Risk management and

SPM
7 decision-making in relation
to sustainable development

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Margot Hurlbert (Canada), Jagdish Krishnaswamy (India)

Lead Authors:
Edouard Davin (France/Switzerland), Francis X. Johnson (Sweden), Carlos Fernando
Mena  (Ecuador), John Morton (United Kingdom), Soojeong Myeong (The Republic of Korea),
David Viner (United Kingdom), Koko Warner (The United States of America), Anita Wreford
(New Zealand), Sumaya Zakieldeen (Sudan), Zinta Zommers (Latvia)

Contributing Authors:
Rob Bailis (The United States of America), Brigitte Baptiste (Colombia), Kerry Bowman
(Canada), Edward Byers (Austria/Brazil), Katherine Calvin (The United States of America),
Rocio  Diaz-Chavez (Mexico), Jason Evans (Australia), Amber Fletcher (Canada), James Ford
(United Kingdom), Sean Patrick Grant (The United States of America), Darshini Mahadevia (India),
Yousef Manialawy (Canada), Pamela McElwee (The United States of America), Minal Pathak
(India), Julian Quan (United Kingdom), Balaji Rajagopalan (The United States of America),
Alan Renwick (New Zealand), Jorge E. Rodríguez-Morales (Peru), Charlotte Streck (Germany),
Wim Thiery (Belgium), Alan Warner (Barbados)

Review Editors:
Regina Rodrigues (Brazil), B.L. Turner II (The United States of America)

Chapter Scientist:
Thobekile Zikhali (Zimbabwe)

This chapter should be cited as:

Hurlbert, M., J. Krishnaswamy, E. Davin, F.X. Johnson, C.F. Mena, J. Morton, S. Myeong, D. Viner, K. Warner, A. Wreford,
S. Zakieldeen, Z. Zommers, 2019: Risk Management and Decision making in Relation to Sustainable Development.
In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,
sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea,
E.  Calvo  Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen,
M. Ferrat, E.  Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick,
M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press.

673
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Table of contents

Executive summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 675 Cross-Chapter Box 11 | Gender in inclusive

approaches to climate change, land
7.1 Introduction and relation to other chapters �������������� 677 and sustainable development ������������������������������������������������ 717
7.1.1 Findings of previous IPCC assessments  7.5 Decision-making for climate change and land ��������� 719
and reports ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 677
7.5.1 Formal and informal decision-making �������������������� 720
Box 7.1: Relevant findings of recent IPCC reports  678
7.5.2 Decision-making, timing, risk, and uncertainty ��� 720
7.1.2 Treatment of key terms in the chapter ������������������ 679
7.5.3 Best practices of decision-making toward
7.1.3 Roadmap to the chapter �������������������������������������������������� 679
sustainable land management (SLM) ���������������������� 723
7.2 Climate-related risks for land-based 7.5.4 Adaptive management ����������������������������������������������������� 723
human systems and ecosystems ������������������������������������������ 680 7.5.5 Performance indicators ����������������������������������������������������� 725
7.2.1 Assessing risk ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 680 7.5.6 Maximising synergies and
7.2.2 Risks to land systems arising from climate change 680 minimising trade-offs �������������������������������������������������������� 725
7.2.3 Risks arising from responses to climate change ��� 686 Cross-Chapter Box 9 | Climate and land pathways ��� 727
7.2.4 Risks arising from hazard, exposure Case study: Green energy: Biodiversity
and vulnerability ������������������������������������������������������������������� 688 conservation vs global environment targets? ��������� 735

7.3 Consequences of climate – land change for human 7.6 Governance: Governing the land–climate interface  736
well-being and sustainable development �������������������� 690 7.6.1 Institutions building adaptive
7.3.1 What is at stake for food security? ��������������������������� 690 and mitigative capacity ���������������������������������������������������� 736
7.3.2 Risks to where and how people live: Livelihood 7.6.2 Integration – Levels, modes and scale
systems and migration ����������������������������������������������������� 690 of governance for sustainable development �������� 737
7.3.3 Risks to humans from disrupted Case study: Governance: Biofuels and bioenergy ��� 738
ecosystems and species ��������������������������������������������������� 691 Cross-Chapter Box 12 | Traditional biomass use:
7.3.4 Risks to communities and infrastructure ��������������� 691 Land, climate and development implications ����������� 740
Cross-Chapter Box 10 | Economic dimensions 7.6.3 Adaptive climate governance
of climate change and land ������������������������������������������������������ 692 responding to uncertainty ���������������������������������������������� 742
Box 7.2: Adaptive governance and interlinkages
7.4 Policy instruments for land and climate ������������������������ 695 of food, fibre, water, energy and land ���������������������������� 743
7.4.1 Multi-level policy instruments ������������������������������������� 695 7.6.4 Participation ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 745
7.4.2 Policies for food security and social protection  696 Cross-Chapter Box 13 | Indigenous and local
7.4.3 Policies responding to climate-related extremes  699 knowledge (ILK) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 746
7.4.4 Policies responding to greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes701 7.6.5 Land tenure ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 749
Case study: Including agriculture in the 7.6.6 Institutional dimensions
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) ���������� 703 of adaptive governance ��������������������������������������������������� 753
7.4.5 Policies responding to desertification and 7.6.7 Inclusive governance for
degradation – Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) 705 sustainable development ������������������������������������������������ 754
7.4.6 Policies responding to land degradation ���������������� 706 7.7 Key uncertainties and knowledge gaps ������������������������� 754
Case study: Forest conservation instruments:
REDD+ in the Amazon and India �������������������������������������������� 709 Frequently Asked Questions ����������������������������������������������������������������� 755
7.4.7 Economic and financial instruments FAQ 7.1: How can indigenous knowledge and
for adaptation, mitigation, and land ������������������������ 711 local knowledge inform land-based mitigation
7.4.8 Enabling effective policy instruments – and adaptation options? �������������������������������������������������������������� 755
policy portfolio coherence ���������������������������������������������� 713 FAQ 7.2: What are the main barriers
7 7.4.9 Barriers to implementing policy responses ���������� 714 to and opportunities for land-based
responses to climate change? �������������������������������������������������� 756

References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 757
674
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Executive summary mitigation. SSP3 has the opposite characteristics. Under SSP1, only
a small fraction of the dryland population (around 3% at 3°C for the
Increases in global mean surface temperature are projected year 2050) will be exposed and vulnerable to water stress. However
to result in continued permafrost degradation and under SSP3, around 20% of dryland populations (for the year 2050)
coastal degradation (high confidence), increased wildfire, will be exposed and vulnerable to water stress by 1.5°C and 24% by
decreased  crop yields in low latitudes, decreased food 3°C. Similarly under SSP1, at 1.5°C, 2 million people are expected to
stability, decreased water availability, vegetation loss be exposed and vulnerable to crop yield change. Over 20 million are
(medium confidence), decreased access to food and increased exposed and  vulnerable to crop yield change in SSP3, increasing to
soil erosion (low confidence). There is high agreement and 854 million people at 3°C (low confidence). Livelihoods deteriorate as
high evidence that increases in global mean temperature will a result of these impacts, livelihood migration is accelerated, and strife
result in continued increase in global vegetation loss, coastal and conflict is worsened (medium confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 9 in
degradation, as well as decreased crop yields in low latitudes, Chapters 6 and 7, 7.2.2, 7.3.2, Table 7.1, Figure 7.2}
decreased food stability, decreased access to food and
nutrition, and medium confidence in continued permafrost Land-based adaptation and mitigation responses pose risks
degradation and water scarcity in drylands. Impacts are already associated with the effectiveness and potential adverse side-
observed across all components (high confidence). Some processes effects of measures chosen (medium confidence). Adverse
may experience irreversible impacts at lower levels of warming than side-effects on food security, ecosystem services and water security
others. There are high risks from permafrost degradation, and wildfire, increase with the scale of bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon
coastal degradation, stability of food systems at 1.5°C while high capture and storage (BECCS) deployment. In a SSP1 future, bioenergy
risks from soil erosion, vegetation loss and changes in nutrition only and BECCS deployment up to 4  million km2 is compatible with
occur at higher temperature thresholds due to increased possibility sustainability constraints, whereas risks are already high in a SSP3
for adaptation (medium confidence). {7.2.2.1, 7.2.2.2, 7.2.2.3; future for this scale of deployment. {7.2.3}
7.2.2.4; 7.2.2.5; 7.2.2.6; 7.2.2.7; Figure 7.1}
There is high confidence that policies addressing vicious
These changes result in compound risks to food systems, cycles of poverty, land degradation and greenhouse gas
human and ecosystem health, livelihoods, the viability of (GHG) emissions implemented in a holistic manner can
infrastructure, and the value of land (high confidence). achieve climate-resilient sustainable development. Choice
The experience and dynamics of risk change over time as a result and implementation of policy instruments determine future
of both human and natural processes (high confidence). There is high climate and land pathways (medium confidence). Sustainable
confidence that climate and land changes pose increased risks at development pathways (described in SSP1) supported by effective
certain periods of life (i.e., to the very young and ageing populations) regulation of land use to reduce environmental trade-offs, reduced
as well as sustained risk to those living in poverty. Response options reliance on traditional biomass, low growth in consumption and
may also increase risks. For example, domestic efforts to insulate limited meat diets, moderate international trade with connected
populations from food price spikes associated with climatic stressors regional markets, and effective GHG mitigation instruments) can
in the mid-2000s inadequately prevented food insecurity and poverty, result in lower food prices, fewer people affected by floods and other
and worsened poverty globally. {7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3, Table 7.1} climatic disruptions, and increases in forested land (high agreement,
limited evidence) (SSP1). A policy pathway with limited regulation
There is significant regional heterogeneity in risks: tropical of land use, low technology development, resource intensive
regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and consumption, constrained trade, and ineffective GHG mitigation
Central and South America are particularly vulnerable to instruments can result in food price increases, and significant loss of
decreases in crop yield (high confidence). Yield of crops in forest (high agreement, limited evidence) (SSP3). {3.7.5, 7.2.2, 7.3.4,
higher latitudes may initially benefit from warming as well as from 7.5.5, 7.5.6, Table 7.1, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and  7,
higher carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. But temperate zones, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7}
including the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Gobi desert, Korea
and western United States are susceptible to disruptions from Delaying deep mitigation in other sectors and shifting the
increased drought frequency and intensity, dust storms and fires burden to the land sector, increases the risk associated with
(high confidence). {7.2.2} adverse effects on food security and ecosystem services (high
confidence). The consequences are an increased pressure on land
Risks related to land degradation, desertification and food with higher risk of mitigation failure and of temperature overshoot
security increase with temperature and can reverse development and a transfer of the burden of mitigation and unabated climate
gains in some socio-economic development pathways (high change to future generations. Prioritising early decarbonisation with
confidence). SSP1 reduces the vulnerability and exposure minimal reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) decreases the risk
of human and natural systems and thus limits risks resulting of mitigation failure (high confidence). {2.5, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2,
from desertification, land degradation and food insecurity 7.2.3, 7.5.6, 7.5.7, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7}
compared to SSP3 (high confidence). SSP1 is characterised by
low population growth, reduced inequalities, land-use regulation, low Trade-offs can occur between using land for climate mitigation 7
meat consumption, increased trade and few barriers to adaptation or or Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 (affordable clean

675
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

energy) with biodiversity, food, groundwater and riverine monitoring, improving water use efficiency), synergistically improve
ecosystem services (medium confidence). There is medium agricultural producer livelihoods and foster SLM. {3.7.5, Cross-
confidence that trade-offs currently do not figure into climate policies Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3, 7.4.3, 7.4.6, 7.5.6, 7.4.8, , 7.5.6, 7.6.3}
and decision making. Small hydro power installations (especially in
clusters) can impact downstream river ecological connectivity for Technology transfer in land-use sectors offers new
fish (high agreement, medium evidence). Large scale solar farms opportunities for adaptation, mitigation, international
and wind turbine installations can impact endangered species and cooperation, R&D collaboration, and local engagement
disrupt habitat connectivity (medium agreement, medium evidence). (medium confidence). International cooperation to modernise the
Conversion of rivers for transportation can disrupt fisheries and traditional biomass sector will free up both land and labour for more
endangered species (through dredging and traffic) (medium productive uses. Technology transfer can assist the measurement
agreement, low evidence). {7.5.6} and accounting of emission reductions by developing countries.
{7.4.4, 7.4.6, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7}
The full mitigation potential assessed in this report will only be
realised if agricultural emissions are included in mainstream Measuring progress towards goals is important in decision-
climate policy (high agreement, high evidence). Carbon markets making and adaptive governance to create common
are theoretically more cost-effective than taxation but challenging understanding and advance policy effectiveness (high
to implement in the land-sector (high confidence) Carbon pricing agreement, medium evidence). Measurable indicators, selected
(through carbon markets or carbon taxes) has the potential to be with the participation of people and supporting data collection,
an effective mechanism to reduce GHG emissions, although it are useful for climate policy development and decision-making.
remains relatively untested in agriculture and food systems. Equity Indicators include the SDGs, nationally determined contributions
considerations can be balanced by a mix of both market and non- (NDCs), land degradation neutrality (LDN) core indicators, carbon
market mechanisms (medium evidence, medium agreement). stock measurement, measurement and monitoring for REDD+,
Emissions leakage could be reduced by multi-lateral action (high metrics for measuring biodiversity and ecosystem services, and
agreement, medium evidence). {7.4.6, 7.5.5, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter governance capacity. {7.5.5, 7.5.7, 7.6.4, 7.6.6}
Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7}
The complex spatial, cultural and temporal dynamics of risk
A suite of coherent climate and land policies advances and uncertainty in relation to land and climate interactions
the goal of the Paris Agreement and the land-related SDG and food security, require a flexible, adaptive, iterative
targets on poverty, hunger, health, sustainable cities and approach to assessing risks, revising decisions and policy
communities, responsible consumption and production, instruments (high confidence). Adaptive, iterative decision making
and life on land. There is high confidence that acting early will moves beyond standard economic appraisal techniques to new
avert or minimise risks, reduce losses and generate returns methods such as dynamic adaptation pathways with risks identified
on investment. The economic costs of action on sustainable land by trigger points through indicators. Scenarios can provide valuable
management (SLM), mitigation, and adaptation are less than the information at all planning stages in relation to land, climate and
consequences of inaction for humans and ecosystems (medium food; adaptive management addresses uncertainty in scenario
confidence). Policy portfolios that make ecological restoration more planning with pathway choices made and reassessed to respond
attractive, people more resilient – expanding financial inclusion, to new information and data as it becomes available. {3.7.5, 7.4.4,
flexible carbon credits, disaster risk and health insurance, social 7.5.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.4, 7.5.7, 7.6.1, 7.6.3}
protection and adaptive safety nets, contingent finance and reserve
funds, and universal access to early warning systems – could save Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can play a key role in
100 billion USD a year, if implemented globally. {7.3.1, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, understanding climate processes and impacts, adaptation to
7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 7} climate change, sustainable land management (SLM) across
different ecosystems, and enhancement of food security
Coordination of policy instruments across scales, levels, and (high confidence). ILK is context-specific, collective, informally
sectors advances co-benefits, manages land and climate risks, transmitted, and multi-functional, and can encompass factual
advances food security, and addresses equity concerns (medium information about the environment and guidance on management
confidence). Flood resilience policies are mutually reinforcing of resources and related rights and social behaviour. ILK can be
and include flood zone mapping, financial incentives to move, and used in decision-making at various scales and levels, and exchange
building restrictions, and insurance. Sustainability certification, of experiences with adaptation and mitigation that include ILK is
technology transfer, land-use standards and secure land tenure both a requirement and an entry strategy for participatory climate
schemes, integrated with early action and preparedness, advance communication and action. Opportunities exist for integration of ILK
response options. SLM improves with investment in agricultural with scientific knowledge. {7.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.6, 7.6.4, Cross-Chapter
research, environmental farm practices, agri-environmental payments, Box 13 in Chapter 7}
financial support for sustainable agricultural water infrastructure
(including dugouts), agriculture emission trading, and elimination Participation of people in land and climate decision making
7 of agricultural subsidies (medium confidence). Drought resilience and policy formation allows for transparent effective solutions
policies (including drought preparedness planning, early warning and and the implementation of response options that advance

676
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

synergies, reduce trade-offs in SLM (medium confidence), can integrate land policy with national policies on adaptation and
and overcomes barriers to adaptation and mitigation (high reduce sensitivities to climate change. {7.6.2; 7.6.3; 7.6.4, 7.6.5}
confidence). Improvements to SLM are achieved by: (i) engaging
people in citizen science by mediating and facilitating landscape Significant gaps in knowledge exist when it comes to
conservation planning, policy choice, and early warning systems understanding the effectiveness of policy instruments and
(medium confidence); (ii) involving people in identifying problems institutions related to land-use management, forestry,
(including species decline, habitat loss, land-use change in agriculture and bioenergy. Interdisciplinary research is needed
agriculture, food production and forestry), selection of indicators, on the impacts of policies and measures in land sectors.
collection of climate data, land modelling, agricultural innovation Knowledge gaps are due in part to the highly contextual and local
opportunities. When social learning is combined with collective nature of land and climate measures and the long time periods
action, transformative change can occur addressing tenure issues needed to evaluate land-use change in its socio-economic frame, as
and changing land-use practices (medium confidence). Meaningful compared to technological investments in energy or industry that
participation overcomes barriers by opening up policy and science are somewhat more comparable. Significant investment is needed
surrounding climate and land decisions to inclusive discussion that in monitoring, evaluation and assessment of policy impacts across
promotes alternatives. {3.7.5, 7.4.1, 7.4.9; 7.5.1, 7.5.4, 7.5.5, 7.5.7, different sectors and levels. {7.7}
7.6.4, 7.6.6}

Empowering women can bolster synergies among household 7.1 Introduction and relation
food security and SLM (high confidence). This can be achieved to other chapters
with policy instruments that account for gender differences. The
overwhelming presence of women in many land based activities Land is integral to human habitation and livelihoods, providing food
including agriculture provides opportunities to mainstream gender and resources, and also serves as a source of identity and cultural
policies, overcome gender barriers, enhance gender equality, and meaning. However, the combined impacts of climate change,
increase SLM and food security (high confidence). Policies that desertification, land degradation and food insecurity pose obstacles
address barriers include gender qualifying criteria and gender to resilient development and the achievement of the Sustainable
appropriate delivery, including access to financing, information, Development Goals (SDGs). This chapter reviews and assesses
technology, government transfers, training, and extension may be literature on risk and uncertainty surrounding land and climate
built into existing women’s programmes, structures (civil society change, policy instruments and decision-making that seek to address
groups) including collective micro enterprise (medium confidence). those risks and uncertainties, and governance practices that advance
{Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7} the response options with co-benefits identified in Chapter 6, lessen
the socio-economic impacts of climate change and reduce trade-offs,
The significant social and political changes required for and advance SLM.
sustainable land use, reductions in demand and land-based
mitigation efforts associated with climate stabilisation require
a wide range of governance mechanisms. The expansion and 7.1.1 Findings of previous IPCC
diversification of land use and biomass systems and markets requires assessments and reports
hybrid governance: public-private partnerships, transnational,
polycentric, and state governance to insure opportunities are This chapter builds on earlier assessments contained in several
maximised, trade-offs are managed equitably and negative impacts chapters of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (the contributions of
are minimised (medium confidence). {7.4.6, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, Cross- both Working Groups II and III), the IPCC Special Report on Managing
Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6} the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC 2012), and the IPCC Special Report
Land tenure systems have implications for both adaptation on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) (IPCC 2018a). The findings most
and mitigation, which need to be understood within specific relevant to decision-making on and governance of responses to land-
socio-economic and legal contexts, and may themselves climate challenges are set out in Box 7.1.
be impacted by climate change and climate action (limited
evidence, high agreement). Land policy (in a diversity of forms
beyond focus on freehold title) can provide routes to land security
and facilitate or constrain climate action, across cropping, rangeland,
forest, freshwater ecosystems and other systems. Large-scale land
acquisitions are an important context for the relations between
tenure security and climate change, but their scale, nature and
implications are imperfectly understood. There is medium confidence
that land titling and recognition programmes, particularly those that
authorize and respect indigenous and communal tenure, can lead
to improved management of forests, including for carbon storage. 7
Strong public coordination (government and public administration)

677
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Box 7.1 | Relevant findings of recent IPCC reports

Climate change and sustainable development pathways

“Climate change poses a moderate threat to current sustainable development and a severe threat to future sustainable development”
(Denton et al. 2014; Fleurbaey et al. 2014).

Significant transformations may be required for climate-resilient pathways (Denton et al. 2014; Jones et al. 2014).

The design of climate policy is influenced by (i) differing ways that individuals and organisations perceive risks and uncertainties, and
(ii) the consideration of a diverse array of risks and uncertainties – as well as human and social responses – which may be difficult
to measure, are of low probability but which would have a significant impact if they occurred (Kunreuther et al. 2014; Fleurbaey et al.
2014; Kolstad et al. 2014).

Building climate-resilient pathways requires iterative, continually evolving and complementary processes at all levels of government
(Denton et al. 2014; Kunreuther et al. 2014; Kolstad et al. 2014; Somanthan et al. 2014; Lavell et al. 2012).

Important aspects of climate-resilient policies include local level institutions, decentralisation, participatory governance, iterative
learning, integration of local knowledge, and reduction of inequality (Dasgupta et al. 2014; Lavell et al. 2012; Cutter et al. 2012b;
O’Brien et al. 2012; Roy et al. 2018).

Climate action and sustainable development are linked: adaptation has co-benefits for sustainable development, while “sustainable
development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit
global warming” (IPCC 2018a). Redistributive policies that shield the poor and vulnerable can resolve trade-offs between mitigation
objectives and the hunger, poverty and energy access SDGs.

Land and rural livelihoods

Policies and institutions relating to land, including land tenure, can contribute to the vulnerability of rural people, and constrain
adaptation. Climate policies, such as encouraging cultivation of biofuels, or payments under REDD+, will have significant secondary
impacts, both positive and negative, in some rural areas (Dasgupta et al. 2014).

“Sustainable land management is an effective disaster risk reduction tool” (Cutter et al. 2012a).

Risk and risk management

A variety of emergent risks not previously assessed or recognised, can be identified by taking into account: (i) the “interactions
of climate change impacts on one sector with changes in exposure and vulnerability, as well as adaptation and mitigation actions”,
and (ii) “indirect, trans-boundary, and long-distance impacts of climate change” including price spikes, migration, conflict and the
unforeseen impacts of mitigation measures (Oppenheimer et al. 2014).

“Under any plausible scenario for mitigation and adaptation, some degree of risk from residual damages is unavoidable” (Oppenheimer
et al. 2014).

Decision-making
“Risk management provides a useful framework for most climate change decision-making. Iterative risk management is most suitable
in situations characterised by large uncertainties, long time frames, the potential for learning over time, and the influence of both
climate as well as other socio-economic and biophysical changes” (Jones et al. 2014).

“Decision support is situated at the intersection of data provision, expert knowledge, and human decision making at a range of scales
from the individual to the organisation and institution” (Jones et al. 2014).

“Scenarios are a key tool for addressing uncertainty”, either through problem exploration or solution exploration (Jones et al. 2014).

678
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Box 7.1 (continued)

Governance
There is no single approach to adaptation planning and both top-down and bottom-up approaches are widely recognised.“Institutional
dimensions in adaptation governance play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation of adaptation”
(Mimura et al. 2014). Adaptation is also essential at all scales, including adaptation by local governments, businesses, communities
and individuals (Denton et al. 2014).

“Strengthened multi-level governance, institutional capacity, policy instruments, technological innovation and transfer and mobilisation
of finance, and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles are enabling conditions that enhance the feasibility of mitigation and
adaptation options for 1.5°C-consistent systems transitions” (IPCC 2018b).

Governance is key for vulnerability and exposure represented by institutionalised rule systems and habitualised behaviour and norms
that govern society and guide actors, and “it is essential to improve knowledge on how to promote adaptive governance within the
framework of risk assessment and risk management” (Cardona 2012).

7.1.2 Treatment of key terms in the chapter response could be examples of emergent risks (Saluja and Singh
2018; Marcacci 2018). Additionally, the absence of an explicit goal
While the term risk continues to be subject to a growing number for conserving freshwater ecosystems and ecosystem services in
of definitions in different disciplines and sectors, this chapter takes SDGs (in contrast to a goal – ‘life below water’ – exclusively for
as a starting point the definition used in the IPCC Special Report marine biodiversity) is related to its trade-offs with energy and
on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) (IPCC 2018a), which reflects irrigation goals, thus posing a substantive risk (Nilsson et al. 2016b;
definitions used by both Working Group II and Working Group III Vörösmarty et al. 2010).
in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): “The potential for adverse
consequences where something of value is at stake and where Governance is not previously well defined in IPCC reports, but
the occurrence and degree of an outcome is uncertain” (Allwood is used here to include all of the processes, structures, rules and
et al. 2014; Oppenheimer et al. 2014). The SR15 definition further traditions that govern, which may be undertaken by actors including
specifies: “In the context of the assessment of climate impacts, governments, markets, organisations, or families (Bevir 2011), with
the term risk is often used to refer to the potential for adverse particular reference to the multitude of actors operating in respect
consequences of a climate-related hazard, or of adaptation or of land–climate interactions. Such definitions of governance allow
mitigation responses to such a hazard, on lives, livelihoods, for it to be decoupled from the more familiar concept of government
health and well-being, ecosystems and species, economic, social and studied in the context of complex human–environment relations
and cultural assets, services (including ecosystem services), and and environmental and resource regimes (Young 2017a). Governance
infrastructure.” In SR15, as in the IPCC SREX and AR5 WGII, risk involves the interactions among formal and informal institutions
is conceptualised as resulting from the interaction of vulnerability through which people articulate their interests, exercise their legal
(of the affected system), its exposure over time (to a hazard), rights, meet their legal obligations, and mediate their differences
as well as the (climate-related) impact and the likelihood of its (UNDP 1997).
occurrence (AR5 2014; IPCC 2018a, 2012). In the context of SRCCL,
risk must also be seen as including risks to the implementation of
responses to land–climate challenges from economic, political and 7.1.3 Roadmap to the chapter
governance factors. Climate and land risks must be seen in relation
to human values and objectives (Denton et al. 2014). Risk is closely This chapter firstly discusses risks and their drivers, at various scales,
associated with concepts of vulnerability and resilience, which in relation to land-climate challenges, including risks associated with
are themselves subject to differing definitions across different responses to climate change (Section 7.2). The consequences of the
knowledge communities. principal risks in economic and human terms, and associated concepts
such as tipping points and windows of opportunity for response are
Risks examined in this chapter arise from more than one of the major then described (Section  7.3). Policy responses at different scales
land–climate–society challenges (desertification, land degradation, to different land-climate risks, and barriers to implementation, are
and food insecurity), or partly stem from mitigation or adaptation described in Section 7.4, followed by an assessment of approaches
actions, or cascade across different sectors or geographical to decision-making on land-climate challenges (Section  7.5),
locations. They could thus be seen as examples of emergent risks: and questions of the governance of the land-climate interface
“aris[ing] from the interaction of phenomena in a complex system” (Section  7.6). Key uncertainties and knowledge gaps are identified
(Oppenheimer et al. 2014, p.1052). Stranded assets in the coal in Section 7.7. 7
sector due to proliferation of renewable energy and government

679
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.2 Climate-related risks for land-based degradation and food security were identified, based on discussions
human systems and ecosystems with authors in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. The final list of burning embers
in Figure 7.1 is not intended to be fully comprehensive, but represents
This section examines risks that climate change poses to selected processes for which sufficient literature exists to make expert
land-based human systems and ecosystems, and then further judgements. Literature used in the burning embers assessment
explores how social and economic choices, as well as responses is summarised in tables in Supplementary Material. Following an
to climate change, will exacerbate or lessen risks. ‘Risk’ is defined approach articulated in O’Neill et al. (2017), expert judgements were
as the potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological made to assess thresholds of risk (O’Neill et al. 2017a). To further
systems, recognising the diversity of values and objectives associated strengthen replicability of the method, a predefined protocol based
with such systems. The interacting processes of climate change, land on a modified Delphi process was followed (Mukherjee et al. 2015).
change, and unprecedented social and technological change, pose This included two separate anonymous rating rounds, feedback in
significant risk to climate-resilient sustainable development. The between rounds and a group discussion to achieve consensus.
pace, intensity, and scale of these sizeable risks affect the central
issues in sustainable development: access to ecosystem services (ES) Burning embers provide ranges of a given variable (typically global
and resources essential to sustain people in given locations; how and mean near-surface air temperature) for which risks transitions
where people live and work; and the means to safeguard human within four categories: undetectable, moderate, high and very high.
well-being against disruptions (Warner et al. 2019). In the context of Moderate risk indicates that impacts are detectable and attributable
climate change, adverse consequences can arise from the potential to climate-related factors. High risk indicates widespread impacts
impacts of climate change as well as human responses to climate on larger numbers or proportion of population/area, but with the
change. Relevant adverse consequences include those on lives, potential to adapt or recover. Very high risk indicates severe and
livelihoods, health and well-being, economic, social and cultural possibly irreversible impacts with limited ability of societies and
assets and investments, infrastructure, services (including  ES), ecosystems to adapt to them. Transitions between risk categories
ecosystems and species (see Glossary). Risks result from dynamic were assigned confidence levels based on the amount, and quality,
interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure of academic literature supporting judgements: L = low, M = medium,
and vulnerability of the affected human or ecological system to and H = high. Further details of the procedure are provided in
the hazards. Hazards, exposure and vulnerability may change over Supplementary Material.
time and space as a result of socio-economic changes and human
decision-making (‘risk management’). Numerous uncertainties exist
in the scientific understanding of risk (Section 1.2.2). 7.2.2 Risks to land systems arising
from climate change

7.2.1 Assessing risk At current levels of global mean surface temperature (GMST)
increase, impacts are already detectable across numerous land-
This chapter applies and further improves methods used in previous related systems (high confidence) (Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6). There
IPCC reports including AR5 and the Special Report on Global Warming is high confidence that unabated future climate change will result
of 1.5°C (SR15) to assess risks. Evidence is drawn from published in continued changes to processes involved in desertification, land
studies, which include observations of impacts from human-induced degradation and food security, including: water scarcity in drylands;
climate change and model projections for future climate change. soil erosion; coastal degradation; vegetation loss; fire; permafrost
Such projections are based on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), thaw; and access, stability, utilisation and physical availability of
Earth System Models (ESMs), regional climate models and global food (Figure 7.1). These changes will increase risks to food systems,
or regional impact models examining the impact of climate change the health of humans and ecosystems, livelihoods, the value of land,
on various indicators (Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1). Results of infrastructure and communities (Section 7.3). Details of the risks, and
laboratory and field experiments that examine impacts of specific their transitions, are described in the following subsections.
changes were also included in the review. Risks under different
future socio-economic conditions were assessed using recent 7.2.2.1 Crop yield in low latitudes
publications based on Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs).
SSPs provide storylines about future socio-economic development There is high confidence that climate change has resulted in decreases
and can be combined with Representative Concentration Pathways in yield (of wheat, rice, maize, soy) and reduced food availability in
RCPs (Riahi et al. 2017) (Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7). low-latitude regions (IPCC, 2018) (Section 5.2.2). Countries in low-
Risk arising from land-based mitigation and adaptation choices is latitude regions are particularly vulnerable because the livelihoods
assessed using studies examining the adverse side effects of such of high proportions of the population are dependent on agricultural
responses (Section 7.2.3). production. Even moderate temperature increases (1°C to 2°C)
have negative yield impacts for major cereals, because the climate
Burning embers figures introduced in the IPCC Third Assessment of many tropical agricultural regions is already quite close to the
Report through to the Fifth Assessment Report, and the SR15, were high-temperature thresholds for suitable production of these cereals
7 developed for this report to illustrate risks at different temperature (Rosenzweig et al. 2014). Thus, by 1.5°C global mean temperature
thresholds. Key components involved in desertification, land GMT, or between approximately 1.6°C and approximately 2.6°C of

680
 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Risks to humans and ecosystems from changes in land-based processes as a result

of climate change
Increases in global mean surface temperature (GMST), relative to pre-industrial levels, affect processes involved in desertification
(water scarcity), land degradation (soil erosion, vegetation loss, wildfire, permafrost thaw) and food security (crop yield and food
supply instabilities). Changes in these processes drive risks to food systems, livelihoods, infrastructure, the value of land, and
human and ecosystem health. Changes in one process (e.g., wildfire or water scarcity) may result in compound risks. Risks are
location-specific and differ by region.
relative to levels in pre-industrial time (°C)

5°
L
4°
M M
3° M
L M

2° M M M
M
M M
1.5°
GMST change

H M
1° H
M H H 2006–2015
H
H
H

Dryland Soil Vegetation Wildfire Permafrost Tropical crop Food

water scarcity erosion loss damage degradation yield decline supply instabilities
Systems at risk:
Food
Livelihoods
Value of land
Human health
Ecosystem health
Infrastructure

Legend: Level of impact/risk Legend: Confidence

level for
Very high Purple: Very high probability of severe impacts/ risks transition
and the presence of significant irreversibility or the H High
persistence of climate-related hazards, combined with M Medium
High limited ability to adapt due to the nature of the hazard L Low
Risks
or impacts/risks.
H Example
Red: Significant and widespread impacts/risks.
Moderate Yellow: Impacts/risks are detectable and attributable
to climate change with at least medium confidence.
Impacts
Undetectable White: Impacts/risks are undetectable.

