Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 17 March 2023

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Climate change Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

On 24 October 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Climate change adaptation to Global warming adaptation. The result of the discussion was not move.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

How much sea level rise?

Hi everyone,

This is one of my first edit inquiries, so I hope that I'm doing this right. I was directed to this page from Citation Hunt while going through the Misplaced Pages Help:Introduction tutorial. I tried to find a good reference for the "Potential biophysical effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 mm (0.36 to 2.5 feet) between 1990 and 2100," clause in Section 1.2 of the page. I came across an academic article that reviewed a couple of different estimates for projected sea level rise between 1990 and 2100, ranging from "3 feet or more by 2100" to "5 feet or more by 2100".

Would it be more helpful to just rewrite the sentence in question on this page to note that there is a range of reliable estimates for how much sea level might rise from 1990-2100?

Thank you all for your help,

--OpenBarry (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The Sea level rise article itself is rated good (green mark top right) so that might have better info than this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted this detailed content about sea level rise because the figures on this should be at Sea level rise. If they need to be repeated here then only by using an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Nuccitelli, Dana (2018-04-30). "How much and how fast will global sea level rise?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 74 (3): 139–141. doi:10.1080/00963402.2018.1461894. Retrieved 2022-01-17.

Improve the section on adaptation to flooding

I think the section on adaptation to flooding needs to be tidied up. Currently it's mixing up urban flooding (which is unrelated to sea level rise in some cases) and the kind of flooding that is related to sea level rise. When this section is reworked, consider using an excerpt or linking better with the related articles, i.e. urban flooding and coastal flooding.EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Plan for improving this page

As part of WikiPedia SDG 13 project, I (with the help of User:EMsmile and others) will:

1. improve the purposes section : reduce risk factors. This needs to be linked to the climate risk page (which we also plan to improve - and we can draw from the lead on that page. Needs to be improved eg. explain that hazards cannot be reduced but vulnerability and exposure can.
2. improve related concepts : synergies with mitigation. This could refer to the climate resilience (or climate resilient development) page
3. restructure to have one overall section on options with subsections on structural, social & institutional [removed 3 options:
   1. Installing protective and/ or resilient technologies and materials in properties that are prone to flooding
   2. Surveying local vulnerabilities, raising public awareness, and making climate change-specific planning tools like future flood maps
   3. Requiring waterfront properties to have higher foundations
4. improve social adaptation options. I would include a new subsection on informational services like climate services and EWS
5. improve challenges section. Add some introductory text to better connect it in the page, and consult experts on what the other main challenges are
6. a new section on 'measuring progress on adaptation' would be useful. This can cover similar grounds as on the weadapt introduction article
7. update the references to AR4 and AR5 with AR6
8. add further summary of the article into the lead section to amount to 500-600 words

Any comments/suggestions are welcome Richarit (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC) UPDATE -

1. I have improved the purposes section as suggested, plus brought in the description of adaptive capacity as it relates to reducing risk. I now have a new proposal to organise Purposes according to the Global Goal on Adaptation(3 parts - see below)
2. have improved DRR section but not synergies. Missing in the latter are discussions on NBS / forests/agricuture as current examples are only from urban sector
3. done- 4 types of options are discussed although some could do with more refinement
4. done
5. not done but still planned
6. not done but still planned - introduce 'adaptation planning' as a separate section or combined with implementation
7. done (for all sections updated)
8. not done yet

--Richarit (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about removed options

Hi User:Richarit, I am just wondering why you have removed these three options?:

• Installing protective and/ or resilient technologies and materials in properties that are prone to flooding
• Surveying local vulnerabilities, raising public awareness, and making climate change-specific planning tools like future flood maps
• Requiring waterfront properties to have higher foundations

Do they not count as adaptation options, or have you perhaps merged or summarised them into one? EMsmile (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the first because it is a single source not discussing CCA (move to flood risk management, the second because it is not a structural measure (moved later in the article) and the third because it is contained in another option --Richarit (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to convert to long references style

I'd like to convert this article to long ref style to make it more consistent, easier to move content from one article to another, easier for newcomers. Also the long ref style works better when articles use excerpts from other articles. It means the section called "works cited" would eventually no longer be needed Does anyone object? See also a previous discussion at WikiProject Climate Change here. I've made this conversion already for a few articles, e.g. climate change mitigation, sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean heat content, IPCC. See also short discussion here. (Note I am not saying to convert the main climate change article of course - that one has so many refs and is optimised to work with the short ref style). EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can do this conversion but perhaps I'll wait until User:Richarit has continued with his work: I assume that during the process of updating this article, some of the older references to the AR4 or AR5 reports will be replaced with references to the AR6 report? EMsmile (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, when we cite IPCC reports we should always use their preferred citation style which is usually provided on page 1 or 2 of the pdf file where it says "This chapter should be cited as:". The easiest way of doing this is to click on "cite" then "manual" and then "basic". Copy the preferred citation text to that free text box, then add the URL to the pdf file and also the URL to the IPCC report page (to be extra sure in case the pdf file gets moved later). EMsmile (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, I've converted them all to long ref style. I still need to do the same at effects of climate change since we are now using an excerpt from there.

