Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation: a Systematic Review of Research Approaches and People’s Decision-Making

  • Progress in the Solution Space of Climate Adaptation (E Gilmore, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Climate Change Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review (1) describes the intersecting literature on climate change adaptation (CCA) and uncertainty (N= 562), and (2) synthesizes the findings of empirical studies about decision-maker uncertainty (n = 97).

Recent Findings

Uncertainty can be a barrier to adaptation, yet it is most often studied in relation to the scientific process, while uncertainties in people’s decision-making and their impact on CCA are less studied.

Summary

Despite the predominance of scientific uncertainties (52%), we see an upward-trend in studies of decision-making uncertainty (24%), and in combining natural and social sciences approaches (24%). Multiple sources of uncertainty influence CCA decisions besides climate trends, and their saliency and people’s responses vary depending on the role/function of the decision-maker and the timeframe of the decision. Concerns involve situational uncertainties, response options, and their consequences. Decision-makers are more likely to incorporate uncertainties in their adaptation decisions than suppress them or delay action, although the response is sensitive to the type of information sought and timeframes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from the PRISMA guidelines

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE et al (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. New York - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 688.

    Google Scholar 

  2. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Geeneva: World Meteorological Organization; 2018. p. 32.

  3. UNEP. Adaptation Gap report 2020 [Internet]. Nairobi; 2021;163. Available from: https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2020. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

  4. Radelet S. The great surge: The ascent of the developing world. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berrang-Ford L, Siders AR, Lesnikowski A, Paige Fischer A, Callaghan M, Haddaway NR, et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2021.

  6. Alchian A. Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. J Polit Econ [Internet]. 1950;53:211–21. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1827159. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  7. Brownlee OH, Gainer W. Farmers’ price anticipations and the role of uncertainty in farm planning. J Farm Econ [Internet]. 1949;31:266. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1232983. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  8. Schickele R. Farmers adaptations to income uncertainty. J Farm Econ [Internet]. 1950;32:356. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1233039. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  9. Findlater KM, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M. Farmers’ risk-based decision making under pervasive uncertainty: Cognitive thresholds and hazy hedging. Risk Anal. 2019;39:1755–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bujosa A, Torres C, Riera A. Framing decisions in uncertain scenarios: an analysis of tourist preferences in the face of global warming. Ecol Econ [Internet]; 2018;148:36–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.003.

  11. Faccioli M, Kuhfuss L, Czajkowski M. Stated preferences for conservation policies under uncertainty: insights on the effect of individuals’ risk attitudes in the environmental domain. Environ Resour Econ [Internet]. 2019;73:627–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0276-2.

  12. Hanna C, White I, Glavovic B. The uncertainty contagion: revealing the interrelated, cascading uncertainties of managed retreat. Sustainability [Internet]. 2020;12:736. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/736. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  13. Enserink B, Kwakkel JH, Veenman S. Coping with uncertainty in climate policy making: (Mis)understanding scenario studies. Futures [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2013;53:1–12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.006.

  14. Garschagen M, Doshi D, Moure M, James H, Shekhar H. The consideration of future risk trends in national adaptation planning: Conceptual gaps and empirical lessons. Clim Risk Manag [Internet]. 2021;34:100357. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2212096321000863. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  15. Müller-Mahn D, Moure M, Gebreyes M. Climate change, the politics of anticipation and future riskscapes in Africa. Cambridge J Reg Econ Soc [Internet]. 2020;13:343–62. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/13/2/343/5895006. Accessed 1 Nov 2020.

  16. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ. A Danish example of optimal thinning strategies in mixed-species forest under changing growth conditions caused by climate change. For Ecol Manage. 2003;180:375–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pe’er G, Mihoub J-B, Dislich C, Matsinos Y. Towards a different attitude to uncertainty. Nat Conserv [Internet]. 2014;8:95–114. Available from: http://natureconservation.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=4143. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  18. Sword-Daniels V, Eriksen C, Hudson-Doyle EE, Alaniz R, Adler C, Schenk T, et al. Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards. J Risk Res [Internet]; 2018;21:290–307. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1200659.

  19. Kettle NP, Dow K. The role of perceived risk, uncertainty, and trust on coastal climate change adaptation planning. Environ Behav. 2014;48:579–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nalau J, Verrall B. Mapping the evolution and current trends in climate change adaptation science. Clim Risk Manag [Internet]. Elsevier B.V.; 2021;32:100290. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100290.