Figure 7.1 | Risks to selected land system elements as a function of global mean surface temperature increase since pre-industrial times. Impacts on
human and ecological systems include: 1) economic loss and declines in livelihoods and ecosystem services from water scarcity in drylands, 2) economic loss and declines
in livelihoods and ecosystem services from reduced land productivity due to soil erosion, 3) vegetation loss and shifts in vegetation structure, 4) damage to infrastructure,
altered land cover, accelerated erosion and increased air pollution from fires, 5) damage to natural and built environment from permafrost thaw related ground instability,
6) changes to crop yield and food availability in low-latitude regions and 7) increased disruption of food supply stability. Risks are global (2, 3, 4, 7) and specific to certain
regions (1, 5, 6). Selected components are illustrative and not intended to be fully comprehensive of factors influencing food security, land degradation and desertification. The
supporting literature and methods are provided in Supplementary Material. Risk levels are estimated assuming medium exposure and vulnerability driven by moderate trends in
socioeconomic conditions broadly consistent with an SSP2 pathway.

local warming, risks to yields may already transition to high in West yields may occur, of up to 60% in low latitudes (Rosenzweig et al.
Africa, Southeast Asia and Central and South America (Faye et al. 2018) 2014) (Sections  5.2.2 and 5.2.3). Some studies report significant
(medium confidence). For further information see Section  5.3.2.1. population displacement from the tropics related to systemic
By contrast, higher latitudes may initially benefit from warming as livelihood disruption in agriculture systems (Tittonell 2014; Montaña
well as well higher CO2 concentrations (IPCC 2018a). Wheat yield et al. 2016; Huber-Sannwald et al. 2012; Wise et al. 2016; Tanner
losses are expected to be lower for the USA (−5.5 ± 4.4% per degree et al. 2015; Mohapatra 2013). However, at higher temperatures of
Celsius) and France (−6.0 ± 4.2% per degree Celsius) compared to warming, all regions of the world face risks of declining yields as
India (−9.1 ± 5.4% per degree Celsius) (Zhao et al. 2017). Very high a result of extreme weather events and reduced heat tolerance of
risks to low-latitude yields may occur between 3°C and 4°C (medium maize, rice, wheat and soy (Zhao et al. 2017; IPCC 2018a). 7
confidence). At these temperatures, catastrophic reductions in crop

681
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.2.2.2 Food supply instability yields can heavily constrain options to ensure food security in import-
reliant countries.
Stability of food supply is expected to decrease as the magnitude
and frequency of extreme events increase, disrupting food chains in 7.2.2.3 Soil erosion
all areas of the world (medium evidence, high agreement) (Wheeler
and Von Braun 2013; Coates 2013; Puma et al. 2015; Deryng et al. Soil erosion increases risks of economic loss and declines in
2014; Harvey et al. 2014b; Iizumi et al. 2013; Seaman et al. 2014) livelihoods due to reduced land productivity. In the EU, on-site costs
(Sections 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.6.2 and 5.7.1). While international trade in of soil erosion by wind has been reported at an average of 55 USD
food is assumed to be a key response for alleviating hunger, historical per hectare annually, but up to 450  USD per hectare for sugar
data and economic models suggest that international trade does not beet and oilseed rape (Middleton et al. 2017). Farmers in the Dapo
adequately redistribute food globally to offset yield declines or other watershed in Ethiopia lose about 220 USD per hectare of maize due
food shortages when weather extremes reduce crop yields (medium to loss of nitrogen through soil erosion (Erkossa et al. 2015). Soil
confidence) (Schmitz et al. 2012; Chatzopoulos et al. 2019; Marchand erosion not only increases crop loss but has been shown to have
et al. 2016; Gilbert 2010; Wellesley et al. 2017). When droughts, heat reduced household food supply with older farmers most vulnerable
waves, floods or other extremes destroy crops, evidence has shown to losses from erosion (Ighodaro et al. 2016). Erosion also results in
that exports are constrained in key producing countries contributing increased risks to human health, through air pollution from aerosols
to price spikes and social tension in importing countries which reduce (Middleton et al. 2017), and brings risks of reduced ES including
access to food (medium evidence, medium agreement) (von Uexkull supporting services related to soil formation.
et al. 2016; Gleick 2014; Maystadt and Ecker 2014; Kelley et al. 2015;
Church et al. 2017; Götz et al. 2013; Puma et al. 2015; Willenbockel At current levels of warming, changes in erosion are already detected
2012; Headey 2011; Distefano et al. 2018; Brooks 2014). There is in many regions. Attribution to climate change is challenging as there
little understanding of how food system shocks cascade through are other powerful drivers of erosion (e.g., land use), limited global-
a  modern interconnected economy. Reliance on global markets scale studies (Li and Fang 2016a; Vanmaercke et al. 2016a) and the
may reduce some risks, but the ongoing globalisation of food trade absence of formal detection and attribution studies (Section 4.2.3).
networks exposes the world food system to new impacts that have However, studies have found an increase in short-duration and
not been seen in the past (Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.5.2.5, 5.6.5 and high-intensity precipitation, due to anthropogenic climate change,
5.7.1). The global food system is vulnerable to systemic disruptions which is a causative factor for soil erosion (Lenderink and van
and increasingly interconnected inter-country food dependencies, Meijgaard 2008; Li and Fang 2016b). High risks of erosion may occur
and changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather between 2°C and 3.5°C (low confidence) as continued increases in
events may complicate future responses (Puma et al. 2015; Jones and intense precipitation are projected at these temperature thresholds
Hiller 2017). (Fischer and Knutti 2015) in many regions. Warming also reduces
soil organic matter, diminishing resistance against erosion. There
Impacts of climate change are already detectable on food supply is low confidence concerning the temperature threshold at which
and access as price and trade reactions have occurred in response to risks become very high due to large regional differences and limited
heatwaves, droughts and other extreme events (high evidence, high global-scale studies (Li and Fang 2016b; Vanmaercke et al. 2016b)
agreement) (Noble et al. 2014; O’Neill et al. 2017b). The impact of (Section 4.4).
climate change on food stability is underexplored (Schleussner et al.
2016; James et al. 2017). However, some literature assesses that 7.2.2.4 Dryland water scarcity
by about 2035, daily maximum temperatures will exceed the 90th
percentile of historical (1961–1990) temperatures on 25–30% of Water scarcity in drylands contributes to changes in desertification
days (O’Neill et al. 2017b, Figures 11–17) with negative shocks to and hazards such as dust storms, increasing risks of economic loss,
food stability and world food prices. O’Neill et al. (2017b) remark that declines in livelihoods of communities and negative health effects
in the future, return periods for precipitation events globally (land (high confidence) (Section  3.1.3). Further information specific to
only) will reduce from one-in-20-year (historical) to about one-in-14- costs and impacts of water scarcity and droughts is detailed in Cross-
year or less by 2046–2065 in many areas of the world. Domestic Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3.
efforts to insulate populations from food price spikes associated with
climatic stressors in the mid-2000s have been shown to inadequately The IPCC AR5 report and the SR15 concluded that there is low
shield from poverty, and worsen poverty globally (Diffenbaugh et al. confidence in the direction of drought trends since 1950 at the
2012; Meyfroidt et al. 2013; Hertel et al. 2010). The transition to high global scale. While these reports did not assess water scarcity
risk is estimated to occur around 1.4°C, possibly by 2035, due to with a specific focus on drylands, they indicated that there is high
changes in temperature and heavy precipitation events (medium confidence in observed drought increases in some regions of the
confidence) (O’Neill et al. 2017b; Fritsche et al. 2017a; Harvey et al. world, including in the Mediterranean and West Africa (IPCC AR5)
2014b). Very high risk may occur by 2.4°C (medium confidence) and and that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic climate
4°C of warming is considered catastrophic (IPCC 2018c; Noble et al. change has contributed to increased drying in the Mediterranean
2014) for food stability and access because a combination of extreme region (including southern Europe, northern Africa and the western
7 events, compounding political and social factors, and shocks to crop Asia and the Middle east) and that this tendency will continue to
increase under higher levels of global warming (IPCC 2018d). Some

682
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

parts of the drylands have experienced decreasing precipitation over and 2.6°C (medium confidence). Significant uncertainty exists
recent decades (IPCC AR5) (Chapter 3 and Section  3.2), consistent due to countervailing factors: CO2 fertilisation encourages forest
with the fact that climate change is implicated in desertification expansion but increased drought, insect outbreaks, and fires result
trends in some regions (Section  3.2.2). Dust storms, linked to in dieback (Bonan 2008; Lindner et al. 2010). The combined effects
changes in precipitation and vegetation, appear to be occurring with of temperature and precipitation change, with CO2 fertilisation, make
greater frequency in some deserts and their margins (Goudie 2014) future risks to forests very location specific. It is challenging therefore
(Section 3.3.1). There is therefore high confidence that the transition to make global estimates. However, even locally specific studies make
from undetectable to moderate risk associated with water scarcity clear that very high risks occur between 2.6°C and 4°C (medium
in drylands occurred in recent decades in the range 0.7°C to 1°C confidence). Australian tropical rainforests experience significant loss
(Figure 7.1). of biodiversity with 3.5°C increase. At this level of increase there are
no areas with greater than 30 species, and all endemics disappear
Between 1.5°C and 2.5°C, the risk level is expected to increase from from low- and mid-elevation regions (Williams et al. 2003). Mountain
moderate to high (medium confidence). Globally, at 2°C an additional ecosystems are particularly vulnerable (Loarie et al. 2009).
8% of the world population (of population in 2000) will be exposed
to new forms of or aggravated water scarcity (IPCC 2018d). However, 7.2.2.6 Fire damage
at 2°C, the annual warming over drylands will reach 3.2°C–4.0°C,
implying about 44% more warming over drylands than humid lands Increasing fires result in heightened risks to infrastructure,
(Huang et al. 2017), thus potentially aggravating water scarcity accelerated erosion, altered hydrology, increased air pollution, and
issues through increased evaporative demand. Byers et al. (2018a) negative mental health impacts. Fire not only destroys property but
estimate that 3–22% of the drylands population (range depending induces changes in underlying site conditions (ground cover, soil
on socio-economic conditions) will be exposed and vulnerable water repellency, aggregate stability and surface roughness) which
to water stress. The Mediterranean, North Africa and the Eastern amplifies runoff and erosion, increasing future risks to property
Mediterranean will be particularly vulnerable to water shortages, and and human lives during extreme rainfall events (Pierson and
expansion of desert terrain and vegetation is predicted to occur in Williams 2016). Dust and ash from fires can impact air quality in a
the Mediterranean biome, an unparalleled change in the last 10,000 wide area. For example, a dust plume from a fire in Idaho, USA, in
years (medium confidence) (IPCC 2018d). At 2.5°C–3.5°C risks are September 2010 was visible in MODIS satellite imagery and extended
expected to become very high with migration from some drylands at least 100 km downwind of the source area (Wagenbrenner et al.
resulting as the only adaptation option (medium confidence). 2013). Individuals can suffer from property damage or direct injury,
Scarcity of water for irrigation is expected to increase, in particular psychological trauma, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder,
in Mediterranean regions, with limited possibilities for adaptation and have reported negative impacts to well-being from loss of
(Haddeland et al. 2014). connection to landscape (Paveglio et al. 2016; Sharples et al. 2016a).
Costs of large wildfires in the USA can exceed 20 million USD per day
7.2.2.5 Vegetation degradation (Pierson et al. 2011) and has been estimated at 8.5 billion USD per
year in Australia (Sharples et al. 2016b). Globally, human exposure
There are clear links between climate change and vegetation cover to fire will increase due to projected population growth in fire-prone
changes, tree mortality, forest diseases, insect outbreaks, forest regions (Knorr et al. 2016a).
fires, forest productivity and net ecosystem biome production (Allen
et al. 2010; Bentz et al. 2010; Anderegg et al. 2013; Hember et al. It is not clear how quickly, or even if, systems can recover from fires.
2017; Song et al. 2018; Sturrock et al. 2011). Forest dieback, often a Longevity of effects may differ depending on cover recruitment
result of drought and temperature changes, not only produces risks rate and soil conditions, recovering in one to two seasons or over
to forest ecosystems but also to people with livelihoods dependent 10  growing seasons (Pierson et al. 2011). In Russia, one-third of
on forests. A 50-year study of temperate forest, dominated by beech forest area affected by fires turned into unproductive areas where
(Fagus sylvatica L.), documented a 33% decline in basal area and a natural reforestation is not possible within 2–3 lifecycles of major
70% decline in juvenile tree species, possibly as a result of interacting forest forming species (i.e., 300–600 years) (Shvidenko et al. 2012).
pressures of drought, overgrazing and pathogens (Martin et al.
2015). There is high confidence that such dieback impacts ecosystem Risks under current warming levels are already moderate as
properties and services including soil microbial community structure anthropogenic climate change has caused significant increases
(Gazol et al. 2018). Forest managers and users have reported in fire area (high confidence) due to availability of detection and
negative emotional impacts from forest dieback such as pessimism attribution studies) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2). This has
about losses, hopelessness and fear (Oakes et al. 2016). Practices and been detected and attributed regionally, notably in the western USA
policies such as forest classification systems, projection of growth, (Abatzoglou and Williams 2016; Westerling et al. 2006; Dennison et
yield and models for timber supply are already being affected by al. 2014), Indonesia (Fernandes et al. 2017) and other regions (Jolly
climate change (Sturrock et al. 2011). et al. 2015). Regional increases have been observed despite a global-
average declining trend induced by human fire-suppression strategies,
While risks to ecosystems and livelihoods from vegetation especially in savannahs (Yang et al. 2014a; Andela et al. 2017).
degradation are already detectable at current levels of GMT 7
increase, risks are expected to reach high levels between 1.6°C

683
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

High risks of fire may occur between 1.3°C and 1.7°C (medium a given global mean temperature (GMT) change, risks are different
confidence). Studies note heightened risks above 1.5°C as fire, under SSP1 compared to SSP3. In SSP1, global temperature change
weather, and land prone to fire increase (Abatzoglou et al. 2019a), does not increase above 3°C even in the baseline case (i.e., with
with medium confidence in this transition, due to complex interplay no additional mitigation measures) because in this pathway the
between (i) global warming, (ii) CO2-fertilisation, and (iii) human/ combination of low population and autonomous improvements,
economic factors affecting fire risk. Canada, the USA and the for example, in terms of carbon intensity and/or energy intensity,
Mediterranean may be particularly vulnerable as the combination effectively act as mitigation measures (Riahi et al. 2017). Thus
of increased fuel due to CO2 fertilisation, and weather conditions Figure 7.2 does not indicate risks beyond this point in either SSP1 and
conducive to fire increase risks to people and property. Some studies SSP3. Literature based on such socio-economic and climate models
show substantial effects at 3°C (Knorr et al. 2016b; Abatzoglou is still emerging and there is a need for greater research on impacts
et al. 2019b), indicating a  transition to very high risks (medium of different pathways. There are few SSP studies exploring aspects of
confidence). At high warming levels, climate change may become desertification and land degradation, but a  greater number of SSP
the primary driver of fire risk in the extratropics (Knorr et al. 2016b; studies on food security (Supplementary Material). SSP1 reduces the
Abatzoglou et al. 2019b; Yang et al. 2014b). Pyroconvection activity vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems and thus
may increase, in areas such as southeast Australia (Dowdy and Pepler limits risks resulting from desertification, land degradation and food
2018), posing major challenges to adaptation. insecurity compared to SSP3 (high confidence).

7.2.2.7 Permafrost Changes to the water cycle due to global warming are an essential
driver of desertification and of the risks to livelihood, food production
There is a  risk of damage to the natural and built environment and vegetation in dryland regions. Changes in water scarcity due
from permafrost thaw-related ground instability. Residential, to climate change have already been detected in some dryland
transportation, and industrial infrastructure in the pan-Arctic regions (Section  7.2.2.4) and therefore the transition to moderate
permafrost area are particularly at risk (Hjort et al. 2018). High risks risk occurred in recent decades (high confidence). IPCC (2018d)
already exist at low temperatures (high confidence). Approximately, noted that in the case of risks to water resources, socio-economic
21–37% of Arctic permafrost is projected to thaw under a 1.5°C of drivers are expected to have a greater influence than the changes in
warming (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018). This increases to very high climate (medium confidence). Indeed, in SSP1 there is only moderate
risk around 2°C (between 1.8°C and 2.3°C) of temperature increase risk even at 3°C of warming, due to the lower exposure and
since pre-industrial times (medium confidence) with 35–47% of the vulnerability of human population (Hanasaki et al. 2013a; Arnell and
Arctic permafrost thawing (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018). If climate Lloyd-Hughes 2014; Byers et al. 2018b). Considering drylands only,
stabilised at 2°C, still approximately 40% of permafrost area would Byers et al. (2018b) estimate, using a  time-sampling approach for
be lost (Chadburn et al. 2017), leading to nearly four million people climate change and the 2050 population, that at 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C,
and 70% of current infrastructure in the pan-Arctic permafrost area the dryland population exposed and vulnerable to water stress in
exposed to permafrost thaw and high hazard (Hjort et al. 2018). Indeed SSP1 will be 2%, 3% and 3% respectively, thus indicating relatively
between 2°C and 3°C a collapse of permafrost may occur with a drastic stable moderate risks. In SSP3, the transition from moderate to high
biome shift from tundra to boreal forest (Drijfhout et al. 2015; SR15). risk occurs in the range 1.2°C to 1.5°C (medium confidence) and the
There is mixed evidence of a  tipping point in permafrost collapse, transition from high to very high risk is in the range 1.5°C to 2.8°C
leading to enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) emission  – particularly (medium confidence). Hanasaki et al. (2013b) found a  consistent
methane – between 2°C and 3°C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018). increase in water stress at higher warming levels due in large part
to growth in population and demand for energy and agricultural
7.2.2.8 Risks of desertification, land degradation commodities, and to a  lesser extent due to hydrological changes
and food insecurity under different Future induced by global warming. In SSP3, Byers et al. (2018b) estimate
Development Pathways that at 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C, the population exposed and vulnerable to
water stress in drylands will steadily increase from 20% to 22% and
Socio-economic developments and policy choices that govern 24% respectively, thus indicating overall much higher risks compared
land–climate interactions are an important driver of risk, along with to SSP1 for the same global warming levels.
climate change (very high confidence). Risks under two different
Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) were assessed using SSP studies relevant to land degradation assess risks such as: number
emerging literature. SSP1 is characterised by low population growth, of people exposed to fire; the costs of floods and coastal flooding;
reduced inequalities, land-use regulation, low meat consumption, and loss of ES including the ability of land to sequester carbon.
and moderate trade (Riahi et al. 2017; Popp et al. 2017a). SSP3 is The risks related to permafrost melting (Section  7.2.2.7) are not
characterised by high population growth, higher inequalities, limited considered here due to the lack of SSP studies addressing this topic.
land-use regulation, resource-intensive consumption including Climate change impacts on various components of land degradation
meat-intensive diets, and constrained trade (for further details see have already been detected (Sections  7.2.2.3, 7.2.2.5 and 7.2.2.6)
Chapter  1  and Cross-Chapter Box  9  in Chapters  6 and 7). These and therefore the transition from undetectable to moderate risk is
two SSPs, among the set of five SSPs, were selected because they in the range 0.7°C to 1°C (high confidence). Less than 100 million
7 illustrate contrasting futures, ranging from low (SSP1) to high (SSP3) people are exposed to habitat degradation at  1.5°C under SSP1
challenges to mitigation and adaptation. Figure 7.2 shows that for in non-dryland regions, increasing to 257  million at 2°C (Byers

684
 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Different socioeconomic pathways affect levels of climate related risks

Desertification Land degradation Food insecurity Socio-economic choices can reduce or

(water scarcity in drylands) (habitat degr., wildfire, floods) (availability, access)
exacerbate climate related risks as well
as influence the rate of temperature
relative to levels in pre-industrial time (°C)

3°
M increase. The SSP1 pathway illustrates
L
M M a world with low population growth, high
2° M income and reduced inequalities, food
M
produced in low GHG emission systems,
1.5°
M
M effective land use regulation and high
adaptive capacity. The SSP3 pathway has
1°
the opposite trends. Risks are lower in
GMST change

H H H H 2006–2015
M M
SSP1 compared with SSP3 given the
same level of GMST increase.
SSP1 SSP3 SSP1 SSP3 SSP1 SSP3

Legend: Level of impact/risk Legend: Confidence

level for
Very high Purple: Very high probability of severe impacts/ risks transition
and the presence of significant irreversibility or the H High
persistence of climate-related hazards, combined with M Medium
High limited ability to adapt due to the nature of the hazard L Low
Risks
or impacts/risks.
H Example
Red: Significant and widespread impacts/risks.
Moderate Yellow: Impacts/risks are detectable and attributable
to climate change with at least medium confidence.
Impacts
Undetectable White: Impacts/risks are undetectable.

Figure 7.2 | Risks associated with desertification, land degradation and food security due to climate change and patterns of socio-economic development.
Increasing risks associated with desertification include population exposed and vulnerable to water scarcity in drylands. Risks related to land degradation include increased
habitat degradation, population exposed to wildfire and floods and costs of floods. Risks to food security include availability and access to food, including population at risk of
hunger, food price increases and increases in disability adjusted life years attributable due to childhood underweight. The risks are assessed for two contrasted socio-economic
futures (SSP1 and SSP3) under unmitigated climate change {3.6, 4.3.1.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 6.2.4, 7.3}. Risks are not indicated beyond 3°C because SSP1 does not
exceed this level of temperature change.

et al. 2018). This suggests a  gradual transition to high risk in the The greatest number of SSP studies explore climate change impacts
range 1.8°C to 2.8°C, but a low confidence is attributed due to the relevant to food security, including population at risk of hunger, food
very limited evidence to constrain this transition. price increases, increases in disability adjusted life years (Hasegawa
et al. 2018a; Wiebe et al. 2015a; van Meijl et al. 2018a; Byers et al.
By contrast in SSP3, there are already 107 million people exposed to 2018b). Changes in crop yields and food supply stability have already
habitat degradation at 1.5°C, increasing to 1156 million people at been attributed to climate change (Sections 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2) and
3°C (Byers et al. 2018b). Furthermore, Knorr et al. (2016b) estimate the transition from undetectable to moderate risk is placed at 0.5°C
that 646 million people will be exposed to fire at 2°C warming, the to 1°C (medium confidence). At 1.5°C, about two million people are
main risk driver being the high population growth in SSP3 rather than exposed and vulnerable to crop yield change in SSP1 (Hasegawa et al.
increased burned area due to climate change. Exposure to extreme 2018b; Byers et al. 2018b), implying moderate risk. A transition from
rainfall, a causative factor for soil erosion and flooding, also differs moderate to high risk is expected above 2.5°C (medium confidence)
under SSPs. Under SSP1 up to 14% of the land and population with population at risk of hunger of the order of 100 million (Byers
experience five-day extreme precipitation events. Similar levels of et al. 2018b). Under SSP3, high risks already exist at 1.5°C (medium
exposure occur at lower temperatures in SSP3 (Zhang et al. 2018b). confidence), with 20 million people exposed and vulnerable to crop
Population exposed to coastal flooding is lowest under SSP1 and yield change. By 2°C, 178  million are vulnerable and 854  million
higher under SSP3 with a  limited effect of enhanced protection in people are vulnerable at 3°C (Byers et al. 2018b). This is supported
SSP3 already after 2°C warming (Hinkel et al. 2014). The transition by the higher food prices increase of up to 20% in 2050 in an RCP6.0
from high to very high risk will occur at  2.2°Cto  2.8°C in SSP3 scenario (i.e., slightly below 2°C) in SSP3 compared to up to 5% in
(medium confidence), whereas this level of risk is not expected to be SSP1 (van Meijl et al. 2018). Furthermore in SSP3, restricted trade 7
reached in SSP1. increase this price effect (Wiebe et al. 2015). In SSP3, the transition