Putting all the options in one section instead of three

I am referring to this edit by Richarit where he merged the three options into one section. I think I do agree with this change, the only disadvantage is that this section about options has now become rather large, and its sub-section headings are no longer visible in the TOC, unless the TOC is expanded to allow fourth level headings to be visible as well. Which is what I have now done here. I normally prefer TOC level 3 but it's now TOC level 4. We need to take a close look at the sub-headings within those different options to ensure these are really the best sub-headings to use (and decide if we want them to be visible in the TOC or not). EMsmile (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think it looks fine with the sub headings visible and I agree we should look at these. They are not very consistent because some section texts were written before we did the reorganisation and some options were and are in the wrong categories. For example 'responding to sea level rise' mentions hard and soft options, but those soft options such as community strategies/adaptations would come under social/behavioural category below (and so would any sort of household level response to flood). One way around this would be to have a sub section on flooding and the main other hazards (drought & rainfall variation, heat, and flooding) below each category of option. so that would look like this :

1. Structural and physical options
   1. For flooding
   2. For drought and rainfall variability
   3. For heat
   4. For sea level rise
   5. Other 1
   6. Other 2
2. Social options
   1. For flooding
   2. For drought and rainfall variability
   3. For heat
   4. Other 1
   5. etc ..

The disadvantage is that this approach (where we organise by type/category, then by hazard) would probably make it much too long for inclusion in the TOC. --Richarit (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The other thing to mention is that the AR6 Ch 16 organises options (they now call them adaptation responses) in a different way - they organise into:

• Technological/Infrastructural
• Institutional
• Behavioural/cultural
• Nature-based

These map quite well into our 3 current categories (which were from 2014 report I think) but Nature-based is a new category that we have under structural and physical (but a bit broader than 'ecosystem based adaptation'). --Richarit (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks for this. I think it might be better if we follow the IPCC way of grouping the options more closely, as this should be pretty much the gold standard... Also I find your proposal interesting for grouping it by "type of change". It has inspired me to try out a quite different structure which I have now implemented by creating a new section called "Adaptation responses by type of climate change impact". I am thinking here we can put the more tangible examples of how we adapt to certain impacts of climate change. The section "Adaptation responses by type of option" could then focus more on the theoretical approaches. Do you think this could work? I think for our readers this might work better as they might wonder "how can we adapt to flooding" and then they could jump directly to that section. EMsmile (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

agreed, this is a better arrangement if we are permitted to allocate two sections - it is a potentially big subtopic Richarit (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Page number

@EMsmile, in this diff, you removed a page number. Just confirming that the remaining page number fully support the text? If not, please self-revert, as a wrong page range makes it much more difficult to verify text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, my reasoning for removing the end page number of the given range was "I think it's enough to give the starting page number, it gets too distracting otherwise". When the content for a cite goes over say 2 pages, I think it's sufficient to give the starting page number. This allows readers to easily find the correct location in the document. The page number itself is already a little bit of a distraction, especially if it's a high number like . I find that if it then says this would be distracting for the reader. EMsmile (talk)

But you are misleading people that verify such claims. It would cost me 15 rather than 5 minutes to verify such a claim; and there is a good chance I will come to the conclusion it's not supported and delete part of content that was correctly cited before. You can't just make up your own convention about how to cite sources. Surely the solution lies in using a different cite system if you really dislike the long inline text. In articles with the rp system, I tend to use shorter sources to ensure I don't overfill the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am genuinely confused now. I thought the page number was meant to tell people where they can find the content that is being cited. So in this diff I changed the page range that User:Richardit had provided with the page where the content was first mentioned in that document. Separately, I talked about it with the user (who is still quite new) because my understanding was that the page number is meant to provide the location where the content begins to be talked about, and that the end page number of a page range is not really required. Similarly to how I did it here today: I cited content from chapter 8 of the WG III report. The content is explained from various angles over pages 8-63 and the following two pages but I think saying shows the reader exactly where the content is in the document. Have I unknowingly violated a style guide rule about citing page numbers that I wasn't aware of? If you say it's important to provide the range of pages (start to end), I can adjust my way of citing in future (and revert that edit in question), no problem. I honestly thought that what I was doing was quite normal (noting also that for journal papers nobody usually provides pages numbers even if the journal paper is quite long; control+F is useful for finding the right location anyhow). EMsmile (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If all the information you cite is found on a single page, you can just cite that single page. Even if more pages talk about the same thing. If not all of the information can be found there, you need to cite all the other pages needed to verify the information. So if the end of page 4 says:

"Femke gave the birds some seeds to" and page 5 says "eat so that they had enough energy to fly about", I would need to cite both pages if I were to paraphrase that.

