Introduction
Monitoring climate resilience is gaining importance on the global and on the European agenda especially as its significance is highlighted in the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. The strategy's objective is to engage more regions in adaptation initiatives and to facilitate the transfer of locally developed solutions to a wider regional and national context (European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action, 2021b). The EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change builds upon this strategy and was adopted to support regions across Europe in achieving climate resilience by 2030. Under the umbrella of the mission, there are a number of applied research projects that assist regions in implementing adaptation activities and monitoring progress towards enhanced climate resilience (European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action, 2021a).
Monitoring and subsequent evaluation are the fundamental requirements for understanding which adaptation actions and policies prove successful and for comprehending how climate resilience changes over time. Additionally, sound monitoring can contribute to the effectiveness of adaptation measures, can strengthen accountability and allows tracking progress as well as outcomes and impacts. Furthermore, monitoring and evaluation at the regional level allows drawing lessons learned from implementing transformative actions for risk reduction and resilience enhancement. Given that various sectors, such as transport, water and healthcare, often fall under regional government jurisdiction, the importance of monitoring at the regional level cannot be overstated (Setzer et al., 2020).
This is why under the Mission on Adaptation, the Regional Adaptation Support Tool (RAST) was developed, which emphasizes that monitoring should gauge progress with respect to: reducing climate impacts, reducing risks and vulnerabilities and increasing adaptive capacity, meeting adaptation priorities and addressing barriers to adaptation. However, designing a monitoring (and evaluation) framework that comprehensively measures development towards climate resilience can be challenging for various reasons and there is not one approach that fits all contexts to monitor and evaluate adaptation actions taken (ClimateADAPT, 2023; Pringle, 2011). The differing impacts on various fields, such as infrastructure, economy, communities, institutions, ecosystems etc., outline the different dimensions that a monitoring approach has to cover, which is only one reason why multiple approaches are needed.
Therefore, this document presents a collection of challenges and lessons learned grouped into four themes, namely (i) tailoring global frameworks to regional/ local needs, (ii) data availability, applicability, and evaluation, (iii) interdisciplinarity in climate adaptation and (iv) stakeholder engagement. These themes were derived during the development of a monitoring (and evaluation) scheme for resilience and adaptation measures by three early EU Mission projects (ARSINOE, IMPETUS, TransformAR), referred to as projects that have started implementing resilience measures in vulnerable regions. As the projects are still ongoing until 2025, the following are initial observations focusing on the preparatory and early implementation phase of monitoring activities. The project REGILIENCE initiated the gathering of lessons learned from the three projects via joint workshops with experts from the projects to support future mission projects in their monitoring endeavors. The document thus functions as an information source for any project and region conducting monitoring (and evaluation) activities. It provides inspiration and preemptive considerations for future Mission projects and is intended to help circumvent previously identified difficulties to avoid common pitfalls. Eventually, this can contribute to a more efficient and streamlined use of project resources.
About the three projects
In the following, the three projects of which the learnings, experiences and challenges stem from, are described together with their monitoring approach.
ARSINOE project and its approach to monitoring climate resilience
ARSINOE aims to leverage innovative, cross-sectoral climate change adaptation solutions, as well as leveraging regional databases and climate and impact simulations. The project involves collaborations among various stakeholders across the quintuple innovation helix (Carayannis et al., 2012), including academics, authorities, municipal companies, agriculture, forestry, water and environmental protection groups, technology providers, urban planners, and citizens. Through a living lab approach, the initiative fosters a shared understanding of the impact of climate change. ARSINOE develops data analysis tools and models to facilitate the design of adaptation strategies and measures. Hence, it contributes to resource management, energy, water and food security, and preserving ecosystem functions and services.
