanisms or monitoring procedures.

( Clark 2002 ) ( and Bansal 2005 ) ) identified several drivers behind moves to become more sustainable. First, altered legal or regulatory requirements may have an effect. Many governments have adopted legislation aimed at encouraging the sustainable use of the natural environment, and some explicitly include reference to climate change. For example, Canada and some EU member states have begun to incorporate climate change in their environmental policies, particularly in the structures of required environmental impact assessments. The hope is that the impact of present and future climates on development projects might thereby be reduced ( EEA, 2006 [NPR] ; Barrow and Lee, 2000 [NPR] ( Ramus 2002 ) and Thomas et al. 2004 [Ambiguous] ) have observed that internally-generated efforts to improve procedures (e.g., following an ethical position held by an influential champion, responding to the desire to reduce costs or risks, or attempting to attract potential clients) can push systems toward sustainability.

Of course, stakeholder expectations may change over time. While these dynamic drivers may encourage sustainable management, they may not in themselves be directly related to concerns over the impacts of and adaptation to climate change. Kates et al. 2005 [NPR, SRC] ) noted that the principles, goals and practices of sustainability are not fixed and immutable; they are ‘works in progress’ because the tension between economic development and environmental protection has been opened to reinterpretation from different social and ecological perspectives.

20.5 Implications for risk, hazard and disaster management

The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction ( 1990 to 1999 ) led to a fundamental shift in the way disasters are viewed: away from the notion that disasters were temporary disruptions to be managed by humanitarian responses and technical interventions and towards a recognition that disasters are a function of both natural and human drivers ( ISDR, 2004 [NPR] ; UNDP, 2004 [NPR] ). The concept of disaster risk management has evolved; it is defined as the systematic management of administrative decisions, organisations, operational skills and abilities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of society or individuals to lessen the impacts of natural and related environmental and technological hazards ( ISDR, 2004 [NPR] ). This includes measures to provide not only emergency relief and recovery, but also disaster risk reduction ( ISDR, 2004 [NPR] ); i.e., the development and application of policies, strategies and practices designed to minimise vulnerabilities and the impacts of disasters through a combination of technical measures to reduce physical hazards and to enhance social and economic capacity to adapt. Disaster risk reduction is conceived as taking place within the broad context of sustainable development ( ISDR, 2004 [NPR] ).

In practice, however, there has been a disconnect between disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, due to a combination of institutional structures, lack of awareness of the linkages between the two, and perceptions of ‘competition’ between hazard-based risk reduction, development needs and emergency relief ( Yamin, 2004 [ARC] ; Thomalla et al., 2006 [ARC] ). The disconnect persists despite an increasing recognition that natural disasters seriously challenge the ability of countries to meet targets associated with the Millennium Development Goals ( (Schipper and Pelling, 2006 ) ).

A disconnect also exists between disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change, again reflecting different institutional structures and lack of awareness of linkages ( (Schipper and Pelling, 2006; ) ( O’Brien et al., 2006 ) ). Disaster risk reduction, for example, is often the responsibility of civil defence agencies, while climate-change adaptation is often covered by environmental or energy departments ( Thomalla et al., 2006 [ARC] ). Disaster risk reduction tends to focus on sudden and short-lived disasters, such as floods, storms, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and has tended to place less emphasis on ‘creeping onset’ disasters such as droughts. Many disasters covered by disaster risk reduction are not affected by climate change. However, there is an increasing recognition of the linkages between disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change, since climate change alters not only the physical hazard but also vulnerability. Sperling and Szekely 2005 [NPR] ) note that many of the impacts associated with climate change exacerbate or alter existing threats, and adaptation measures can benefit from practical experience in disaster risk reduction. However, some effects of climate change are new within human history (such as the effects of sea-level rise), and there is little experience to tackle such impacts. Sperling and Szekely 2005 [NPR] ) therefore state that co-ordinated action to address both existing and new challenges becomes urgent. There is great opportunity for collaboration in the assessment of current and future vulnerabilities, in the use of assessment tools ( Thomalla et al., 2006 [ARC] ) and through capacity-building measures. Incorporating climate change and its uncertainty into measures to reduce vulnerability to hazard is essential in order for them to be truly sustainable ( (O’Hare, 2002 ) ), and climate change increases the urgency to integrate disaster risk management into development interventions ( DFID, 2004 [NPR] ).

There are, effectively, two broad approaches to disaster risk reduction, and adaptation to climate change can be incorporated differently into each. The top-down approach is based on institutional responses, allocation of funding and agreed procedures and practices ( (O’Brien et al., 2006 ) ). It is the approach followed in most developed countries, and adaptation to climate change can be implemented by changing guidelines and procedures. In the United Kingdom, for example, design flood magnitudes can be increased by 20% to reflect possible effects of climate change ( (Richardson, 2002 ) ). However, institutional inertia and strongly embedded practices can make it very difficult to change. Olsen 2006 [JoC] ), for example, shows how major methodological and institutional changes are needed before flood management in the USA can take climate change (and its uncertainty) into account. The bottom-up approach to disaster risk reduction is based on enhancing the capacity of local communities to adapt to and prepare for disaster (see, for example, ( Allen, 2006; ) ( Blanco, 2006 ) ). Actions here include dissemination of technical knowledge and training, awareness raising, accessing local knowledge and resources, and mobilising local communities ( (Allen, 2006 ) ). Climate change can be incorporated in this approach through awareness raising and the transmission of technical knowledge to local communities, but bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and local application is a key challenge ( (Blanco, 2006 ) ).