685
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

from high to very high risk is in the range 2°C to  2.7°C (medium two categories: risk of mitigation failure – due to uncertainties about
confidence) while this transition is never reached in SSP1. This overall mitigation potential, potential for sink reversal and moral hazard; and
confirms that socio-economic development, by affecting exposure and risks arising from adverse side effects – due to increased competition
vulnerability, has an even larger effect than climate change for future for land and water resources. This section focuses specifically on
trends in the population at risk of hunger (O’Neill et al. 2017, p.32). bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Changes can also threaten development gains (medium confidence). since it is one of the most prominent land-based mitigation strategies
Disability adjusted life years due to childhood underweight decline in in future mitigation scenarios (along with large-scale forest expansion,
both SSP1 and SSP3 by 2030 (by 36.4 million disability adjusted life which is discussed in Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1). Bioenergy
years in SSP1 and 16.2 million in SSP3). However by 2050, disability and BECCS is assessed in Chapter  6  as being, at large scales, the
adjusted life years increase by 43.7 million in SSP3 (Ishida et al. 2014). only response option with adverse side effects across all dimensions
(adaptation, food security, land degradation and desertification)
(Section 6.4.1).
7.2.3 Risks arising from responses to climate change
Risk of mitigation failure. The mitigation potential from bioenergy
7.2.3.1 Risk associated with land-based adaptation and BECCS is highly uncertain, with estimates ranging from 0.4 to
11.3 GtCO2e yr–1 for the technical potential, while consideration of
Land-based adaptation relates to a particular category of adaptation sustainability constraints suggest an upper end around 5 GtCO2e yr–1
measures relying on land management (Sanz et al. 2017). While (Chapter  2, Section  2.6). In comparison, IAM-based mitigation
most land-based adaptation options provide co-benefits for climate pathways compatible with limiting global warming at 1.5°C project
mitigation and other land challenges (Chapter 6 and Section 6.4.1), bioenergy and BECCS deployment exceeding this range (Figure 2.24
in some contexts adaptation measures can have adverse side effects, in Chapter  2). There is medium confidence that IAMs currently do
thus implying a risk to socio-ecological systems. not reflect the lower end and exceed the upper end of bioenergy
and BECCS mitigation potential estimates (Anderson and Peters
One example of risk is the possible decrease in farmer income 2016; Krause et al. 2018; IPCC 2018c), with implications for the risk
when applying adaptive cropland management measures. For associated with reliance on bioenergy and BECCS deployment for
instance, conservation agriculture including the principle of no-till climate mitigation.
farming, contributes to soil erosion management (Chapter  6  and
Section 6.2). Yet, no-till management can reduce crop yields in some In addition, land-based CDR strategies are subject to a  risk of
regions, and although this effect is minimised when no-till farming is carbon sink reversal. This implies a  fundamental asymmetry
complemented by the other two principles of conservation agriculture between mitigation achieved through fossil fuel emissions reduction
(residue retention and crop rotation), this could induce a  risk to compared to CDR. While carbon in fossil fuel reserves – in the case
livelihood in vulnerable smallholder farming systems (Pittelkow of avoided fossil fuel emissions – is locked permanently (at least over
et al. 2015). a  time scale of several thousand years), carbon sequestered into
the terrestrial biosphere – to compensate fossil fuel emissions – is
Another example is the use of irrigation against water scarcity subject to various disturbances, in particular from climate change
and drought. During the long lasting drought from 2007–2009 and associated extreme events (Fuss et al. 2018; Dooley and
in California, USA, farmers adapted by relying on groundwater Kartha 2018). The probability of sink reversal therefore increases
withdrawal and caused groundwater depletion at unsustainable with climate change, implying that the effectiveness of land-based
levels (Christian-Smith et al. 2015). The long-term effects of mitigation depends on emission reductions in other sectors and can
irrigation from groundwater may cause groundwater depletion, land be sensitive to temperature overshoot (high confidence). In the case
subsidence, aquifer overdraft, and saltwater intrusion (Tularam and of bioenergy associated with CCS (BECCS), the issue of the long-term
Krishna 2009). Therefore, it is expected to increase the vulnerability stability of the carbon storage is linked to technical and geological
of coastal aquifers to climate change due to groundwater usage constraints, independent of climate change but presenting risks due
(Ferguson and Gleeson 2012). The long-term practice of irrigation to limited knowledge and experience (Chapter 6 and Cross-Chapter
from groundwater may cause a severe combination of potential side Box 7 in Chapter 6).
effects and consequently irreversible results.
Another factor in the risk of mitigation failure, is the moral hazard
7.2.3.2 Risk associated with land-based mitigation associated with CDR technologies. There is medium evidence and
medium agreement that the promise of future CDR deployment  –
While historically land-use activities have been a net source of GHG bioenergy and BECCS in particular – can deter or delay ambitious
emissions, in future decades the land sector will not only need to emission reductions in other sectors (Anderson and Peters 2016;
reduce its emissions, but also to deliver negative emissions through Markusson et al. 2018a; Shue 2018a). The consequences are an
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to reach the objective of limiting global increased pressure on land with higher risk of mitigation failure and
warming to 2°C or below (Section 2.5). Although land-based mitigation of temperature overshoot, and a transfer of the burden of mitigation
in itself is a risk-reduction strategy aiming at abating climate change, and unabated climate change to future generations. Overall, there is
7 it also entails risks to humans and ecosystems, depending on the type therefore medium evidence and high agreement that prioritising early
of measures and the scale of deployment. These risks fall broadly into decarbonisation with minimal reliance on CDR decreases the risk of

686
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

mitigation failure and increases intergenerational equity (Geden bioenergy deployment and the risk outcome for a single system. For
et al. 2019; Larkin et al. 2018; Markusson et al. 2018b; Shue 2018b). instance, bioenergy deployment can be implemented in such a way
that food security is prioritised at the expense of natural ecosystems,
Risk from adverse side-effects. At large scales, bioenergy (with while the same scale of bioenergy deployment implemented with
or without CCS) is expected to increase competition for land, water ecosystem safeguards would lead to a  fundamentally different
resources and nutrients, thus exacerbating the risks of food insecurity, outcome in terms of food security (Boysen et al. 2017a). Considered
loss of ES and water scarcity (Chapter 6 and Cross-Chapter Box 7 in as a combined risk, however, the possibility of a negative outcome
Chapter  6). Figure  7.3 shows the risk level (from undetectable to on either food security, ecosystems or both can be assessed with less
very high, aggregating risks of food insecurity, loss of ES and water ambiguity and independently of possible implementation choices.
scarcity) as a  function of the global amount of land (million km2)
used for bioenergy, considering second generation bioenergy. Two In SSP1, there is medium confidence that 1  to 4  million km2
illustrative future Socio-economic Pathways (SSP1 and SSP3; see can be dedicated to bioenergy production without significant
Section 7.2.2 for more details) are depicted: in SSP3 the competition risks to food security, ES and water scarcity. At these scales of
for land is exacerbated compared to SSP1 due to higher food demand deployment, bioenergy and BECCS could have co-benefits for
resulting from larger population growth and higher consumption instance by contributing to restoration of degraded land and soils
of meat-based products. The literature used in this assessment is (Cross-Chapter Box  7 in Chapter  6). Although currently degraded
based on IAM and non-IAM-based studies examining the impact soils (up to 20 million km2) represent a large amount of potentially
of bioenergy crop deployment on various indicators, including food available land (Boysen et al. 2017a), trade-offs would occur already
security (food prices or population at risk of hunger with explicit at smaller scale due to fertiliser and water use (Hejazi et al. 2014;
consideration of exposure and vulnerability), SDGs, ecosystem losses, Humpenöder et al. 2017; Heck et al. 2018a; Boysen et al. 2017b).
transgression of various planetary boundaries and water consumption There is low confidence that the transition from moderate to high risk
(see Supplementary Material). Since most of the assessed literature is in the range 6–8.7 million km2. In SSP1, (Humpenöder et al. 2017)
is centred around 2050, prevailing demographic and economic found no important impacts on sustainability indicators at a level of
conditions for this year are used for the risk estimate. An aggregated 6.7 million km2, while (Heck et al. 2018b) note that several planetary
risk metric including risks of food insecurity, loss of ES and water boundaries (biosphere integrity; land-system change; biogeochemical
scarcity is used because there is no unique relationship between flows; freshwater use) would be exceeded above  8.7  million km2.

20 M km2
Land area used for bioenergy

M
Million km2

10 M km2
L
M

M L
M
0 M km2
SSP1 SSP3

Legend: Level of impact/risk Legend: Confidence

level for
Very high Purple: Very high probability of severe impacts/ risks transition
and the presence of significant irreversibility or the H High
persistence of climate-related hazards, combined with M Medium
High limited ability to adapt due to the nature of the hazard L Low
Risks
or impacts/risks.
H Example
Red: Significant and widespread impacts/risks.
Moderate Yellow: Impacts/risks are detectable and attributable to
bioenergy expansion with at least medium confidence.
Impacts
Undetectable White: Impacts/risks are undetectable.

Figure 7.3 | Risks associated with bioenergy crop deployment as a land-based mitigation strategy under two SSPs (SSP1 and SSP3). The assessement is
based on literature investigating the consequences of bioenergy expansion for food security, ecosystem loss and water scarcity. These risk indicators were aggregated as a single
risk metric in the figure. In this context, very high risk indicates that important adverse consequences are expected for all these indicators (more than 100 million people at risk
of hunger, major ecosystem losses and severe water scarcity issues). The climate scenario considered is a mitigation scenario consistent with limiting global warming at 2°C 7
(RCP2.6), however some studies considering other scenarios (e.g., no climate change) were considered in the expert judgement as well as results from other SSPs (e.g., SSP2).
The literature supporting the assessment is provided in Table SM7.3.

687
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

There is very high confidence that all the risk transitions occur at 7.2.4 Risks arising from hazard, exposure
lower bioenergy levels in SSP3, implying higher risks associated with and vulnerability
bioenergy deployment, due to the higher competition for land in this
pathway. In SSP3, land-based mitigation is therefore strongly limited Table  7.1 shows hazards from land-climate-society interactions
by sustainability constraints such that moderate risk occur already identified in previous chapters, or in other IPCC reports (with
between  0.5 and  1.5  million  km2 (medium confidence). There is supplementary hazards appearing in the Appendix); the regions
medium confidence that a bioenergy footprint beyond 4 to 8 million that are exposed or will be exposed to these hazards; components
km2 would entail very high risk with transgression of most planetary of the land-climate systems and societies that are vulnerable to the
boundaries (Heck et al. 2018b), strong decline in sustainability hazard; the risk associated with these impacts and the available
indicators (Humpenöder et al. 2017) and increase in the population indicative policy responses. The last column shows representative
at risk of hunger well above 100  million (Fujimori et al. 2018a; supporting literature.
Hasegawa et al. 2018b).
Included are forest dieback, extreme events in multiple economic
and agricultural regimes (also see Sections  7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2),
disruption in flow regimes in river systems, climate change mitigation
impacts (Section 7.2.3.2), competition for land (plastic substitution by
cellulose, charcoal production), land degradation and desertification
(Section  7.2.2.8), loss of carbon sinks, permafrost destabilisation
(Section 7.2.2.7), and stranded assets (Section 7.3.4). Other hazards
such as from failure of carbon storage, renewable energy impacts on
land use, wild-fire in forest-urban transition context, extreme events
effects on cultural heritage and urban air pollution from surrounding
land use are covered in Table 7.1 extension in the appendix as well
in Section 7.5.6.

Table 7.1 | C
 haracterising land–climate risk and indicative policy responses. Table shows hazards from land–climate–society interactions identified in previous
chapters or in other IPCC reports; the regions that are exposed or will be exposed to these hazards; components of the land-climate systems and societies that are
vulnerable to the hazard; the risk associated with these impacts and the available policy responses and response options from Chapter 6. The last column shows
representative supporting literature.

Land–climate–
Policy response
society interaction Exposure Vulnerability Risk References
(indicative)
hazard
Allen et al. 2010;
– Land rights McDowell and
Marginalised – Loss of forest-based – Community-based conservation Allen 2015;
population with livelihoods – Enhanced political enfranchisement Sunderlin et al. 2017;
insecure land tenure – Loss of identity – Manager–scientist partnerships Belcher et al. 2005;
Widespread across for adaptation silviculture Soizic et al. 2013;
Forest dieback
biomes and regions Nagel et al. 2017
– Extinction – Effective enforcement of protected areas
Endangered species and – Loss of ecosystem and curbs on illegal trade Bailis et al. 2015;
ecosystems services (ES) – Ecosystem restoration Cameron et al. 2016
– Cultural loss – Protection of indigenous people
Fraser et al. 2005;
– Conflict – Insurance
– Food-importing Schmidhuber and
Extreme events – Migration – Social protection encouraging
countries Tubiello 2007; Lipper
in multiple – Food inflation diversity of sources
Global – Low-income et al. 2014a; Lunt et al.
economic and – Loss of life – Climate smart agriculture
indebtedness 2016; Tigchelaar et al.
agricultural regimes – Disease, malnutrition – Land rights and tenure
– Net food buyer 2018; Casellas Connors
– Farmer distress – Adaptive public distribution systems
and Janetos 2016
– Build alternative scenarios for economies
and livelihoods based on non-consumptive
– Water-intensive use (e.g., wild capture fisheries) Craig 2010;
agriculture – Define and maintain ecological flows Di Baldassarre
– 1.5 billion people, – Freshwater, estuarine – Loss of livelihoods in rivers for target species and ES et al. 2013;
Disruption of
Regional (e.g., South and near coastal and identity – Experiment with alternative, less Verma et al. 2009;
flow regimes
Asia, Australia) ecosystems – Migration water-consuming crops and water Ghosh et al. 2016;
in river systems
– Aral sea and others – Fishers – Indebtedness management strategies Higgins et al. 2018;
– Endangered species – Redefine SDGs to include freshwater Hall et al. 2013;
7 and ecosystems ecosystems or adopt alternative metrics Youn et al. 2014
of sustainability Based on Nature’s
Contributions to People (NCP)

688
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Land–climate–
Policy response
society interaction Exposure Vulnerability Risk References
(indicative)
hazard
– Farmers, drinking
water supply
– Food insecurity – Monitoring of emerging
– Irrigation
– Widespread across – Water insecurity groundwater-climate linkages
– See forest note above Wada et al. 2010;
semi-arid and humid – Distress migration – Adaptation strategies that reduce
– Agricultural Rodell et al. 2009;
Depletion/exhaustion biomes – Conflict dependence on deep groundwater
production Taylor et al. 2013;
of groundwater – India, China and – Disease – Regulation of groundwater use
– Urban sustainability Aeschbach-Hertig
the USA – Inundation of – Shift to less water-intensive rainfed
(Phoenix, US) and Gleeson 2012
– Small Islands coastal regions, crops and pasture
– Reduction in dry-
estuaries and deltas – Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater
season river flows
– Sea level rise
– Extinction of species Zomer et al. 2008;
Across various biomes, – Downstream Nyong et al. 2007;
– Fishers and
especially semi-arid loss of ES Pielke et al. 2002;
pastoralists – Avoidance and informed siting
and aquatic, where – Loss of livelihoods Schmidhuber and
Climate change – Farmers in priority basins
renewable energy and identity of Tubiello 2007; Jumani
mitigation impacts – Endangered range – Mitigation of impacts
projects (solar, biomass, fisher/pastoralist et al. 2017; Eldridge
restricted species and – Certification
wind and small hydro) communities et al. 2011; Bryan et
ecosystems
are sited – Loss of regional al. 2010; Scarlat and
food security Dallemand 2011
Competition for
– Rural landscapes; – Land degradation;
land e.g., plastic Peri-urban and rural
farmers; charcoal loss of ES; GHG – Sustainability certification; producer permits; Woollen et al. 2016;
substitution areas in developing
suppliers; emissions; lower subsidies for efficient kilns Kiruki et al. 2017a
by cellulose, countries
small businesses adaptive capacity
charcoal production
– Restoration of ecosystems and management
Fleskens, Luuk,
of invasive species
– Food insecurity Stringer 2014;
– Climate smart agriculture and
– Farmers – Drought Lambin et al. 2001;
Land degradation Arid, semi-arid and livestock management
– Pastoralists – Migration Cowie et al. 2018a;
and desertification sub-humid regions – Managing economic impacts
– Biodiversity – Loss of agro and Few and Tebboth
of global and local drivers
wild biodiversity 2018; Sandstrom
– Changes in relief and rehabilitation policies
and Juhola 2017
– Land degradation neutrality
– Feedback to global
Widespread across – Tropical forests – Conservation prioritisation of tropical forests Barnett et al. 2005;
Loss of carbon sinks and regional
biomes and regions – Boreal soils – Afforestation Tribbia and Moser 2008
climate change

– Soils
– Enhanced carbon uptake from novel
Permafrost Arctic and – Indigenous – Enhanced GHG
ecosystem after thaw Schuur et al. 2015
destabilisation Sub-Arctic regions communities emissions
– Adapt to emerging wetlands
– Biodiversity

– Insurance and tax cuts

– Disruption of regional – Long-term power purchase agreements
– Economies
– Coal-based power economies and – Economic and technical support
transitioning to low- Farfan and Breyer
– Oilrefineries conflict for transitioning economies
carbon pathways 2017; Ansar et al. 2013;
Stranded assets – Plastic industry – Unemployment – transforming oil wealth into
– Oil economies Van de Graaf 2017;
– Large dams – Pushback against renewable energy leadership
– Coastal regions Trieb et al. 2011
– Coastal infrastructure renewable energy – Redevelopment using adaptation
facing inundation
– Migration – OPEC investment in information
sharing for transition

689
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.3 Consequences of climate – land change Kaenzig and Piguet 2014; Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
for human well-being and sustainable 2017; Warner 2018; Cohen and Bradley 2010; Thomas and Benjamin
development 2017). People move towards areas offering safety and livelihoods
such as in rapidly growing settlements in coastal zones (Black et al.
To further explore what is at stake for human systems, this section 2013; Challinor et al. 2017; Adger et al. 2013); burgeoning urban
assesses literature about potential consequences of climate and land areas also face changing exposure to combinations of storm surges
change for human well-being and ecosystems upon which humans and sea level rise, coastal erosion and soil and water salinisation, and
depend. Risks described in Section  7.2 have significant social, land subsidence (Geisler and Currens 2017; Maldonado et al. 2014;
spiritual, and economic ramifications for societies across the world Bronen and Chapin 2013).
and this section explores potential implications of the risks outlined
above to food security, livelihood systems, migration, ecosystems, There is medium confidence that livelihood-related migration can
species, infectious disease, and communities and infrastructure. accelerate in the short-to-medium term when weather-dependent
Because food and livelihood systems are deeply tied to one another, livelihood systems deteriorate in relation to changes in precipitation,
combinations of climate and land change could pose higher present changes in ecosystems, and land degradation and desertification
risks to humans and ecosystems than examination of individual (Abid et al. 2016; Scheffran et al. 2012; Fussell et al. 2014; Bettini
elements alone might suggest. and Gioli 2016; Reyer et al. 2017; Warner and Afifi 2014; Handmer et
al. 2012; Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava 2017; Nawrotzki et al. 2016;
Steffen et al. 2015; Black et al. 2013). Slow onset climate impacts
7.3.1 What is at stake for food security? and risks can exacerbate or otherwise interact with social conflict
corresponding with movement at larger scales (see Section 7.2.3.2).
This section examines risks to food security when access to food Long-term deterioration in habitability of regions could trigger spatial
is jeopardised by yield shortfall and instability related to climate population shifts (Denton et al. 2014).
stressors. Past assessments of climate change impacts have
sometimes assumed that, when grain and food yields in one area There is medium evidence and medium agreement that climatic
of the world are lower than expected, world trade can redistribute stressors can worsen the complex negative impacts of strife and
food adequately to ensure food security. There is medium confidence conflict (Schleussner et al. 2016; Barnett and Palutikof 2014; Scheffran
that severe and spatially extensive climatic stressors pose high risk et al. 2012). Climate change and human mobility could be a factor
to stability of and access to food for large numbers of people across that heightens tensions over scarce strategic resources, a  further
the world. destabilising influence in fragile states experiencing socio-economic
and political unrest (Carleton and Hsiang 2016a). Conflict and changes
The 2007–2008, and 2010–2011 droughts in several regions of the in weather patterns can worsen conditions for people working in
world resulted in crop yield decline that in turn led some governments rainfed agriculture or subsistence farming, interrupting production
to protect their domestic grain supplies rather than engaging in free systems, degrading land and vegetation further (Papaioannou 2016;
trade to offset food shortfalls in other areas of the world. These Adano and Daudi 2012). In recent decades, droughts and other
responses cascaded and strongly affected regional and global food climatic stressors have compounded livelihood pressures in areas
prices. Simultaneous crop yield impacts combined with trade impacts already torn by strife (Tessler et al. 2015; Raleigh et al. 2015), such as in
have proven to play a larger and more pervasive role in global food the Horn of Africa. Seizing of agricultural land by competing factions,
crises than previously thought (Sternberg 2012, 2017; Bellemare preventing food distribution in times of shortage have, in this region
2015; Chatzopoulos et al. 2019). There is high confidence that and others, contributed to a  triad of food insecurity, humanitarian
regional climate extremes already have significant negative domestic need, and large movements of people (Theisen et al. 2011; Mohmmed
and international economic impacts (Chatzopoulos et al. 2019). et al. 2018; Ayeb-Karlsson et al. 2016; von Uexkull et al. 2016; Gleick
2014; Maystadt and Ecker 2014). People fleeing complex situations
may return if peaceful conditions can be established. Climate change
7.3.2 Risks to where and how people live: Livelihood and development responses induced by climate change in countries
systems and migration and regions are likely to exacerbate tensions over water and land,
and its impact on agriculture, fisheries, livestock and drinking water
There is high confidence that climate and land change interact with downstream. Shared pastoral landscapes used by disadvantaged or
social, economic, political, and demographic factors that affect how otherwise vulnerable communities are particularly impacted on by
well and where people live (Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2017; Government conflicts that are likely to become more severe under future climate
Office for Science 2011; Laczko and Piguet 2014; Bohra-Mishra and change (Salehyan and Hendrix 2014; Hendrix and Salehyan 2012).
Massey 2011; Raleigh et al. 2015; Warner and Afifi 2011; Hugo 2011; Extreme events could considerably enhance these risks, in particular
Warner et al. 2012). There is high evidence and high agreement that long-term drying trends (Kelley et al. 2015; Cutter et al. 2012a). There
people move to manage risks and seek opportunities for their safety is medium evidence and medium agreement that governance is key
and livelihoods, recognising that people respond to climatic change in magnifying or moderating climate change impact and conflict
and land-related factors in tandem with other variables (Hendrix and (Bonatti et al. 2016).
7 Salehyan 2012; Lashley and Warner 2015; van der Geest and Warner
2014; Roudier et al. 2014; Warner and Afifi 2014; McLeman 2013;

690
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

There is low evidence and medium agreement that longer-term Climate and land change increases risk to respiratory
deterioration in the habitability of regions could trigger spatial and infectious disease
population shifts (Seto 2011). Heat waves, rising sea levels that
salinise and inundate coastal and low-lying aquifers and soils, In addition to risks related to nutrition articulated in Figure  7.1,
desertification, loss of geologic sources of water such as glaciers human health can be affected by climate change through extreme
and freshwater aquifers could affect many regions of the world and heat and cold, changes in infectious diseases, extreme events, and
put life-sustaining ecosystems under pressure to support human land cover and land use (Hasegawa et al. 2016; Ryan et al. 2015;
populations (Flahaux and De Haas 2016; Chambwera et al. 2015; Terrazas et al. 2015; Kweka et al. 2016; Yamana et al. 2016). Evidence
Tierney et al. 2015; Lilleør and Van den Broeck 2011). indicates that action to prevent the health impacts of climate change
could provide substantial economic benefits (Martinez et al. 2015;
Watts et al. 2015).
7.3.3 Risks to humans from disrupted
ecosystems and species Climate change exacerbates air pollution with increasing UV and
ozone concentration. It has negative impacts on human health and
Risks of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) increases the mortality rate, especially in urban region (Silva et al.
2016, 2013; Lelieveld et al. 2013; Whitmee et al. 2015; Anenberg et
Climate change poses significant threat to species survival, and al. 2010). In the Amazon, research shows that deforestation (both
to maintaining biodiversity and ES. Climate change reduces the net loss and fragmentation) increases malaria, where vectors are
functionality, stability, and adaptability of ecosystems (Pecl et al. expected to increase their home range (Alimi et al. 2015; Ren et al.
2017). For example, drought affects cropland and forest productivity 2016), confounded with multiple factors, such as social-economic
and reduces associated harvests (provisioning services). In additional, conditions and immunity (Tucker Lima et al. 2017; Barros and Honório
extreme changes in precipitation may reduce the capacity of forests 2015). Deforestation has been shown to enhance the survival and
to provide stability for groundwater (regulation and maintenance development of major malaria vectors (Wang et al. 2016). The World
services). Prolonged periods of high temperature may cause Health Organization estimates 60,091 additional deaths for climate
widespread death of trees in tropical mountains, boreal and tundra change induced malaria for the year 2030 and 32,695 for 2050
forests, impacting on diverse ES, including aesthetic and cultural (World Health Organization 2014).
services (Verbyla 2011; Chapin et al. 2010; Krishnaswamy et al.
2014). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Human encroachment on animal habitat, in combination with the
climate change is likely to become one of the most significant drivers bushmeat trade in Central African countries, has contributed to the
of biodiversity loss by the end of the century. increased incidence of zoonotic (i.e., animal-derived) diseases in
human populations, including the Ebola virus epidemic (Alexander
There is high confidence that climate change already poses a moderate et al. 2015a; Nkengasong and Onyebujoh 2018). The composition
risk to biodiversity, and is projected to become a  progressively and density of zoonotic reservoir populations, such as rodents, is also
widespread and high risk in the coming decades; loss of Arctic influenced by land use and climate change (high confidence) (Young
sea ice threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond; et al. 2017a). The bushmeat trade in many regions of central and west
the related pressure of ocean acidification, resulting from higher African forests (particularly in relation to chimpanzee and gorilla
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is also already populations) elevates the risk of Ebola by increasing human–animal
being observed (UNEP 2009). There is ample evidence that climate contact (Harrod 2015).
change and land change negatively affects biodiversity across wide
spatial scales. Although there is relatively limited evidence of current
extinctions caused by climate change, studies suggest that climate 7.3.4 Risks to communities and infrastructure
change could surpass habitat destruction as the greatest global
threat to biodiversity over the next several decades (Pereira et al. There is high confidence that policies and institutions which
2010). However, the multiplicity of approaches and the resulting accentuate vicious cycles of poverty and ill-health, land degradation
variability in projections make it difficult to get a  clear picture of and GHG emissions undermine stability and are barriers to achieving
the future of biodiversity under different scenarios of global climatic climate-resilient sustainable development. There is high confidence
change (Pereira et al. 2010). Biodiversity is also severely impacted that change in climate and land pose high periodic and sustained risk
on by climate change induced land degradation and ecosystem to the very young, those living in poverty, and ageing populations.
transformation (Pecl et al. 2017). This may affect humans directly Older people are particularly exposed, due to more restricted access
and indirectly through cascading impacts on ecosystem function to resources, changes in physiology, and the decreased mobility
and services (Millennium Assessment 2005). Climate change related resulting from age, which may limit adaptive capacity of individuals
human migration is likely to impact on biodiversity as people move and populations as a whole (Filiberto et al. 2010).
into and contribute to land stress in biodiversity hotspots now and
in the future; and as humans concurrently move into areas where Combinations of food insecurity, livelihood loss related to degrading
biodiversity is also migrating to adapt to climate change (Oglethorpe soils and ecosystem change, or other factors that diminish the
et al. 2007). habitability of where people live, disrupt social fabric and are 7
currently detected in most regions of the world (Carleton and

691
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Hsiang 2016b) There is high confidence that coastal flooding and lasting for hours to days (Panteli and Mancarella 2015). Increased
degradation already poses widespread and rising future risk to magnitude and frequency of high winds, ice storms, hurricanes and
infrastructure value and stranded infrastructure, as well as livelihoods heat waves have caused widespread damage to power infrastructure
made possible by urban infrastructure (Radhakrishnan et al. 2017; and also severe outages, affecting significant numbers of customers
Pathirana et al. 2018; Pathirana et al. 2018; Radhakrishnan et al. in urban and rural areas (Abi-Samra and Malcolm 2011).
2018; EEA 2016; Pelling and Wisner 2012; Oke et al. 2017; Parnell
and Walawege 2011; Uzun and Cete 2004; Melvin et al. 2017). Increasing populations, enhanced per capita water use, climate
change, and allocations for water conservation are potential
There is high evidence and high agreement that climate and land threats to adequate water availability. As climate change produces
change pose a high risk to communities. Interdependent infrastructure variations in rainfall, these challenges will intensify, evidenced by
systems, including electric power and transportation, are highly severe water shortages in recent years in Cape Town, Los Angeles,
vulnerable and interdependent (Below et al. 2012; Adger et al. 2013; and Rio  de  Janeiro, among other places (Watts et al. 2018;
Pathirana et al. 2018; Conway and Schipper 2011; Caney 2014; Chung Majumder 2015; Ashoori et al. 2015; Mini et al. 2015; Otto et al.
Tiam Fook 2017). These systems are exposed to disruption from 2015; Ranatunga et al. 2014; Ray and Shaw 2016; Gopakumar
severe climate events such as weather-related power interruptions 2014) (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3).

Cross-Chapter Box 10 | Economic dimensions of climate change and land

Koko Warner (The United States of America), Aziz Elbehri (Morocco), Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre (Spain), Alisher Mirzabaev
(Germany/Uzbekistan), Lindsay Stringer (United Kingdom), Anita Wreford (New Zealand)

Sustainable land management (SLM) makes strong social and economic sense. Early action in implementing SLM for climate change
adaptation and mitigation provides distinct societal advantages. Understanding the full scope of what is at stake from climate change
presents challenges because of inadequate accounting of the degree and scale at which climate change and land interactions impact
society, and the importance society places on those impacts (Santos et al. 2016) (Sections 7.2.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 4.1). The consequences
of inaction and delay bring significant risks, including irreversible change and loss in land ecosystem services (ES) – including food
security – with potentially substantial economic damage to many countries in many regions of the world (high confidence).

This cross-chapter box brings together the salient economic concepts underpinning the assessments of SLM and mitigation options
presented in this report. Four critical concepts are required to help assess the social and economic implications of land-based climate
action:

i. Value to society
ii. Damages from climate and land-induced interventions on land ecosystems
iii. Costs of action and inaction
iv. Decision-making under uncertainty

i. Value to society
Healthy functioning land and ecosystems are essential for human health, food and livelihood security. Land derives its value to
humans from being a  finite resource and vital for life, providing important ES from water recycling, food, feed, fuel, biodiversity
and carbon storage and sequestration.

Many of these ES may be difficult to estimate in monetary terms, including when they hold high symbolic value, linked to ancestral
history, or traditional and indigenous knowledge systems (Boillat and Berkes 2013). Such incommensurable values of land are core to
social cohesion – social norms and institutions, trust that enables all interactions, and sense of community.

ii. Damages from climate and land-induced interventions on land ecosystems

Values of many land-based ES and their potential loss under land–climate change interaction can be considerable: in 2011, the global
value of ES was 125 trillion USD per year and the annual loss due to land-use change was between 4.3 and 20.2 trillion USD per
year from 2007 (Costanza et al. 2014; Rockström et al. 2009). The annual costs of land degradation are  estimated to be  about
231 billion USD per year or about 0.41% of the global GDP of 56.49 trillion USD in 2007 (Nkonya et al. 2016) (Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2).