Monitoring
ARSINOE’s monitoring work is based on the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as overarching frameworks. The SustainGraph is a knowledge graph that monitors resilience on a broader level – to the extent where resilience relates to sustainable development – and monitors progress towards achieving SDG-targets. This tool acts as a unified knowledge source, leveraging graph databases and machine learning techniques for data population, knowledge production, and analysis. It maximizes the use of available data, ensuring openness and interoperability with existing databases and Application Programming Interfaces. The SustainGraph facilitates participatory modeling and analysis processes for socio-environmental and socio-ecological systems (Fotopoulou et al., 2022). It aligns with the principles of a Systems Innovation Approach (Schuurman et al., 2023). Additionally, the project intends to develop a Multi-System Dynamic Modelling Framework for Resilience Assessment, by the end of the project, that will integrate the various modelling subsystems that have been developed in various academic disciplines and use discipline-specific methods, tools and techniques, enabling transdisciplinary modelling of both natural and man-based systems.
Demo-site level monitoring
ARSINOE is also employing a bottom-up approach for demo site-specific monitoring. This is achieved by establishing “living labs”. Stakeholders, identified through the quadruple helix (based on interest and influence of stakeholders; only highest ranked stakeholders are involved), collaboratively define a problem statement and a vision that outlines solutions to address the identified issues. As a next step, backcasting creates a future narrative that gradually moves backward to identify innovative strategies and actions for the region. This process establishes monitoring needs by considering resilience goals for the future. Living labs facilitate the development of monitoring strategies specific to case study regions. Indicators are developed with the involved stakeholders, ensuring a comprehensive and participatory approach to resilience planning and assessment. Variable case specific monitoring technical solutions are applied, such as ground sensors, satellite data, drone missions, and citizen science applications, depending on the nature of the monitored variable, the demanded temporal and spatial scales, and technical requirements.
TransformAr project and its approach to monitoring climate resilience
TransformAr's primary goal is to demonstrate how co-innovation processes can drive transformational adaptation towards climate resilience in vulnerable regions and communities across Europe. This involves six demonstrator regions to develop, test, and scale products and services that catalyze significant adaptation efforts.
Monitoring
TransformAr employs a top-down approach by modeling climate resilience at the NUTS2 level, considering climate risks and adaptive capacity. This will make climate risk information available for a wider audience. By integrating socio-economic data in the process, transformative adaptation at the regional level can be assessed.
Demo-site level monitoring & evaluation
Simultaneously, a bottom-up approach is applied that involves developing indicators at the local level to enhance the granularity of the monitoring process. This is done through stakeholder engagement. Additionally, by applying choice experiments and developing a rapid cost-benefit analysis tool, further data is generated to evaluate climate adaptation measures. Furthermore, one demonstrator region develops a resilience index which is focused on aquaculture and encompasses the entire value chain.
IMPETUS project and its approach to monitoring climate resilience
IMPETUS employs Resilience Knowledge Boosters (RKBs) to create scalable and multi-level open knowledge spaces offering opportunities for experts, key communities, and quintuple helix stakeholders to share experiences and knowledge for implementing dynamic pathways and packages for climate adaptation.
Monitoring framework
IMPETUS has an overarching approach to monitoring, that started with the development of a flexible indicator-based monitoring framework built upon literature and stakeholder input. The IMPETUS “Metrics for climate change vulnerability, resilience and adaptation” are suitable for all the European biogeographical regions by accommodating their diverse characteristics. It encompasses two core frameworks addressing climate vulnerability and climate adaptation potentially applicable to all demonstration sites of the project and to most situations. They are organized into different categories and subcategories and are searchable by sector and impact. An additional 43 indicators, not less relevant than the 69 core indicators but with more specific application potential, complement the framework. Serving as a structured tool for climate-sensitive decision-making and as an indicator repository, this framework provides a meaningful starting point that can and should be adapted based on new learnings and context-specificities at local and regional level.