Reducing vulnerability to current climatic variability can effectively reduce vulnerability to increased hazard risk associated with climate change (e.g., ( Kashyap, 2004; ) Goklany, 2007 [2007] ; Burton et al., 2002 [JoC, ARC] ; Davidson et al., 2003 [JoC, ARC] ;( Robledo et al., 2004 ) ). To a large extent, adaptation measures for climate variability and extremes already exist. Measures to reduce current vulnerability by capacity building rather than distribution of disaster relief, for example, will increase resilience to changes in hazard caused by climate change ( Mirza, 2003 [JoC] ). Similarly, the implementation of improved warning and forecasting methods and the adoption of some land-use planning measures would reduce both current and future vulnerability. However, many responses to current climatic variability would not in and of themselves be a sufficient response to climate change. For example, a changing climate could alter the design standard of a physical defence, such as a realigned channel or a defence wall. It could alter the effectiveness of building codes based on designing against specified return period events (such as the 10-year return period gust). It could alter the area exposed to a potential hazard, meaning that development previously assumed to be ‘safe’ was now located in a risk area. Finally, it could introduce hazards previously not experienced in an area. Burton and van Aalst 2004 [NPR, ARC] ), in their assessment of the World Bank Country Strategic Programmes and project cycle, identify the need to assess the success of current adaptation to present-day climate risks and climate variability, especially as they may change with climate change.

20.6 Global and aggregate impacts

Three types of aggregate impacts are commonly reported. In the first, impacts are computed as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for a specified rise in global mean temperature. In the second, impacts are aggregated over time and discounted back to the present day along specified emissions scenarios such as those documented in Nakićenović and Swart 2000 [Ambiguous] ) under specified assumptions about economic development, changes in technology and adaptive capacity. Some of these estimates are made at the global level, but others aggregate a series of local or regional impacts to obtain a global total. A third type of estimate has recently attracted the most attention. Called the social cost of carbon (SCC), it is an estimate of the economic value of the extra (or marginal) impact caused by the emission of one more tonne of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) at any point in time; it can, as well, be interpreted as the marginal benefit of reducing carbon emissions by one tonne. Researchers calculate SCC by summing the extra impacts for as long as the extra tonne remains in the atmosphere – a process which requires a model of atmospheric residence time and a means of discounting economic values back to the year of emission.

This section provides a brief discussion of the historical and current status of efforts to produce aggregate estimates of the impacts of climate change. The first sub-section focuses attention on economic estimates and the second begins to expand the discussion by reporting estimates calibrated in alternative metrics. It is in this expansion that the implications of spatial and temporal diversity in systems’ exposures and sensitivities to climate change begin to emerge.

20.7 Implications for regional, sub-regional, local and sectoral development; access to resources and technology; equity

The first sub-section here addresses issues of equity and access to resources as measured by the likelihood of meeting Millennium Development Targets by 2015 and Millennium Development Goals until the middle of this century. Vulnerability to climate change is unlikely to be the dominant cause of trouble for most nations as they try to reach the 2015 Targets. However, an assortment of climate-related vulnerabilities will seriously impede progress in achieving the mid-century goals. The second sub-section considers the range of these vulnerabilities across regions and sectors in 2050 and 2100 before the last offers portraits of the global distribution of vulnerability with and without enhanced adaptive capacity and/or mitigation efforts.

20.8 Opportunities, co-benefits and challenges for adaptation

This section extends some of the ideas outlined in Najam et al. 2003 [JoC, ARC] ); they focus on mainstreaming climate-change adaptation into planning and development decisions with particular emphasis on participatory processes.

20.9 Uncertainties, unknowns and priorities for research

Uncertainties, unknowns and priorities for research illuminate the confidence statements that modify scientific conclusions delivered to members of the policy community. For the research community, however, they can be translated into tasks designed to improve understanding and elaborate sources confidence. This section is therefore organised as a series of tasks.

Expand understanding of the synergies in and/or obstacles to simultaneous progress in promoting enhanced adaptive capacity and sustainable development. The current state of knowledge in casting adaptive capacity and vulnerability into the future is primitive. More thorough understandings of the process by which adaptive capacity and vulnerability evolve over time along specific development pathways are required. Commonalities exist across the determinants of adaptive capacity, mitigative capacity and the factors that support sustainable development, but current understanding of how they can be recognised and exploited is minimal.

Integrate more closely current work in the development and climate-change communities. Synergies exist between practitioners and researchers in the sustainable development and climate-change communities, but there is a need to develop means by which these communities can integrate their efforts more productively. The relative efficacies of dialogue processes and new tools required to promote this integration, and the various participatory and/or model-based approaches required to support their efforts must be refined or developed from scratch. Opportunities for shared learning should be identified, explored and exploited.

Search for common ground between spatially explicit analyses of vulnerability and aggregate integrated assessment models. Geographical and temporal scales of development and climate initiatives vary widely. The interaction and intersection between spatially explicit and aggregate integrated assessment models has yet to be explored rigorously. For example, representations of adaptive capacities and resulting vulnerabilities in aggregate integrated assessment models are still rudimentary. As progress is encouraged in improving their abilities to depict reality, research initiatives must also recognise and work to overcome difficulties in matching the scales at which models are constructed and exercised with the scales at which decisions are made. New tools are required to handle these differences, particularly between the local and national, short-to-medium-term scales of adaptation and development programmes and projects and the global, medium-to-long-term scale of mitigation.

Recognise that uncertainties will continue to be pervasive and persistent, and develop or refine new decision-support mechanisms that can identify robust coping strategies even in the face of this uncertainty. Significant uncertainties in estimating the social cost of greenhouse gases exist, and many of their sources have been identified; indeed many of their sources reside in the research needs listed above. Reducing these uncertainties would certainly be productive, but it cannot be guaranteed that future research will make much progress in this regard. It follows that concurrent improvement in our ability to use existing decision-support tools and to design new approaches to cope with uncertainties and associated risks that will be required over the foreseeable future is even more essential. In short, identify appropriate decision-support tools and clarify the criteria that they can inform in an uncertain world.

Characterise the full range of possible climate futures and the paths that might bring them forward. The research communities in both climate and development must, along with practitioners and decision-makers, be informed not only about the central tendencies of climate change and its ramifications, but also about the outlier possibilities about which the natural-science community is less sanguine. It is simply impossible to comprehend the risks associated with high-consequence outcomes with low probabilities if neither their character nor their likelihood has been described.