  21. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations. Clim Change [Internet]. 2011;106:327–36. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-011-0045-5. Accessed 9 Mar 2021.

  22. Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J. Are we adapting to climate change? Glob Environ Chang [Internet]; 2011;21:25–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.012.

  23. Runhaar H, Wilk B, Persson Å, Uittenbroek C, Wamsler C. Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide. Reg Environ Chang [Internet]. 2018;18:1201–10. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10113-017-1259-5. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  24. Biesbroek GR, Klostermann JEM, Termeer CJAM, Kabat P. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Chang [Internet]. 2013;13:1119–29. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  25. Vink MJ, Dewulf A, Termeer C. The role of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation governance: a systematic literature review. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2013;18:art46. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art46/. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  26. Bisaro A, Roggero M, Villamayor-Tomas S. Institutional analysis in climate change adaptation research: a systematic literature review. Ecol Econ [Internet].; 2018;151:34–43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.016.

  27. van Valkengoed AM, Steg L. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat Clim Chang [Internet]. 2019;9:158–63. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0371-y. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  28. Petzold J, Andrews N, Ford JD, Hedemann C, Postigo JC. Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: a global evidence map of academic literature. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2020;15:113007. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abb330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berrang-Ford L, Pearce T, Ford JD. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg Environ Chang [Internet]. 2015;15:755–69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7.

  30. Walker W, Haasnoot M, Kwakkel J. Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability [Internet]. 2013;5:955–79. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/3/955. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  31. Hinkel J, Bisaro A. A review and classification of analytical methods for climate change adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang [Internet]. 2015;6:171–88. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.322. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  32. Spiegelhalter DJ, Riesch H. Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci [Internet]. 2011;369:4730–50. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0163. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  33. Skinner DJC, Rocks SA, Pollard SJT. A review of uncertainty in environmental risk: characterising potential natures, locations and levels. J Risk Res [Internet]. 2014;17:195–219. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2013.794150. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  34. Doyle EEH, Johnston DM, Smith R, Paton D. Communicating model uncertainty for natural hazards: A qualitative systematic thematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct [Internet]. 2019;33:449–76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.023.

  35. Beven KJ, Aspinall WP, Bates PD, Borgomeo E, Goda K, Hall JW, et al. Epistemic uncertainties and natural hazard risk assessment – Part 2: What should constitute good practice? Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci [Internet]. 2018;18:2769–83. Available from: https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/2769/2018/. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  36. Fusco G, Caglioni M, Emsellem K, Merad M, Moreno D, Voiron-Canicio C. Questions of uncertainty in geography. Environ Plan A Econ Sp [Internet]. 2017;49:2261–80. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X17718838. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  37. Berger L, Marinacci M. Model uncertainty in climate change economics: a review and proposed framework for future research. Environ Resour Econ [Internet]. 2020;77:475–501. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-020-00503-3. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  38. Mantilla C. Environmental uncertainty in commons dilemmas: a survey of experimental research. Int J Commons [Internet]. 2018;12:1–16. Available from: https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.857. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  39. Petr M, Vacchiano G, Thom D, Mairota P, Kautz M, Goncalves LMS, et al. Inconsistent recognition of uncertainty in studies of climate change impacts on forests. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2019;14:113003. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4670. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  40. Pastor A V., Vieira DCS, Soudijn FH, Edelenbosch OY. How uncertainties are tackled in multi-disciplinary science? A review of integrated assessments under global change. Catena [Internet]. 2020;186:104305. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104305.

  41. IPCC. Annex I: Glossary [Weyer, N.M. (ed.)]. In: H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck AA, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama NMW, editors. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 2019. In Press.

  42. Scoones I. What is uncertainty and why does it matter? [Internet]. Brighton; 2019:1-52. Report No.: 105. Available from: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/what-is-uncertainty-and-why-does-it-matter-2/. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  43. Lipshitz R, Strauss O. Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process [Internet]. 1997;69:149–63. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597897926790. Accessed 1 Oct 2020.

  44. Bijlsma RM, Bots PWG, Wolters HA, Hoekstra AY. An empirical analysis of stakeholders ’ influence on policy development : Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2011;16:1-16. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art51/. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  45. Yousefpour R, Temperli C, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Meilby H, Lexer MJ, et al. A framework for modeling adaptive forest management and decision making under climate change. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2017;22:art40. Available from: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss4/art40/. Accessed 1 Oct 2020.