Monitoring on demo-site level
Based on the catalogue of metrics, the local-level demonstration sites will select stakeholder-customizable indicators and metrics that fit their context and eventually add additional site-specific indicators. Selected indicators will feed the IMPETUS Regional Climate Resilience footprint tool, that will allow stakeholders to assess regional resilience and its evolution over time, capturing the effect of adaptation interventions. Within IMPETUS, Resilience Knowledge Boosters RKBs indicators are seen as tools to predict, verify and continuously reassess the effect of alternative adaptation options and adaptation pathways in different demonstration sites, supporting decision makers in the adaptation process. Stakeholder engagement is a key action implemented by the project to enhance local knowledge and support the identification of local-scale indicators. Stakeholders of the seven IMPETUS demonstration sites started to tailoring the indicator framework to their needs, considering a very large variety of climate change risks: flooding, water scarcity, marine storms, fires, biodiversity loss, health diseases, temperature increase, avalanche increase, and extreme storms. Indicators are meant to be used in assessing alternative adaptation pathways to enhance the resilience of key systems in demonstration sites, allowing for flexible and dynamic decision-making.
Global frameworks
In the process of developing their individual monitoring approach, all three IA projects started off by screening existing and acknowledged global frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Agenda 2030 and its SDGs, the Lancet Countdown, the One Health approach and the Water-Energy-Food Nexus approach.
The Paris Agreement defines a global goal on adaptation (Art. 7) that features three core components: enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change. These are positioned in the overall context of limiting global temperature rise as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. Discussions on potential approaches to assessing the global goal on adaptation have started with a technical paper stating the need for adaptation monitoring and evaluation (UNFCCC Adaptation Committee, 2022). During COP28 these endeavors proceeded and the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience was adopted which sets the target for all parties to establish a monitoring and evaluation system for national adaptation efforts by 2030, ensuring sufficient institutional capacity for implementation (UNFCCC, 2023).
Country-specific approaches combined with subnational-level approaches are estimated as potentially useful in tracking progress towards the Global Goal on adaptation. Further, the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) given its clear connection between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. The link between disasters and adaptation originates in the increased risk of extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, and wildfires, as also pointed out by the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action, 2021b; UNDRR 2015). Furthermore, the Agenda 2030 and its SDGs include indicators that touch on synergies between climate resilience and adaptation, with particular reference to the SDG 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts). Indicators from other SDGs are also relevant such as SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), SDG 6 (ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all), SDG 11 (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable) and SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and half and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss). These highlight the cross-sectoral nature of climate adaptation and resilience (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, the Lancet Countdown – tracking progress on health and climate change – is another global key reference for monitoring adaptation through an indicator-based approach (The Lancet Countdown, 2023). It puts a focus on the effects of climate change on health.
The One Health approach addresses the complex interactions between climate change, human health, animal health, and the environment and thus provides a source of knowledge for informing climate resilience monitoring. Furthermore, the Water-Energy-Food Nexus approach was acknowledged, recognizing the interconnectedness of water, energy, and food systems for a more holistic assessment. Highlighting that the interdependence of these resource systems is valuable in monitoring climate resilience, as changes in one sector can have significant cascading impacts on others, both positive and negative. Given the exacerbation of pressure on these sectors' resources by climate change, incorporating this approach is thus valuable when developing climate resilience monitoring schemes to ensure the consideration of the interconnectedness of sectors when monitoring climate resilience (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations n.d.).
Indicator-based monitoring approaches are useful to policy- and decision-makers at the regional governance scale, and they facilitate knowledge-based stakeholder engagement. However, existing global indicator frameworks pose several limitations and challenges that have been widely discussed in several academic and technical papers (e.g. (Bours et al., 2014; Hammill et al., 2014; Leiter & Olhoff, 2019; Stadelmann et al., 2015; Sanchez Martinez et al., 2018; UNFCCC Adaptation Committee, 2022; Vallejo, 2017). An analysis of these limitations and challenges can be found in the “Metrics for climate change vulnerability, resilience and adaptation” report by IMPETUS (Koop et al., 2022). The main limitations can be traced back to the following aspects:
- Climate change is global but adaptation takes place on a local level: Indicators and metrics should be site- and context-specific which cannot be reflected in universal frameworks like the aforementioned.