692
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 10 (continued)

Studies show increasingly negative effects on GDP from damage and loss to land-based values and service as global mean temperatures
increase, although the impact varies across regions (Kompas et al. 2018).

iii. Costs of action and inaction

Evidence suggests that the cost of inaction in mitigation and adaptation, and land use, exceeds the cost of interventions in
both individual countries, regions, and worldwide (Nkonya et al. 2016). Continued inaction reduces the future policy option space,
dampens economic growth and increases the challenges of mitigation as well as adaptation (Moore and Diaz 2015; Luderer et al.
2013). The cost of reducing emissions is estimated to be considerably less than the costs of the damages at all levels (Kainuma
et al. 2013; Moran 2011; Sánchez and Maseda 2016).

The costs of adapting to climate impacts are also projected to be substantial, although evidence is limited (summarised in Chambwera
et al. 2014a). Estimates range from 9 to 166 billion USD per year at various scales and types of adaptation, from capacity building
to specific projects (Fankhauser 2017). There is insufficient literature about the costs of adaptation in the agriculture or land-based
sectors (Wreford and Renwick 2012) due to lack of baselines, uncertainty around biological relationships and inherent uncertainty about
anticipated avoided damage estimates, but economic appraisal of actions to maintain the functions of the natural environment and
land sector generate positive net present values (Adaptation Sub-committee 2013).

Preventing land degradation from occurring is considered more cost-effective in the long term compared to the magnitude of resources
required to restore already degraded land (Cowie et al. 2018a) (Section 3.6.1). Evidence from drylands shows that each US dollar
invested in land restoration provides between 3 and 6 USD in social returns over a 30-year period, using a discount rate between 2.5
and 10% (Nkonya et al. 2016). SLM practices reverse or minimise economic losses of land degradation, estimated at between 6.3 and
10.6 trillion USD annually, (ELD Initiative 2015) more than five times the entire value of agriculture in the market economy (Costanza
et al. 2014; Fischer et al. 2017; Sandifer et al. 2015; Dasgupta et al. 2013) (Section 3.7.5).

Across other areas such as food security, disaster mitigation and risk reduction, humanitarian response, and healthy diet
(to  address  malnutrition as well as disease), early action generates economic benefits greater than costs (high evidence, high
agreement) (Fankhauser 2017; Wilkinson et al. 2018; Venton 2018; Venton et al. 2012; Clarvis et al. 2015; Nugent et al. 2018; Watts et
al. 2018; Bertram et al. 2018) (Sections 6.3 and 6.4).

iv. Decision-making under uncertainty

Given that significant uncertainty exists regarding the future impacts of climate change, effective decisions must be made under
unavoidable uncertainty (Jones et al., 2014).

Approaches that allow for decision-making under uncertainty are continually evolving (Section 7.5). An emerging trend is towards
new frameworks that will enable multiple decision-makers with multiple objectives to explore the trade-offs between potentially
conflicting preferences to identify strategies that are robust to deep uncertainties (Singh et al. 2015; Driscoll et al. 2016; Araujo Enciso
et al. 2016; Herman et al. 2014; Pérez et al. 2016; Girard et al. 2015; Haasnoot et al. 2018; Roelich and Giesekam 2019).

Valuation of benefits and damages and costing interventions: Measurement issues

Cost appraisal tools for climate adaptation are many and their suitability depends on the context (Section  7.5.2.2). Cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are commonly applied, especially for current climate variability situations.
However, these tools are not without criticism and their limitations have been observed in the literature (see Rogelj et al. 2018). In
general, measuring costs and providing valuations are influenced by four conditions: measurement and valuation; the time dimension;
externalities; and aggregate versus marginal costs.

Measurement and value issues

ES not traded in the market fall outside the formal or market-based valuation and so their value is either not accounted for
or underestimated in both private and public decisions (Atkinson et al. 2018). Environmental valuation literature uses a range of
techniques to assign monetary values to environmental outcomes where no market exists (Atkinson et al. 2018; Dallimer et al. 2018),
but some values remain inestimable. For some indigenous cultures and peoples, land is not considered something that can be sold and
bought, so economic valuations are not meaningful even as proxy approaches (Boillat and Berkes 2013; Kumpula et al. 2011; Pert et
al. 2015; Xu et al. 2005).
7

693
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 10 (continued)

While a rigorous CBA is broader than a purely financial tool and can capture non-market values where they exist, it can prioritise
certain values over others (such as profit maximisation for owners, efficiency from the perspective of supply chain processes, and
judgements about which parties bear the costs). Careful consideration must be given to whose perspectives are considered when
undertaking a CBA and also to the limitations of these methods for policy interventions.

Time dimension (short versus long term) and the issue of discount rates
Economics uses a mechanism to convert future values to present day values known as discounting, or the pure rate of time preference.
Discount rates are increasingly being chosen to reflect concerns about intergenerational equity, and some countries (e.g., the UK and
France) apply a declining discount rate for long-term public projects. The choice of discount rate has important implications for policy
evaluation (Anthoff, Tol, and Yohe, 2010; Arrow et al., 2014; Baral, Keenan, Sharma, Stork, and Kasel, 2014; Dasgupta et al., 2013;
Lontzek, Cai, Judd, and Lenton, 2015; Sorokin et al., 2015; van den Bergh and Botzen, 2014) (high evidence, high agreement). Stern
(2007), for example, used a much lower discount rate (giving almost equal weight to future generations) than the mainstream authors
(e.g., Nordhaus (1941) and obtained much higher estimates of the damage of climate change).

Positive and negative externalities (consequences and impacts not accounted for in market economy),
All land use generates externalities (unaccounted for side effects of an activity). Examples include loss of ES (e.g., reduced pollinators;
soil erosion, increased water pollution, nitrification, etc.). Positive externalities include sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
improved soil water filtration from afforestation. Externalities can also be social (e.g., displacement and migration) and economic
(e.g., loss of productive land). In the context of climate change and land, the major externality is the agriculture, forestry and other
land-use (AFOLU) sourced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Examples of mechanisms to internalise externalities are discussed in 7.5.

Aggregate versus marginal costs

Costs of climate change are often referred to through the marginal measure of the social cost of carbon (SCC), which evaluate the
total net damages of an extra metric tonne of CO2 emissions due to the associated climate change (Nordhaus 2014). The SCC can be
used to determine a carbon price, but SCC depends on discount rate assumptions and may neglect processes, including large losses of
biodiversity, political instability, violent conflicts, large-scale migration flows, and the effects of climate change on the development
of economies (Stern 2013; Pezzey 2019).

At the sectoral level, marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves are widely used for the assessment of costs related to CO2 or GHG
emissions reduction. MAC measures the cost of reducing one more GHG unit and MAC curves are either expert-based or model-
derived and offer a range of approaches and assumptions on discount rates or available abatement technologies (Moran 2011).

7.3.4.1 Windows of opportunity state (Nyström et al. 2012). Climate related disasters (flood,
droughts, etc.) and crisis may trigger latent local adaptive capacities
Windows of opportunity are important learning moments wherein leading to systemic equitable improvement (McSweeney and Coomes
an event or disturbance in relation to land, climate, and food 2011), or novel and innovative recombining of sources of experience
security triggers responsive social, political, policy change and knowledge, allowing navigation to transformative social
(medium agreement). Policies play an important role in windows ecological transitions (Folke et al. 2010). The occurrence of a series of
of opportunity and are important in relation to managing risks of punctuated crises such as floods or droughts, qualify as windows of
desertification, soil degradation, food insecurity, and supporting opportunity when they enhance society’s capacity to adapt over the
response options for SLM (high agreement) (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; long term (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2013). A disturbance from an ecological,
Gupta et al. 2013b; Cosens et al. 2017; Darnhofer 2014; Duru et al. social, or political crisis may be sufficient to trigger the emergence of
2015) (Chapter 6). new approaches to governance wherein there is a change in the rules
of the social world such as informal agreements surrounding human
A wide range of events or disturbances may initiate windows of activities or formal rules of public policies (Olsson et al. 2006; Biggs
opportunity – ranging from climatic events and disasters, recognition et al. 2017) (Section 7.6). A combination of socio-ecological changes
of a state of land degradation, an ecological social or political crisis, may provide windows of opportunity for a socio-technical niche to be
and a  triggered regulatory burden or opportunity. Recognition of adopted on a greater scale, transforming practices towards SLM such
a  degraded system such as land degradation and desertification as biodiversity-based agriculture (Darnhofer 2014; Duru et al. 2015).
7 (Chapters 3 and 4) and associated ecosystem feedbacks, allows for
strategies, response options and policies to address the degraded

694
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Policy may also create windows of opportunity. A disturbance necessary will require transformation of existing systems (Park et
may cause inconvenience, including high costs of compliance with al. 2012; Hadarits et al. 2017) necessitating a more comprehensive
environmental regulations, thereby initiating a change of behaviour suite of instruments. Furthermore, the framework applies to private
(Cosens et al. 2017). In a  similar vein, multiple regulatory land ownership, so where land is in different ownership structures,
requirements existing at the time of a  disturbance may result in different mechanisms will be required. Indeed, land tenure is
emergent processes and novel solutions in order to correct for recognised as a factor in barriers to sustainable land management
piecemeal regulatory compliance (Cosens et al. 2017). Lastly, and an important governance consideration (Sections  7.4.9 and
windows of opportunity can be created by a policy mix or portfolio 7.6.4). A thorough analysis of the implications of policy instruments
that provides for creative destruction of old social processes and temporally, spatially and across other sectors and goals (e.g., climate
thereby encourages new innovative solutions (Kivimaa et al. 2017b) versus development) is essential before implementation to
(Section 7.4.8). avoid unintended consequences and achieve policy coherence
(Section 7.4.8).

7.4 Policy instruments for land and climate

7.4.1 Multi-level policy instruments
This section outlines policy responses to risk. It describes
multi-level policy instruments (Section  7.4.1), policy instruments Policy responses and planning in relation to land and climate
for social protection (Section  7.4.2), policies responding to interactions occur at and across multiple levels, involve multiple actors,
hazard (Section  7.4.3), GHG fluxes (Section  7.4.4), desertification and utilise multiple planning mechanisms (Urwin and Jordan 2008).
(Section  7.4.5), land degradation (Section  7.4.6), economic Climate change is occurring on a global scale while the impacts of
instruments (Section  7.4.7), enabling effective policy instruments climate change vary from region to region and even within a region.
through policy mixes (Section  7.4.8), and barriers to SLM and Therefore, in addressing local climate impacts, local governments
overcoming these barriers (Section 7.4.9). and communities are key players. Advancing governance of climate
change across all levels of government and relevant stakeholders is
Policy instruments are used to influence behaviour and effect crucial to avoid policy gaps between local action plans and national/
a response – to do, not do, or continue to do certain things (Anderson sub-national policy frameworks (Corfee-Morlot et al. 2009).
2010) – and they can be invoked at multiple levels (international,
national, regional, and local) by multiple actors (Table  7.2). For This section of the chapter identifies policies by level that respond to
efficiency, equity and effectiveness considerations, the appropriate land and climate problems and risks. As risk management in relation
choice of instrument for the context is critical and, across the topics to land and climate occurs at multiple levels by multiple actors, and
addressed in this report, the instruments will vary considerably. across multiple sectors in relation to hazards (as listed on Table 7.2),
A  key consideration is whether the benefits of the action will risk governance, or the consideration of the landscapes of risk
generate private or public social net benefits. Pannell (2008) arising from Chapters 2  to 6 is addressed in Sections  7.5 and  7.6.
provides a  widely-used framework for identifying the appropriate Categories of instruments include regulatory instruments (command
type of instrument depending on whether the actions encouraged and control measures), economic and market instruments (creating
by the instrument are private or public, and positive or negative. a  market, sending price signals, or employing a  market strategy),
Positive incentives (such as financial or regulatory instruments) are voluntary of persuasive instruments (persuading people to internalise
appropriate where the public net benefits are highly positive and the behaviour), and managerial (arrangements including multiple actors
private net benefits are close to zero. This is likely to be the case in cooperatively administering a  resource or overseeing an issue)
for GHG mitigation measures such as carbon pricing. Many other (Gupta et al. 2013a; Hurlbert 2018b).
GHG mitigation measures (more effective water or fertiliser use,
better agricultural practices, less food waste, agroforestry systems, Given the complex spatial and temporal dynamics of risk,
better forest management) discussed in previous chapters may have a comprehensive, portfolio of instruments and responses is required
substantial private as well as public benefit. Extension (knowledge to comprehensively manage risk. Operationalising a  portfolio
provision) is recommended when public net benefits are highly response can mean layering, sequencing or integrating approaches.
positive, and private net benefits are slightly positive  – again for Layering means that, within a  geographical area, households are
some GHG mitigation measures, and for many adaptations, food able to benefit from multiple interventions simultaneously (e.g.,
security and SLM measures. Where the private net benefits are those for family planning and those for livelihoods development).
slightly positive but the public net benefits highly negative, negative A sequencing approach starts with those interventions that address
incentives (such as regulations and prohibitions) are appropriate, the initial binding constraints, and then adding further interventions
(e.g., over-application of fertiliser). later (e.g., the poorest households first receive grant-based
support before then gaining access to appropriate microfinance
While Pannell’s (2008) framework is useful, it does not address or market-oriented initiatives). Integrated approaches involve
considerations relating to the timescale of actions and their cross-sectoral support within the framework of one programme
consequences, particularly in the long time-horizons involved under (Scott et al. 2016; Tengberg and Valencia 2018) (Sections 7.4.8, 7.5.6
climate change: private benefits may accrue in the short term but and 7.6.3). 7
become negative over time (Outka 2012) and some of the changes

695
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Climate-related risk could be categorised by climate impacts such 7.4.2 Policies for food security and social protection
as flood, drought, cyclone, and so on (Christenson et al. 2014).
Table  7.2 outlines instruments relating to impacts responding to There is medium evidence and high agreement that a combination
the risk of climate change, food insecurity, land degradation and of structural and non-structural policies are required in averting and
desertification, and hazards (flood, drought, forest fire), and GHG minimising as well as responding to land and climate change risk,
fluxes (climate mitigation). including food and livelihood security. If disruptions to elements of
food security are long-lasting, policies are needed to change practices.

If disruptions to food and livelihood systems are temporary, then

policies aimed at stemming worsening human well-being and
stabilising short-term income fluctuations in communities (such as

Table 7.2 | Policies/instruments that address multiple land-climate risks at different jurisdictional levels.

Land Sustainable
GHG flux/
degradation land Climate related
Scale Policy/instrument Food security climate change
and management extremes
mitigation
desertification (SLM)
Finance mechanisms (also national)     
Certification (also national)   
Standards (including risk standards)
   
Global/ (also national)
cross-border Market-based systems (also national)  
Payments for ecosystem services
   
(also national)
Disaster assistance (also national) 
Taxes   
Subsidies    
Direct income payments
   
(with cross-compliance)
Border adjustments (e.g., tariffs)  
Grants     
Bonds    
Forecast-based finance,
   
targeted microfinance
Insurance (various forms)  
Hazard information and communication
 
(also sub-national and local)
National Drought preparedness plans
 
(also sub-national and local)
Fire policy (suppression or
  
prescribed fire management)
Regulations     
Land ownership laws (reform
of, if necessary, for secure land   
title, or access/control)
Protected area designation
 
and management
Extension – including skill
and community development
    
for livelihood diversification
(also sub-national and local)
Spatial and land-use planning   
Sub-national
Watershed management  
Land-use zoning, spatial planning
  
and integrated land-use planning
Local
Community-based
7 awareness programmes
    

This table highlights policy and instruments addressing key themes identified in this chapter; a ““ indicates the relevance of the policy or instrument to the corresponding theme.

696
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

increasing rural credit or providing social safety-net programmes) confidence) but production is likely to decline in low-latitude regions
may be appropriate (Ward 2016). under future warming (high confidence) (Brander and Keith 2015;
Brander 2007). However over-exploitation and degradation of rivers
7.4.2.1 Policies to ensure availability, access, utilisation and has resulted in a decreasing trend in the contribution of capture
stability of food fisheries to protein security in comparison to managed aquaculture
(Welcomme et al. 2010). Aquaculture, however, competes for
Food security is affected by interactions between climatic factors land and water resources with many negative ecological and
(rising temperatures, changes in weather variability and extremes), environmental impacts (Verdegem and Bosma 2009; Tidwell and
changes in land use and land degradation, and Socio-economic Allan 2001). Inland capture fisheries are undervalued in national
Pathways and policy choices related to food systems (see Figures 7.1 and regional food security, ES and economy, are data deficient and
and 7.2). As outlined in Chapter 5, key aspects of food security are are neglected in terms of supportive policies at national levels, and
food availability, access to food, utilisation of food, and stability absent in SDGs (Cooke et al. 2016; Hall et al. 2013; Lynch et al. 2016).
of food systems. Revival of sustainable capture fisheries and converting aquaculture
to environmentally less-damaging management regimes, is likely to
While comprehensive reviews of policy are rare and additional data is succeed with the following measures: investment in recognition of
needed (Adu et al. 2018), evidence indicates that the results of food their importance, improved valuation and assessment, secure tenure
security interventions vary widely due to differing values underlying and adoption of social, ecological and technological guidelines,
the design of instruments. A large portfolio of measures is available upstream-downstream river basin cooperation, and maintenance
to shape outcomes in these areas from the use of tariffs or subsidies, of ecological flow regimes in rivers (Youn et al. 2014; Mostert et
to payments for production practices (OECD 2018). In the past, al. 2007; Ziv et al. 2012; Hurlbert and Gupta 2016; Poff et al. 2003;
efforts to increase food production through significant investment Thomas 1996; FAO 2015a).
in agricultural research, including crop improvement, have benefited
farmers by increasing yields and reducing losses, and have helped Extension services, and policies supporting agricultural extension
consumers by lowering food prices (Pingali 2012, 2015; Alston systems, are also critical. Smallholder farmer-dominated agriculture
and Pardey 2014; Popp et al. 2013). Public spending on agriculture is currently the backbone of global food security in the developing
research and development (R&D) has been more effective at raising world. Without education and incentives to manage land and forest
sustainable agriculture productivity than irrigation or fertiliser resources in a manner that allows regeneration of both the soils and
subsidies (OECD 2018). Yet, on average, between 2015 and 2017, wood stocks, smallholder farmers tend to generate income through
governments spent only around 14% of total agricultural support on inappropriate land management practices, engage in agricultural
services, including physical and knowledge infrastructure, transport production on unsuitable land and use fertile soils, timber and
and information and communications technology. firewood for brick production and construction. Also, they engage
in charcoal production (deforestation) as a coping mechanism
In terms of increasing food availability and supply, producer support, (increasing income) against food deficiency (Munthali and Murayama
including policies mandating subsidies or payments, have been used 2013). Through extension services, governments can play a proactive
to boost production of certain commodities or protect ES. Incentives role in providing information on climate and market risks, animal and
can distort markets and farm business decisions in both negative plant health. Farmers with greater access to extension training retain
and positive ways. For example, the European Union promotes meat more crop residues for mulch on their fields (Jaleta et al. 2015, 2013;
and dairy production through voluntary coupled direct payments. Baudron et al. 2014).
These do not yet internalise external damage to climate, health, and
groundwater (Velthof et al. 2014; Bryngelsson et al. 2016). In most Food security cannot be achieved by increasing food availability
countries, producer support has been declining since the mid-1990s alone. Policy instruments, which increase access to food at the
(OECD 2018). Yet new evidence indicates that a government policy household level, include safety-net programming and universal
supporting producer subsidy could encourage farmers to adopt new basic income. The graduation approach, developed and tested over
technologies and reduce GHG emissions in agriculture (medium the past decade using randomised control trials in six countries, has
evidence, high agreement). However, this will require large capital lasting positive impacts on income, as well as food and nutrition
(Henderson 2018). Since a 1995 reform in its forest law, Costa Rica security (Banerjee et al. 2015; Raza and Poel 2016) (robust evidence,
has effectively used a combination of fuel tax, water tax, loans and high agreement). The graduation approach layers and integrates
agreements with companies, to pay landowners for agroforestry, a series of interventions designed to help the poorest: consumption
reforestation and sustainable forest management (Porras and support in the form of cash or food assistance, transfer of an income-
Asquith 2018). generating asset (such as a livestock) and training on how to maintain
the asset, assistance with savings and coaching or mentoring over
Inland capture fisheries and aquaculture are an integral part of a period of time to reinforce learning and provide support. Due to
nutrition security and livelihoods for large numbers of people globally its success, the graduation approach is now being scaled up, and is
(Welcomme et al. 2010; Hall et al. 2013; Tidwell and Allan 2001; Youn now used in more than 38 countries and included by an increasing
et al. 2014) and are increasingly vulnerable to climate change and number of governments in social safety-net programmes (Hashemi
competing land and water use (Allison et al. 2009; Youn et al. 2014). and de Montesquiou 2011). 7
Future production may increase in some high-latitude regions (low

697
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

At the national and global levels, food prices and trade policies can drive changes in diet and improvements in nutrition (Headey
impact on access to food. Fiscal policies, such as taxation, subsidies, et al. 2017). Bangladesh has managed to sustain a rapid reduction
or tariffs, can be used to regulate production and consumption of in the rate of child undernutrition for at least two decades. Rapid
certain foods and can affect environmental outcomes. In Denmark, wealth accumulation and large gains in parental education are
a tax on saturated fat content of food adopted to encourage healthy the two largest drivers of change (Headey et al. 2017). Educating
eating habits accounted for 0.14% of total tax revenues between consumers, and providing affordable alternatives, will be critical to
2011 and 2012 (Sassi et al. 2018). A global tax on GHG emissions, changing unsustainable food-use habits relevant to climate change.
for example, has large mitigation potential and will generate tax
revenues, but may also result in large reductions in agricultural 7.4.2.2 Policies to secure social protection
production (Henderson 2018). Consumer-level taxes on GHG-
intensive food may be applied to address competitiveness issues There is medium evidence and high agreement from all regions of
between different countries, if some countries use taxes while others the world that safety nets and social protection schemes can provide
do not. However, increases in prices might impose disproportionate stability which prevents and reduces abject poverty (Barrientos
financial burdens on low-income households, and may not be publicly 2011; Hossain 2018; Cook and Pincus 2015; Huang and Yang 2017;
acceptable. A study examining the relationship between food prices Slater 2011; Sparrow et al. 2013; Rodriguez-Takeuchi and Imai 2013;
and social unrest found that, between 1990 and 2011, whereas food Bamberg et al. 2018) in the face of climatic stressors and land change
price stability has not been associated with increases in social unrest (Davies et al. 2013; Cutter et al. 2012b; Pelling 2011; Ensor 2011).
(Bellemare 2015).
The World Bank estimates that, globally, social safety net transfers
Interventions that allow people to maximise their productive potential have reduced the absolute poverty gap by 45% and the relative
while protecting the ES may not ensure food security in all contexts. poverty gap by 16% (World Bank 2018). Adaptive social protection
Some household land holdings are so small that self-sufficiency is not builds household capacity to deal with shocks as well as the
possible (Venton 2018). Value chain development has, in the past, capacity of social safety nets to respond to shocks. For low-income
increased farm income but delivered fewer benefits to vulnerable communities reliant on land and climate for their livelihoods and
consumers (Bodnár et al. 2011). Ultimately, a mix of production well-being, social protection provides a way for vulnerable groups
activities and consumption support is needed. Consumption support to manage weather and climatic variability and deteriorating land
can be used to help achieve the second important element of food conditions to household income and assets (robust evidence, high
security – access to food. agreement) (Baulch et al. 2006; Barrientos 2011; Harris 2013; Fiszbein
et al. 2014; Kiendrebeogo et al. 2017; Kabeer et al. 2010; FAO 2015b;
Agricultural technology transfer can help optimise food and nutrition Warner et al. 2018; World Bank 2018).
security (Section 7.4.4.3). Policies that affect agricultural innovation
span sectors and include ‘macro-economic policy-settings; A lifecycle approach to social protection is one approach, which
institutional governance; environmental standards; investment, some countries (such as Bangladesh) are using when developing
land, labor and education policies; and incentives for investment, national social protection policies. These policies acknowledge
such as a predictable regulatory environment and robust intellectual that households face risks across the lifecycle that they need to be
property rights’. protected from. If shocks are persistent, or occur numerous times,
then policies can address concerns of a more structural nature
The scientific community can partner across sectors and industries (Glauben et al. 2012). Barrett (2005), for example, distinguishes
for better data sharing, integration, and improved modelling and between the role of safety nets (which include programmes such as
analytical capacities (Janetos et al. 2017; Lunt et al. 2016). To better emergency feeding programmes, crop or unemployment insurance,
predict, respond to, and prepare for concurrent agricultural failures, disaster assistance, etc.) and cargo nets (which include land reforms,
and gain a more systematic assessment of exposure to agricultural targeted microfinance, targeted school food programmes, etc.). While
climate risk, large data gaps need to be filled, as well as gaps in the former prevents non-poor and transient poor from becoming
empirical foundation and analytical capabilities (Janetos et al. 2017; chronically poor, the latter is meant to lift people out of poverty
Lunt et al. 2016). Data required include global historical datasets, by changing societal or institutional structures. The graduation
many of which are unreliable, inaccessible, or not available (Maynard approach has adopted such systematic thinking with successful
2015; Lunt et al. 2016). Participation in co-design for scenario results (Banerjee et al. 2015).
planning can build social and human capital while improving
understanding of food system risks and creating innovative ways for Social protection systems can provide buffers against shocks through
collectively planning for a more equitable and resilient food system vertical or horizontal expansion, ‘piggybacking’ on pre-established
(Himanen et al. 2016; Meijer et al. 2015; Van Rijn et al. 2012). programmes, aligning social protection and humanitarian systems or
refocusing existing resources (Wilkinson et al. 2018; O’Brien et al.
Demand management for food, including promoting healthy 2018; Jones and Presler-Marshall 2015). There is increasing evidence
diets, reducing food loss and waste, is covered in Chapter 5. There that forecast-based financing, linked to a social protection, can be
is a gap in knowledge regarding what policies and instruments used to enable anticipatory actions based on forecast triggers, and
7 support demand management. There is robust evidence and robust guarantee funding ahead of a shock (Jjemba et al. 2018). Accordingly,
agreement that changes in household wealth and parents’ education scaling up social protection based on an early warning could enhance

698
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

timeliness, predictability and adequacy of social protection benefits more years of education and credit but limited off-farm income are
(Kuriakose et al. 2012; Costella et al. 2017a; Wilkinson et al. 2018; more willing to pay for insurance than households who have access
O’Brien et al. 2018). to remittances (such as from family members who have migrated)
(Bogale 2015a; Gan et al. 2014; Hewitt et al. 2017; Nischalke 2015).
Countries at high risk of natural disasters often have lower safety-net In Europe, modelling suggests that insurance incentives, such as
coverage percent (World Bank 2018), and there is medium evidence vouchers, would be less expensive than total incentivised damage
and medium agreement that those countries with few financial and reduction and may reduce residential flood risk in Germany by
other buffers have lower economic and social performance (Cutter 12% in 2016 and 24% by 2040 (Hudson et al. 2016).
et al. 2012b; Outreville 2011a). Social protection systems have also
been seen as an unaffordable commitment of public budget in
many developing and low-income countries (Harris 2013). National 7.4.3 Policies responding to climate-related extremes
systems may be disjointed and piecemeal, and subject to cultural
acceptance and competing political ideologies (Niño-Zarazúa et al. 7.4.3.1 Risk management instruments
2012). For example, Liberia and Madagascar each have five different
public works programmes, each with different donor organisations Risk management addressing climate change has broadened to
and different implementing agencies (Monchuk 2014). These include mitigation, adaptation and disaster preparedness in a process
implementation shortcomings mean that positive effects of social using instruments facilitating contingency and cross-sectoral
protection systems might not be robust enough to shield recipients planning (Hurlimann and March 2012; Oels 2013), social community
completely against the impacts of severe shocks or from long-term planning, and strategic, long-term planning (Serrao-Neumann et al.
losses and damages from climate change (limited evidence, high 2015a). A comprehensive consideration integrates principles from
agreement) (Davies et al. 2009; Umukoro 2013; Béné et al. 2012; Ellis informal support mechanisms to enhance formal social protection
et al. 2009). programming (Mobarak and Rosenzweig 2013; Stavropoulou et al.
2017) such that the social safety net, disaster risk management,
There is increasing support for establishment of public-private and climate change adaptation are all considered to enhance
safety nets to address climate-related shocks, which are augmented livelihoods of the chronic poor (see char dwellers and recurrent
by proactive preventative (adaptation) measures and related risk floods in Jamuna and Brahmaputra basins of Bangladesh Awal 2013)
transfer instruments that are affordable to the poor (Kousky et al. (Section 7.4.7). Iterative risk management is an ongoing process of
2018b). Studies suggest that the adaptive capacity of communities assessment, action, reassessment and response (Mochizuki et al.
has improved with regard to climate variability, like drought, 2015) (Sections 7.5.2 and 7.4.7.2).
when ex-ante tools, including insurance, have been employed
holistically; providing insurance in combination with early warning Important elements of risk planning include education, and
and institutional and policy approaches reduces livelihood and food creation of hazard and risk maps. Important elements of predicting
insecurity as well as strengthens social structures (Shiferaw et al. include hydrological and meteorological monitoring to forecast
2014; Lotze-Campen and Popp 2012). Bundling insurance with early weather, seasonal climate forecasts, aridity, flood and extreme
warning and seasonal forecasting can reduce the cost of insurance weather. Effective responding requires robust communication systems
premiums (Daron and Stainforth 2014). The regional risk insurance that pass on information to enable response (Cools et al. 2016).
scheme, African Risk Capacity, has the potential to significantly
reduce the cost of insurance premiums (Siebert 2016) while bolstering Gauging the effectiveness of policy instruments is challenging.
contingency planning against food insecurity. Timescales may influence outcomes. To evaluate effectiveness
researchers, programme managers and communities strive to develop
Work-for-insurance programmes applied in the context of social consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness and coherence in
protection have been shown to improve livelihood and food security their tracking. In other words, practitioners utilise a consistent and
in Ethiopia (Berhane 2014; Mohmmed et al. 2018) and Pakistan. The operational conceptualisation of adaptation; focus on comparable
R4 Rural Resilience Initiative in Ethiopia is a widely cited example units of analysis; develop comprehensive datasets on adaptation
of a programme that serves the most vulnerable and includes action; and are coherent with an understanding of what constitutes
aspects of resource management, and access by the poor to financial real adaptation (Ford and Berrang-Ford 2016). Increasing the use of
services, including insurance and savings (Linnerooth-Bayer et al. systematic reviews or randomised evaluations may also be helpful
2018). Weather index insurance (such as index-based crop insurance) (Alverson and Zommers 2018).
is being presented to low-income farmers and pastoralists in
developing countries (e.g., Ethiopia, India, Kazakhstan, South Asia) Many risk management policy instruments are referred to by the
to complement informal risk sharing, reducing the risk of lost revenue International Organization of Standardization which lists risk
associated with variations in crop yield, and provide an alternative management principles, guidelines, and frameworks for explaining
to classic insurance (Bogale 2015a; Conradt et al. 2015; Dercon the elements of an effective risk management programme (ISO 2009).
et al. 2014; Greatrex et al. 2015; McIntosh et al. 2013). The ability of The standard provides practical risk management instruments and
insurance to contribute to adaptive capacity depends on the overall makes a business case for risk management investments (McClean
risk management and livelihood context of households – studies find et al. 2010). Insurance addresses impacts associated with extreme 7
that agriculturalists and foresters working on rainfed farms/land with weather events (storms, floods, droughts, temperature extremes), but