  46. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Chang. 2005;15:199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011;66:290–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Marcus BH, Selby VC, Nlaura RS, Rossi JS. Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992;63(1):60–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gneezy U, Imas A, List J. Estimating individual ambiguity aversion: A simple approach [Internet]. NBER Work. Pap. Ser. Estim. No. 20982. 2015:1-14. Available from: http://ridum.umanizales.edu.co:8080/jspui/bitstream/6789/377/4/Muñoz_Zapata_Adriana_Patricia_Artículo_2011.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2020.

  50. Chambers RG, Melkonyan T. Ambiguity, reasoned determination, and climate-change policy. J Environ Econ Manage [Internet]. 2017;81:74–92. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0095069616302947. Accessed 1 Oct 2020.

  51. Begg C, Ueberham M, Masson T, Kuhlicke C. Interactions between citizen responsibilization, flood experience and household resilience: insights from the 2013 flood in Germany. Int J Water Resour Dev [Internet]. Routledge; 2017;33:591–608. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07900627.2016.1200961. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  52. Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Anal. 2006;26:631–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2009;6:e1000097. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr [Internet]. 2017;11:959–75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

  55. Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informetr [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2018;12:1160–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.

  56. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Package ‘ bibliometrix ’ reference manual. R topics documented. 2021:1–67. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bibliometrix/bibliometrix.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

  57. Software VERBI. MAXQDA 2020 [computer software]. VERBI Software, Berlin; 20210. Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci [Internet]. 2013;15:398–405. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nhs.12048. Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

  59. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ, Bandura A, Braun V, Clarke V, Bussey K. et al. Using thematic analysis in psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology. Psychiatr Q [Internet]. 2014;0887:37–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11752478. Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

  60. Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in practice. Third edit. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group; 2017; p. 32.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Hoffman DL, Franke GR. correspondence analysis: graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. J Mark Res [Internet]. 1986;23:213. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151480?origin=crossref. Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

  62. VERBI Software. Online Manual- MAXQDA 2020;744. Available from: https://www.maxqda.com/help-mx20/welcome%0A, http://www.maxqda.com/support/help/maxqda-11/. Accessed 5 Mar 2020.

  63. White DD, Wutich AY, Larson KL, Lant T. Water management decision makers’ evaluations of uncertainty in a decision support system: the case of WaterSim in the decision theater. J Environ Plan Manag [Internet]. 2015;58:616–30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.875892.

  64. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about global climate-change.1. Mental models. Risk Anal. 1994;14:959–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl [Internet]. 2007;17:2145–51. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1890/06-1715.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Chang [Internet]; 2013;23:485–98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006.

  67. Day JK, Pérez DM. Reducing uncertainty and risk through forest management planning in British Columbia. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 2013;300:117–24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.035.

  68. Helmi A, Sasaoka M. Dealing with socioeconomic and climate-related uncertainty in small-scale salt producers in rural Sampang, Indonesia. J Rural Stud [Internet]. 2018;59:88–97. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0743016717304278. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  69. Vanderlinden J-P, Baztan J, Touili N, Kane IO, Rulleau B, Simal PD, et al. Coastal flooding, uncertainty and climate change: science as a solution to (mis) perceptions? A qualitative enquiry in three coastal European settings. J Coast Res [Internet]. 2017;77:127–33. Available from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2112/SI77-013.1. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  70. Morss RE, Wilhelmi OV, Downton MW, Gruntfest E. Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: Lessons from an interdisciplinary project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2005;86:1593–601. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Govind PJ. Looking forward 10 years after Katrina: managing climate risk and uncertainty through building systematic resilience in New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina. Int J Emerg Manag [Internet]. 2016;12:284. Available from: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=79020. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  72. Jensen DMR, Thomsen ATH, Larsen T, Egemose S, Mikkelsen PS. From EU directives to local storm water discharge permits: A study of regulatory uncertainty and practice gaps in Denmark. Sustainability [Internet]. 2020;12:6317. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6317. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  73. Hurlbert M, Gupta J. Adaptive governance, uncertainty, and risk: Policy framing and responses to climate change, drought, and flood. Risk Anal. 2016;36:339–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Jozaei J, Mitchell M, Clement S. Using a resilience thinking approach to improve coastal governance responses to complexity and uncertainty: a Tasmanian case study, Australia. J Environ Manage [Internet]; 2020;253:109662. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109662.

  75. Petr M, Boerboom L, Ray D, van der Veen A. An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change. For Policy Econ [Internet]. 2014;41:1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.002.