- Interconnectedness of adaptation and vulnerability: Data that is used in global metrics does not reflect local/regional adaptation initiatives and their impacts
- Adaptation monitoring lacks clear targets: Adaptation lacks common measurable targets due to its ongoing and dynamic nature. Unlike mitigation, there is no clear endpoint, making monitoring complex.
- Lack of agreed baseline to assess changes: The absence of a well-defined baseline hinders assessing the impact of interventions, as the overall context is dynamic, requiring more than a simple 'before' and 'after' comparison.
- Complexity in measuring adaptation success: Measuring the success of adaptation is intricate, involving the quantification of "avoided impacts" and dealing with time lags (between intervention and measurable impacts), attribution challenges, and the potential for long-term changes.
- Maladaptation not sufficiently reflected in indicators: Indicators may not adequately signal maladaptation, as they measure adaptation progress but often fail to assess the overall quality, environmental sustainability, and potential negative side-effects.
- Limited explanatory power of indicators: Indicators primarily reflect progress or change but often lack the depth to explain how, why, and what improvements could be made. Understanding the overall adaptation process behind the numerical value expressed by the indicator is crucial.
- Resource- and data-intense nature of monitoring: Monitoring adaptation demands significant resources, including suitable data and technical capacity. Barriers include the lack of long-time series for certain variables, decentralized data, and variations in calculation methods that hinder the uptake of indicators from international frameworks.
Learnings of the projects
Expanding upon the challenges outlined previously, which were identified by the IMPETUS project through literature screening, this chapter delves into the practical challenges and lessons learned derived by the three projects during the development of their respective monitoring schemes. These are preliminary learnings as the three projects are ongoing until 2025.
From global indicator sets to demo-site specific indicator sets and metrics
All three IA projects are following the approach of grounding their monitoring work on existing frameworks and approaches (the ones named above) and tailoring them to demo-site and project specific needs. Climate change affects different biogeographical regions, systems and sectors in diverse ways, whereas the projects are active in various regions and demo-sites. Considering this, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive list of indicators with defined targets that measure resilience. To address this challenge, a number of approaches have proven useful:
- Create synergies with existing global frameworks: Existing monitoring systems at the global level (e.g. Sendai Framework (UNDRR, 2015), SDGs (United Nations, 2015)), European level (adaptation reporting system for the EU governance of the energy union and climate action (European Union, 2018)) regional, and local level (city networks e.g. C40 cities (C40 Cities, 2020)) provide a robust foundation for planning indicator-based monitoring of climate resilience.
- Specify indicators: Using indicators of global frameworks offer comparability across diverse contexts, e.g. SDG indicators, promoting scalability and replicability. However, such a usage of broad, global indicators might fail to account for local/project-specific/regional contexts. Site-specific/ biogeographical indicators provide more accurate insights. Projects operating across various contexts and demonstration sites should prioritize a deep understanding of local requirements. This involves engaging experts and stakeholders in an iterative process to select indicators that are relevant and meaningful to each specific location. While customizing monitoring approaches to individual sites or biogeographic regions is advisable, excessive diversity in indicator subsets presents a challenge. This diversity can hinder comparability and impede a comprehensive assessment of project progress and resilience objectives across demo-sites.
- Prioritize indicators: Providing a comprehensive and exhaustive list of indicators for monitoring adaptation and vulnerability is extremely challenging due to the different sectors and systems that are affected by climate change in different biogeographical regions. Also, a framework is difficult to apply and adapt when it consists of too many indicators and does not provide guidance on selecting the most relevant ones or on how to tailor them or how to work with data gaps. Thus, it is helpful to start with a smaller number of indicators and build up the set as experience grows.