It's true that we're stricter on citing pages than journals (and in general, in checking that the sources actually pan out. You wouldn't believe how sloppy scientists are with citations now and then). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've now put the end page number back in just to be on the safe side. I'd still like to understand this better as for my own edits I usually only put the starting page number (but most of the time, the content that I want to cite is only on one single page anyhow). I've checked through the guidelines and it usually says "page number or range", see e.g. here: WP:CITEPAGE. "It helps to give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence, which promotes efficient source checking." (bolding added by me). I thought that meant I can give either a page number or a page range. Is it possible that this is partly down to personal preference? If everybody uses page ranges, I can of course get in the habit of doing that, too. No problem. EMsmile (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is a single page that supports the text fully, you should cite that.

If there isn't, you should cite a range/multiple pages.

You're allowed to cite a range (personal preference) when information is found on one page, but it's preferred to only cite one page in that case. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Purposes section

Proposal to organise Purposes according to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). The GGA was established in the Paris Agreement and it aims to do 3 broad things: enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

The current Purposes section is confusing because 'respond to impacts' and 'reduce risk factors' headings overlap as objectives (I suppose the former could be more about reacting to evolving hazards and the latter could be more about reducing risk in general?). In any case 'respond to impacts' text doesn't discuss responses, only the impacts whereas 'reduce risk factors' covers responses and risk concepts broadly including vulnerability and adaptive capacity. So we could just have this section as purpose (considering that reduce risks is a quite standard definition, based on the risk propeller on p6 here https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf) after discussing impacts. On the other hand, we could try to structure this section on the 3 components GGA (also means some overlaps). This is coming more from the political declaration rather than the scientific report but I think it does tie in with what we are doing.

1. enhance adaptive capacity - we have the subsection on adaptive capacity fitting here
2. strengthen resilience - relating to system-level resilience and climate resilient developent discussed a lot in AR6
3. reduce vulnerability to climate change - rewrite/expand current text for 'reduce risk factors'. The problem here is that 'exposure' is no longer considered to be a component of vulnerability (since AR5) but a separate risk factor, so I am wondering how to bring it in under this heading (?)

Any thoughts or feedback is welcome Richarit (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)--

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to re-arrange the purposes section. It was actually me who created it (from existing text) in an edit in April 2021, see here. Previously the structure looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Climate_change_adaptation&oldid=1019006236. It's probably also better to remove the excerpt from effects of climate change or reduce it to just one paragraph. Also, I am wondering if "aims" might be a better section title than "purposes"? I don't have a strong preference on this though. EMsmile (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This was (finally) completed now! Richarit (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Nature-based solutions versus ecosystem-based adaptation

Can we please make it clearer in this section what the difference is between Nature-based solutions versus ecosystem-based adaptation? Are the terms used interchangeably in the adaptation literature or is one the overarching term for the other? Nature-based solutions are not specific to adaptation, they can also perform other functions, like wastewater treatment. EMsmile (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - NBS is the overarching term and it is newer than EbA but there is a lot of overlap. I have mentioned this in the page. It is not really possible to separate out EbA and other types of NBS (the other important concepts/approaches in NBS such as Green Infrastructure, Climate Smart Agriculture, Ecosystem based DRR are also arguably part of EbA). Instead I have added subsections on benefits for ecosystems and for people. We can add more examples of options here (they are also going to overlap a lot). Richarit (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the 4 images in the lead

I'd like to revisit our choice of 4 images for the lead. See also related discussion here:

• The first two are good, I think.
• The third one with the selective breeding is too difficult to grasp for a layperson, I think. Can we find a better one to illustrate agricultural techniques for adaptation? I guess an irrigated field would be one but maybe not a terribly sustainable solution?
• Also the one with the green roof is nice but is it too exotic? Are green roofs too rare at this stage? Perhaps replace it with a different one that shows greening of cities, e.g. one with shade and trees? (note Wikimedia Commons is likely to have lots of images for that) EMsmile (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

We adopted a similar format for lead images on the weADAPT article at https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/climate-adaptation-learning-resources/an-introduction-to-adaptation and I wonder if any of these would fit your needs ? I am not sure of the Creative Commons status but we had permission to use them there so if there is one or two you like we could enquire Richarit (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Tech Writing for Agriculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nufarm000 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nufarm000 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"Adaptation options" section