  76. Restemeyer B, van den Brink M, Woltjer J. Resilience unpacked – framing of ‘uncertainty’ and ‘adaptability’ in long-term flood risk management strategies for London and Rotterdam. Eur Plan Stud [Internet]. 2018;26:1559–79. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09654313.2018.1490393. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  77. Kulsum U, Timmermans J, Khan MSA, Thissen W. A conceptual model-based approach to explore community livelihood adaptation under uncertainty for adaptive delta management. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol [Internet]. 2020;27:583–95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1654555.

  78. Sarku R, Dewulf A, van Slobbe E, Termeer K, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G. Adaptive decision-making under conditions of uncertainty: the case of farming in the Volta delta, Ghana. J Integr Environ Sci [Internet]; 2020;17:1–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2020.1729207.

  79. Burnham M, Ma Z, Endter-Wada J, Bardsley T. Water management decision making in the face of multiple forms of uncertainty and risk. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc [Internet]. 2016;52:1366–84. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.12459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Loring PA, Gerlach SC, Atkinson DE, Murray MS. Ways to help and ways to hinder: governance for effective adaptation to an uncertain climate. ARCTIC [Internet]. 2011;64:73. Available from: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/67129. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  81. Tegoni C, Mulazzani L, Setti M. Water governance under uncertainty: The case study of Users’ Associations in Lebanon. New Medit [Internet]. 2016;15:62–71. Available from: http://newmedit.iamb.it/edizioni_new_medit,229,229,2016,162,1055,water-governance-under-uncertainty:-the-case-study-of-users’-associations-in-lebanon.htm. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  82. Ding X, Zhou C, Zhong W, Tang P. Addressing uncertainty of environmental governance in environmentally sensitive areas in developing countries: a precise-strike and spatial-targeting adaptive governance framework. Sustainability [Internet]. 2019;11:4510. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4510. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ayeb-Karlsson S, Fox G, Kniveton D. Embracing uncertainty: A discursive approach to understanding pathways for climate adaptation in Senegal. Reg Environ Chang 2019;19:1585–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01495-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Cabello V, Kovacic Z, Van Cauwenbergh N. Unravelling narratives of water management: Reflections on epistemic uncertainty in the first cycle of implementation of the Water Framework Directive in southern Spain. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]. 2018;85:19–27. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901117306779. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  85. Friend R, Thinphanga P. Urban water crises under future uncertainties: The case of institutional and infrastructure complexity in Khon Kaen, Thailand. Sustainability [Internet]. 2018;10:3921. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3921. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  86. Hambira WL, Saarinen J, Moses O. Climate change policy in a world of uncertainty: Changing environment, knowledge, and tourism in Botswana. African Geogr Rev [Internet]; 2020;39:252–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2020.1719366.

  87. Morton LW, Roesch-McNally G, Wilke AK. Upper Midwest farmer perceptions: Too much uncertainty about impacts of climate change to justify changing current agricultural practices. J Soil Water Conserv [Internet]. 2017;72:215–25. Available from: http://www.jswconline.org/lookup/doi/10.2489/jswc.72.3.215. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  88. van der Keur P, van Bers C, Henriksen HJ, Nibanupudi HK, Yadav S, Wijaya R, et al. Identification and analysis of uncertainty in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in South and Southeast Asia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct [Internet]; 2016;16:208–14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.03.002.

  89. Coates T, Tapsell S. Planning for an uncertain future: the challenges of a locally based collaborative approach to coastal development decisions. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]; 2019;101:24–31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.005.

  90. Gottschick M. How stakeholders handle uncertainty in a local climate adaptation governance network. Clim Change [Internet]. 2015;132:445–57. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-014-1203-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Mehta L, Adam HN, Srivastava S. Unpacking uncertainty and climate change from ‘above’ and ‘below’. Reg Environ Chang 2019;19:1533–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01479-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Hadarits M. Climate change and economic uncertainty in the wine sector: A case study of the Maule Region, Chile. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Clim Chang Manag Econ Soc Polit Elem Clim Chang. Springer, Hamburg; 2011. pp 245–65.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wong CML, Lockie S. Climate policy and industry elite perceptions of risk and uncertainty: a cross-national study. Soc Nat Resour [Internet] 2020;33:1399–418. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1797966.

  94. Munden-Dixon K, Tate K, Cutts B, Roche L. An uncertain future: climate resilience of first-generation ranchers. Rangel J [Internet]. 2019;41:189. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=RJ18023. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  95. Lidskog R, Sjödin D. Risk governance through professional expertise. Forestry consultants’ handling of uncertainties after a storm disaster. J Risk Res [Internet]; 2016;19:1275–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043570.

