Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThomasYehYeh (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 13 May 2023 (→Need elaboration for certain wordings: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Section sizes Section size for Climate change adaptation (60 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,686 6,686 Definition 2,356 2,356 Understanding the need 609 6,054 Climate change impacts research 3,003 3,003 Disaster risks, response and preparedness 2,442 2,442 Aims 176 14,036 Policy aims 1,934 1,934 Reduce risk factors: vulnerability and exposure 4,151 4,151 Increase adaptive capacity 3,843 3,843 Strengthening resilience 2,448 2,448 Co-benefits with mitigation 1,484 1,484 Options by type of action 3,379 26,058 Infrastructural and technological options 140 777 Built environment 438 438 Early warning systems 114 114 Climate services 85 85 Institutional options 4,259 12,182 Building codes 1,570 1,570 Insurance 4,893 4,893 Coordination mechanisms 1,460 1,460 Behavioural and cultural options 481 6,098 Change in diets and food waste 2,986 2,986 Change in livelihood strategies 492 492 Migration and managed retreat 2,139 2,139 Nature-based options 1,781 3,622 Supporting ecosystems and biodiversity 1,200 1,200 Supporting people and societies 641 641 Options by type of impact 251 17,774 Flooding 5,565 5,565 Sea level rise 60 60 Heat waves 5,190 5,190 Changed rainfall patterns in agriculture 3,499 4,953 More spending on irrigation 1,454 1,454 Drought and desertification 1,755 1,755 Options by sector 640 18,752 Ecosystems and their services 2,872 6,220 Assisted migration of plants or animals 3,348 3,348 Health 2,771 2,771 Cities 2,049 2,049 Water 3,272 3,272 Livelihoods and communities 2,621 2,621 International impacts and cascading risk 1,179 1,179 Costs and finance 24 14,763 Economic costs 3,501 3,501 Cost benefit analysis 1,426 1,426 International finance 6,770 6,770 Additionality 3,042 3,042 Challenges 18 12,448 Differing time scales 2,961 2,961 Maladaptation 3,048 3,048 Limits to adaptation 2,890 2,890 Incentivizing private investment in adaptation 2,649 2,649 Trade-offs with mitigation 882 882 Planning and monitoring of implementation 3,113 10,833 By country and city 4,453 4,453 Global goals 3,267 3,267 History 3,723 3,723 See also 300 300 References 42 42 External links 711 711 Total 134,536 134,536

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 350 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

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)

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.

I've changed the "related activities" section heading to "Understanding the need" for now. Another option could be "scientific framing" maybe. EMsmile (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Yes, the risks and responses are different for different regions/continents (there is a good overview in chapter 16 figures 16.2,3,4 and 5.). We could perhaps look at the respective articles on climate change in these regions and what they say about adaptation. Eg. the Climate change in Africa page has quite a big section on CCA (it also shows differences within the continent) Although I still think the IPCC chapters would be the best source

BTW I think that the focus should be more on the adaptations than the risks. Richarit (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should focus more on the adaptation options not on the risks. The risks are more relevant for other Misplaced Pages articles, I guess climate risk would be the main one. Taking content from the IPCC chapters is good but comes with its own problems (the need for, and difficulty of, paraphrasing and converting into simpler language). By the way, adaptation is also included as a section in the "climate change by country" articles, e.g. here for Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/Climate_change_in_Australia#Adaptation How do we ensure that we don't double up on content if we talk about particular countries. Maybe it's better to group them by type of country, e.g. low income country with water scarcity problems, high income country with sea level rise problems, or something like that. EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Mind you, why do we have a section heading called "Risks by sectors"? I am confused now. Perhaps better "Adaptation challenges by sector"? EMsmile (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It was formerly 'Sectoral and regional risks and adaptation' but it got shortened to 'risks by sectors'. The idea was to have a paragraph or two about the main risks facing the sector and a paragraph or two of the main adaptation responses in the sector (based on WG2 chapters). It should perhaps be called Adaptation by sector (this would be similar to the mitigation article which has 'Mitigation by sector' for buildings, transport, etc.) or indeed challenges if this is a better term. Richarit (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that explanation. I have changed it for now to "options by sector" and "options by region" (as the article is about adaptation, I felt we could have a section title that is short, rather than "adaptation options by sector"). Would this work? We now have:

• Options by type of action
• Options by type of impact
• Options by sector
• Options by region EMsmile (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  yes, I think it works well Richarit (talk) 22:18, 12 April 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)

You are right - is it better to avoid redundancy in the article and/or link the sections ? Wouldn't the reader be likely to miss the connection if we take it out of sections ? In other articles about green cities, green infrastructure there is quite a gap when it comes to text about climate change adaptation. Richarit (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think avoiding redundancy would be good, especially given that the article is getting a bit long now (51 kB). Internal linking within the article can be done (sparingly); for some reason it's not very recommended but I think every now and again it could be appropriate. Also, if you have identified a gap in e.g. green infrastructure then I think it would be wise to add a link across from there to here (and even add a paragraph or excerpt there if it makes sense). EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Image size

@ActivelyDisinterested: I noticed you made a few images smaller in this edit. Can you explain a bit? For me, it looked better on both mobile and desktop before. The graph has become unreadable, and the images too small to really discern.