699
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

it can provide disincentives for reducing disaster risk at the local level with technocratic approaches improves success (Cools et al. 2016;
through the transfer of risk spatially to other places or temporally to Henriksen et al. 2018; Garcia and Fearnley 2012).
the future (Cutter et al. 2012b) and uptake is unequally distributed
across regions and hazards (Lal et al. 2012). Insurance instruments 7.4.3.2 Drought-related risk minimising instruments
(Sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.6) can take many forms (traditional indemnity
based, market-based crop insurance, property insurance), and some A more detailed review of drought instruments, and three broad
are linked to livelihoods sensitive to weather as well as food security policy approaches for responding to drought, is provided in Cross-
(linked to social safety-net programmes) and ecosystems (coral reefs Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3. Three broad approaches include: (i) early
and mangroves). Insurance instruments can also provide a framework warning systems and response to the disaster of drought (through
for risk signals to adaptation planning and implementation and instruments such as disaster assistance or crop insurance); (ii) disaster
facilitate financial buffering when climate impacts exceed current response ex-ante preparation (through drought preparedness plans);
capabilities delivered through both public and private finance and (iii) drought risk mitigation (proactive polices to improve
(Bogale 2015b; Greatrex et al. 2015; Surminski et al. 2016). A holistic water-use efficiency, make adjustments to water allocation, funds
consideration of all instruments responding to extreme impacts of or loans to build technology such as dugouts or improved soil
climate change (drought, flood, etc.) is required when assessing if management practices).
policy instruments are promoting livelihood capitals and contributing
to the resilience of people and communities (Hurlbert 2018b). This Drought plans are still predominantly reactive crisis management
holistic consideration of policy instruments leads to a consideration plans rather than proactive risk management and reduction plans.
of risk governance (Section 7.6). Reactive crisis management plans treat only the symptoms and are
inefficient drought management practices. More efficient drought
Early warning systems are critical policy instruments for protecting preparedness instruments are those that address the underlying
lives and property, adapting to climate change, and effecting adaptive vulnerability associated with the impacts of drought, thereby
climate risk management (high confidence) (Selvaraju 2011; Cools et building agricultural producer adaptive capacity and resilience (high
al. 2016; Travis 2013; Henriksen et al. 2018; Seng 2013; Kanta Kafle confidence) (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3).
2017; Garcia and Fearnley 2012). Early warning systems exist at
different levels and for different purposes, including the Food and 7.4.3.3 Fire-related risk minimising instruments
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Global Information
and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS), United There is robust evidence and high agreement that fire strategies need
States Agency for International Development (USAID) Famine Early to be tailored to site-specific conditions in an adaptive application
Warning System Network (FEWS-NET), national and local extreme that is assessed and reassessed over time (Dellasala et al. 2004; Rocca
weather, species extinction, community-based flood and landslide, et al. 2014). Strategies for fire management include fire suppression,
and informal pastoral drought early warning systems (Kanta Kafle prescribed fire and mechanical treatments (such as thinning the
2017). Medium-term warning systems can identify areas of concern, canopy), and allowing wildfire with little or no active management
hotspots of vulnerabilities and sensitivities, or critical zones of land (Rocca et al. 2014). Fire suppression can degrade the effectiveness of
degradation (areas of concern) (see Chapter 6) critical to reduce risks forest fire management in the long run (Collins et al. 2013).
over five to 10 years (Selvaraju 2012). Early warning systems for
dangerous climate shifts are emerging, with considerations of rate Different forest types have different fire regimes and require different
of onset, intensity, spatial distribution and predictability. Growing fire management policies (Dellasala et al. 2004). For instance, Cerrado,
research in the area is considering positive and negative lessons a fire dependent savannah, utilises a different fire management policy
learned from existing hazard early warning systems, including lead and fire suppression policy (Durigan and Ratter 2016). The choice of
time and warning response (Travis 2013). strategy depends on local considerations, including land ownership
patterns, dynamics of local meteorology, budgets, logistics, federal and
For effectiveness, communication methods are best adapted to local local policies, tolerance for risk and landscape contexts. In addition,
circumstances, religious and cultural-based structures and norms, there are trade-offs among the management alternatives and often
information technology, and local institutional capacity (Cools et no single management strategy will simultaneously optimise ES,
al. 2016; Seng 2013). Considerations of governance or the actors including water quality and quantity, carbon sequestration, or run-
and architecture within the socio-ecological system, is an important off erosion prevention (Rocca et al. 2014).
feature of successful early warning system development (Seng 2013).
Effective early warning systems consider the critical links between 7.4.3.4 Flood-related risk minimising instruments
hazard monitoring, risk assessment, forecasting tools, warning and
dissemination (Garcia and Fearnley 2012). These effective systems Flood risk management consists of command and control measures,
incorporate local context by defining accountability, responsibility, including spatial planning and engineered flood defences (Filatova
acknowledging the importance of risk perceptions and trust for 2014), financial incentive instruments issued by regional or national
an effective response to warnings. Although increasing levels and governments to facilitate cooperative approaches through local
standardisation nationally and globally is important, revising these planning, enhancing community understanding and political
7 systems through participatory approaches cognisant of the tension support for safe development patterns and building standards, and
regulations requiring local government participation and support for

700
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

local flood planning (Burby and May 2009). However, Filatova (2014) (Richards et al. 2015). UNFCCC Decision 1. CP21 reaffirmed the
found that if autonomous adaptation is downplayed, people are more UNFCCC target that ‘developed country parties provide  USD 100
likely to make land-use choices that collectively lead to increased billion annually by 2020 for climate action in developing countries’
flood risks and leave costs to governments. Taxes and subsidies that (Rajamani 2011) and a new collective quantified goal above this
do not encourage (and even counter) perverse behaviour (such as floor is to be set, taking into account the needs and priorities of
rebuilding in flood zones) are important instruments mitigating developing countries (Fridahl and Linnér 2016).
this cost to government. Flood insurance has been found to be
maladaptive as it encourages rebuilding in flood zones (O’Hare Mitigation policy instruments to address this shortfall include
et al. 2016) and government flood disaster assistance negatively financing mechanisms, carbon pricing, cap and trade or emissions
impacts on average insurance coverage the following year (Kousky trading, and technology transfer. While climate change is a global
et al. 2018a). Modifications to flood insurance can counter perverse commons problem containing free-riding issues cost-effective
behaviour. One example is the provision of discounts on flood international policies that ensure that countries get the most
insurance for localities that undertake one of 18 flood mitigation environmental benefit out of mitigation investments promote an
activities, including structural mitigation (constructing dykes, dams, international climate policy regime (Nordhaus 1999; Aldy and Stavins
flood control reservoirs), and non-structural initiatives such as point 2012). Carbon pricing instruments may provide an entry point for
source control and watershed management efforts, education and inclusion of appropriate agricultural carbon instruments. Models of
maintenance of flood-related databases (Zahran et al. 2010). Flood cost-efficient distribution of mitigation across regions and sectors
insurance that provides incentives for flood mitigation, marketable typically employ a global uniform carbon price, but such treatment in
permits and transferable development rights (see Case study: Flood the agricultural sector may impact on food security (Section 7.4.4.4).
and food security in Section 7.6) instruments can provide price signals
to stimulate autonomous adaptation, countering barriers of path One policy initiative to advance climate mitigation policy coherence
dependency, and the time lag between private investment decisions in this section is the phase out of subsidies for fossil fuel production
and consequences (Filatova 2014). To build adaptive capacity, (see also Section 7.4.8). The G20 agreed in 2009, and the G7 agreed
consideration needs to be made of policy instruments responding to in 2016, to phase out these subsidies by 2025. Subsidies include lower
flood, including flood zone mapping, land-use planning, flood zone tax rates or exemptions and rebates of taxes on fuels used by particular
building restrictions, business and crop insurance, disaster assistance consumers (diesel fuel used by farming, fishing, etc.), types of fuel, or
payments, preventative instruments, (including environmental farm how fuels are used. The OECD estimates the overall value of these
planning, e.g., soil and water management (see Chapter 6)), farm subsides to be 160–200 billion USD annually between 2010 and 2014
infrastructure projects, and recovery from debilitating flood losses (OECD 2015). The phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies has important
ultimately through bankruptcy (Hurlbert 2018a). Non-structural economic, environmental and social benefits. Coady et al. (2017)
measures have been found to advance sustainable development as estimate the economic and environmental benefits of reforming fossil
they are more reversible, commonly acceptable and environmentally fuel subsidies could be valued worldwide at 4.9 trillion USD in 2013,
friendly (Kundzewicz 2002). and 5.3 trillion USD in 2015. Eliminating subsidies could have reduced
emissions by 21%, raised 4% of global GDP as revenue (in 2013), and
improved social welfare (Coady et al. 2017).
7.4.4 Policies responding to greenhouse
gas (GHG) fluxes Legal instruments addressing perceived deficiencies in climate
change mitigation include human rights and liability. Developments
7.4.4.1 GHG fluxes and climate change mitigation in attribution science are improving the ability to detect human
influence on extreme weather. Marjanac et al. (2017) argue that
Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambitions this broadens the legal duty of government, business and others to
as submitted under the Paris Agreement would not limit global manage foreseeable harms, and may lead to more climate change
warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, but instead result litigation (Marjanac et al. 2017). Peel and Osofsky (2017) argue
in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100 with warming continuing that courts are becoming increasingly receptive to employ human
afterward (IPCC 2018d). Reversing warming after an overshoot rights claims in climate change lawsuits (Peel and Osofsky 2017);
of 0.2°C or higher during this century would require deployment citizen suits in domestic courts are not a universal phenomenon and,
of CDR at rates and volumes that might not be achievable given even if unsuccessful, Estrin (2016) concludes they are important in
considerable implementation challenges (IPCC 2018d). This gap underlining the high level of public concern.
(Höhne et al. 2017; Rogelj et al. 2016) creates a significant risk of
global warming impacting on land degradation, desertification, and 7.4.4.2 Mitigation instruments
food security (IPCC 2018d) (Section 7.2). Action can be taken by 2030
adopting already known cost-effective technology (United Nations Similar instruments for mitigation could be applied to the land sector
Environment Programme 2017), improving the finance, capacity as in other sectors, including: market-based measures such as taxes
building, and technology transfer mechanisms of the United Nations and cap and trade systems; standards and regulations; subsidies and
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), improving tax credits; information instruments and management tools; R&D
food security (listed by 73 nations in their nationally determined investment; and voluntary compliance programmes. However, few 7
contributions (NDCs)) and nutritional security (listed by 25 nations) regions have implemented agricultural mitigation instruments

701
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

(Cooper et al. 2013). Existing regimes focus on subsidies, grants and In the land sector, carbon markets are challenging to implement.
incentives, and voluntary offset programmes. Although several countries and regions have an ETS in place (for
example, the EU, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, Quebec in
7.4.4.3 Market-based instruments Canada, California in the USA (Narassimhan et al. 2018)), none
have included non-CO2 (methane and nitrous oxide) emissions from
Although carbon pricing is recognised to be an important cost- agriculture. New Zealand is the only country currently considering
effective instrument in a portfolio of climate policies (high evidence, ways to incorporate agriculture into its ETS (see Case study: Including
high agreement) (Aldy et al. 2010), as yet, no country is exposing their agriculture in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme).
agricultural sector emissions to carbon pricing in any comprehensive
way. A carbon tax, fuel tax, and carbon markets (cap and trade Three main reasons explain the lack of implementation to date:
system or Emissions Trading System (ETS), or baseline and credit
schemes, and voluntary markets) are predominant policy instruments 1. The large number of heterogeneous buyers and sellers, combined
that implement carbon pricing. The advantage of carbon pricing is with the difficulties of monitoring, reporting and verification
environmental effectiveness at relatively low cost (high evidence, high (MRV) of emissions from biological systems introduce potentially
agreement) (Baranzini et al. 2017; Fawcett et al. 2014). Furthermore, high levels of complexity (and transaction costs). Effective
carbon pricing could be used to raise revenue to reinvest in public policies therefore depend on advanced MRV systems which are
spending, either to help certain sectors transition to lower carbon lacking in many (particularly developing) countries (Wilkes et al.
systems, or to invest in public spending unrelated to climate change. 2017). This is discussed in more detail in the case study on the
Both of these options may make climate policies more attractive and New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
enhance overall welfare (Siegmeier et al. 2018), but there is, as yet, 2. Adverse distributional consequences (Grosjean et al. 2018)
no evidence of the effectiveness of emissions pricing in agriculture (medium evidence, high agreement). Distributional issues
(Grosjean et al. 2018). There is, however, a clear need for progress in depend, in part, on the extent that policy costs can be passed
this area as, without effective carbon pricing, the mitigation potential on to consumers, and there is medium evidence and medium
identified in chapters 5 and 6 of this report will not be realised (high agreement that social equity can be increased through
evidence, high agreement) (Boyce 2018). a  combination of non-market and market-based instruments
(Haites 2018b).
The price may be set at the social cost of carbon (the incremental 3. Regulation, market-based or otherwise, adopted in only one
impact of emitting an additional tonne of CO2, or the benefit of jurisdiction and not elsewhere may result in ‘leakage’ or reduced
slightly reducing emissions), but estimates of the SCC vary widely effectiveness – where production relocates to weaker regulated
and are contested (high evidence, high agreement) (Pezzey 2019). regions, potentially reducing the overall environmental benefit.
An alternative to the SCC includes a pathways approach that sets Although modelling studies indicate the possibility of leakage
an emissions target and estimates the carbon prices required to following unilateral agricultural mitigation policy implementation
achieve this at the lowest possible cost (Pezzey 2019). Theoretically, (e.g., Fellmann et al. 2018), there is no empirical evidence from
higher costs throughout the entire economy result in reduction of the agricultural sector yet available. Analysis from other sectors
carbon intensity, as consumers and producers adjust their decisions shows an overestimation of the extent of carbon leakage in
in relation to prices corrected to reflect the climate externality modelling studies conducted before policy implementation
(Baranzini et al. 2017). compared to evidence after the policy was implemented
(Branger and Quirion 2014). Options to avoid leakage include:
Both carbon taxes and cap and trade systems can reduce emissions, border adjustments (emissions in non-regulated imports are
but cap and trade systems are generally more cost effective (medium taxed at the border, and payments made on products exported
evidence, high agreement) (Haites 2018a). In both cases, the design to non-regulated countries are rebated); differential pricing for
of the system is critical to its effectiveness at reducing emissions (high trade-exposed products; and output-based allocation (which
evidence, high agreement) (Bruvoll and Larsen 2004; (Lin and Li 2011). effectively works as a subsidy for trade-exposed products).
The trading system allows the achievement of emission reductions Modelling shows that border adjustments are the most effective
in the most cost-effective manner possible and results in a  market at reducing leakage, but may exacerbate regional inequality
and price on emissions that create incentives for the reduction of (Böhringer et al. 2012) and through their trade-distorting nature
carbon pollution. The way allowances are allocated in a cap and may contravene World Trade Organization rules. The opportunity
trade system is critical to its effectiveness and equity. Free allocations for leakage would be significantly reduced, ideally through multi-
can be provided to trade-exposed sectors, such as agriculture, either lateral commitments (Fellmann et al. 2018) (medium evidence,
through historic or output-based allocations, the choice of which has high agreement) but could also be reduced through regional or
important implications (Quirion 2009). Output-based allocations may bi-lateral commitments within trade agreements.
be most suitable for agriculture, also minimising leakage risk (see
below in this section) (Grosjean et al. 2018; Quirion 2009). There is
medium evidence and high agreement that properly designed, a cap
and trade system can be a powerful policy instrument (Wagner 2013)
7 and may collect more rents than a variable carbon tax (Siegmeier
et al. 2018; Schmalensee and Stavins 2017).

702
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Case study | Including agriculture in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

New Zealand has a high proportion of agricultural emissions at 49% (Ministry of the Environment 2018) – the next-highest developed
country agricultural emitter is Ireland at around 32% (EPA 2018) – and is considering incorporating agricultural non-CO2 gases into
the existing national ETS. In the original design of the ETS in 2008, agriculture was intended to be included from 2013, but successive
governments deferred the inclusion (Kerr and Sweet 2008) due to concerns about competitiveness, lack of mitigation options and the
level of opposition from those potentially affected (Cooper and Rosin 2014). Now though, as the country’s agricultural emissions are
12% above 1990 levels, and the country’s total gross emissions have increased 19.6% above 1990 levels (New Zealand Ministry for the
Environment 2018), there is a recognition that, without any targeted policy for agriculture, only 52% of the country’s emissions face
any substantive incentive to mitigate (Narassimhan et al. 2018). Including agriculture in the ETS is one option to provide incentives for
emissions reductions in that sector. Other options are discussed in Section 7.4.4. Although some producer groups raise concern that
including agriculture will place New Zealand producers at a disadvantage compared with their international competitors who do not
face similar mechanisms (New Zealand Productivity Commission 2018), there is generally greater acceptance of the need for climate
policies for agriculture.

The inclusion of non-CO2 emissions from agriculture within an ETS is potentially complex, however, due to the large number of buyers
and sellers if obligations are placed at farm level, and different choices of how to estimate emissions from biological systems in cost-
effective ways. New Zealand is currently investigating practical and equitable approaches to include agriculture through advice being
provided by the Interim Climate Change Committee (ICCC 2018). Main questions centre around the point of obligation for buying and
selling credits, where trade-offs have to be made between providing incentives for behaviour change at farm level and the cost and
complexity of administering the scheme (Agriculture Technical Advisory Group 2009; Kerr and Sweet 2008). The two potential points
of obligation are at the processor level or at the individual farm level. Setting the point of obligation at the processor level means that
farmers would face limited incentive to change their management practices, unless the processors themselves rewarded farmers for
lowered emissions. Setting it at the individual farm level would provide a direct incentive for farmers to adopt mitigation practices,
however, the reality of having thousands of individual points of obligation would be administratively complex and could result in high
transaction costs (Beca Ltd 2018).

Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of agricultural emissions presents another challenge, especially if emissions have to
be estimated at farm level. Again, trade-offs have to be made between accuracy and detail of estimation method and the complexity,
cost and audit of verification (Agriculture Technical Advisory Group 2009).

The ICCC is also exploring alternatives to an ETS to provide efficient abatement incentives (ICCC 2018).

Some discussion in New Zealand also focuses on a differential treatment of methane compared to nitrous oxide. Methane is a short-
lived gas with a perturbation lifetime of 12 years in the atmosphere; nitrous oxide on the other hand is a long-lived gas and remains
in the atmosphere for 114 years (Allen et al. 2016). Long-lived gases have a cumulative and essentially irreversible effect on the
climate (IPCC 2014b) so their emissions need to reduce to net-zero in order to avoid climate change. Short-lived gases, however, could
potentially be reduced to a certain level and then stabilised, and would not contribute further to warming, leading to suggestions
of treating these two gases separately in the ETS or alternative policy instruments, possibly setting different budgets and targets for
each (New Zealand Productivity Commission 2018). Reisinger et al. (2013) demonstrate that different metrics can have important
implications globally and potentially at national and regional scales on the costs and levels of abatement.

While the details are still being agreed on in New Zealand, almost 80% of nationally determined contributions committed to action
on mitigation in agriculture (FAO 2016), so countries will be looking for successful examples.

Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund, and the preceding Carbon Farming Initiative, are examples of baseline-and-credit schemes,
which creates credits for activities that generate emissions below a baseline – effectively a subsidy (Freebairn 2016). It is a voluntary
scheme, and has the potential to create real and additional emission reductions through projects reducing emissions and sequestering
carbon (Verschuuren 2017) (low evidence, low agreement). Key success factors in the design of such an instrument are policy-
certainty for at least 10 to 20years, regulation that focuses on projects and not uniform rules, automated systems for all phases of the
projects, and a wider focus of the carbon farming initiative on adaptation, food security, sustainable farm business, and creating jobs
(Verschuuren 2017). A recent review highlighted the issue of permanence and reversal, and recommended that projects detail how
they will maintain carbon in their projects, and deal with the risk of fire.

703
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.4.4.4 Technology transfer and land-use sectors related to adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology transfer and
capacity building, which could be of particular interest in land-use
Technology transfer has been part of the UNFCCC process since its sectors where such aspects are more intertwined than in energy or
inception and is a key element of international climate mitigation and industry sectors. Article 6 sets out several options for international
adaptation efforts under the Paris Agreement. The IPCC definition of cooperation (Gupta and Dube 2018).
‘technology transfer’ includes transfer of knowledge and technological
cooperation (see Glossary) and can include modifications to suit The close relationship between emission reductions, adaptive capacity,
local conditions and/or integration with indigenous technologies food security and other sustainability and governance objectives in
(Metz et al. 2000). This definition suggests greater heterogeneity in the land sectors means that Article 6  could bring co-benefits that
the applications for climate mitigation and adaptation, especially in increase its attractiveness and the availability of finance, while also
land-use sectors where indigenous knowledge may be important for bringing risks that need to be monitored and mitigated against, such
long-term climate resilience (Nyong et al. 2007). For land-use sectors, as uncertainties in measurements and the risk of non-permanence
the typical reliance on trade and patent data for empirical analyses is (Thamo and Pannell 2016; Olsson et al. 2016; Schwartz et al. 2017).
generally not feasible as the ‘technology’ in question is often related There has been progress in accounting for land-based emissions,
to resource management and is neither patentable nor tradable mainly forestry and agriculture (medium evidence, low agreement),
(Glachant and Dechezleprêtre 2017) and ill-suited to provide socially but various challenges remain (Macintosh 2012; Pistorius et al. 2017;
beneficially innovation for poorer farmers in developing countries Krug 2018).
(Lybbert and Sumner 2012; Baker et al. 2017).
Like the CDM and other existing carbon trading mechanisms,
Technology transfer has contributed to emissions reductions (medium participation in Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement requires
confidence). A detailed study for nearly 4000 Clean Development certain institutional and data management capacities in the land
Mechanism (CDM) projects showed that 39% of projects had a stated sector to effectively benefit from the cooperation opportunities
and actual technology transfer component, accounting for 59% of (Totin et al. 2018). While the rules for the implementation of the
emissions reductions; however, the more land-intensive projects new mechanisms are still under development, lessons from REDD+
(e.g., afforestation, bioenergy) showed lower percentages (Murphy (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) may
et al. 2015). Bioenergy projects that rely on agricultural residues be useful, which is perceived as more democratic and participative
offer substantially more development benefits than those based than the CDM (Maraseni and Cadman 2015). Experience with
on industrial residues from forests (Lee and Lazarus 2013). Energy REDD+ programmes emphasise the necessity to invest in ‘readiness’
projects tended to have a greater degree of technology transfer programmes that assist countries to engage in strategic planning
under the CDM compared to non-energy projects (Gandenberger and build management and data collection systems to develop the
et al. 2016). However, longer-term cooperation and collaborative capacity and infrastructure to participate in REDD+ (Minang et al.
R&D approaches to technology transfer will be more important in 2014). The overwhelming majority of countries (93%) cite weak
land-use sectors (compared to energy or industry) due to the time forest sector governance and institutions in their applications for
needed for improved resource management and interaction between REDD+ readiness funding (Kissinger et al. 2012). Technology transfer
researchers, practitioners and policymakers. These approaches offer for advanced remote sensing technologies that help to reduce
longer-term technology transfer that is more difficult to measure uncertainty in monitoring forests helps to achieve REDD+ ‘readiness’
compared to specific cooperation projects; empirical research on the (Goetz et al. 2015).
effects of R&D collaboration could help to avoid the ‘one-policy-fits-
all’ approach (Ockwell et al. 2015). As well as new opportunities for finance and support, the Paris
cooperation mechanisms and the associated roles for technology
There is increasing recognition of the role of technology transfer in transfer bring new challenges, particularly in reporting, verifying
climate adaptation, but in the land-use sector there are inherent and accounting in land-use sectors. Since developing countries
adoption challenges specific to adaptation, due to uncertainties must now achieve, measure and communicate emission reductions,
arising from changing climatic conditions, agricultural prices, and they now have value for both developing and developed countries
suitability under future conditions (Biagini et al. 2014). Engaging the in achieving their NDCs, but reductions cannot be double-counted
private sector is important, as adoption of new technologies can only (i.e., towards multiple NDCs). All countries have to prepare and
be replicated with significant private sector involvement (Biagini and communicate NDCs, and many countries have included in their
Miller 2013). NDCs either economy-wide targets that include the land-use sectors,
or specific targets for the land-use sectors. The Katowice climate
7.4.4.5 International cooperation under the Paris Agreement package clarifies that all Parties have to submit ‘Biennial Transparency
Reports’ from 2024 onwards, using common reporting formats,
New cooperative mechanisms under the Paris Agreement illustrate following most recent IPCC Guidelines (use of the 2013 Supplement
the shift away from the Kyoto Protocol’s emphasis on obligations on Wetlands is encouraged), identifying key categories of emissions,
of developed country Parties to pursue investments and technology ensuring time-series consistency, and providing completeness and
transfer, to a more pragmatic, decentralised and collaborative uncertainty assessments as well as quality control (UNFCCC 2018a;
7 approach (Savaresi 2016; Jiang et al. 2017). These approaches can Schneider and La Hoz Theuer 2019). In total, the ambiguity in how
effectively include any combination of measures or instruments countries incorporate land-use sectors into their NDC is estimated

704
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

to lead to an uncertainty of more than 2  GtCO2 in 2030 (Fyson management instruments, the adoption of diverse measures to avoid,
and Jeffery 2018). Uncertainty is lower if the analysis is limited to reduce and reverse land degradation in order to achieve LDN (Cowie
countries that have provided separate land-use sector targets in their et al. 2018b; Orr et al. 2017).
NDCs (Benveniste et al. 2018).
Chapter  3  categorised policy responses into two categories;
(i) avoiding, reducing and reversing it through SLM; and (ii) providing
7.4.5 Policies responding to desertification and alternative livelihoods with economic diversification. LDN could be
degradation – Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) achieved through planned effective actions, particularly by motivated
stakeholders – those who play an essential role in a  land-based
Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) (SDG Target 15.3), evolved from climate change adaptation (Easdale 2016; Qasim et al. 2011; Cowie
the concept of Net Zero Land Degradation, which was introduced by et al. 2018a; Salvati and Carlucci 2014). Human activities impacting
the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) the sustainability of drylands is a  key consideration in adequately
to promote SLM (Kust et al. 2017; Stavi and Lal 2015; Chasek et al. reversing degradation through restoration or rehabilitation of
2015). Neutrality here implies no net loss of the land-based natural degraded land (Easdale 2016; Qasim et al. 2011; Cowie et al. 2018a;
resource and ES relative to a baseline or a reference state (UNCCD Salvati and Carlucci 2014).
2015; Kust et al. 2017; Easdale 2016; Cowie et al. 2018a; Stavi and
Lal 2015; Grainger 2015; Chasek et al. 2015). LDN can be achieved LDN actions and activities play an essential role for a  land-based
by reducing the rate of land degradation (and concomitant loss of ES) approach to climate change adaptation (UNCCD 2015). Policies
and increasing the rate of restoration and rehabilitation of degraded responding to degradation and desertification include improving
or desertified land. Therefore, the rate of global land degradation market access, gender empowerment, expanding access to rural
is not to exceed that of land restoration in order to achieve LDN advisory services, strengthening land tenure security, payments
goals (adopted as national platform for actions by more than 100 for ES, decentralised natural resource management, investing
countries) (Stavi and Lal 2015; Grainger 2015; Chasek et al. 2015; in  R&D, modern renewable energy sources and monitoring of
Cowie et al. 2018a; Montanarella 2015). Achieving LDN would desertification and desert storms, developing modern renewable
decrease the environmental footprint of agriculture, while supporting energy sources, and developing and strengthening climate services.
food security and sustaining human well-being (UNCCD 2015; Safriel Policy supporting economic diversification includes investing in
2017; Stavi and Lal 2015; Kust et al. 2017). irrigation, expanding agricultural commercialisation, and facilitating
structural transformations in rural economies (Chapter  3). Policies
Response hierarchy – avoiding, reducing and reversing land and actions also include promoting indigenous and local knowledge
degradation – is the main policy response (Chasek et al. 2019, (ILK), soil conservation, agroforestry, crop-livestock interactions
Wonder and Bodle 2019, Cowie et al. 2018, Orr et al. 2017). The LDN as an approach to manage land degradation, and forest-based
response hierarchy encourages through regulation, planning and activities such as afforestation, reforestation, and changing forest

1
Prevent adverse change in land quality through
land related regulation and planning, land zoning,
payments for ecosystems services, development
of modern renewable energy sources etc. ECURITY
AVOID OD S
FO HEA

LDN
LLBEING

Reduce or mitigate degradation on agricultural

LTHY ECOS

and forest land through SLM practices

2 (see Section 7.5.3 REDD+ and agriculture)

WE

YS
N

REDUCE
A

M EM
HU
Restore ecosystem services of degraded
land through restoration or rehabilitation
of degraded land, soil conservation, etc.