  96. Kiem A, Verdon-Kidd D, Austin E. Bridging the gap between end user needs and science capability: decision making under uncertainty. Clim Res [Internet]. 2014;61:57–74. Available from: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v61/n1/p57-74/. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  97. Lawrence A. Adapting through practice: Silviculture, innovation and forest governance for the age of extreme uncertainty. For Policy Econ [Internet]; 2017;79:50–60. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.011.

  98. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Naranjo MA. The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers’ adaptation to climate change - A framed field experiment. Ecol Econ [Internet]; 2011;70:2317–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.004.

  99. Wardekker JA, de Jong A, van Bree L, Turkenburg WC, van der Sluijs JP. Health risks of climate change: An assessment of uncertainties and its implications for adaptation policies. Environ Heal [Internet]. 2012;11:67. Available from: http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-11-67. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  100. Lundhede T, Jacobsen JB, Hanley N, Strange N, Thorsen BJ. Incorporating outcome uncertainty and prior outcome beliefs in stated preferences. Land Econ. 2015;91:296–316. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24773530. Accessed 1 Oct 2020.

  101. Hornidge A-K, Scholtes F. Climate change and everyday life in Toineke Village, West Timor: uncertainties, knowledge and adaptation. Sociologus [Internet]. 2011;61:151–75. Available from: http://ejournals.duncker-humblot.de/doi/abs/10.3790/soc.61.2.151. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  102. Klijn F, van Buuren M, van Rooij SAM. Flood-risk management strategies for an uncertain future: living with Rhine river floods in The Netherlands? AMBIO A J Hum Environ [Internet]. 2007;33:141–7. Available from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-33.3.141. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Knapp CN, Fresco N, Krutikov L. Managing Alaska’s National Parks in an era of uncertainty: An evaluation of scenario planning workshops. Reg Environ Chang [Internet]; 2017;17:1541–52. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10113-017-1126-4. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  104. Lebel L, Lebel P, Chitmanat C, Uppanunchai A, Apirumanekul C. Managing the risks from the water-related impacts of extreme weather and uncertain climate change on inland aquaculture in Northern Thailand. Water Int [Internet]; 2018;43:257–80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1416446. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  105. Hopkins CR, Bailey DM, Potts T. Navigating future uncertainty in marine protected area governance: Lessons from the Scottish MPA network. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci [Internet]; 2018;207:303–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.020.

  106. Nguyen TPL, Seddaiu G, Virdis SGP, Tidore C, Pasqui M, Roggero PP. Perceiving to learn or learning to perceive? Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate uncertainties. Agric Syst. 2016;143: 205–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.01.001. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  107. Salite D. Explaining the uncertainty: understanding small-scale farmers’ cultural beliefs and reasoning of drought causes in Gaza Province, Southern Mozambique. Agric Human Values [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2019;36:427–41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09928-z.

  108. Yung L, Louder E, Gallagher LA, Jones K, Wyborn C. How methods for navigating uncertainty connect science and policy at the water-energy-food Nexus. Front Environ Sci [Internet]. 2019;7:1–17. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00037/full. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  109. d’Aquino P, Bah A. A participatory modeling process to capture indigenous ways of adaptability to uncertainty: Outputs from an experiment in West African Drylands. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2013;18:art16. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art16/.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Bhave AG, Conway D, Dessai S, Stainforth DA. Water resource planning under future climate and socioeconomic uncertainty in the Cauvery River Basin in Karnataka, India. Water Resour Res [Internet]. 2018;54:708–28. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017WR020970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Chao PT, Hobbs BF, Venkatesh BN. How climate uncertainty should be included in Great Lakes management: modeling worshop results. J Am Water Resour Assoc [Internet]. 1999;35:1485–97. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb04232.x. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  112. Lawrence J, Bell R, Stroombergen A. A hybrid process to address uncertainty and changing climate risk in coastal areas using dynamic adaptive pathways planning, multi-criteria decision analysis & real options analysis: A New Zealand application. Sustainability [Internet]. 2019;11:406. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Lawrence J, Haasnoot M. What it took to catalyse uptake of dynamic adaptive pathways planning to address climate change uncertainty. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2017;68:47–57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.003.