Neither option is really in line with WP:IMGSIZE, as we're not using upright. Easily fixible for the second image, but I'm not sure how to fix that for the multimage one. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That should have been 350 not 250, I'll update that. IMGSIZE says no more than 400 pixels wide, and multi image adds a frame to the image. Switching to upright might help, as the auto-formatter deals with that better. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that criterion. Seems like we need a better picture anyway, as it still displays poorly in the maximum size allowed.. Not sure if upright has the same restrictions.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Which picture do you mean when you say "Seems like we need a better picture anyway" - is it the schematic under "Aims" or is it one of the collage images from the lead? If it's this one (on the right), then I think perhaps we should drop it. It's not easy to read and seems to overly focus on weather-related issues. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Section sizes, potential for condensing

I've added to the top of the talk page a template to show the section sizes. It shows that the largest section is now "Options by type of impact" and here in particular the one on "migration pressures of humans". We could probably cull and condense that one a bit. The article is slowly getting to a size where it's on the long side (52 kB now). Still not too long but 60 kB would probably be too long. EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template - very useful. Yes, I think it would be good to cull that section. Migration pressures doesn't altogether fit with the other impacts in the section, which are climate hazards. Migration responses are triggered by some combination of climate impacts + other factors but doesn't fit very neatly into one category or sector - I think this is why IPCC has it in a cross chapter box! Richarit (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed these two paragraphs which were using old sources and were not about the pressures or responses so much as the impacts and outcomes of migration (as disaster response) and so goes a bit off topic I think:

"Focusing on climate change as the issue may frame the debate around migration in terms of projections, causing the research to be speculative. Migration as tool for climate change adaptation is projected to be a more pressing issue in the decade to come. In Africa, specifically, migrant social networks can help to build social capital to increase the social resilience in the communities of origin and trigger innovations across regions by the transfer of knowledge, technology, remittances and other resources.

In Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe are clear examples of adaptation strategies because they have implemented relocation policies that have reduced the exposure of populations and migrants to disaster. Tools can be put in place that limit forced displacement after a disaster; promote employment programs, even if only temporary, for internally displaced people or establish funding plans to ensure their security; to minimize the vulnerability of populations from risk areas. This can limit the displacement caused by environmental shocks and better channel the positive spillovers (money transfers, experiences, etc.) from the migration to the origin countries/communities." Richarit (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I made further changes to the organisation of the section and added more recent thinking and sources on human migration and shortened it a bit.

I was thinking that the "of ecosystems" subsection might work better if it were located in the options by sector->ecosystems. Any thoughts on that ? @EMsmile ? Richarit (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and have made that change. I was also wondering in which sense ecosystems can be called a "sector" but then looking at the WG II report I see there two chapters which mention "and their services" in their section titles. I think that makes sense so I have added "and their services" to our section heading, too. Please check if you agree with my recent changes. Your edits on the section about human migration are excellent. EMsmile (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is good like this I think. Assisted migration is mentioned in chapter 3 (assisted migration of butterflies has been studied) so I will add a link to the report in that section. Richarit (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Adamo, Susana B. (2008). Addressing Environmentally Induced Population Displacements. A Delicate Task. Population-Environment Research Network Cyberseminar on "Environmentally Induced Population Displacements.". Population Environment Research Network.
2. Scheffran, Jürgen; Marmer, Elina; Sow, Papa (April 2012). "Migration as a contribution to resilience and innovation in climate adaptation: Social networks and co-development in Northwest Africa". Applied Geography. 33: 119–127. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.002.
3. Ionesco, Dina; Mokhnacheva, Daria; Gemenne, François (2013). Atlas des migrations environnementales. Presses de Sciences Po.

Need elaboration for certain wordings

Adaptive ideas include: Taking advantage of global transportation systems to delivering surplus food to where it is needed (though this does not help subsistence farmers unless aid is given). Can anybody help explain reasons behind the wordings in bold? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 06:26, 13 May 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