The word "options" doesn't feel right here. It imples mutual exclusivity. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would "options" imply that the options are mutually exclusive? If so, what would be a better title for this section, or could the section text make it clearer that the options are not mutually exclusive? EMsmile (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why it implies mutual exclusivity to me, only that it does. Perhaps something like "adaptation by area" would work better?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "options" is quite often used to describe the activities; however we also use the word 'responses' because this is what the IPCC report used (because the focus in the report was on implemented/documented adaptation). Perhaps the categories are more like areas, within which there are many options. A portfolio of options/measures (implies they are to be implemented together) - but do we want to introduce another term ? Richarit (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"approaches" ? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits (mid Feb- early March)

• ‘Aims’ section: I redeveloped the former ‘purposes’ section into a longer ‘aims’ section that aligns with the GGA 3 components and unpacks these a bit. The policy goals of adaptation are context dependent and very varied, but it might be possible to give some examples in the planning and implementation section further down and link to these.
• ‘Adaptation options’ section: I filled it in quite a bit with more examples of each type (all from the IPCC WG2 AR6 report)
• ‘Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation’: I developed this section with several new subsections, and I deleted some of the older material about vulnerability. For each sector (Food is still missing) there is a paragraph or two about the main risks facing the sector and a paragraph or two of the main adaptation responses that are documented. Some of this was much too closely copied from the IPCC WG2 AR6 report, so thanks to Diannaa for pointing this out.
• ‘Related activities’: section was worked on by me and EMsmile. We moved the text about Effects of climate change here under a new subsection about ‘climate change impacts’ research. We also have two other activities ‘disaster risks, response and preparedness’ and ‘climate change mitigation’ which are research and policy areas.

Things remaining for me to work on :

• Improve the lead section
• Develop the section on Planning and implementing, to include more on the demand-driven approach and the tools available

Some suggestions of improvements that other people could work on

• The bit on regional risks and adaptation is weak because it only mentions regional vulnerability and measurement of adaptive capacity that is very old, from AR4 or 5. It would be good to update this with the latest information from the IPCC WG2 chapters for each region (ch 9-15 or add from the TS).
• ‘Related activities’: On the subsection on Climate change mitigation synergies it would be good to mention NBS / forests/agricuture as current examples are only from urban sector.
• ‘Related activities’: in this section the link with sustainable development could also be made. There is already text about this and SDG13 in the section on ‘global goals’
• ‘Adaptation by type of impact’ : The subsection on ‘Changed rainfall patterns in agriculture’ should be broadened to mention other sectors like energy and industry and the heading changed to ‘changed rainfall patterns’
• ‘Adaptation by type of impact’ : Other main types of impacts missing are extreme cold spells, various impacts on storms and wildfire - perhaps check also ‘Effects of climate change’. Something to consider is listing the direct effects first and then the more indirect, so starting with climate extremes : heat and cold waves, tropical cyclones, changing precipitation, and then drought, floods, wildfires and then all of the other systems that are impacted such as migration/mobility, trade, conflict etc. Could put some introductory text to explain this logic.
• ‘Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation’: Food and agriculture section is still missing (IPCC chapter 5)

Richarit (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here! The article will need quite a bit of work on making it easier to understand. Will you work on this as part of the project? For instance, the IPCC glossary is used to explain vulnerability like "the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected", which can be written much easier without the need to use quotations.

I've noticed some close paraphrasing from the glossary in general, Richardit. Can you do some more rewording towards a general audience there? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Femke - yes, some colleagues in our team will be looking closely at readability and scoring the article with a couple of tools, and I will work with them.

Climate vulnerability uses this definition of vulnerability so we would also need to change it there if we can find some better wording. The common usage as in the extent to which one is likely to experience damage or harm as discussed on this page (this page itself is now a bit out of date) might be used ?

I will look at the other wording for glossary and try to make a few improvements Richarit (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What to do about the regional risks section?

The regional risks section needs some work. As Richarit pointed out above: "The bit on regional risks and adaptation is weak because it only mentions regional vulnerability and measurement of adaptive capacity that is very old, from AR4 or 5. It would be good to update this with the latest information from the IPCC WG2 chapters for each region (ch 9-15 or add from the TS)." I wonder if it's better to delete it for now as it's not really clear what it's all about and whether it digresses too much into the climate risk or climate vulnerability areas? Do we really need it? Are adaptation efforts really so different from one region to the next? EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Internal overlap / repetition in risks by sector

I was just doing some work on the section about adapting to heat waves in the section "Options by type of impact" and noticed that the issue of greener cities comes up now several times in the article, namely also in the section on cities and on health (in "risks by sectors"). I wonder how we could improve on that? I also wonder if the section heading "risks by sectors" really works. Would reader understand from the table of content what risk has to do with adaptation? EMsmile (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• High-importance Environment articles
• B-Class Climate change articles
• Top-importance Climate change articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• B-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Mid-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• B-Class Systems articles
• Low-importance Systems articles
• Unassessed field Systems articles
• WikiProject Systems articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English