  114. Lidskog R, Löfmarck E. Managing uncertainty: Forest professionals’ claim and epistemic authority in the face of societal and climate change. Risk Manag [Internet]. 2015;17:145–64. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/rm.2015.10. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  115. Kübler I, Richter KF, Fabrikant SI. Against all odds: Multicriteria decision making with hazard prediction maps depicting uncertainty. Ann Am Assoc Geogr [Internet]; 2020;110:661–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2019.1644992.

  116. Kiem AS, Austin EK, Verdon-Kidd DC. Water resource management in a variable and changing climate: hypothetical case study to explore decision making under uncertainty. J Water Clim Chang [Internet]. 2016;7:263–79. Available from: https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/7/2/263/403/Water-resource-management-in-a-variable-and. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  117. De Koning J, Winkel G, Sotirov M, Blondet M, Borras L, Ferranti F, et al. Natura 2000 and climate change-Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]; 2014;39:129–38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010.

  118. Matthews JH, Wickel AJ. Embracing uncertainty in freshwater climate change adaptation: A natural history approach. Clim Dev [Internet]. 2009;1:269–79. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3763/cdev.2009.0018. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  119. Winkler JA. Embracing complexity and uncertainty. Ann Am Assoc Geogr [Internet]. 2016;106:1418–33. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24694452.2016.1207973. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  120. Yousefpour R, Jacobsen JB, Meilby H, Thorsen BJ. Knowledge update in adaptive management of forest resources under climate change: A Bayesian simulation approach. Ann For Sci. 2014;71:301–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Sunstein CR, Bobadilla-Suarez S, Lazzaro SC, Sharot T. How People update beliefs about climate change: Good news and bad news. Cornell Law Rev. 2047;102:1431–43.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Knaggård Å. What do policy-makers do with scientific uncertainty? The incremental character of Swedish climate change policy-making. Policy Stud [Internet]; 2014;35:22–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.804175.

  123. Olazabal M, Ford JD, Lesnikowski AC. Towards successful adaptation: a checklist for the development of climate change adaptation plans Ibon Galarraga BC3-Basque Centre for Climate Change [Internet]. Leioa; 2017. Report No.: 2017–01. 2017: 1-22. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316923127. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

Download references

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 801199.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Mar Moure, Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Carsten Smith-Hall

Authors
  1. Mar Moure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carsten Smith-Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mar Moure.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Progress in the Solution Space of Climate Adaptation

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1420 KB)

Appendix 1 Final query and Web of Science subject categories included for refinement of keyword search results

Appendix 1 Final query and Web of Science subject categories included for refinement of keyword search results

TI= (uncertain* OR ambigu* OR hesitan* OR ambivalen* OR ignoran* OR certain* OR unknown* OR indetermina*)

AND TS= (adapt* OR "climat* change*" OR "climate variability*" OR "perception* of climate change" OR "risk perception" OR "perce* risk*" OR "climat* stress" OR "climat* shock" OR "environment* stress" OR "climat* risk*" OR "climat* polic*" OR "climat* information" OR "environment* decision*" OR "natural hazard*" OR "environment* hazard*" OR "flood risk" OR "drought risk" OR "sea level rise")

Refined by:

WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: ( Environmental Sciences OR Green Sustainable Science Technology OR Communication OR Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences OR Psychology OR Business OR Water Resources OR Regional Urban Planning OR Forestry OR Construction Building Technology OR Remote Sensing OR Operations Research Management Science OR Public Administration OR Engineering Multidisciplinary OR Behavioral Sciences OR Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications OR Biodiversity Conservation OR Agriculture Multidisciplinary OR Geosciences Multidisciplinary OR History Philosophy Of Science OR Plant Sciences OR Environmental Studies OR Oceanography OR Transportation OR Geography OR Sociology OR Psychology Experimental OR Ecology OR Biology OR Fisheries OR Economics OR Agronomy OR Multidisciplinary Sciences OR Psychology Multidisciplinary OR Energy Fuels OR Social Sciences Interdisciplinary OR Statistics Probability OR Social Sciences Mathematical Methods OR Engineering Environmental OR International Relations OR Political Science OR Management )

AND [excluding] WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: (Automation Control Systems)

Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC.

Table 5

Table 5 Selection criteria during abstract screening
Full size table

Table 6

Table 6 Structure of the dataset (n = 562)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moure, M., Jacobsen, J.B. & Smith-Hall, C. Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation: a Systematic Review of Research Approaches and People’s Decision-Making. Curr Clim Change Rep 9, 1–26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-023-00189-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-023-00189-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation