Table 3.
Data sources | Context of use | Strengths | Limitations |
---|---|---|---|
National Communications to the UNFCCC |
- Examine status of adaptation in annex 1 nations (Lesnikowski et al. 2011; Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007) and globally (Lesnikowski et al. 2013) (creation of adaptation index) - Identify adaptation predictors globally (Lesnikowski et al. 2014) |
- Standardized, systematic, transparent data collection - Regular reporting for annex-1 nations - National-level data globally - Accessible online in one location |
- Not available for all nations - Primarily mitigation focused, limited detail on adaptation - Reporting bias - National focus |
Published climate initiatives | - Assess climate preparedness in UK urban areas (Heidrich et al. 2013; Reckien et al. 2014) (creation of climate preparedness index) |
- Detailed information on adaptation initiatives and programs - Widely available documents (in a high income context) |
- Lack of standardization in reporting - Discrepancies in reports - Resource intensive: requires the identification, retrieval, and collation of documents |
Website content |
- Document civil society action on adaptation with regards health in Canada (Poutiainen et al. 2013) - Identify community based adaptation actions in Africa (Mannke 2011) - Identify OECD actions to prepare for impacts of climate change on infectious disease (Panic and Ford 2013) |
- Detailed information on adaptation initiatives and programs - Diversity of adaptations reported and captured - Diversity of reporting scales - On-the-ground adaptation reporting |
- Outdated content - Identification, retrieval and collation of information challenges - Lack of standardization - Reporting bias based on technological capacity - Varying detail on adaptation |
UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative | - Scoping of the current state of adaptation in the private sector (Surminski 2013) |
- Standardized reporting template - Information on private sector |
- Limited coverage - Reporting bias - Limited detail on actions |
Peer reviewed journal articles | - Characterize the nature and extent of adaptation globally (Berrang-Ford et al. 2011), in annex-1 nations (Ford et al. 2011), in high risks areas including the Arctic and mountain regions (Ford et al. 2014; McDowell et al. 2014), among households in the UK (Porter et al. 2014) |
- Easily accessible, rapid assessment - High quality reporting from varying scales |
- Reporting bias - Lack of standardization - Varying detail on adaptation |
National Adaptation Strategies | - Evaluation of national level adaptation in the EU (Biesbroek et al. 2010; Massey and Bergsma 2008) |
- Comparable - Standardized and systematic - National-level data |
- National focus - Reporting bias to countries with high capacity - Data exists for European countries exclusively |
Peer reviewed and grey literature |
- Survey on the state of adaptation in the UK (Tompkins et al. 2010) - Survey on the state of adaptation in arid and semi-arid regions (Ford et al. 2014; Sud et al 2015; Bizikova et al 2015) |
- Depth of information and diversity of adaptations captured - Diversity of conceptual frameworks |
- Time requirements - Lack of standardization - Varying focus, detail, and quality |
Legislation | - Number of laws with adaptation focus (Townshend et al. 2013) |
- Broad scope - National-level data available globally |
- Legislative approach not taken in all countries - Institutional contexts vary by nation - Formal laws not necessarily indicative of action |
Surveys with policy makers | - Survey of elite policy makers in 36 EU nations to examine development of national level adaptation policies and practices (Massey et al. 2014) |
- Document current state of action on adaptation - Standardization - Not limited by what is reported in documents - Depth of insights |
- Challenge of getting sufficient response rate within and across nations - Time intensive |