This chapter has offered a glimpse into where to turn for guidance in confronting and managing the risks associated with climate change and climate variability. Indeed, the climate problem is a classic risk management problem of the sort with which decision-makers are already familiar. It is critical to see risk as the product of likelihood and consequence, to recognise that the likelihood of a climate impact is dependent on natural and human systems, and to understand that the consequence of that impact can be measured in terms of a multitude of numeraires (currency, millions at risk, species extinction, abrupt physical changes and so on). These expressions of risk are determined fundamentally by location in time and space.

This chapter also points to synergies that exist at the nexus of sustainable development and adaptive capacity, primarily by noting for the first time that many of the goals of sustainable development match the determinants of adaptive capacity (and, for that matter, mitigative capacity). Planners in the decision-intensive ministries around the world are therefore already familiar with the generic mechanisms by which including climate change into their risk assessments of development programmes can complicate their decisions. Adding climate to the list of multiple stresses which can impede progress in meeting their goals in their specific context is thus not a new problem. Climate change, even when its impacts are amplified by the effects of other stresses, is just one more thing: one more problem to confront, but also one more reason to act in ways that promote progress along multiple fronts. Exploitation of the synergies is not automatic, so care must be taken to avoid development activities that can exacerbate climate change or impacts just as care must be taken to take explicit account of climate risks.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commits governments to avoiding “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”, but governments will be informed in their deliberations of what is or is not ‘dangerous’ only by an approach that explicitly reflects the rich diversity of climate risk across the globe and into the coming decades instead of burying this diversity into incomplete aggregate indices of damages. Risk management techniques have been designed for such tasks; but it is important to note that risk-based approaches require exploration of the implications of not only the central tendencies of climate change that are the focus of consensus-driven assessments of the literature, but also the uncomfortable (or more benign) futures that reside in the ‘tails’ of current understanding. Viewing the climate issue from a risk perspective can offer climate policy deliberations and negotiations new insight into the synergies by which governments can promote sustainable development, reduce the risk of climate-related damages and take advantage of climate-related opportunities.

References

Abaza, H. and A. Baranzini, Eds., 2002: Implementing Sustainable Development: Integrated Assessment and Participatory Decision-making Processes. United Nations Environment Programme, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 320 pp. [NPR]

ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2005: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1042 pp. [NPR]

Adger, N. and K. Vincent, 2004: Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. IPCC Workshop on Describing Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and Options, M. Manning, M. Petit, D. Easterling, J. Murphy, A. Patwardhan, H-H Rogner, R. Swart and G. Yohe, Eds., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 49-51. [NPR, ARC]

Adger, W.N., K. Brown and E.L. Tompkins, 2005: The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society, 10, article 9. [Accessed 30.05.07: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/] Clean

Adger, W.N., K. Brown, J. Fairbrass, A. Jordan, J. Paavola, S. Rosendo and G. Seyfang, 2003: Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decision-making. Environ. Plann. A, 35, 1095-1110. Clean

AfDB (African Development Bank), ADB, DFID, DGIS, EC, BMZ, OECD, UNDP and WB, 2003: Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing Vulnerability of the Poor. African Development Bank; Asian Development Bank; UK Department for International Development; Directorate-General for Development, European Commission; Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany; Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Development Cooperation, the Netherlands; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank, Eds., DFID, UK, 43 pp. [NPR]

AfDB (African Development Bank), African Development Fund, African Union, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and New Partnership for Africa’s Development, 2004: Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Assessment in Development, United Nations, 68 pp. [NPR]

Agrawala, S., 2004: Adaptation, development assistance and planning: challenges and opportunities. IDS Bulletin, 35, 50-54. [ARC]

Agrawala, S., Ed., 2005: Bridge over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, 153 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Ahmad, Q.K. and A.U. Ahmed, Eds., 2002: Bangladesh: citizen’s perspective on sustainable development, Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad (BUP), Dhaka, 181 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Allen, K.M., 2006. Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity-building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30, 81-101. Clean

APJED (Asia Pacific Journal on Environment and Development), 2004: Community approaches to flood management in South Asia. Asia Pacific Journal on Environment and Development, special double issue, 11, Nos. 1 and 2. Clean

Arnell, N.W., 2004: Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 31-52. [JoC, SRC]

Arnell, N.W., 2006: Climate change and water resources: a global perspective. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Proceedings of the Exeter Conference, H.J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N. Nakicenovic, T.M.L. Wigley and G. Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 167-175. [NPR, SRC]

Arnell, N.W. and E.K. Delaney, 2006: Adapting to climate change: public water supply in England and Wales. Climatic Change, 78, 227-255. [JoC, SRC]

Arnell, N.W., M.G.R. Cannell, M. Hulme, R.S. Kovats, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Nicholls, M.L. Parry, M.T.J. Livermore and Co-authors, 2002: The consequences of CO₂ stabilization for the impacts of climate change. Climatic Change, 53, 413-446. [JoC, SRC]

Arrow, K., P. Dasgupta, L. Goulder, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, S. Levin, K.-G. Maler, S. Schneider, D. Starrett and B. Walker, 2004: Are we consuming too much? J. Econ. Perspect., 18, 147-172. [PoC, JoC, ARC]

Bansal, P., 2005: Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Manage. J., 26, 197-218. Clean

Barrow, E.M. and R.J. Lee, 2000: Climate change and environmental assessment part 2: climate change guidance for environmental assessments. The Research and Development Monograph Series 2000, The Canadian Institute for Climate Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, 85 pp. [NPR]

Beg, N., J.C. Morlot, O. Davidson, Y. Afrane-Okesse, L. Tyani, F. Denton, Y. Sokona, J.P. Thomas, E.L. La Rovere, J.K. Parikh, K. Parikh and A.A. Rahman., 2002: Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Clim. Policy, 2, 129-144. [JoC, ARC]

Belliveau, S., B. Smit and B. Bradshaw, 2006: Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: evidence from the grape industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 364-378. [JoC, ARC]

Bennett, E. and M. Zurek, 2006: Integrating epistemologies through scenarios. Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems, W.V. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks and D. Capistrano, Eds., Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 264-280. [NPR, ARC]

Blanco, A.V.R., 2006: Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. Disasters, 30, 140-147. Clean

Bouwer, L.M. and J.C.J.H. Aerts, 2006: Financing climate change adaptation. Disasters, 30, 49-63. Clean