3
REVERSE

7
Figure 7.4 | LDN response hierarchy. Source: Adapted from (Liniger et al. 2019; UNCCD/Science-Policy-Interface 2016).

705
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

management (Chapter  4). Measures identified for achievement of Anguelovski et al. (2016) studied land-use interventions in eight
LDN include effective financial mechanisms (for implementation cities in the global north and south, and concluded that historic
of land restoration measures and the long-term monitoring of trends of socio-economic vulnerability can be reinforced. They also
progress), parameters for assessing land degradation, detailed plans found that vulnerability could be avoided with a  consideration of
with quantified objectives and timelines (Kust et al. 2017; Sietz et al. the distribution of adaptation benefits and prioritising beneficial
2017; Cowie et al. 2018a; Montanarella 2015; Stavi and Lal 2015). outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups when making
future adaptation plans. Concentration of adaptation resources
Implementing the international LDN target into national policies has within wealthy business districts creating ecological enclaves
been a  challenge (Cowie et al. 2018a; Grainger 2015) as baseline exacerbated climate risks elsewhere and building of climate adaptive
land degradation or desertification information is not always infrastructure such as sea walls or temporary flood barriers occurred
available (Grainger 2015) and challenges exist in monitoring LDN at the expense of underserved neighbourhoods (Anguelovski
as it is a dynamic process (Sietz et al. 2017; Grainger 2015; Cowie et al. 2016a).
et al. 2018a). Wunder and Bodle (2019) propose that LDN be
implemented and monitored through indicators at the national 7.4.6.2 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES)
level. Effective implementation of global LDN will be supported by
integrating lessons learned from existing programmes designed for There is limited evidence but high agreement that ecosystem-based
other environmental objectives and closely coordinate LDN activities adaptation (biodiversity, ecosystem services (ES), and Nature’s
with actions for climate change adaptation and mitigation at both Contribution to People (see Chapter  6)) and incentives for ES  –
global and national levels (high confidence) (Stavi and Lal 2015; including payment for ecosystem services (PES) – play a critical part
Grainger 2015). of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of
climate change on land (UNEP 2009; Bonan 2008; Millar et al. 2007;
Thompson et al. 2009).
7.4.6 Policies responding to land degradation
Ecosystem-based adaptation can promote socio-ecological resilience
7.4.6.1 Land-use zoning by enabling people to adapt to the impacts of climate change on
land and reduce their vulnerability (Ojea 2015). Ecosystem-based
Land-use zoning divides a territory (including local, sub-regional or adaptation can promote nature conservation while alleviating
national) into zones with different rules and regulations for land poverty and even provide co-benefits by removing GHGs (Scarano
use (mining, agriculture, urban development, etc.), management 2017) and protecting livelihoods (Munang et al. 2013). For example,
practices and land-cover change (Metternicht 2018). While the policy mangroves provide diverse ES such as carbon storage, fisheries,
instrument is zoning ordinances, the process of determining these non-timber forest products, erosion protection, water purification,
regulations is covered in integrated land-use planning (Section 7.6.2). shore-line stabilisation, and also regulate storm surge and flooding
Urban zoning can guide new growth in urban communities outside damages, thus enhancing resilience and reducing climate risk from
forecasted hazard areas, assist relocating existing dwellings to safer extreme events such as cyclones (Rahman et al. 2014; Donato et al.
sites and manage post-event redevelopment in ways to reduce 2011; Das and Vincent 2009; Ghosh et al. 2015; Ewel et al. 1998).
future vulnerability (Berke and Stevens 2016). Holistic integration of
climate mitigation and adaptation are interdependent and can be There has been considerable increase in the last decade of PES, or
implemented by restoring urban forests, and improving parks (Brown programmes that exchange value for land management practices
2010; Berke and Stevens 2016). Zoning ordinances can contribute intended to ensure ES (Salzman et al. 2018; Yang and Lu 2018; Barbier
to SLM through protection of natural capital by preventing or 2011). However, there is a deficiency in comprehensive and reliable
limiting vegetation clearing, avoiding degradation of planning for data concerning the impact of PES on ecosystems, human well-being,
rehabilitation of degraded land or contaminated sites, promoting their efficiency, and effectiveness (Pynegar et al. 2018; Reed et al.
conservation and enhancement of ecosystems and ecological 2014; Salzman et al. 2018; Barbier 2011; Yang and Lu 2018). While
corridors (Metternicht 2018; Jepson and Haines 2014). Zoning some studies assess ecological effectiveness and social equity, fewer
ordinances can also encourage higher density development, mixed assess economic efficiency (Yang and Lu 2018). Part of the challenge
use, local food production, encourage transportation alternatives surrounds the fact that the majority of ES are not marketed, so
(bike paths and transit-oriented development), preserve a sense of determining how changes in ecosystems structures, functions and
place, and increase housing diversity and affordability (Jepson and processes influence the quantity and quality of ES flows to people
Haines 2014). Conservation planning varies by context and may is challenging (Barbier 2011). PES include agri-environmental
include one or several adaptation approaches, including protecting targeted outcome-based payments, but challenges exist in relation
current patterns of biodiversity, large intact natural landscapes, to scientific uncertainty, pricing, timing of payments, increasing risk
and geophysical settings. Conservation planning may also maintain to land managers, World Trade Organization compliance, and barriers
and restore ecological connectivity, identify and manage areas that of land management and scale (Reed et al. 2014).
provide future climate space for species expected to be displaced by
climate change, and identify and protect climate refugia (Stevanovic PES is contested (Wang and Fu 2013; Czembrowski and Kronenberg
7 et al. 2016; Schmitz et al. 2015). 2016; Perry 2015) for four reasons: (i) understanding and resolving
trade-offs between conflicting groups of stakeholders (Wam et al.

706
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

2016; Matthies et al. 2015); (ii) knowledge and technology capacity 7.4.6.3 Standards and certification for sustainability
(Menz et al. 2013); (iii) challenges integrating PES with economic of biomass and land-use sectors
and other policy instruments (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011; Tallis
et al. 2008; Elmqvist et al. 2003; Albert et al. 2014); and (iv) top-down During the past two decades, standards and certification have
climate change mitigation initiatives which are still largely emerged as important sustainability and conservation instruments for
carbon-centric, with limited opportunities for decentralised ecological agriculture, forestry, bioenergy, land-use management and bio-based
restoration at local and regional scales (Vijge and Gupta 2014). products (Lambin et al. 2014; Englund and Berndes 2015; Milder
et al. 2015; Giessen et al. 2016a; Endres et al. 2015; Byerlee et  al.
These challenges and contestations can be resolved with the 2015; van Dam et al. 2010). Standards are normally voluntary, but
participation of people in establishing PES, thereby addressing trust can also become obligatory through legislation. A standard provides
issues, negative attitudes, and resolving trade-offs between issues specifications or guidelines to ensure that materials, products,
(such as retaining forests that consume water versus the provision processes and services are fit for purpose, whereas certification
of run-off, or balancing payments to providers versus cost to society) is the procedure through which an accredited party confirms that
(Sorice et al. 2018; Matthies et al. 2015). Similarly, a ‘co-constructive’ a product, process or service is in conformity with certain standards.
approach is used involving a  diversity of stakeholders generating Standards and certification are normally carried out by separate
policy-relevant knowledge for sustainable management of organisations for legitimacy and accountability (Section  7.6.6). The
biodiversity and ES at all relevant spatial scales, by the current International Organization for Standardization is a  key source for
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and global environmental standards. Those with special relevance for land
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) initiative (Díaz et al. 2015). Invasive and climate include a recent standard on combating land degradation
species are also best identified and managed with the participation and desertification (ISO 2017) and an earlier standard on sustainable
of people through collective decisions, coordinated programmes, bioenergy and biomass use (ISO 2015; Walter et al. 2018). Both aim
and extensive research and outreach to address their complex to support the long-term transition to a climate-resilient bioeconomy;
social-ecological impacts (Wittmann et al. 2016; Epanchin-Niell there is medium evidence on the sustainability implications of
et al. 2010). different bioeconomy pathways, but low agreement as to which
pathways are socially and environmentally desirable (Priefer et al.
Ecosystem restoration with co-benefits for diverse ES can be achieved 2017; Johnson 2017; Bennich et al. 2017a).
through passive restoration, passive restoration with protection, and
active restoration with planting (Birch et al. 2010; Cantarello et al. Table 7.3 provides a summary of selected standards and certification
2010). Taking into account the costs of restoration and co-benefits schemes with a focus on land use and climate: the tickmark shows
from bundles of ES (carbon, tourism, timber), the benefit-cost ratio inclusion of different sustainability elements, with all recognising
(BCR) of active restoration and passive restoration with protection the inherent linkages between the biophysical and social aspects of
was always less than 1, suggesting that financial incentives would be land use. Some certification schemes and best practice guidelines are
required. Passive restoration was the most cost-effective with a BCR specific to a particular agriculture crop (e.g., soya, sugarcane) or a tree
generally between 1  and 100 for forest, grassland and shrubland (e.g., oil palm) while others are general. International organisations
restoration (TEEB 2009; Cantarello et al. 2010). Passive restoration promote sustainable land and biomass use through good practice
is generally more cost-effective, but there is a danger that it could guidelines, voluntary standards and jurisdictional approaches (Scarlat
be confused with abandoned land in the absence of secure tenure and Dallemand 2011; Stattman et al. 2018a). Other frameworks, such
and a  long time period (Zahawi et al. 2014). Net social benefits as the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) focus on monitoring land
of degraded land restoration in dry regions range from about and biomass use through a set of indicators that are applied across
200–700  USD per  hectare (Cantarello et al. 2010). Investments in partner countries, thereby also promoting technology/knowledge
active restoration could benefit from analyses of past land use, the transfer (GBEP 2017). The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD)
natural resilience of the ecosystem, and the specific objectives of Initiative provides common guidelines for economic assessments of
each project (Meli et al. 2017). One successful example is the Working land degradation (Nkonya et al. 2013).
for Water Programme in South Africa that linked restoration through
removal of invasive species and enhanced water security (Milton et Whereas current standards and certification focus primarily on
al. 2003). land, climate and biomass impacts where they occur, more recent
analysis considers trade-related land-use change by tracing supply
Forest, water and energy cycle interactions and teleconnections such chain impacts from producer to consumer, leading to the notion of
as contribution to rainfall potentially (Aragão 2012; Ellison et al. ‘imported deforestation’ that occurs from increasing demand and
2017; Paul et al. 2018; Spracklen et al. 2012) provide a foundation trade in unsustainable forest and agriculture products, which is
for achieving forest-based adaptation and mitigation goals. They are, estimated to account for 26% of all tropical deforestation (Pendrill
however, poorly integrated in policy and decision-making, including et al. 2019). Research and implementation efforts aim to improve
PES (Section 2.5.4). supply chain transparency and promote commitments to ‘zero
deforestation’ (Gardner et al. 2018a; Garrett et al. 2019; Newton
et al. 2018; Godar and Gardner 2019; Godar et al. 2015, 2016).
France has developed specific policies on imported deforestation 7

707
 7
Table 7.3 | Selected standards and certification schemes and their components or coverage.

708
Environmental Socio-economic
Scheme, programme Commodity/process, Type of
Acronym GHG Carbon Land-use Land Food
or standard relation to others mechanism
Chapter 7

Biodiversity Soil Air Water

emissions stock managementa rights securityb
International Sustainability All feedstocks,
ISCC Certification
and Carbon Certification all supply chains
Sugar cane and
Bonsucro Bonsucro EU Certification
derived products
Roundtable on
RTRS Soy-based products Certification
Responsible Soy EU
Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass for biofuels
RSB Certification
Biomaterials EU and biomaterials
Various agricultural crops
Technical
SAN Sustainable Agriculture and commodities; linked
Network
to Rain Forest Alliance
Roundtable on Sustainable
RSPO RED Palm oil products Certification
Palm Oil RED
Programme for
PEFC Endorsement of Forest Forest management Certification c

Certification

FSC Forest Stewardship Council Forest management Certification

Woody biomass
Sustainable Biomass (e.g., wood pellets,
SBP Certification
Programme wood chips); linked
to PEFC and FSC
World Overview of Global network
Best Practice
WOCAT Conservation Approaches on sustainable land
Network
and Technologies management
Biomass and
ISO 13065: 2015 Bioenergy bioenergy, including Standard d

conversion processes
Land-use management,
Land Degradation
ISO 14055–1: 2017 including restoration Standard
and Desertification
of degraded land

Source: Modified from (European Commission 2012; Diaz-Chavez 2015).

indicates that the issue is addressed in the standard or scheme
a includes
restoration of degraded land in some cases (especially ISO 14055–1)
b where
specifically indicated
c reference to the RSB certification/standard
d where specifically noted
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

that are expected to eventually include a ‘zero deforestation’ label forest sector, there is evidence that certification programmes such as
(Government of France 2019). the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have reduced deforestation in
the aggregate, as well as reducing air pollution (Miteva et al. 2015;
The sustainability of biofuels and bioenergy has been in particular Mcdermott et al. 2015). Certification and standards cannot address
focus during the past decade or so due to biofuel mandates and global systemic concerns such as impacts on food prices or other
renewable energy policies in the USA, EU and elsewhere (van Dam market-wide effects, but rather are aimed primarily at insuring
et al. 2010; Scarlat and Dallemand 2011). The European Union best practices in the local context. More general approaches to
Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED) established sustainability certification such as the Gold Standard are designed to accelerate
criteria in relation to EU renewable energy targets in the transport progress toward the SDGs as well as the Paris Climate Agreement
sector (European Commission 2012), which subsequently had by certifying investment projects while also emphasising support to
impacts on land use and trade with third-party countries (Johnson et governments (Gold Standard).
al. 2012). In particular, the EU-RED marked a departure in the context
of Kyoto/UNFCCC guidelines by extending responsibility for emissions 7.4.6.4 Energy access and biomass use
beyond the borders of final use, and requiring developing countries
wishing to sell into the EU market to meet the sustainability criteria Access to modern energy services is a key component of SDG 7, with an
(Johnson 2011b). The recently revised EU-RED provides sustainability estimated 1.1 billion people lacking access to electricity, while nearly
criteria that include management of land and forestry as well as 3  billion people rely on traditional biomass (fuelwood, agriculture
socio-economic aspects (European Union 2018; Faaij 2018; Stattman residues, animal dung, charcoal) for household energy needs (IEA
et al. 2018b). Standards and certification aim to address potential 2017). Lack of access to modern energy services is significant in the
conflicts between different uses of biomass, and most schemes context of land-climate systems because heavy reliance on traditional
also consider co-benefits and synergies (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in biomass can contribute to land degradation, household air pollution
Chapter  6). Bioenergy may offer additional income and livelihoods and GHG emissions (see Cross-Chapter Box  12  in Chapter  7).
to farmers as well as improvements in technical productivity and A  variety of policy instruments and programmes have been aimed
multi-functional landscapes (Rosillo Callé and Johnson 2010a; at improving energy access and thereby reducing the heavy reliance
Kline et al. 2017; Araujo Enciso et al. 2016). Results depend on the on traditional biomass (Table 7.2); there is high evidence and high
commodities involved, and also differ between rural and urban areas. agreement that programmes and policies that reduce dependence
on traditional biomass will have benefits for health and household
Analyses on the implementation of standards and certification for productivity, as well as reducing land degradation (Section  4.5.4)
land and biomass use have focused on their stringency, effectiveness and GHG emissions (Bailis et al. 2015; Cutz et al. 2017a; Masera
and geographical scope as well as socio-economic impacts such as et al. 2015; Goldemberg et al. 2018a; Sola et al. 2016a; Rao and
land tenure, gender and land rights (Diaz-Chavez 2011; German and Pachauri 2017; Denton et al. 2014). There can be trade-offs across
Schoneveld 2012; Meyer and Priess 2014). The level of stringency and different options, especially between health and climate benefits,
enforcement varies with local environmental conditions, governance since more efficient wood stoves might have only limited effect,
approaches and the nature of the feedstock produced (Endres whereas gaseous and liquid fuels (e.g., biogas, LPG, bioethanol) will
et al. 2015; Lambin et al. 2014; Giessen et al. 2016b; Stattman et have highly positive health benefits and climate benefits that vary
al. 2018b). There is low evidence and low agreement on how the depending on specific circumstances of the substitution (Cameron
application and use of standards and certification has actually et al. 2016; Goldemberg et al. 2018b). Unlike traditional biomass,
improved sustainability beyond the local farm, factory or plantation modern bioenergy offers high-quality energy services, although, for
level; the lack of harmonisation and consistency across countries household cookstoves, even the cleanest options using wood may
that has been observed, even within a common market or economic not perform as well in terms of health and/or climate benefits (Fuso
region such as the EU, presents a  barrier to wider market impacts Nerini et al. 2017; Goldemberg et al. 2018b).
(Endres et al. 2015; Stattman et al. 2018b; ISEAL Alliance 2018). In the

Case study | Forest conservation instruments: REDD+ in the Amazon and India

More than 50 countries have developed national REDD+ strategies, which have key conditions for addressing deforestation and forest
degradation (improved monitoring capacities, understanding of drivers, increased stakeholder involvement, and providing a platform
to secure indigenous and community land rights). However, to achieve its original objectives and to be effective under current
conditions, forest-based mitigation actions need to be incorporated in national development plans and official climate strategies, and
mainstreamed across sectors and levels of government (Angelsen et al. 2018a).

The Amazon region can illustrate the complexity of the implementation of REDD+, in the most biodiverse place on the planet,
with millions of inhabitants and hundreds of ethnic groups, under the jurisdiction of eight countries. While different experiences can
be drawn at different spatial scales, at the regional-level, for example, Amazon Fund (van der Hoff et al. 2018), at the subnational level
(Furtado 2018), and at the local level (Alvarez et al. 2016; Simonet et al. 2019), there is medium evidence and high agreement that 7

709
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Case Study (continued)

REDD+ has stimulated sustainable land-use investments but is also competing with other land uses (e.g., agroindustry) and scarce
international funding (both public and private) (Bastos Lima et al. 2017b; Angelsen et al. 2018b).

In the Amazon, at the local level, a critical issue has been the incorporation of indigenous people in the planning and distribution
of benefits of REDD+ projects. While REDD+, in some cases, has enhanced participation of community members in the policy-planning
process, fund management, and carbon baseline establishment, increasing project reliability and equity (West 2016), it is clear that,
in this region, insecure and overlapping land rights, as well as unclear and contradictory institutional responsibilities, are probably
the major problems for REDD+ implementation (Loaiza et al. 2017). Despite legal and rhetoric recognition of indigenous land rights,
effective recognition is still lacking (Aguilar-Støen 2017). The key to the success of REDD+ in the Amazon, has been the application
of both incentives and disincentives on key safeguard indicators, including land security, participation, and  well-being (Duchelle
et al. 2017).

On the other hand, at the subnational level, REDD+ has been unable to shape land-use dynamics or landscape governance, in areas
suffering strong exogenous factors, such as extractive industries, and in the absence of effective regional regulation for sustainable land
use (Rodriguez-Ward et al. 2018; Bastos Lima et al. 2017b). Moreover, projects with weak financial incentives, engage households with
high off-farm income, which are already better off than the poorest families (Loaiza et al. 2015). Beyond operational issues, clashing
interpretations of results might create conflict between implementing countries or organisations and donor countries, which have
revealed concerns over the performance of projects (van der Hoff et al. 2018) REDD+ Amazonian projects often face methodological
issues, including how to assess the opportunity cost among landholders, and informing REDD+ implementation (Kweka et al. 2016).
REDD+ based projects depend on consistent environmental monitoring methodologies for measuring, reporting and verification and,
in the Amazon, land-cover estimates are crucial for environmental monitoring efforts (Chávez Michaelsen et al. 2017).

In India, forests and wildlife concerns are on the concurrent list of the Constitution since an amendment in 1976, thus giving the
central or federal government a strong role in matters related to governance of forests. High rates of deforestation due to development
projects led to the Forest (Conservation) Act (1980) which requires central government approval for diversion of forest land in any
state or union territory.

Before 2006, forest diversion for development projects leading to deforestation needed clearance from the Central Government under
the provisions of the Forest (Conservation Act) 1980. In order to regulate forest diversion, and as payment for ES, a net present value
(NPV) frame-work was introduced by the Supreme Court of India, informed by the Kanchan Chopra committee (Chopra 2017). The
Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 requires compensatory afforestation in lieu of forest diversion, and the Supreme Court established the
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) which collects funds for compensatory afforestation
and on account of NPV from project developers.

As of February 2018, 6825 million USD had accumulated in CAMPA funds in lieu of NPV paid by developers diverting forest land
throughout India for non-forest use. Funds are released by the central government to state governments for afforestation and
conservation-related activities to ‘compensate’ for diversion of forests. This is now governed by legislation called the CAMPA Act,
passed by the Parliament of India in July 2016. The CAMPA mechanism has, however, invited criticism on various counts in terms
of undervaluation of forest, inequality, lack of participation and environmental justice (Temper and Martinez-Alier 2013).

The other significant development related to forest land was the landmark legislation called the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 or Forest Rights Act (FRA) passed by the Parliament of India in 2007. This is the
largest forest tenure legal instrument in the world and attempted to undo historical injustice to forest dwellers and forest-dependent
communities whose traditional rights and access were legally denied under forest and wildlife conservation laws. The FRA recognises
the right to individual land titles on land already cleared, as well as community forest rights such as collection of forest produce.
A total of 64,328 community forest rights and a total of 17,040,343 individual land titles had been approved and granted up to the
end of 2017. Current concerns on policy and implementation gaps are about strengths and pitfalls of decentralisation, identifying
genuine right holders, verification of land rights using technology and best practices, and curbing illegal claims (Sarap et al. 2013;
Reddy et al. 2011; Aggarwal 2011; Ramnath 2008; Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry and Tribal Affairs, Government
of India 2010).

710
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Case Study (continued)

As per the FRA, the forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements. Furthermore, without the
FRA’s provision for getting the informed consent of local communities for both diversion of community forest land and for reforestation,
there would be legal and administrative hurdles in using existing forest land for implementation of India’s ambitious Green India
Mission that aims to respond to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures in the forestry sector. It aims
to increase forest/tree cover to the extent of 5 million hectares (Mha) and improve quality of forest/tree cover on another 5 Mha of
forest/non-forest lands and support forest-based livelihoods of 3 million families and generate co-benefits through ES (Government
of India 2010).

Thus, the community forest land recognised under FRA can be used for the purpose of compensatory afforestation or restoration
under REDD+ only with informed consent of the communities and a decentralised mechanism for using CAMPA funds. India’s forest
and forest restoration can potentially move away from a top-down carbon centric model with the effective participation of local
communities (Vijge and Gupta 2014; Murthy et al. 2018a).

India has also experimented with the world’s first national inter-governmental ecological fiscal transfer (EFT) from central to local and
state government to reward them for retaining forest cover. In 2014, India’s 14th Finance Commission added forest cover to the
formula that determines the amount of tax revenue the central government distributes annually to each of India’s 29 states. It is
estimated that, in four years, it would have distributed 6.9–12 billion USD per year to states in proportion to their 2013 forest cover,
amounting to around 174–303 USD per hectare of forest per year (Busch and Mukherjee 2017). State governments in India now have
a sizeable fiscal incentive based on extent of forest cover at the time of policy implementation, contributing to the achievement of
India’s climate mitigation and forest conservation goals. India’s tax revenue distribution reform has created the world’s first EFTs for
forest conservation, and a potential model for other countries. However, it is to be noted that EFT is calculated based on a one-time
estimate of forest cover prior to policy implementation, hence does not incentivise ongoing protection and this is a policy gap. It’s still
too early but its impact on trends in forest cover in the future and its ability to conserve forests without other investments and policy
instruments is promising but untested (Busch and Mukherjee 2017; Busch 2018).

In order to build on the new promising policy developments on forest rights and fiscal incentives for forest conservation in India,
incentivising ongoing protection, further investments in monitoring (Busch 2018), decentralisation (Somanathan et al. 2009) and
promoting diverse non-agricultural forest and range of land-based livelihoods (e.g., sustainable non-timber forest product extraction,
regulated pastures, carbon credits for forest regeneration on marginal agriculture land and ecotourism revenues) as part of individual
and community forest tenure and rights are ongoing concerns. Decentralised sharing of CAMPA funds between government and local
communities for forest restoration as originally suggested and filling in implementation gaps could help reconcile climate change
mitigation through forest conservation, REDD+ and environmental justice (Vijge and Gupta 2014; Temper and Martinez-Alier 2013;
Badola et al. 2013; Sun and Chaturvedi 2016; Murthy et al. 2018b; Chopra 2017; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India 2010).