- Allocate resources (time and financial): Monitoring demands substantial resources within a project, encompassing both time and financial investments. This concerns the phases of the project’s inception and the design of the monitoring approach and ideally extends beyond its implementation. It is crucial to explicitly acknowledge and reflect this reality in project planning document as early on as possible to ensure adequate allocation of resources and realistic expectations regarding monitoring efforts.
Data for monitoring
As mentioned before, measuring climate resilience can be highly complex. Especially when the aim is to tailor monitoring frameworks to regional and local contexts. It requires substantial amounts of data which covers different temporal and spatial scales to allow long-term monitoring and evaluation:
- Screen data availability at the start: Finding easily accessible and suitable datasets for the calculation of certain indicators at regional and local level can be challenging. It is crucial to assess data availability at the regional level early on (ideally right at project start) to avoid developing an indicator framework that might not be put into practice due to data constraints. Specifically, socio-economic data, e.g. data on knowledge and education/ financial resources etc. is often not available in a high spatial resolution and is recorded with a lower frequency compared to biophysical attributes (e.g. NUTS3). There is thus a clear need to strengthen data collection endeavors at the beginning of a project. Baseline data plays a critical role in attributing changes to adaptation measures, but its adequacy and accessibility are key.
- Use qualitative data: The lack of quantitative (baseline) data is a common challenge, and in such cases, the projects emphasize the use of qualitative data derived from surveys, interviews or via living labs that reflect perceptions of key stakeholders. This can cover social, cultural and political dimensions to climate resilience and increase the visibility of local perspectives. Incorporating narratives alongside quantitative data can provide a more comprehensive understanding of quantitative data, enhance the clarity and context of results, and help to better interpret the outcomes for evaluation. Additionally, the projects emphasize a stronger inclusion of citizen science data and virtual reality feedback from communities as well as choice experiments.
- Define a method for harmonizing data: Approaches and methods for facilitating the harmonization of data are crucial as they enable the translation of diverse data (with e.g. varying formats, differing units, temporal misalignments etc.) into a standardized format. This includes addressing challenges related to units and normalization. Harmonization plays a vital role in aligning indicators and ensuring a shared understanding of data. However, this can pose challenges to projects, especially in trans-disciplinary contexts and should be addressed when gathering different data sources. Moreover, transparency about the methodology employed in the harmonization and aggregation process is crucial. It enables stakeholders to understand how the data was processed, and interpreted, fostering trust and allowing for meaningful analysis and decision-making.
- Evaluation of data: Even if all challenges in data collection have been mastered, more efforts are required to attribute certain changes in indicators to an intervention (Koop et al., 2022). This is due to the presence of significant time lags between adaptation interventions and measurable impacts, and complex, long-term changes may not be straightforwardly attributed solely to adaptation interventions.
Interdisciplinarity in climate adaptation
Climate adaptation, by its nature, involves collaboration and expertise from diverse disciplines such as environmental science, social sciences, engineering, economics, and spatial planning. To tackle the intricate challenges of climate change, a comprehensive approach spanning these disciplines is crucial. However, when it comes to monitoring climate adaptation measures, the interdisciplinary nature poses challenges. Effectively integrating diverse perspectives, methodologies, and data sources becomes a hurdle, often resulting in difficulties defining indicators and ensuring comprehensive assessments across multiple disciplines:
- Define terms clearly: Whether at the project or demo-site level, clarity in defining key terms like hazard, exposure, risk, vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience is paramount. Additionally, it is crucial, right from the project's outset, to ensure a common understanding of terms like monitoring, evaluation, indicators, metrics, measures, targets, resilience, vulnerability, adaptation etc. One source for definitions could be the glossary of the IPCC (IPCC, 2022). This is an essential starting point for further determining monitoring metrics and indicators from various disciplines. It is thus crucial at the start of a project to determine a common understanding of terms and concepts that are used throughout the project.
