Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36568317›Full record

ArticleClimatic change2022

National Climate Change Risk Assessments to inform adaptation policy priorities and environmental sustainability outcomes: a knowledge systems perspective.

Iain Brown, Pam Berry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Climatic change, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Iain BrownDept. of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3469-5598
Pam BerryEnvironmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National Climate Change Risk Assessments (CCRAs) have a key role in informing priorities for adaptation policy but face significant challenges due to multiple facets of risk and adaptation. Issues are especially pronounced for meeting goals of environmental sustainability due to the complex dynamics of socio-ecological systems. In practice, a CCRA can therefore differ from its original conceptual blueprint. These challenges are explored from a knowledge systems perspective, focusing on the role of stakeholders/policymakers, risk descriptors, methods, evidence sources, and scientists. A UK case study evaluates recent developments (CCRA3) including identification of policy urgency through adaptation shortfalls and its application to the natural environment. Important science-policy issues are also highlighted regarding inclusion of opportunities, systemic risks, residual risks, and risk tolerance. A general conclusion is that CCRAs inevitably leave open questions which lead back to their evolving role in the science-policy interface. A knowledge systems perspective identifies CCRAs as open, adaptive, reflexive processes that help redefine interpretations of risk and adaptation, rather than just providing a specific policy-relevant product. This perspective identifies scope for progressive refinement of CCRAs to enhance collective science-policy adaptive capacity whilst also engaging wider society. For environmental sustainability, this open process can be used to iteratively redefine robust future pathways and system reference conditions that also better reflect evolving societal perceptions and tolerance on sustainability risk in the face of climate change.

Indexed as

Climate changeEnvironmental sustainabilityKnowledge systemsNational Adaptation PlansNational Climate Change Risk Assessments

Identifiers

PMID36568317
PMCPMC9768402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.