7.4.7 Economic and financial instruments 7.4.7.1 Financing mechanisms for land mitigation
for adaptation, mitigation, and land and adaptation

There is an urgent need to increase the volume of climate financing There is a startling array of diverse and fragmented climate finance
and bridge the gap between global adaptation needs and available sources: more than 50 international public funds, 60 carbon markets,
funds (medium confidence) (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2018; Kissinger 6000 private equity funds, 99 multilateral and bilateral climate
et al. 2019; Chambwera and Heal 2014), especially in relation funds (Samuwai and Hills 2018). Most public finance for developing
to agriculture (FAO 2010). The land sector offers the potential to countries flows through bilateral and multilateral institutions such
balance the synergies between mitigation and adaptation (Locatelli as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, International
et al. 2016) – although context and unavailability of data sets makes Finance Corporation, regional development banks, as well as
cost comparisons between mitigation and adaptation difficult specialised multilateral institutions such as the Global Environmental
(UNFCCC 2018b). Estimates of adaptation costs range from 140 to Fund, and the EU Solidarity Fund. Some governments have established
300 billion USD by 2030, and between 280 and 500 billion USD by state investment banks (SIBs) to close the financing gap, including
2050; (UNEP 2016). These figures vary according to methodologies the UK (Green Investment Bank), Australia (Clean Energy Finance
and approaches (de Bruin et al. 2009; IPCC 2014 2014; OECD 2008; Corporation) and in Germany (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) the
Nordhaus 1999; UNFCCC 2007; Plambeck et al. 1997). Development Bank has been involved in supporting low-carbon 7

711
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

finance (Geddes et al. 2018). The Green Climate Fund (GCF) now for these different categories of risk or phases of the risk cycle
offers additional finance, but is still a new institution with policy gaps, (preparedness, relief, recovery, reconstruction).
a lengthy and cumbersome process related to approval (Brechin and
Espinoza 2017; Khan and Roberts 2013; Mathy and Blanchard 2016), In order to protect lives and livelihoods early action is critical,
and challenges with adequate and sustained funding (Schalatek and including a  coordinated plan for action agreed in advance, a fast,
Nakhooda 2013). Private adaptation finance exists, but is difficult to evidence-based decision-making process, and contingency financing
define, track, and coordinate (Nakhooda et al. 2016). to ensure that the plan can be implemented (Clarke and Dercon
2016a). Forecast-based finance mechanisms incorporate these
The amount of funding dedicated to agriculture, land degradation or principles, using climate or other indicators to trigger funding and
desertification is very small compared to total climate finance (FAO action prior to a shock (Wilkinson 2018). Forecast-based mechanisms
2010). Funding for agriculture (rather than mitigation) is accessed can be linked with social protection systems by providing contingent
through the smaller adaptation funds (Lobell et al. 2013). Focusing scaled-up finance quickly to vulnerable populations following
on synergies, between mitigation, adaptation, and increased disasters, enhancing scalability, timeliness, predictability and
productivity, such as through climate-smart agriculture (CSA) (Lipper adequacy of social protection benefits (Wilkinson 2018; Costella et
et al. 2014b) (Section 7.5.6), may leverage greater financial resources al. 2017b; World Food Programme 2018).
(Suckall et al. 2015; Locatelli et al. 2016). Payments for ecosystem
services (Section  7.4.6) are another emerging area to encourage Measures in advance of risks set aside resources before negative
environmentally desirable practices, although they need to be impacts related to adverse weather, climatic stressors, and land
carefully designed to be effective (Engel and Muller 2016). changes occur. These tools are frequently applied in extreme event,
rapid onset contexts. These measures are the main instruments for
The UNCCD established the Land Degradation Neutrality Fund reducing fatalities and limiting damage from extreme climate and
(LDN Fund) to mobilise finance and scale-up land restoration and land change events (Surminski et al. 2016). Finance tools in advance
sustainable business models on restored land to achieve the target of of risk include insurance (macro, meso, micro), green bonds, and
a land degradation neutral world (SDG target 15.3) by 2030. The LDN forecast-based finance (Hunzai et al. 2018).
Fund generates revenues from sustainable use of natural resources,
creating green job opportunities, sequestering CO2, and increasing There is high confidence that insurance approaches that are designed
food and water security (Cowie et al. 2018a; Akhtar-Schuster et al. to effectively reduce and communicate risks to the public and
2017). The fund leverages public money to raise private capital for beneficiaries, designed to reduce risk and foster appropriate adaptive
SLM and land restoration projects (Quatrini and Crossman 2018; responses, and provide value in risk transfer, improve economic
Stavi and Lal 2015). Many small-scale projects are demonstrating stability and social outcomes in both higher  – and lower-income
that sustainable landscape management (Section  7.6.3) is key to contexts (Kunreuther and Lyster 2016; Outreville 2011b; Surminski
achieving LDN, and it is also more financially viable in the long term et al. 2016; Kousky et al. 2018b), bolster food security, help keep
than the unsustainable alternative (Tóth et al. 2018; Kust et al. 2017). children in school, and help safeguard the ability of low-income
households to pay for essentials like medicines (Shiferaw et al. 2014;
7.4.7.2 Instruments to manage the financial impacts Hallegatte et al. 2017).
of climate and land change disruption
Low-income households show demand for affordable risk transfer
Comprehensive risk management (Section  7.4.3.1) designs tools, but demand is constrained by liquidity, lack of assets, financial
a  portfolio of instruments which are used across a  continuum of and insurance literacy, or proof of identity required by institutions in
preemptive, planning and assessment, and contingency measures in the formal sector (Eling et al. 2014; Cole 2015; Cole et al. 2013; Ismail
order to bolster resilience (Cummins and Weiss 2016) and address et al. 2017). Microinsurance participation takes many forms, including
limitations of any one instrument (Surminski 2016; Surminski et al. through mobile banking (Eastern Africa, Bangladesh), linked with
2016; Linnerooth-bayer et al. 2019). Instruments designed and social protection or other social stabilisation programmes (Ethiopia,
applied in isolation have shown short-term results, rather than Pakistan, India), through flood or drought protection schemes
sustained intended impacts (Vincent et al. 2018). Risk assessments (Indonesia, the Philippines, the Caribbean, and Latin America), often
limited to events and impacts on particular asset classes or sectors in the form of weather index insurance. The insurance industry faces
can misinform policy and drive misallocation of funding (Gallina et al. challenges due to low public awareness of how insurance works.
2016; Jongman et al. 2014). Other challenges include risk, low capacity in financial systems
to administer insurance, data deficits, and market imperfections
Comprehensive risk assessment combined with risk layering (Mechler et al. 2014; Feyen et al. 2011; Gallagher 2014; Kleindorfer
approaches that assign different instruments to different magnitude et al. 2012; Lazo et al.; Meyer and Priess 2014; Millo 2016).
and frequency of events, have better potential to provide stability
to societies facing disruption (Mechler et al. 2014; Surminski et al. Countries also request grant assistance, and contingency debt
2016). Governments and citizens define limits of what they consider finance that includes dedicated funds, set aside for unpredictable
acceptable risks, risks for which market or other solutions can be climate-related disasters, household savings, and loans with
7 developed and catastrophic risks that require additional public ‘catastrophe risk deferred drawdown option’ (which allows countries
protection and intervention. Different financial tools may be used to divert loans from development objectives such as health, education,

712
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

and infrastructure to make immediate disbursement of funds in the of bonds is currently largely limited to higher-income developing
event of a  disaster) (Kousky and Cooke 2012; Clarke and Dercon countries (Campillo et al. 2017; Le Quesne 2017).
2016b). Contingency finance is suited to manage frequently occurring,
low-impact events (Campillo et al. 2017; Mahul and Ghesquiere 2010; 7.4.7.3 Innovative financing approaches for transition
Roberts 2017) and may be linked with social protection systems. to low-carbon economies
These instruments are limited by uncertainty surrounding the size
of contingency fund reserves, given unpredictable climate disasters Traditional financing mechanisms have not been sufficient and
(Roberts 2017) and lack of borrowing capacity of a country (such as thereby leave a gap in facilitating a rapid transition to a low-carbon
small island states) (Mahul and Ghesquiere 2010). economy or building resilience (Geddes et al. 2018). More recently
there have been developments in more innovative mechanisms,
In part because of its link with debt burden, contingency, or including crowdfunding (Lam and Law 2016), often supported by
post-event finance can disrupt development and is not suitable national governments (in the UK through regulatory and tax support)
for higher consequence events and processes such as weather (Owen et al. 2018). Crowdfunding has no financial intermediaries and
extremes or structural changes associated with climate and land thus low transaction costs, and the projects have a greater degree of
change. Post-event finance of negative impacts such as sea level independence than bank or institution funding (Miller et al. 2018).
rise, soil salinisation, depletion of groundwater, and widespread land Other examples of innovative mechanisms are community shares for
degradation, is likely to become infeasible for multiple, high-cost local projects, such as renewable energy (Holstenkamp and Kahla
events and processes. There is high confidence that post-extreme 2016), or Corporate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) used by
event assistance may face more severe limitations, given the impacts companies such as Google and Apple to purchase renewable energy
of climate change (Linnerooth-bayer et al. 2019; Surminski et al. directly or virtually from developers (Miller et al. 2018). Investing
2016; Deryugina 2013; Dillon et al. 2014; Clarke 2016; Shreve and companies benefit from avoiding unpredictable price fluctuations as
Kelman 2014; Von Peter et al. 2012). well as increasing their environmental credentials. A second example
is auctioned price floors, or subsidies that offer a guaranteed price
In a catastrophe risk pool, multiple countries in a region pool risks in for future emission reductions, currently being trialled in developing
a  diversified portfolio. Examples include African Risk Capacity countries, by the World Bank Group, known as the Pilot Auction
(ARC), the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), Facility for Methane and Climate Change Mitigation (PAF) (Bodnar
and the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative et al. 2018). Price floors can maximise the climate impact per
(PCRAFI) (Bresch et al. 2017; Iyahen and Syroka 2018). ARC payouts public dollar while incentivising private investment in low-carbon
have been used to assist over  2.1  million food insecure people technologies, and ideally would be implemented in conjunction with
and provide more than 900,000 cattle with subsidised feed in the complementary policies such as carbon pricing.
affected countries (Iyahen and Syroka 2018). ARC has also developed
the Extreme Climate Facility, which is designed to complement In order for climate finance to be as effective and efficient as
existing bilateral, multilateral and private sources of finance to possible, cooperation between private, public and third sectors
enable proactive adaptation (Vincent et al. 2018). It provides (e.g., non-governmental organisations (NGOs), cooperatives, and
beneficiaries the opportunity to increase their benefit by reducing community groups) is more likely to create an enabling environment
exposure to risk through adaptation and risk reduction measures, for innovation (Owen et al. 2018). While innovative private sector
thus side-stepping ‘moral hazard’ problems sometimes associated approaches are making significant progress, the existence of a stable
with traditional insurance. policy environment that provides certainty and incentives for
long-term private investment is critical.
Governments pay coupon interest when purchasing catastrophe
(CAT) bonds from private or corporate investors. In the case of the
predefined catastrophe, the requirement to pay the coupon interest 7.4.8 Enabling effective policy instruments –
or repay the principal may be deferred or forgiven (Nguyen and policy portfolio coherence
Lindenmeier 2014). CAT bonds are typically short-term instruments
(three to five years) and the payout is triggered once a  particular An enabling environment for policy effectiveness includes: (i) the
threshold of disaster/damage is passed (Härdle and Cabrera 2010; development of comprehensive policies, strategies and programmes
Campillo et al. 2017; Estrin and Tan 2016; Hermann et al. 2016; (Section  7.4); (ii) human and financial resources to ensure that
Michel-Kerjan 2011; Roberts 2017). The primary advantage of CAT policies, programmes and legislation are translated into action;
bonds is their ability to quickly disburse money in the event of (iii)  decision-making that draws on evidence generated from
a catastrophe (Estrin and Tan 2016). Green bonds, social impact bonds, functional information systems that make it possible to monitor
and resilience bonds are other instruments that can be used to fund trends, track and map actions, and assess impact in a manner that is
land-based interventions. However, there are significant barriers for timely and comprehensive (Section 7.5); (iv) governance coordination
developing country governments to enter into the bond market: lack mechanisms and partnerships; and (v) a  long-term perspective in
of familiarity with the instruments; lack of capacity and resources to terms of response options, monitoring, and maintenance (FAO 2017a)
deal with complex legal arrangements; limited or non-existent data (Section 7.6).
and modelling of disaster exposure; and other political disincentives 7
linked to insurance. For these reasons, the utility and application

713
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

A comprehensive consideration of policy portfolios achieves co-management of community in water and disaster planning,
sustainable land and climate management (medium confidence) and water infrastructure programmes are effective at responding
(Mobarak and Rosenzweig 2013; Stavropoulou et al. 2017; Jeffrey to drought (Hurlbert 2018b; Hurlbert and Mussetta 2016; Hurlbert
et al. 2017; Howlett and Rayner 2013; Aalto et al. 2017; Brander and and Pittman 2014; Hurlbert and Montana 2015; Hurlbert 2015a;
Keith 2015; Williams and Abatzoglou 2016; Linnerooth-Bayer and Hurlbert and Gupta 2018). Similarly, in relation to flood, the mix of
Hochrainer-Stigler 2015; FAO 2017b; Bierbaum and Cowie 2018). policy instruments including flood zone mapping, land-use planning,
Supporting the study of enabling environments, the study of policy flood zone building restrictions, business and crop insurance,
mixes has emerged in the last decade in regards to the mix or set of disaster assistance payments, preventative instruments, such as
instruments that interact together and are aimed at achieving policy environmental farm planning (including soil and water management
objectives in a dynamic setting (Reichardt et al. 2015). This includes (Chapter  6)) and farm infrastructure projects, and recovery from
studying the ultimate objectives of a policy mix – such as biodiversity debilitating flood losses, ultimately through bankruptcy, are effective
(Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011)  – the interaction of policy at responding to flood (Hurlbert 2018a) (see Case study: Flood and
instruments within the mix (including climate change mitigation flood security in Section 7.6.3).
and energy (del Río and Cerdá 2017)) (see Trade-offs and synergies,
Section 7.5.6), and the dynamic nature of the policy mix (Kern and In respect of land conservation and management goals, consideration
Howlett 2009). of differing strengths and weakness of instruments is necessary.
While direct regulation may secure effective minimum standards
Studying policy mixes allows for a consideration of policy coherence of biodiversity conservation and critical ES provision, economic
that is broader than the study of discrete policy instruments in instruments may achieve reduced compliance costs as costs are
rigidly defined sectors, but entails studying policy in relation to the borne by policy addressees (Rogge and Reichardt 2016). In relation
links and dependencies among problems and issues (FAO 2017b). to GHG emissions and climate mitigation, a comprehensive mix of
Consideration of policy coherence is a  new approach, rejecting instruments targeted at emissions reductions, learning, and  R&D
simplistic solutions, but acknowledging inherently complex processes is effective (high confidence) (Fischer and Newell 2008). The policy
involving collective consideration of public and private actors in coherence between climate policy and public financeis critical in
relation to policy analysis (FAO 2017b). A coherent, consistent mix of ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of mitigation policy,
policy instruments can solve complex policy problems (Howlett and and ultimately to make stringent mitigation policy more feasible
Rayner 2013) as it involves lateral, integrative, and holistic thinking in (Siegmeier et al. 2018). Recycling carbon tax revenue to support
defining and solving problems (FAO 2017b). Such a consideration of clean energy technologies can decrease losses from unilateral carbon
policy coherence is required to achieve sustainable development (FAO mitigation targets, with complementary technology polices (Corradini
2017b; Bierbaum and Cowie 2018). Consideration of policy coherence et al. 2018).
potentially addresses three sets of challenges: challenges that exist
with assessing multiple hazards and sectors (Aalto et al. 2017; When evaluating a  new policy instrument, its design in relation
Brander and Keith 2015; Williams and Abatzoglou 2016); challenges to achieving an environmental goal or solving a  land and climate
in mainstreaming adaptation and risk management into ongoing change issue, includes consideration of how the new instrument
development planning and decision-making (Linnerooth-Bayer and will interact with existing instruments operating at multiple levels
Hochrainer-Stigler 2015); and challenges in scaling-up community (international, regional, national, sub-national, and local) (Ring and
and ecosystem-based initiatives in countries overly focused on sectors, Schröter-Schlaack 2011) (Section 7.4.1).
instead of sustainable use of biodiversity and ES (Reid 2016). There is
a gap in integrated consideration of adaptation, mitigation, climate
change policy and development. A study in Indonesia found that, 7.4.9 Barriers to implementing policy responses
while internal policy coherence between mitigation and adaptation is
increasing, external policy coherence between climate change policy There are barriers to implementing the policy instruments that arise
and development objectives is still required (Di Gregorio et al. 2017). in response to the risks from climate-land interactions. Such barriers
to climate action help determine the degree to which society can
There is medium evidence and high agreement that a  suite of achieve its sustainable development objectives (Dow et al. 2013;
agricultural business risk programmes (which would include crop Langholtz et al. 2014; Klein et al. 2015). However, some policies can
insurance and income stability programmes) increase farm financial also be seen as being designed specifically to overcome barriers,
performance, reduce risk, and also reinforce incentives to adopt while some cases may actually create or strengthen barriers to
stewardship practices (beneficial management practices) improving climate action (Foudi and Erdlenbruch 2012; Linnerooth-Bayer and
the environment (Jeffrey et al. 2017). Consideration of the portfolio Hochrainer-Stigler 2015). The concept of barriers to climate action
of instruments responding to climate change and its associated is used here in a  sense close to that of ‘soft limits’ to adaptation
risks, and the interaction of policy instruments, improve agricultural (Klein, et al. 2014). ‘Hard limits’ by contrast are seen as primarily
producer livelihoods (Hurlbert 2018b). In relation to hazards, or biophysical. Predicted changes in the key factors of crop growth and
climate-related extremes (Section  7.4.3), the policy mix has been productivity – temperature, water, and soil quality – are expected to
found to be a key determinant of the adaptive capacity of agricultural pose limits to adaptation in ways that affect the world population’s
7 producers. In relation to drought, the mix of policy instruments ability to get enough food in the future (Altieri et al. 2015; Altieri and
including crop insurance, SLM practices, bankruptcy and insolvency, Nicholls 2017).

714
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

This section assesses research on barriers specific to policy 7.4.9.2 Barriers to land-based climate mitigation
implementation in adaptation and mitigation respectively, then
addresses the cross-cutting issue of inequality as a barrier to climate Barriers to land-based mitigation relate to full understanding of the
action, including the particular cases of corruption and elite capture, permanence of carbon sequestration in soils or terrestrial biomass, the
before assessing how policies on climate and land can be used to additionality of this storage, its impact on production and production
overcome barriers. shifts to other regions, measurement and monitoring systems and
costs (Smith et al. 2007). Agricultural producers are more willing to
7.4.9.1 Barriers to adaptation expand mitigation measures already employed (including efficient
and effective management of fertiliser, including manure and slurry)
There are human, social, economic, and institutional barriers to and less favourable to those not employed, such as using dietary
adaptation to land-climate challenges as described in Table  7.4 additives, adopting genetically improved animals, or covering slurry
(medium evidence, high agreement). Considerable literature exists tanks and lagoons (Feliciano et al. 2014). Barriers identified in land-
around changing behaviours through response options targeting based mitigation include physical environmental constraints such as
social and cultural barriers (Rosin 2013; Eakin 2016; Marshall et al. lack of information, education, and suitability for size and location of
2012) (Chapter 6). farm. For instance, precision agriculture is not viewed as efficient in
small-scale farming (Feliciano et al. 2014).
Since the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
(IPCC 2014), research is emerging, examining the role of governance, Property rights may be a barrier when there is no clear single-
institutions and (in particular) policy instruments, in creating or party land ownership to implement and manage changes (Smith
overcoming barriers to adaptation to land and climate change in the et al. 2007). In forestry, tenure arrangements may not distribute
land-use sector (Foudi and Erdlenbruch 2012; Linnerooth-Bayer and obligations and incentives for carbon sequestration effectively
Hochrainer-Stigler 2015). Evidence shows that understanding the between public management agencies and private agents with forest
local context and targeted approaches are generally most successful licences. Including carbon in tenure and expanding the duration of
(Rauken et al. 2014). Understanding the nature of constraints to tenure may provide stronger incentive for tenure holders to manage
adaptation is critical in determining how barriers may be overcome. carbon as well as timber values (Williamson and Nelson 2017).
Formal institutions (rules, laws, policies) and informal institutions Effective policy will require answers as to the current status of
(social and cultural norms and shared understandings) can be agriculture in regard to GHG emissions, the degree that emissions
barriers and enablers of climate adaptation (Jantarasami et al. 2010). are to change, the best pathway to achieve the change, and an ability
to know when the target level of change is achieved (Smith et al.
Governments play a key role in intervening and confronting existing 2007). Forest governance may not have the structure to advance
barriers by changing legislation, adopting policy instruments, mitigation and adaptation. Currently top-down traditional modes do
providing  additional resources, and building institutions and not have the flexibility or responsiveness to deal with the complex,
knowledge exchange (Ford and Pearce 2010; Measham et al. 2011; dynamic, spatially diverse, and uncertain features of climate change
Mozumder et al. 2011; Storbjörk 2010). Understanding institutional (Timberlake and Schultz 2017; Williamson and Nelson 2017).
barriers is important in addressing barriers (high confidence).
Institutional barriers may exist due to the path-dependent nature of In respect of forest mitigation, two main institutional barriers have
institutions governing natural resources and public good, bureaucratic been found to predominate. First, forest management institutions do
structures that undermine horizontal and vertical integration not consider climate change to the degree necessary for enabling
(Section 7.6.2), and lack of policy coherence (Section 7.4.8). effective climate response, and do not link adaptation and mitigation.
Second, institutional barriers exist if institutions are not forward
looking, do not enable collaborative adaptive management, do not

Table 7.4 | Soft barriers and limits to adaptation.

Category Description References

– Cognitive and behavioural obstacles
Human Hornsey et al. 2016; Prokopy et al. 2015; Wreford et al. 2017
– Lack of knowledge and information
Social – Undermined participation in decision-making and social equity Burton et al. 2008; Laube et al. 2012
– Market failures and missing markets: transaction costs and political economy; ethical
and distributional issues Chambwera et al. 2014b; Wreford et al. 2017; Rochecouste et al.
Economic
– Perverse incentives 2015; Baumgart-Getz et al. 2012
– Lack of domestic funds; inability to access international funds
– Mal-coordination of policies and response options; unclear responsibility of actors and
leadership; misuse of power; all reducing social learning
Institutional Oberlack 2017; Sánchez et al. 2016; Greiner and Gregg 2011
– Government failures
– Path-dependent institutions
– Systems of mixed crop and livestock 7
Technological Nalau and Handmer 2015
– Polycultures

715
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

promote flexible approaches that are reversible as new information Peer-reviewed empirical studies that focus on corruption in climate
becomes available, do not promote learning and allow for diversity finance and interventions, particularly at a local level, are rare, due in
of approaches that can be tailored to different local circumstances part to the obvious difficulties of researching illegal and clandestine
(Williamson and Nelson 2017). activity (Fadairo et al. 2017). At the country level, historical levels
of corruption are shown to affect current climate polices and global
Land-based climate mitigation through expansions and enhancements cooperation (Fredriksson and Neumayer 2016). Brown (2010) sees
in agriculture, forestry and bioenergy has great potential but also three likely inlets of corruption into REDD+: in the setting of forest
poses great risks; its success will therefore require improved land- baselines, the reconciliation of project and natural credits, and the
use planning, strong governance frameworks and coherent and implementation of control of illegal logging. The transnational and
consistent policies. ‘Progressive developments in governance of north-south dimensions of corruption are highlighted by debates
land and modernisation of agriculture and livestock and effective on which US legislative instruments (e.g., the Lacey Act, the Foreign
sustainability frameworks can help realise large parts of the technical Corrupt Practices Act) could be used to prosecute the northern
bioenergy potential with low associated GHG emissions’ (Smith et al. corporations that are involved in illegal logging (Gordon 2016;
2014b, p. 97). Waite 2011).

7.4.9.3 Inequality Fadairo et al. (2017) carried out a structured survey of perceptions
of households in forest-edge communities served by REDD+, as
There is medium evidence and high agreement that one of the well as those of local officials, in south eastern Nigeria. They report
greatest challenges for land-based adaptation and SLM is posed high rates of agreement that allocation of carbon rights is opaque
by inequalities that influence vulnerability and coping and adaptive and uncertain, distribution of benefits is untimely, uncertain and
capacity – including age, gender, wealth, knowledge, access to unpredictable, and the REDD+ decision-making process is vulnerable
resources and power (Kunreuther et al. 2014; IPCC 2012; Olsson to political interference that benefits powerful individuals. Only
et al. 2014). Gender is the dimension of inequality that has been the 35% of respondents had an overall perception of transparency in
focus of most research, while research demonstrating differential REDD+ process as ‘good’. Of eight institutional processes or facilities
impacts, vulnerability and adaptive capacity based on age, ethnicity previously identified by the government of Nigeria and international
and indigeneity is less well developed (Olsson et al. 2015a). agencies as indicators of commitment to transparent and equitable
Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7 sets out both the contribution governance, only three were evident in the local REDD+ office as
of gender relations to differential vulnerability and available policy ‘very functional’ or ‘fairly functional’.
instruments for greater gender inclusivity.
At the local level, the risks of corruption and elite capture of the
One response to the vulnerability of poor people and other categories benefits of climate action are high in decentralised regimes (Persha
differentially affected is effective and reliable social safety nets and Andersson 2014). Rahman (2018) discusses elicitation of bribes
(Jones and Hiller 2017). Social protection coverage is low across (by local-level government staff) and extortion (by criminals) to
the world and informal support systems continue to be the key allow poor rural people to gather forest products. The results are a
means of protection for a majority of the rural poor and vulnerable general undermining of households’ adaptive capacity and perverse
(Stavropoulou et al. 2017) (Section 7.4.2). However, there is a gap in incentives to over-exploit forests once bribes have been paid,
knowledge in understanding both positive and negative synergies leading to over-extraction and biodiversity loss. Where there are
between formal and informal systems of social protection and how pre-existing inequalities and conflict, participation processes need
local support institutions might be used to implement more formal careful management and firm external agency to achieve genuine
forms of social protection (Stavropoulou et al. 2017). transformation and avoid elite capture (Rigon 2014). An illustration
of the range of types of elite capture is given by Sovacool (2018)
7.4.9.4 Corruption and elite capture for adaptation initiatives including coastal afforestation, combining
document review and key informant interviews in Bangladesh,
Inequalities of wealth and power can allow processes of corruption with an analytical approach from political ecology. Four processes
and elite capture (where public resources are used for the benefit of are discussed: enclosure, including land grabbing and preventing
a few individuals in detriment to the larger populations) which can the poor establishing new land rights; exclusion of the poor from
affect both adaptation and mitigation actions, at levels from the local decision-making over adaptation; encroachment on the resources
to the global that, in turn, risk creating inequitable or unjust outcomes of the poor by new adaptation infrastructure; and entrenchment of
(Sovacool 2018) (limited evidence, medium agreement). This includes community disempowerment through patronage. The article notes
risks of corruption in REDD+ processes (Sheng et al. 2016; Williams that observing these processes does not imply they are always
and Dupuy 2018) and of corruption or elite capture in broader forest present, nor that adaptation efforts should be abandoned.
governance (Sundström 2016; Persha and Andersson 2014), as well
as elite capture of benefits from planned adaptation at a local level
(Sovacool 2018).

716
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

7.4.9.5 Overcoming barriers (Biggs et al. 2017; Schultz et al. 2015; Johnson and Becker 2015).
Fostering equity and participation are correlated with the efficacy
Policy instruments that strengthen agricultural producer assets or of local adaptation to secure food and livelihood security (Laube
capital reduce vulnerability and overcome barriers to adaptation et al. 2012). In this chapter, we examine the literature surrounding
(Hurlbert 2018b, 2015b). Additional factors like formal education appropriate policy instruments, decision-making, and governance
and knowledge of traditional farming systems, secure tenure rights, practices to overcome limits and barriers to adaptation.
access to electricity and social institutions in rice-farming areas
of Bangladesh have played a positive role in reducing adaptation Incremental adaptation consists of actions where the central aim
barriers (Alam 2015). A review of more than 168 publications over is to maintain the essence and integrity of a system or process at
15 years about adaptation of water resources for irrigation in Europe a given site, whereas transformational adaptation changes the
found the highest potential for action is in improving adaptive fundamental attributes of a system in response to climate and its
capacity and responding to changes in water demands, in conjunction effects; the former is characterised as doing different things and the
with alterations in current water policy, farm extension training, and latter, doing things differently (Noble et al. 2014). Transformational
viable financial instruments (Iglesias and Garrote 2015). Research adaptation is necessary in situations where there are hard limits to
on the Great Barrier Reef, the Olifants River in Southern Africa, adaptation or it is desirable to address deficiencies in sustainability,
and fisheries in Europe, North America, and the Antarctic Ocean, adaptation, inclusive development and social equity (Kates et al.
suggests that the leading factor in harnessing the adaptive capacity 2012; Mapfumo et al. 2016). In other situations, incremental changes
of ecosystems is to reduce human stressors by enabling actors to may be sufficient (Hadarits et al. 2017).
collaborate across diverse interests, institutional settings, and sectors

Cross-Chapter Box 11 | Gender in inclusive approaches to climate change, land

and sustainable development

Margot Hurlbert (Canada), Brigitte Baptiste (Colombia), Amber Fletcher (Canada), Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre (Spain), Darshini
Mahadevia (India), Katharine Vincent (United Kingdom)

Gender is a key axis of social inequality that intersects with other systems of power and marginalisation – including race, culture,
class/socio-economic status, location, sexuality, and age – to cause unequal experiences of climate change vulnerability and adaptive
capacity. However, ‘policy frameworks and strong institutions that align development, equity objectives, and climate have the potential
to deliver “triple-wins”’ (Roy et al. 2018), including enhanced gender equality. Gender in relation to this report is introduced in Chapter
1, referred to as a leverage point in women’s participation in decisions relating to land desertification (Section 3.6.3), land degradation
(Section 4.1.6), food security (Section 5.2.5.1), and enabling land and climate response options (Section 6.1.2.2).

Focusing on ‘gender’ as a relational and contextual construct can help avoid homogenising women as a uniformly and consistently
vulnerable category (Arora-Jonsson 2011; Mersha and Van Laerhoven 2016; Ravera et al. 2016). There is high agreement that using
a framework of intersectionality to integrate gender into climate change research helps to recognise overlapping and interconnected
systems of power (Djoudi et al. 2016; Fletcher 2018; Kaijser and Kronsell 2014; Moosa and Tuana 2014; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016),
which create particular inequitable experiences of climate change vulnerability and adaptation. Through this framework, both
commonalities and differences may be found between the experiences of rural and urban women, or between women in high-income
and low-income countries, for example.

In rural areas, women generally experience greater vulnerability than men, albeit through different pathways (Djoudi et al., 2016; Goh,
2012; Jost et al., 2016; Kakota, Nyariki, Mkwambisi, & Kogi-Makau, 2011). In masculinised agricultural settings of Australia and
Canada, for example, climate adaptation can increase women’s work on- and off-farm, but without increasing recognition for
women’s undervalued contributions (Alston et al. 2018a; Fletcher and Knuttila 2016). A study in rural Ethiopia found that male-headed
households had access to a wider set of adaptation measures than female-headed households (Mersha and Van Laerhoven 2016).

Due to engrained patriarchal social structures and gendered ideologies, women may face multiple barriers to participation and
decision-making in land-based adaptation and mitigation actions in response to climate change (high confidence) (Alkire et al. 2013a;
Quisumbing et al. 2014). These barriers include: (i) disproportionate responsibility for unpaid domestic work, including care-giving
activities (Beuchelt and Badstue 2013) and provision of water and firewood (UNEP, 2016); (ii) risk of violence in both public and private
spheres, which restricts women’s mobility for capacity-building activities and productive work outside the home (Day et al., 2005;
Jost et al., 2016; UNEP, 2016); (iii) less access to credit and financing (Jost et al. 2016); (iv) lack of organisational social capital, which
may help in accessing credit (Carroll et al. 2012); (v) lack of ownership of productive assets and resources (Kristjanson et al., 2014;
7

717
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 11 (continued)

Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010), including land. Constraints to land access include not only state policies, but also customary laws (Bayisenge
2018) based on customary norms and religion that determine women’s rights (Namubiru-Mwaura 2014a).

Differential vulnerability to climate change is related to inequality in rights-based resource access, established through formal
and informal tenure systems. In only 37% of 161 developing and developed countries do men and women have equal rights to use
and control land, and in 59% customary, traditional, and religious practices discriminate against women (OECD 2014), even if the law
formally grants equal rights. Women play a significant role in agriculture, food security and rural economies globally, forming 43% of
the agricultural labour force in developing countries (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, & WHO, 2018, p. 102), ranging from 25% in Latin America
(FAO, 2017, p. 89) to nearly 50% in Eastern Asia and Central and South Europe (FAO, 2017, p. 88) and 47% in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO,
2017, pp. 88). Further, the share of women in agricultural employment has been growing in all developing regions except East Asia
and Southeast Asia (FAO, 2017, p. 88). At the same time, women constitute less than 5% of landholders (with legal rights and/or use-
rights (Doss et al. 2018a) in North Africa and West Asia, about 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa, 12% in Southern and Southeastern Asia,
18% in Latin America and Caribbean (FAO 2011b, p. 25), 10% in Bangladesh, 4% in Nigeria (FAO 2015c). Patriarchal structures and
gender roles can also affect women’s control over land in developed countries (Carter 2017; Alston et al. 2018b). Thus, longstanding
gender inequality in land rights, security of tenure, and decision-making may constrict women’s adaptation options (Smucker and
Wangui 2016).