- Foster a shared understanding of different disciplines and sectors: Achieving a shared understanding across diverse disciplines and sectors, including academia, industry, policy-making, and civil society, presents a challenge in interdisciplinary projects. Members and stakeholders, each rooted in their respective fields, bring varied perceptions and "languages" of monitoring and evaluation, hindering clear communication. Addressing that at project start and finding a mode to integrate diverse expertise, roles, and perspectives is crucial for overcoming these challenges and facilitating effective communication and understanding in the interdisciplinary context. This entails promoting a holistic understanding of the complexity of resilience and adaptation as well as breaking down disciplinary silos. Recognizing that each hazard entails a complex and intricately connected system, the explicit interlinkages are yet to be fully understood and for that, interdisciplinarity is a tremendous advantage.
Stakeholder engagement
The human dimension of monitoring climate resilience is crucial. Involving stakeholders is essential for selecting the most suitable indicators and identifying existing databases as the specific context and local specificities are best known by stakeholders.
- Strategically engage stakeholders: In the projects, different formats of stakeholder engagement were employed, some of which were also used for developing monitoring indicators. A successful approach strategically includes stakeholders identified as high ranking in both influence and interest. The Quadruple and Quintuple Helix approach used in the projects recognize the importance of a broader participation in decision-making processes and innovation activities (Braun et al., 2021; Carayannis et al., 2012). Not only representatives from government, industry and academia (triple helix, the knowledge of economy) but also the civil society (quadruple helix, the knowledge of society) and the natural environment (quintuple helix, the knowledge of the environment) have been considered in the stakeholder engagement activities.
- Identify blind spots: Stakeholder engagement proves valuable in discovering previously overlooked aspects of climate resilience. Subsystems that were not initially recognized or considered important are revealed through stakeholders’ hints, especially through identifying interlinkages of vulnerabilities, compound hazards and cascading risks. Incorporating stakeholder input adds nuance and depth to the identification of monitoring priorities, contributing to the development of a comprehensive list of indicators. Within the projects, different engagement processes were utilized. Some opted for living labs, where stakeholders collaborated to shape a shared vision for a climate-adapted future. In these settings, stakeholders pinpointed critical subsystems crucial for building resilience in e.g. a demo-site regarding a specific hazard – thereby helping to determine the most relevant indicators. This approach ensures that indicators align with the practical needs and priorities of those directly affected. Others used social innovation and participatory methods for exploiting the knowledge of different disciplines and backgrounds to develop indicators for monitoring. The result is an enhancement in the robustness and relevance of the entire monitoring and adaptation process.
- Generate qualitative data: Moreover, stakeholders play a key role in providing qualitative data and narratives, contributing to a holistic understanding of adaptation efforts that goes beyond quantitative data, e.g. grounded in a theory of change. The primary objective was to identify positive impacts in terms of adaptation for each demo-site and articulate the essential adaptation pathways and indicators for measuring these impacts. Engagement formats such as workshops, small thematic focus groups addressing technical and policy aspects, and bilateral meetings were used. This flexible and adaptable approach allows for active co-creation with stakeholders, facilitating the identification of tailored indicators aligned with their unique adaptation pathways. Focus group discussions were instrumental in uncovering diverse pathways and narratives.
Conclusion and outlook
The approaches of the three projects on monitoring climate resilience have unveiled challenges and insights that other projects can learn from. Monitoring climate adaptation measures poses a unique challenge due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, requiring effective integration of diverse perspectives, methodologies, and data sources, with key considerations including the clear definition of terms, the integration of different disciplines for shared understanding among all project members and stakeholders. Basing the development of indicators on existing global frameworks is advised, together with the contextualization of indicators to local needs. Accessible and available (baseline) data forms a fundamental element of this preparation. Equally critical is the implementation of a well-structured stakeholder engagement process from the project's inception, ensuring diverse perspectives and insights are considered. Additionally, proactive measures should be in place to guarantee the continuity of monitoring (and evaluation) efforts even after the project concludes.
It is recommended that the insights gained here serve as a catalyst for a wider dialogue within the Mission Implementation Forum, fostering a community of practice and extending beyond individual projects to engage the broader regional community in establishing effective monitoring and evaluation practices.
Data availability
No data are associated with this article.
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- Bours D, McGinn C, Pringle P:
Guidance note 1: twelve reasons why climate change adaptation M&E is challenging. 2014. Reference Source
- Braun R, Hagan KC, Gerhardus A:
Quadruple Helix Collaboration in practice. 2021. Reference Source
- C40 Cities: C40 city monitoring, evaluation and reporting guidance. 2020; Retrieved 05 Feb 2024. Reference Source
- Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DF:
The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation.
J Innov Entrep.
2012; 1(1): 2. Publisher Full Text
- ClimateADAPT: Regional adaptation support tool. 2023; Retrieved 07 Sep 2023. Reference Source
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action: European missions. Adaptation to climate change. Implementation plan. 2021a. Reference Source
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action: Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. 2021b. Reference Source
- European Union:
Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European parliament and of the council of 11 December 2018 on the governance of the energy union and climate action. 2018. Reference Source
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Water-food-energy nexus. n.d.; Retrieved 07 Feb 2024. Reference Source
- Fotopoulou E, Mandilara I, Zafeiropoulos A, et al.:
SustainGraph: a knowledge graph for tracking the progress and the interlinking among the sustainable development goals’ targets.
Front Environ Sci.
2022; 10: 1–20. Publisher Full Text
- Hammill A, Dekens J, Leiter T, et al.:
Repository of adaptation indicators. Real case examples from national monitoring and evaluation systems. GIZ; IISD, 2014. Reference Source
- IPCC: Annex II: Glossary. In: Pörtner, Hans-Otto; Roberts, Debra C.; Tignor, Melinda; Elvira Poloczanska; Katja Mintenbeck; Andrés Alegría; M. Craig; S. Langsdorf; S. Löschke; V. Möller; A. Okem; B. Rama (ed.): Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Reference Source
- Koop S, Barendse K, Andreoli E, et al.:
Deliverable report metrics for climate change vulnerability, resilience and adaptation. 2022. Reference Source
- Leiter T, Olhoff A:
Adaptation metrics current landscape and evolving practices. Global Center on Adaptation, 2019. Reference Source
- Pringle P:
AdaptME toolkit: adaptation monitoring & evaluation. Oxford, 2011. Reference Source
- Sanchez Martinez G, Christiansen L, Naswa P:
Adaptation metrics: perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results. Copenhagen, Denmark: UNEO DTU Partnership, 2018. Reference Source
- Schuurman D, Stefaniga S, Piana V, et al.:
Proceedings of the OpenLivingLab Days conference 2023. Brussels: European Network of Living Labs, 2023. Reference Source
- Setzer J, de Murieta ES, Galarraga I, et al.:
Transnationalization of climate adaptation by regional governments and the RegionsAdapt initiative.
Glob Sustain.
2020; 3: e10. Publisher Full Text
- Stadelmann M, Michaelowa A, Butzengeiger-Geyer S, et al.:
Universal metrics to compare the effectiveness of climate change adaptation projects. Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation. Berlin: Springer, 2015. Publisher Full Text
- The Lancet Countdown: The 2023 Global Report of the Lancet Countdown. 2023; Retrieved 18 Dec 2023. Reference Source
- UNDRR: The Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030). 2015; Retrieved 18 Dec 2023. Reference Source
- UNFCCC: Glasgow-Sharm El-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation referred to in decision 7/CMA.3. UNFCCC, 2023. Reference Source
- UNFCCC Adaptation Committee: Draft technical paper on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation at the national and subnational level (AC22). AC22/TP/7C. 2022. Reference Source
- United Nations: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 2015; Retrieved 18 Dec 2023. Reference Source
- Vallejo L:
Insights from national adaptation monitoring and evaluation systems. OECD, 2017. Publisher Full Text