Brander, L., 2003: The Kyoto mechanisms and the economics of their design. Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol: The Role of Institutions and Instruments to Control Global Change, M. Faure, J. Gupta and A. Nentjes, Eds., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 25-44. [NPR]

Brenkert, A. and E. Malone, 2005: Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: a case study of India and Indian States. Climatic Change, 72, 57-102. [JoC, MoS, SRC]

Brooks, N. and W.N. Adger, 2005: Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim and E. Spanger-Siegfried, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 165-182. [NPR, ARC]

Brooks, N., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 151-163. [JoC, ARC]

Bulkeley, H. and A.P.J. Mol, 2003: Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12, 143-154. Clean

Burton, I., 2004: The adaptation deficit. Building the Adaptive Capacity, A. Fenech, D. MacIver, H. Auld, R. Bing Rong and Y. Yin, Eds., Environment Canada, Toronto, 25-33. [NPR, ARC]

Burton, I. and E. May, 2004: The adaptation deficit in water resources management IDS Bulletin, 35, 31-37. [ARC]

Burton, I. and M. van Aalst, 2004: Look Before You Leap: A Risk Management Approach for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into World Bank Operations. World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 47 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova and E.L. Schipper, 2002: From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Clim. Policy, 2, 145-159. [JoC, ARC]

Caparrós, A. and F. Jacquemont, 2003: Conflict between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs: economic and legal implications. Ecol. Econ., 46, 143-157. Clean

Chambers, R., 2006: Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25, 1-11. [Accessed 30.05.07: http://www.ejisdc.org] Clean

Clark, M.J., 2002: Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to sustainable river management. Aquat. Conserv., 12, 347-363. Clean

Clarkson, R. and K. Deyes, 2002: Estimating the social cost of carbon emissions. Government Economic Service Working Paper 140, HM Treasury and Defra, 59 pp. [NPR, MoS]

Cohen, S. and T. Neale, Eds., 2006: Participatory integrated assessment of water management and climate change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Environment Canada and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 221 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Cohen, S., D. Demeritt, J. Robinson and D. Rothman, 1998: Climate change and sustainable development: towards dialogue. Global Environ. Chang., 8, 341-371. [JoC, SRC]

Cohen, S., D. Neilsen and R. Welbourn, Eds., 2004: Expanding the dialogue on climate change & water management in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Environment Canada, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada and University of British Columbia, 224 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Collier, U. and R.E. Löfstedt, Eds., 1997: Cases in Climate Change Policy: Political Reality in the European Union. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. 204 pp. [NPR]

Commission for Africa, 2005: Our Common Interest. Report of the Commission for Africa, 461 pp. [Accessed 30.05.07: www.commissionforafrica.org]. [NPR]

Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale, 2004: Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim and E. Spanger-Siegfried, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 47-66. [NPR, ARC]

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari, Eds., 2001: Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London, 207 pp. [NPR]

Corbett, J., G. Rambaldi, P. Kyem, D. Weiner, R. Olson, J. Muchemi, M. McCall and R. Chambers, 2006: Overview: mapping for change – the emergence of a new practice. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 13-19. Clean

Coward, H., 2004: What can individuals do? Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada, H. Coward and A.J. Weaver, Eds., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Canada, 233-252. [NPR]

Dang, H.H., A. Michaelowa and D.D. Tuan, 2003: Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy, 3, S81-S96. [JoC]

Davidson, O., K. Halsnaes, S. Huq, M. Kok, B. Metz, Y. Sokona and J. Verhagen, 2003: The development and climate nexus: the case of sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Policy, 3, S97-S113. [JoC, ARC]

Desanker, P.V., 2004: The NAPA Primer. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), Bonn, Germany, 192 pp. [NPR]

DFID, 2004: Reducing the risk of disasters: helping to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in a vulnerable world. Department for International Development Policy Paper, London, 36 pp. [NPR]

Downing, T., D. Anthoff, R. Butterfield, M. Ceronsky, M. Grubb, J. Guo, C. Hepburn, C. Hope and Co-authors, 2005: Social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty. Final Report, Defra, 95 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Eakin, H. and M.C. Lemos, 2006: Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the challenge of capacity building under globalization. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 7-18. [JoC, ARC]

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2006: Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. Technical Report No. 7, European Environment Agency, 84 pp. [NPR]

Elasha, B.O., 2005: Sustainable development. Tiempo, 57, 18-23. Clean

Epstein, M.J. and M.J. Roy, 2003: Making the business case for sustainability: linking social and environmental actions to financial performance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9, 79-96. Clean

Figge, F. and T. Hahn, 2004: Sustainable value added - measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ., 48, 173-187. Clean

Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. Carpenter, F. Chapin, M. Coe and Co-authors, 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570-574. [JoC, ARC]

Ford, J.D., B. Smit and J. Wandel, 2006: Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 145-160. [JoC, ARC]

Furgal, C.M., C. Fletcher and C. Dickson, 2006: Ways of knowing and understanding: towards the convergence of traditional and scientific understanding of climate change in the Canadian North. Environment Canada, No. KM467-05-6213, 96 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Garande, T. and S. Dagg, 2005: Public participation and effective water governance at the local level: a case study from a small under-developed area in Chile. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 417-431. Clean

Gardiner, S.M., 2004: Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114, 555-600. Clean

Goklany, I.M., 2007: Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. doi: 10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1. [2007]

Guiso, L., P. Sapienza and L. Zingales, 2004: The role of social capital in financial development. Am. Econ. Rev., 94, 526-556. Clean

Gupta, J. and R.S.J. Tol, 2003: Why reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Reasons, issue-linkages, and dilemmas. Issues in International Climate Policy: Theory and Policy, E.C. van Ireland, J. Gupta and M.T.J. Kok, Eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 17-38. [NPR, ARC]

Haas, P.M., 2004: When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J. Eur. Public Policy, 11, 569-592. Clean

Haddad, B.M., 2005: Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 165-176. [JoC]

Hamlet, A.F., 2003: The role of transboundary agreements in the Columbia River Basin: an integrated assessment in the context of historic development, climate, and evolving water policy. Climate, Water, and Transboundary Challenges in the Americas, H. Diaz and B. Morehouse, Eds., Kluwer Press, Dordrecht, 263-289. [NPR, ARC]

Harman, J., Bramley, M. E. and Funnell, M., 2002: Sustainable flood defense in England and Wales. P. I. Civil Eng.-Civ. En., 150, 3-9. Clean

Hasselman, K., 1999: Intertemporal accounting of climate change - harmonizing economic efficiency and climate stewardship. Climatic Change, 41, 333-350. [JoC]

Hickey, S. and G. Mohan, Eds., 2004: Participation, from Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring new Approaches to Participation in Development. Zed Books, London, 292 pp. [NPR]

Hilson, G., 2001: Putting theory into practice: how has the gold mining industry interpreted the concept of sustainable development? Miner. Resour. Eng., 10, 397-413. Clean

Hisschemöller, M., R.S.J. Tol and P. Vellinga., 2001: The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integrated Assessment, 2, 57-72. [ARC]

Hitz, S. and J. Smith, 2004: Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 201-218. [JoC, MoS, ARC]

Hope, C., 2005: Memorandum by Dr Chris Hope, Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge. The Economics of Climate Change, HL 12-II, Oral Evidence: 18 January 2005, House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, The Stationery Office, London. [NPR, SRC]

Hope, C., 2006a: The marginal impact of CO₂ from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integrated Assessment, 6, 1-16. [MoS, SRC]

Hope, C., 2006b: The marginal impacts of CO₂, CH4 and SF6 emissions. Climate Pol., 6, 537-544. [JoC, SRC]

Huntington, H.P., S.F. Trainor, D.C. Natcher, O.H. Huntington, L. DeWilde and F.S. Chapin III, 2006: The significance of context in community-based research: understanding discussions about wildfire in Huslia, Alaska. Ecology and Society, 11, article 40. [Accessed 30.05.07: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ iss1/art40/]. Clean

Huq, S., 2002: The Bonn-Marrakech agreements on funding. Climate Policy, 2, 243-246. [JoC, ARC]

Huq, S., 2006: Adaptation funding. Tiempo, 58, 20-21. [ARC]

Huq, S. and H. Reid, 2004: Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bulletin, 35, 15-21. [ARC]

Huq, S., H. Reid and L.A. Murray, 2006: Climate Change and Development Links. Gatekeeper Series 123, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 24 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Hyogo Declaration, 2005: Hyogo Declaration. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kobe, Japan, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, A/CONF.206/6, 5 pp. [NPR]

ICSU (International Council for Science), 2002: ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No 9: Science and Technology for Sustainable Development, 30 pp. [NPR]

IGES (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies), 2005: Sustainable Asia – 2005 and beyond: in the pursuit of innovative policies. IGES White Paper, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan, 174 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 1992: Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 200 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 880 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2001b: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1032 pp. [NPR]

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave and L. Meyer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [NPR, 2007]

IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996 pp. [NPR, 2007]

ISDR, 2004: Living With Risk: a Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(ISDR), United Nations, Geneva, 588 pp. [NPR]

Iwanciw, J.G., 2004: Promoting social adaptation to climate change and variability through knowledge, experiential and co-learning networks in Bolivia. Shell Foundation Sustainable Energy Program, 22 pp. [NPR]

Jasch, C., 2003: The use of environmental management accounting (EMA) for identifying environmental costs. J. Clean. Prod., 11, 667-676. Clean

Jegillos, S.R., 2003: Methodology. Sustainability in Grass-Roots Initiatives: Focus on Community Based Disaster Management, R. Shaw and K. Okazaki, Eds., United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office, 19-28. [NPR]

Jepma, C.J. and M. Munasinghe, 1998: Climate Change Policy: Facts, Issues and Analyses, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 331 pp. [NPR]

Johnson, D. and C. Walck, 2004: Integrating sustainability into corporate management systems. Journal of Forestry, 102, 32-39. Clean

Johnson, M., Ed., 1992: Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Dene Cultural Institute, Hay River, and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 190 pp. [NPR]

Jung, T.Y., A. Srinivasan, K. Tamura, T. Sudo, R. Watanabe, K. Shimada and H. Kimura, 2005: Asian Perspectives on Climate Regime Beyond 2012: Concerns, Interests and Priorities. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan, 95 pp. [NPR]

Kabat, P., R.E. Schulze, M.E. Hellmuth and J.A. Veraart, Eds., 2002: Coping with impacts of climate variability and climate change in water management: a scoping paper. DWC-Report no. DWCSSO-01(2002), International Secretariat of the Dialogue on Water and Climate, Wageningen, 114 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Kangur, K., Ed., 2004: Focus Groups and Citizens Juries - River Dialogue Experiences in Enhancing Public Participation in Water Management. Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation, Tartu, Estonia, 64 pp. [NPR]

Kashyap, A., 2004: Water governance: learning by developing adaptive capacity to incorporate climate variability and change. Water Science and Technology, 49, 141-146. Clean

Kates, R.W., 2000: Cautionary tales: adaptation and the global poor. Climatic Change, 45, 5-17. [JoC, SRC]

Kates, R.W., T.M. Parris and A.A. Leiserowitz, 2005: What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47, 8–21. [NPR, SRC]

Kates, R.W., C.E. Colten, S. Laska and S.P. Leatherman, 2006: Reconstruction of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14653-14660. [JoC, SRC]

Kates, R.W., W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N.M. Dickenson, S. Faucheux, G.C. Gallopin, A. Grübler, B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N.S. Jodha, R.E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore III, T. O’Riordan and U. Svedlin, 2000: Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641-642. [JoC, SRC]

Kemfert, C. and R.S.J. Tol, 2002: Equity, international trade and climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2, 23-48. [NPR, ARC]

Klein, R.J.T., E.L.F. Schipper and S. Dessai, 2005: Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 579-588. [ARC]

Kok, M.T.J., W.J. V. Vermeulen, A.P.C. Faaij and D. de Jager, Eds., 2002: Global Warming and Social Innovation: The Challenge of a Climate-Neutral Society. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, 242 pp. [NPR]

Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly, Eds., 2002: The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks, 384 pp. [NPR]

Kundzewicz, Z.W., 2002: Non-structural flood protection and sustainability. Water International, 27, 3-13. [ARC]

Larson, A.M. and J.C. Ribot, Eds., 2004a: Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens – an introduction. European Journal of Development Research, 16, 1-25. [NPR]

Larson, A.M. and J.C. Ribot, Eds., 2004b: Democratic Decentralization through a Natural Resource Lens. Routledge, New York, 272 pp. [NPR]

Leemans, R. and Eickhout, B., 2004: Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 219-228. [JoC, ARC]

Lemos, M.C. and B.J. Morehouse, 2005: The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 57-68. [JoC, ARC]

Levy, P.E., M.G.R. Cannell and A.D. Friend, 2004: Modelling the impact of future changes in climate, CO₂ concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 21-30. [JoC, MoS]

Lorenzoni, I., A. Jordan, D.T. Favis-Mortlock, D. Viner and J. Hall, 2001: Developing sustainable practices to adapt to the impacts of climate change: a case study of agricultural systems in eastern England (UK). Reg. Environ. Change, 2, 106-117. [ARC]

Low, P.S., Ed., 2005: Climate Change and Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 412 pp. [NPR]

Lucas, R.E., 1988: On the Mechanics of Economic Development. J. Monetary Econ., 22, 3-42. Clean

Lüdeke, M.K.B., G. Petschel-Held and H-J. Schellnhuber, 2004: Syndromes of global change: the first panoramic view. GAIA., 13, 42-49. Clean

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 155 pp. [NPR]

Markandya, A. and K. Halsnaes, 2002: Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Prospects for Developing Countries. Earthscan Publications, London, 291 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Masika, R., Ed., 2002: Gender, Development, and Climate Change. Oxfam Focus on Gender, Oxfam GB, Oxford, 112 pp. [NPR]

Mendelsohn, R.O., W.N. Morrison, M.E. Schlesinger and N.G. Andronova, 1998: Country-specific market impacts of climate change. Climatic Change, 45, 553-569. [JoC]

Mileti, D., 1999: Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 376 pp. [NPR]

Mirza, M.M.Q., 2003: Climate change and extreme weather events: can developing countries adapt? Climate Policy, 3, 233-248. [JoC]

Moretti, E., 2004: Workers’ education, spillovers, and productivity: evidence from plant-level production functions. Am. Econ. Rev., 94, 656-690. Clean

Morimoto, R. and C. Hope, 2004: Applying a cost-benefit analysis model to the Three Gorges project in China. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22, 205-220. [MoS, SRC]

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart, 2000: Climate change and its linkages with development, equity and sustainability. Proc. IPCC Expert Meeting, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 319 pp. [NPR]

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart, 2005: Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 445 pp. [NPR]

Munasinghe, M., O. Canziani, O. Davidson, B. Metz, M. Parry and M. Harisson, 2003: Integrating sustainable development and climate change in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Munasinghe Institute for Development, Colombo, 44-52. [NPR, ARC]

Munich Re, 2005: Topics Geo Annual Review, Natural Catastrophes, 2004. Munich Re, Munich, 60 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.munichre.com] [NPR]

Najam, A., A.A. Rahman, S. Huq and Y. Sokona., 2003: Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Policy, 3, S9-S17. [JoC, ARC]

Nakicenovic, N. and R. Swart, Eds., 2000: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 pp. [NPR]

NRC (National Research Council), 1999: Our common journey. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability, Board on Sustainable Development, Eds., National Academy Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 21-58. [NPR]

Niang-Diop, I. and H. Bosch, 2004: Formulating an adaptation strategy. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim and E. Spanger-Siegfried, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 183-204. [NPR, ARC]

Nicholls, R.J., 2004: Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 69-86. [JoC, ARC]

Nordhaus, W.D. and J.G. Boyer, 2000: Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 232 pp. [NPR, MoS]

NRBS (Northern River Basins Study Board), 1996: Northern River Basins Study: Report to the Ministers 1996. Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, 287 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/water/nrbs/ index.html] [NPR]

O’Riordan, T., 2004: Environmental science, sustainability and politics. T. I. Brit. Geogr., 29, 234-247. Clean

O’Brien, G., P. O’Keefe, J. Rose and B. Wisner, 2006: Climate change and disaster management. Disasters, 30, 64-80. Clean

O’Hare, G., 2002: Climate change and the temple of sustainable development. Geography, 87, 234-246. Clean

Olsen, J.R., 2006: Climate change and floodplain management in the United States. Climatic Change, 76, 407-426. [JoC]

Orindi, V.A. and L.A. Murray, 2005: Adapting to climate change in East Africa: a strategic approach. Gatekeeper Series 117, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 23 pp. [NPR]

Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C.B. Field, R.B. Norgaard and D. Policansky, 1999: Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278-282. [JoC, ARC]

Paavola, J. and W.N. Adger, 2006: Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ., 56, 594-609. Clean

Page, E., 1999: Intergenerational justice and climate change. Polit. Stud. - London, 47, 53-66. Clean

Parkins, J.R. and R.E. Mitchell, 2005: Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Soc. Natur. Resour., 18, 529-540. Clean

Parry, M.L., C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, M. Livermore and G. Fischer, 2004: Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 53-67. [NPR, JoC, ARC]

Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004: Mitigating the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River basin. Climatic Change, 62, 233-256. [JoC, ARC]

Pearce, D., 2003: The social cost of carbon and its policy implications. Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol., 19, 362-384. Clean

Philippine Country Report, 1999: National Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development, UN Sustainable Development, 91 pp. [NPR]

Plambeck, E.L. and C.W. Hope, 1996: PAGE95. An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming. Energ. Policy, 24, 783-794. [SRC]

Porritt, J., 2005: Capitalism as if the World Matters, Earthscan, London, 304 pp. [NPR]

Rambaldi, G., P.A.K. Kyem, M. McCall and D. Weiner, 2006: Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25, 1-9. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.ejisdc.org] Clean

Ramus, C.A., 2002: Encouraging innovative environmental actions: what companies and managers must do. J. World Bus., 37, 151-164. Clean

Reid, H. and M. Alam, 2005: Millennium Development Goals. Tiempo, 54, 18-22. [ARC]

Reid, W.V., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks and D. Capistrano, Eds., 2006: Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, 314 pp. [NPR, ARC]

Reidlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001: Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Rec., 37, 315-328. Clean

Richardson, D., 2002: Flood risk - the impact of climate change. P. I. Civil Eng.-Civ. En., 150, 22-24. Clean

Robinson, J.B. and D. Herbert, 2001: Integrating climate change and sustainable development. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 1, 130-149. [ARC]

Robledo, C., M. Fischler and A. Patino, 2004: Increasing the resilience of hillside communities in Bolivia - has vulnerability to climate change been reduced as a result of previous sustainable development cooperation? Mt. Res. Dev., 24, 14-18. Clean

Rotmans, J. and B. de Vries, Eds., 1997: Perspectives on Global Change: the Targets Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 479 pp. [NPR]

Rotmans, J. and M.B.A. van Asselt, 2002: Integrated assessment: current practices and challenges for the future. Implementing Sustainable development: Integrated Assessment and Participatory Decision-Making Processes, H. Abaza and A. Baranzini, Eds., United Nations Environment Programme, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 78-116. [NPR]

Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer, 2000: Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 25, 3-29. Clean

Rozelle, S. and J.F.M. Swinnen, 2004: Success and failure of reform: insights from the transition of agriculture. J. Econ. Lit., 42, 433-458. Clean

Sachs, J.D., 2005: The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. The Penguin Press, New York, 416 pp. [NPR]

Sala-i-Martin, X., G. Doppelhofer and R. Miller, 2004: Determinants of long-term growth: a Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. Am. Econ. Rev., 94, 813-835. [MoS]

Schellnhuber, H.J., M.K.B. Lüdeke and G. Petschel-Held, 2002: The syndromes approach to scaling – describing global change on an intermediate functional scale. Integrated Assessment, 3, 201-219. Clean

Schellnhuber, H.J., A. Block, M. Cassel-Gintz, J. Kropp, G. Lammel, W. Lass, R. Lienenkamp, C. Loose, M.K.B. Lüdeke, O. Moldenhaeur, G. Petschel-Held, M. Plöchl and F. Reusswig, 1997: Syndromes of global change. GAIA, 6, 19-34. Clean

Schipper, E.L.F., 2006: Conceptual history of adaptation to climate change under the UNFCCC. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 15, 82-92. Clean

Schipper, L. and M. Pelling, 2006: Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters, 30, 19-38. Clean

Schneider, H., 1999: Participatory governance: the missing link for poverty reduction. OECD Development Centre Policy Brief No. 17, OECD Development Centre, Paris, 30 pp. [NPR]

Schroeter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans, I.C. Prentice, M.B. Araujo, N.W. Arnell, A. Bondeau, H. Bugmann and Co-authors, 2005: Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333-1337. [JoC, SRC]

Shaw, R., 2006: Community-based climate change adaptation in Vietnam: inter-linkage of environment, disaster and human security. Multiple Dimensions of Global Environmental Changes, S. Sonak, Ed., The Energy Research Institute (TERI), TERI Press, New Delhi, 521-547. [NPR]

Shepherd, P., J. Tansey and H. Dowlatabadi, 2006: Context matters: what shapes adaptation to water stress in the Okanagan? Climatic Change, 78, 31-62. [JoC]

Shue, H., 1999: Global environment and international inequality. Int. Aff., 75, 531-545. Clean

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and G. Yohe, 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 877-912. [NPR, SRC]

Sperling, F. and F. Szekely, 2005: Disaster risk management in a changing climate. Discussion Paper for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG), reprint with addendum on conference outcomes, Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp. [NPR]

Stern, N., 2007: The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 692 pp. [NPR, 2007]

Sutherland, K., B. Smit, V. Wulf and T. Nakalevu, 2005: Vulnerability in Samoa. Tiempo, 54, 11-15. [ARC]

Summit Environmental Consultants Limited, 2004: Trepanier Landscape Unit (Westside) water management plan. Regional District of Central Okanagan and British Columbia, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Kelowna, 300 pp. [NPR]

Swaminathan, M.S., 2005: Environmental education for a sustainable future. Glimpses of the Work on Environment and Development in India, J.S. Singh and V.P. Sharma, Eds., Angkor Publishers, New Delhi, 51-71. [NPR]

Swart, R., J. Robinson and S. Cohen, 2003: Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Climate Policy, 3, S19-S40. [JoC, SRC]

Thomalla, F., T. Downing, E. Spanger-Siegfried, G.Y. Han and J. Rockstrom, 2006: Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters, 30, 39-48. [ARC]

Thomas, D.S.G. and C. Twyman, 2004: Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 115-124. [JoC]

Thomas, T., J.R. Schermerhorn and J.W. Deinhart, 2004: Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. Acad. Manage. Exec., 18, 56-66. Clean

Tol, R.S.J., 1999: The marginal costs of greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Journal, 20, 61-81. [ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2002: New estimates of the damage costs of climate change, Part II: dynamic estimates. Environ. Resour. Econ., 21, 135-160. [MoS, ARC]

Tol, R.S.J., 2005: The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energ. Policy, 33, 2064-2074. [ARC]

Tompkins, E. and N. Adger, 2005: Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 562-571. [ARC]

Toth, F.L., Ed., 1999: Fair Weather? Equity Concerns in Climate Change. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. 212 pp. [NPR, SRC]

Toth, F.L. and E. Hizsnyik, 2005: Managing the inconceivable: participatory assessments of impacts and responses to extreme climate change, 26 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/atlantis.htm] [NPR, SRC]

Turner, N.C., 2004: Sustainable production of crops and pastures under drought in a Mediterranean environment. Ann. Appl. Biol., 144, 139-147. Clean

Turnpenny, J., A. Haxeltine and T. O’Riordan, 2004: A scoping study of user needs for integrated assessment of climate change in the UK context: Part 1 of the development of an interactive integrated assessment process. Integrated Assessment, 4, 283-300. Clean

Twinomugisha, B., 2005: Indigenous adaptation. Tiempo, 57, 6-8. Clean

UN (United Nations), 2005: Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, 1990-2004. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi _coverfinal.htm] [NPR]

UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development), 2003: Sustainability in Grass-Roots Initiatives: Focus on Community Based Disaster Management. R. Shaw and K. Okazaki, Eds., Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office and United Nations Centre for Regional Development, 103 pp. [NPR]

UNDP (United Nations Development Program), 2003: Human Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York, 365 pp. [NPR]

UNDP (United Nations Development Program), 2004: Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. UNDP, Geneva, 161 pp. [NPR]

UNDSD (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development), 2006: Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm] [NPR]

UNSEA (United Nations Social and Economic Affairs), 2005: The inequality predicament: report on the world social situation 2005. United Nations General Assembly, New York, 152 pp. [NPR]

Van Asselt, M.B.A. and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 167-184. [JoC]

van de Kerkhof, M., 2004: Debating Climate Change: A Study of Stakeholder Participation in an Integrated Assessment of Long-Term Climate Policy in the Netherlands. Lemma, Dordrecht, 317 pp. [NPR]

Van Lieshout, M., R.S. Kovats, M.T.J. Livermore and P. Martens, 2004: Climate change and malaria: analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 87-99. [JoC]

Vlassova, T.K., 2006: Arctic residents’ observations and human impact assessments in understanding environmental changes in boreal forests: Russian experience and circumpolar perspectives. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 897-909. Clean

Warren, R., 2006: Spotlighting impacts functions in integrated assessment models. Working Paper 91, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, 216 pp. [NPR, MoS, ARC]

Watkiss, P., D. Anthoff, T. Downing, C. Hepburn, C. Hope, A. Hunt and R. Tol, 2005: The social costs of carbon (SCC) review: methodological approaches for using SCC estimates in policy assessment. Final Report, Defra, UK, 124 pp. [NPR, MoS, SRC]

Watson International Scholars of the Environment, 2006: Making MEAs work for the poor. Tiempo, 58, 6-11. Clean

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 398 pp. [NPR, MoS]

Welp, M., A. de la Vega-Leinert and S. Stoll-Kleeman, 2006: Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 170-181. [JoC]

Winters, L.A., N. McCulloch and A. McKay, A., 2004: Trade liberalization and poverty: the evidence so far. J. Econ. Lit., 42, 72-115. Clean

WKSS (West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society), 2001: West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society Final Report. West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society, Yellowknife, Canada, 87 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.wkss.nt.ca/index.htm] [NPR]

World Bank, 1998: Protecting Our Planet: Securing Our Future. R.T. Watson, Ed., World Bank/UNEP/ NASA, Washington, District of Columbia, 116 pp. [NPR]

WRI (World Resources Institute), 2000: World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life. World Resources Institute, Washington, District of Columbia. 389 pp. [NPR]

WSSD, 2002: Plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 62 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf] [NPR]

Yamin, F., 2004: Overview. IDS Bulletin, 35, 1-11. [ARC]

Yohe, G. and R. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Chang., 12, 25-40. [JoC, SRC]

Yohe, G., E. Malone, A. Brenkert, M.E. Schlesinger, H. Meij and X. Xing, 2006a: Global distributions of vulnerability to climate change. Integrated Assessment Journal, 6, 35-44. [JoC, SRC]

Yohe, G., E. Malone, A. Brenkert, M.E. Schlesinger, H. Meij, X. Xing and D. Lee, 2006b: A synthetic assessment of the global distribution of vulnerability to climate change from the IPCC perspective that reflects exposure and adaptive capacity.CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network), Columbia University, Palisades, New York, 17 pp. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://ciesin.columbia.edu/data/climate/] [NPR, SRC]

Young, O., 2006: Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11, Art. No. 27. [Accessed 11.06.07: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/] Clean

NOTE: In the Summary of Reviewer Comments,
Accepted includes only those responses that were unambiguously Accepted.
There are other categories of responses that we have not yet quantified
due to inconsistencies of usage.

Summary of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer	Total Comments	Accepted	IPCC Roles	Papers
Llosa, Silvia	114	1	0	0
Tompkins, EL	70	0	0	16
Hanson, CE	51	3	1	2
Drexhage, J	49	1	0	1
Goklany, IM	41	1	0	15
Toulmin, C	37	1	0	2
Mehdi, B	28	0	0	1
Government of Finland	27	0	0	0
Chevallier, Pierre	24	1	0	0
Government of USA	24	0	0	0
Paiva, Maria	22	0	0	0
Moreira, JR	19	1	0	1
Government of Austalia	13	4	0	0
Vlek, Paul	12	1	0	0
Reisinger, A	11	1	0	1
Haas, Peter	10	0	0	0
Lorenzoni, I	10	1	1	4
Ravetz, Joe	10	1	0	0
Government of India	9	2	0	2
Liotta, PH	8	0	0	0
Government of China	8	0	0	0
Sterling, AY	7	2	0	0
Union, European	7	1	0	0
Government of UK	6	0	0	0
Government of Sweden	6	0	0	0
Tol, RSJ	6	1	1	63
Llanes-Reguerio, Juan	5	1	0	0
Clay, EJ	5	0	0	2
Sheppard, Stephen	5	0	0	0
Sperling, F	5	0	0	3
Government of Japan	4	0	0	0
Government of Canada	4	1	0	0
Republic of Korea	2	0	0	0
Devia, Leila	2	0	0	0
Bero, James	2	0	0	0
Wurzler, Sabine	1	0	0	0
Government of Belgium	1	0	0	0
Government of Argentina	1	0	0	0
Totals	666	25	3	113

Overview of Reviewer Comments - Second Order Draft

Reviewer Type	Total Comments	Accepted	% Accepted
Govt	94	5	5%
IPCC	341	12	3%
Indep	231	8	3%
Total	666	25	3%

Main AR4 Index | Working Group WG2 Index | Table of Contents | Authors | Executive Summary | Annotated Text | References | Reviewer Comments