Adaptation options related to land and climate (see Chapter 6) may produce environment and development trade-offs as well as
social conflicts (Hunsberger et al. 2017) and changes with gendered implications. Women’s strong presence in agriculture provides an
opportunity to bring gender dimensions into climate change adaptation, particularly regarding food security (Glemarec 2017; Jost et
al. 2016; Doss et al. 2018b). Some studies point to a potentially emancipatory role played by adaptation interventions and strategies,
albeit with some limitations depending on context. For example, in developing contexts, male out-migration may cause women in
socially disadvantaged groups to engage in new livelihood activities, thus challenging gendered roles (Djoudi and Brockhaus 2011;
Alston 2006). Collective action and agency of women in farming households, including widows, have led to  prevention of crop
failure, reduced workload, increased nutritional intake, increased sustainable water management, diversified and increased income
and improved strategic planning (Andersson and Gabrielsson 2012). Women’s waged labour can help stabilise income from more
land- and climate-dependent activities such as agriculture, hunting, or fishing (Alston et al., 2018; Ford and Goldhar, 2012). However,
in developed contexts like Australia, women’s participation in off-farm employment may exacerbate existing masculinisation of
agriculture (Clarke and Alston 2017).

Literature suggests that land-based mitigation measures may lead to land alienation, either through market or appropriation
(acquisition) by the government, may interfere with traditional livelihoods in rural areas, and lead to decline in women’s livelihoods
(Hunsberger et al. 2017). If land alienation is not prevented, existing inequities and social exclusions may be reinforced (medium
agreement) (Mustalahti and Rakotonarivo 2014; Chomba et al. 2016; Poudyal et al. 2016). These activities also can lead to land grabs,
which remain a focal point for research and local activism (Borras Jr. et al. 2011; White et al. 2012; Lahiff 2015). Cumulative effects
of land-based mitigation measures may put families at risk of poverty. In certain contexts, they lead to increased conflicts. In conflict
situations, women are at risk of personal violence, including sexual violence (UNEP, 2016).

Policy instruments for gender-inclusive approaches to climate change, land and sustainable development
Integrating, or mainstreaming, gender into land and climate change policy requires assessments of gender-differentiated needs
and priorities, selection of appropriate policy instruments to address barriers to women’s sustainable land management (SLM),
and selection of gender indicators for monitoring and assessment of policy (medium confidence) (Huyer et al. 2015a; Alston 2014).
Important sex-disaggregated data can be obtained at multiple levels, including the intra-household level (Seager 2014; Doss et al.
2018b), village- and plot-level information (Theriault et al. 2017a), and through national surveys (Agarwal 2018a; Doss et al. 2015a).
Gender-disaggregated data provides a basis for selecting, monitoring and reassessing policy instruments that account for gender-
differentiated land and climate change needs (medium confidence) (Rao 2017a; Arora-Jonsson 2014; Theriault et al. 2017b; Doss et al.
2018b). While macro-level data can reveal ongoing gender trends in SLM, contextual data are important for revealing intersectional
aspects, such as the difference made by family relations, socio-economic status, or cultural practices about land use and control (Rao
2017a; Arora-Jonsson 2014; Theriault et al. 2017b), as well as on security of land holding (Doss et al. 2018b). Indices such as the
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (Alkire et al. 2013b) may provide useful guidelines for quantitative data collection on
gender and SLM, while qualitative studies can reveal the nature of agency and whether policies are likely to be accepted, or not, in
the context of local structures, meanings, and social relations (Rao 2017b).
7

718
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 11 (continued)

Women’s economic empowerment, decision-making power and voice is a necessity in SLM decisions (Mello and Schmink 2017a;
Theriault et al. 2017b). Policies that address barriers include: gender considerations as qualifying criteria for funding programmes or
access to financing for initiatives; government transfers to women under the auspices of anti-poverty programmes; spending on health
and education; and subsidised credit for women (medium confidence) (Jagger and Pender 2006; Van Koppen et al. 2013a; Theriault et
al. 2017b; Agarwal 2018b). Training and extension for women to facilitate sustainable practices is also important (Mello and Schmink
2017b; Theriault et al. 2017b). Such training could be built into existing programmes or structures, such as collective microenterprise
(Mello and Schmink 2017b). Huyer et al. (2015) suggest that information provision (e.g., information about SLM) could be effectively
dispersed through women’s community-based organisations, although not in such a way that it overwhelms these organisations or
supersedes their existing missions. SLM programmes could also benefit from intentionally engaging men in gender-equality training
and efforts (Fletcher 2017), thus recognising the relationality of gender. Recognition of the household level, including men’s roles and
power relations, can help avoid the decontextualised and individualistic portrayal of women as purely instrumental actors (Rao 2017b).

Technology, policy, and programmes that exacerbate women’s workloads or reinforce gender stereotypes (MacGregor 2010; Huyer et
al. 2015b), or which fail to recognise and value the contributions women already make (Doss et al. 2018b), may further marginalise
women. Accordingly, some studies have described technological and labour interventions that can enhance sustainability while also
decreasing women’s workloads; for example, Vent et al. (2017) described the system of rice intensification as one such intervention.
REDD+ initiatives need to be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve complementary synergies with
gender dimensions.

Secure land title and/or land access and control for women increases SLM by increasing women’s conservation efforts,
increasing  their  productive and environmentally beneficial agricultural investments, such as willingness to engage in tree planting
and sustainable soil management (high confidence) as well as improving cash incomes (Higgins et al. 2018; Agarwal 2010; Namubiru-
Mwaura 2014b; Doss et al. 2015b; Van Koppen et al. 2013b; Theriault et al. 2017b; Jagger and Pender 2006). According FAO (2011b, p. 5),
if women had the same access to productive resources as men, the number of hungry people in the world could be reduced by 12–17%.
Policies promoting secure land title include legal reforms at multiple levels, including national laws on land ownership, legal education,
and legal aid for women on land ownership and access (Argawal 2018). Policies to increase women’s access to land could occur through
three main avenues of land acquisition: inheritance/family (Theriault et al. 2017b), state policy, and the market (Agarwal 2018). Rao
(2017) recommends framing land rights as entitlements rather than as instrumental means to sustainability. This reframing may address
persistent, pervasive gender inequalities (FAO 2015d).

7.5 Decision-making for climate change Even in cases where uncertainty exists, there is medium evidence and
and land high agreement in the literature that it need not present a barrier to
taking action, and there are growing methodological developments
The risks posed by climate change generate considerable uncertainty and empirical applications to support decision-making. Progress has
and complexity for decision-makers responsible for land-use decisions been made in identifying key sources of uncertainty and addressing
(robust evidence, high agreement). Decision-makers balance climate them (Farber 2015; Lawrence et al. 2018; Bloemen et al. 2018).
ambitions, encapsulated in the NDCs, with other SDGs, which will Many of these approaches involve principles of robustness, diversity,
differ considerably across different regions, sociocultural conditions flexibility, learning, or choice editing (Section 7.5.2).
and economic levels (Griggs et al. 2014). The interactions across SDGs
also factor into decision-making processes (Nilsson et al. 2016b). The Since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (Foundations for Decision
challenge is particularly acute in least developed countries where Making) chapter on Contexts for Decision-making (Jones et al. 2014)
a large share of the population is vulnerable to climate change. considerable advances have been made in decision-making under
Matching the structure of decision-making processes to local needs uncertainty, both conceptually and in economics (Section  7.5.2),
while connecting to national strategies and international regimes and in the social/qualitative research areas (Sections 7.5.3 and
is challenging (Nilsson and Persson 2012). This section explores 7.5.4). In the land sector, the degree of uncertainty varies and is
methods of decision-making to address the risks and inter-linkages particularly challenging for climate change adaptation decisions
outlined in the above sections. As a result, this section outlines (Hallegatte 2009; Wilby and Dessai 2010). Some types of agricultural
policy inter-linkages with SDGs and NDCs, trade-offs and synergies production decisions can be made in short timeframes as changes
in specific measures, possible challenges as well as opportunities are observed, and will provide benefits in the current time period
going forward. (Dittrich et al. 2017).
7

719
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.5.1 Formal and informal decision-making impacting on marginalised and vulnerable people (Mubaya and
Mafongoya 2017).
Informal decision-making facilitated by open platforms can solve
problems in land and resource management by allowing evolution Many studies underline the role of local/informal traditional
and adaptation, and incorporation of local knowledge (medium institutions in the management of natural resources in different
confidence) (Malogdos and Yujuico 2015a; Vandersypen et al. parts of the world (Yami et al. 2009; Zoogah et al. 2015; Bratton
2007). Formal centres of decision-making are those that follow fixed 2007; Mowo et al. 2013; Grzymala-Busse 2010). Traditional systems
procedures (written down in statutes or moulded in an organisation include: traditional silvopastoral management (Iran), management
backed by the legal system) and structures (Onibon et al. 1999). of rangeland resources (South Africa), natural resource management
Informal centres of decision-making are those following customary (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Bangladesh) communal grazing land
norms and habits based on conventions (Onibon et al. 1999) where management (Ethiopia) and management of conflict over natural
problems are ill-structured and complex (Waddock 2013). resources (Siddig et al. 2007; Yami et al. 2011; Valipour et al. 2014;
Bennett 2013; Mowo et al. 2013).
7.5.1.1 Formal Decision Making
Formal–informal institutional interaction could take different
Formal decision-making processes can occur at all levels, including shapes such as: complementary, accommodating, competing, and
the global, regional, national and sub-national levels (Section 7.4.1). substitutive. There are many examples when formal institutions might
Formal decision-making support tools can be used, for example, by obstruct, change, and hinder informal institutions (Rahman et al.
farmers, to answer ‘what-if’ questions as to how to respond to the 2014; Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Bennett 2013; Osei-Tutu et al. 2014).
effects of changing climate on soils, rainfall and other conditions Similarly, informal institutions can replace, undermine, and reinforce
(Wenkel et al. 2013). formal institutions (Grzymala-Busse 2010). In the absence of formal
institutions, informal institutions gain importance, requiring focus
Optimal formal decision-making is based on realistic behaviour in relation to natural resources management and rights protection
of actors, important in land–climate systems, assessed through (Estrin and Prevezer 2011; Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Kangalawe et
participatory approaches, stakeholder consultations and by al. 2014; Sauerwald and Peng 2013; Zoogah et al. 2015).
incorporating results from empirical analyses. Mathematical
simulations and games (Lamarque et al. 2013), behavioural models in Community forestry comprises 22% of forests in tropical countries in
land-based sectors (Brown et al. 2017), agent-based models and micro- contrast to large-scale industrial forestry (Hajjar et al. 2013) and is
simulations are examples useful to decision-makers (Bishop et al. managed with informal institutions, ensuring a sustainable flow of
2013). These decision-making tools are expanded on in Section 7.5.2. forest products and income, utilising traditional ecological knowledge
to determine access to resources (Singh et al. 2018). Policies that
There are different ways to incorporate local knowledge, informal create an open platform for local debates and allow actors their own
institutions and other contextual characteristics that capture non- active formulation of rules strengthen informal institutions. Case
deterministic elements, as well as social and cultural beliefs and studies in Zambia, Mali, Indonesia and Bolivia confirm that enabling
systems more generally, into formal decision-making (medium factors for advancing the local ownership of resources and crafting
evidence, medium agreement) (Section  7.6.4). Classic scientific durability of informal rules require recognition in laws, regulations
methodologies now include participatory and interdisciplinary and policies of the state (Haller et al. 2016).
methods and approaches (Jones et al. 2014). Consequently, this
broader range of approaches may capture informal and indigenous
knowledge, improving the participation of indigenous peoples in 7.5.2 Decision-making, timing, risk, and uncertainty
decision-making processes, and thereby promote their rights to
self-determination (Malogdos and Yujuico 2015b) (Cross-Chapter This section assesses decision-making literature, concluding that
Box 13 in Chapter 7). advances in methods have been made in the face of conceptual
risk literature and, together with a synthesis of empirical evidence,
7.5.1.2 Informal decision-making near-term decisions have significant impact on costs.

Informal institutions have contributed to sustainable resources 7.5.2.1 Problem structuring

management (common pool resources) through creating a suitable
environment for decision-making. The role of informal institutions Structured decision-making occurs when there is scientific knowledge
indecision-making can be particularly relevant for land-use decisions about cause and effect, little uncertainty, and agreement exists on
and practices in rural areas in the global south and north (Huisheng values and norms relating to an issue (Hurlbert and Gupta 2016).
2015). Understanding informal institutions is crucial for adapting This decision space is situated within the ‘known’ space where cause
to climate change, advancing technological adaptation measures, and effect is understood and predictable (although uncertainty is not
achieving comprehensive disaster management and advancing quite zero) (French 2015). Figure 7.5 displays the structured problem
collective decision-making (Karim and Thiel 2017). Informal area in the bottom left-hand corner corresponding with the ‘known’
7 institutions have been found to be a crucial entry point in dealing decision-making space. Decision-making surrounding quantified
with vulnerability of communities and exclusionary tendencies risk assessment and risk management (Section  7.4.3.1) occurs

720
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

within this decision-making space. Examples in the land and climate 2012)  – so-called ‘robust’ decision-making approaches. These are
area include cost-benefit analysis surrounding implementation of designed to be less sensitive to uncertainty about the future (Lempert
irrigation projects (Batie 2008) or adopting soil erosion practices by and Schlesinger 2000).
agricultural producers based on anticipated profit (Hurlbert 2018b).
Comprehensive risk management also occupies this decision space Much of the research for adaptation to climate change has focused
(Papathoma-Köhle et al. 2016), encompassing risk assessment, around three main economic approaches: real options analysis,
reduction, transfer, retention, emergency preparedness and response, portfolio analysis, and robust decision-making. Real options analysis
and disaster recovery by combining quantified proactive and reactive develops flexible strategies that can be adjusted when additional
approaches (Fra.Paleo 2015) (Section 7.4.3). climate information becomes available. It is most appropriate for
large irreversible investment decisions. Applications to climate
A moderately structured decision space is characterised as one adaptation are growing quickly, with most studies addressing
where there is either some disagreement on norms, principles, ends flood risk and sea-level rise (Gersonius et al. 2013; Woodward
and goals in defining a future state, or there is some uncertainty et al. 2014; Dan 2016), but studies in land-use decisions are also
surrounding land and climate including land use, observations of emerging, including identifying the optimal time to switch land use
land-use changes, early warning and decision support systems, in a  changing climate (Sanderson et al. 2016) and water storage
model structures, parameterisations, inputs, or from unknown (Sturm et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2017). Portfolio analysis aims to reduce
futures informing integrated assessment models and scenarios risk by diversification, by planting multiple species rather than only
(see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2 and Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1). one, for example, in forestry (Knoke et al. 2017) or crops (Ben-Ari
Environmental decision-making often takes place in this space where and Makowski 2016), or in multiple locations. There may be a trade-
there is limited information and ability to process it, and individual off between robustness to variability and optimality (Yousefpour
stakeholders make different decisions on the best future course of and Hanewinkel 2016; Ben-Ari and Makowski 2016); but this
action (medium confidence) (Waas et al. 2014; Hurlbert and Gupta type of analysis can help identify and quantify trade-offs. Robust
2016, 2015; Hurlbert 2018b). Figure 7.5 displays the moderately decision-making identifies how different strategies perform under
structured problem space characterised by disagreement surrounding many climate outcomes, also potentially trading off optimality for
norms on the top left-hand side. This corresponds with the complex resilience (Lempert 2013).
decision-making space, the realm of social sciences and qualitative
knowledge, where cause and effect is difficult to relate with any Multi-criteria decision-making continues to be an important
confidence (French 2013). tool in the land-use sector, with the capacity to simultaneously
consider multiple goals across different domains (e.g., economic,
The moderately structured decision space characterised by environmental, social) (Bausch et al. 2014; Alrø et al. 2016), and
uncertainty surrounding land and climate on the bottom right-hand so is useful as a mitigation as well as an adaptation tool. Lifecycle
side of Figure  7.5 corresponds to the knowable decision-making assessment can also be used to evaluate emissions across a system –
space, where the realm of scientific inquiry investigates cause and for example, in livestock production (McClelland et al. 2018) – and
effects. Here there is sufficient understanding to build models, but to identify areas to prioritise for reductions. Bottom-up marginal
not enough understanding to define all parameters (French 2015). abatement cost curves calculate the most cost effective cumulative
potential for mitigation across different options (Eory et al. 2018).
The top right-hand corner of Figure 7.5 corresponds to the
‘unstructured’ problem or chaotic space where patterns and In the climate adaptation literature, these tools may be used
relationships are difficult to discern and unknown unknowns reside in adaptive management (Section  7.5.4), using a monitoring,
(French 2013). It is in the complex but knowable space, the structured research, evaluation and learning process (cycle) to improve future
and moderately structured space, that decision-making under management strategies (Tompkins and Adger 2004). More recently
uncertainty occurs. these techniques have been advanced with iterative risk management
(IPCC 2014a) (Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.7), adaptation pathways
7.5.2.2 Decision-making tools (Downing 2012), and dynamic adaptation pathways (Haasnoot et
al. 2013) (Section 7.6.3). Decision-making tools can be selected and
Decisions can be made despite uncertainty (medium confidence), adapted to fit the specific land and climate problem and decision-
and a wide range of possible approaches are emerging to support making space. For instance, dynamic adaptation pathways processes
decision-making under uncertainty (Jones et al. 2014), applied both (Haasnoot et al. 2013; Wise et al. 2014) identify and sequence
to adaptation and mitigation decisions. potential actions based on alternative potential futures and are
situated within the complex, unstructured space (see Figure  7.5).
Traditional approaches for economic appraisal, including cost- Decisions are made based on trigger points, linked to indicators and
benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis referred to in scenarios, or changing performance over time (Kwakkel et al. 2016).
Section 7.5.2.1 do not handle or address uncertainty well (Hallegatte A key characteristic of these pathways is that, rather than making
2009; Farber 2015) and favour decisions with short-term benefits irreversible decisions now, decisions evolve over time, accounting
(see Cross-Chapter Box 10 in this chapter). Alternative economic for learning (Section 7.6.4), knowledge, and values. In New Zealand,
decision-making approaches aim to better incorporate uncertainty combining dynamic adaptive pathways and a form of real options 7
while delivering adaptation goals, by selecting projects that meet analysis with multiple-criteria decision analysis has enabled risk that
their purpose across a variety of plausible futures (Hallegatte et al. changes over time to be included in the assessment of adaptation

721
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

options through a participatory learning process (Lawrence Consumers can be ‘nudged’ to consume less meat (Rozin et al. 2011)
et al. 2019). or to waste less food (Kallbekken and Sælen 2013).

Scenario analysis is also situated within the complex, unstructured Programmes supporting and facilitating desired practices can have
space (although, unlike adaptation pathways, it does not allow success at changing behaviour, particularly if they are co-designed
for changes in pathway over time) and is important for identifying by the end-users (farmers, foresters, land users) (medium evidence,
technology and policy instruments to ensure spatial-temporal high agreement). Programmes that focus on demonstration or trials
coherence of land-use allocation simulations with scenario storylines of different adaptation and mitigation measures, and facilitate
(Brown and Castellazzi 2014) and identifying technology and policy interaction between farmers and industry specialists are perceived as
instruments for mitigation of land degradation (Fleskens et al. 2014). being successful (Wreford et al. 2017; Hurlbert 2015b) but systematic
evaluations of their success at changing behaviour are limited (Knook
While economics is usually based on the idea of a self-interested, et al. 2018).
rational agent, more recently insights from psychology are being
used to understand and explain human behaviour in the field of Different approaches to decision-making are appropriate in different
behavioural economics (Shogren and Taylor 2008; Kesternich et al. contexts. Dittrich et al. (2017) provide a guide to the appropriate
2017), illustrating how a range of cognitive factors and biases can application in different contexts for adaptation in the livestock
affect choices (Valatin et al. 2016). These insights can be critical sector in developed countries. While considerable advances have
in supporting decision-making that will lead to more desirable been made in theoretical approaches, a number of challenges arise
outcomes relating to land and climate change. One example of this when applying these in practice, and partly relate to the necessity
is ‘policy nudges’ (Thaler and Sunstein 2008) which can ‘shift choices of assigning probabilities to climate projects, and the complexity of
in socially desirable directions’ (Valatin et al. 2016). Tools can include the approaches being a prohibitive factor beyond academic exercises.
framing tools, binding pre-commitments, default settings, channel Formalised expert judgement can improve how uncertainty is
factors, or broad choice bracketing (Wilson et al. 2016). Although characterised (Kunreuther et al. 2014) and these methods have been
relatively few empirical examples exist in the land sector, there is improved utilising Bayesian belief networks to synthesise expert
evidence that nudges could be applied successfully, for example, judgements and include fault trees and reliability block diagrams to
in woodland creation (Valatin et al. 2016) and agri-environmental overcome standard reliability techniques (Sigurdsson et al. 2001) as
schemes (Kuhfuss et al. 2016) (medium certainty, low evidence). well as mechanisms incorporating transparency (Ashcroft et al. 2016).

Categorisation of climate change decision tools against the decision-making process

Disagreement
on science
and/or values

– Complex Info-gap analysis – Chaotic

– Relationships difficult – Relationships
to determine not discernible
– Moderately structured Scenario analysis Decision-scaling
problems
Dynamic adaptation
pathways
– Knowable
Multi-criteria analysis
Structured Expert – Relationships can be Robust
Judgement and determined with decision-
Cost effectiveness analysis
Delphi Method sufficient data making
– Moderately structured
Cost–benefit analysis
problem

– Known Economic iterative Portfolio analysis

– Relationships risk assessment
understood
Real options analysis
– Structured problems

Agreement on science Uncertainty

and/or values

7
Figure 7.5 | Structural and uncertain decision making.

722
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

It may also be beneficial to combine decision-making approaches medium agreement). SLM decision-making is improved (medium
with the precautionary principle, or the idea that lack of scientific evidence and high agreement) with ecological service mapping with
certainty is not to postpone action when faced with serious threats three characteristics: robustness (robust modelling, measurement,
or irreversible damage to the environment (Farber 2015). The and stakeholder-based methods for quantification of ES supply,
precautionary principle requires cost-effective measures to address demand and/or flow, as well as measures of uncertainty and
serious but uncertain risks (Farber 2015). It supports a rights-based heterogeneity across spatial and temporal scales and resolution);
policy instrument choice as consideration is whether actions or transparency (to contribute to clear information-sharing and the
inactions harm others moving beyond traditional risk-management creation of linkages with decision support processes); and relevancy
policy considerations that surround net benefits (Etkin et al. 2012). to stakeholders (people-centric in which stakeholders are engaged
Farber, (2015) concludes that the principle has been successfully at different stages) (Willemen et al. 2015; Ashcroft et al. 2016).
applied in relation to endangered species and situations where Practices that advance SLM include remediation practices, as well as
climate change is a serious enough problem to justify some response. critical interventions that are reshaping norms and standards, joint
There is medium confidence that combining the precautionary implementation, experimentation, and integration of rural actors’
principle with integrated assessment models, risk management, and agency in analysis and approaches in decision-making (Hou and
cost-benefit analysis in an integrated, holistic manner, would be Al-Tabbaa 2014). Best practices are identified in the literature after
a good combination of decision-making tools supporting sustainable their implementation demonstrates effectiveness at improving water
development (Farber 2015; Etkin et al. 2012). quality, the environment, or reducing pollution (Rudolph et al. 2015;
Lam et al. 2011).
7.5.2.3 Cost and timing of action
There is medium evidence and medium agreement about what factors
The Cross-Chapter Box 10 on Economic dimensions of climate consistently determine the adoption of agricultural best management
change and land deals with the costs and timing of action. In terms practices (Herendeen and Glazier 2009) and these positively
of policies, not only is timing important, but the type of intervention correlate to education levels, income, farm size, capital, diversity,
itself can influence returns (high evidence, high agreement). Policy access to information, and social networks. Attending workshops
packages that make people more resilient – expanding financial for information and trust in crop consultants are also important
inclusion, disaster risk and health insurance, social protection and factors in adoption of best management practices (Ulrich-Schad et al.
adaptive safety nets, contingent finance and reserve funds, and 2017; Baumgart-Getz et al. 2012). More research is needed on the
universal access to early warning systems (Sections 7.4.1 and 7.6.3) – sustained adoption of these factors over time (Prokopy et al. 2008).
could save 100 billion USD a year, if implemented globally (Hallegatte
et al. 2017). In Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, every 1 USD spent on There is medium evidence and high agreement that SLM practices and
safety-net/resilience programming results in net benefits of between incentives require mainstreaming into relevant policy; appropriate
2.3 and 3.3  USD (Venton 2018). Investing in resilience-building market-based approaches, including payment for ES and public-
activities, which increase household income by 365 to 450 USD per private partnerships, need better integration into payment schemes
year in these countries, is more cost effective than providing ongoing (Tengberg et al. 2016). There is medium evidence and high agreement
humanitarian assistance. that many of the best SLM decisions are made with the participation
of stakeholders and social learning (Section  7.6.4) (Stringer and
There is a need to further examine returns on investment for land- Dougill 2013). As stakeholders may not be in agreement, either
based adaptation measures, both in the short and long term. Other practices of mediating agreement, or modelling that depicts and
outstanding questions include identifying specific triggers for early mediates the effects of stakeholder perceptions in decision-making
response. Food insecurity, for example, can occur due to a mixture of may be applicable (Hou 2016; Wiggering and Steinhardt 2015).
market and environmental factors (changes in food prices, animal or
crop prices, rainfall patterns) (Venton 2018). The efficacy of different
triggers, intervention times and modes of funding are currently being 7.5.4 Adaptive management
evaluated (see, for example, forecast-based finance study; Alverson
and Zommers 2018). To reduce losses and maximise returns on Adaptive management is an evolving approach to natural resource
investment, this information can be used to develop: 1) coordinated, management founded on decision-making approaches in other
agreed plans for action; 2) a clear, evidence-based decision-making fields (such as business, experimental science, and industrial
process, and; 3) financing models to ensure that the plans for early ecology) (Allen et al. 2011; Williams 2011) and decision-making that
action can be implemented (Clarke and Dercon 2016a). overcomes management paralysis and mediates multiple stakeholder
interests through use of simple steps. Adaptive governance considers
a broader socio-ecological system that includes the social context
7.5.3 Best practices of decision-making toward that facilitates adaptive management (Chaffin et al. 2014). Adaptive
sustainable land management (SLM) management steps include evaluating a problem and integrating
planning, analysis and management into a transparent process to
Sustainable land management (SLM) is a strategy and also an build a road map focused on achieving fundamental objectives.
outcome (Waas et al. 2014) and decision-making practices are Requirements of success are clearly articulated objectives, the 7
fundamental in achieving it as an outcome (medium evidence, explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty, and a transparent response

723
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

to all stakeholder interests in the decision-making process (Allen There is medium evidence and high agreement that adaptive
et al. 2011). Adaptive management builds on this foundation by management can help reduce anthropogenic impacts of changes
incorporating a formal iterative process, acknowledging uncertainty of land and climate, including: species decline and habitat loss
and achieving management objectives through a structured feedback (participative identification, monitoring, and review of species at risk as
process that includes stakeholder participation (Foxon et al. 2009) well as decision-making surrounding protective measures) (Fontaine
(Section  7.6.4). In the adaptive management process, the problem 2011; Smith 2011) including quantity and timing of harvest of animals
and desired goals are identified, evaluation criteria formulated, the (Johnson 2011a), human participation in natural resource-based
system boundaries and context are ascertained, trade-offs evaluated, recreational activities, including selection fish harvest quotas and
decisions are made regarding responses and policy instruments, fishing seasons from year to year (Martin and Pope 2011), managing
which are implemented, and monitored, evaluated and adjusted competing interests of land-use planners and conservationists in
(Allen et al. 2011). The implementation of policy strategies and public lands (Moore et al. 2011), managing endangered species and
monitoring of results occurs in a continuous management cycle of minimising fire risk through land-cover management (Breininger
monitoring, assessment and revision (Hurlbert 2015b; Newig et al. et al. 2014), land-use change in hardwood forestry through mediation
2010; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007), as illustrated in Figure 7.6. of hardwood plantation forestry companies and other stakeholders,
including those interested in water, environment or farming (Leys
A key focus on adaptive management is the identification and and Vanclay 2011), and SLM protecting biodiversity, increasing
reduction of uncertainty (as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2 and carbon storage, and improving livelihoods (Cowie et al. 2011). There
Cross-Chapter Box 1 on Scenarios) and partial controllability, whereby is medium evidence and medium agreement that, despite abundant
policies used to implement an action are only indirectly responsible literature and theoretical explanation, there has remained imperfect
(for example, setting a harvest rate) (Williams 2011). There is medium realisation of adaptive management because of several challenges:
evidence and high agreement that adaptive management is an ideal lack of clarity in definition and approach, few success stories on
method to resolve uncertainty when uncertainty and controllability which to build an experiential base practitioner knowledge of
(resources will respond to management) are both high (Allen et al. adaptive management, paradigms surrounding management, policy
2011). Where uncertainty is high, but controllability is low, developing and funding that favour reactive approaches instead of the proactive
and analysing scenarios may be more appropriate (Allen et al. 2011). adaptive management approach, shifting objectives that do not
Anticipatory governance has developed combining scenarios and allow for the application of the approach, and failure to acknowledge
forecasting in order to creatively design strategy to address ‘complex, social uncertainty (Allen et al. 2011). Adaptive management includes
fuzzy and wicked challenges’ (Ramos 2014; Quay 2010) (Section 7.5). participation (Section  7.6.4), the use of indicators (Section  7.5.5),
Even where there is low controllability, such as in the case of climate in order to avoid maladaptation and trade-offs while maximising
change, adaptive management can help mitigate impacts, including synergies (Section 7.5.6).
changes in water availability and shifting distributions of plants and
animals (Allen et al. 2011).
Adaptive Risk Governance

Evaluate Risk analysis

and adjust and assessment

Community
Identify
Implement engaged Strategic
threats
and monitor problem planning
and risk
definition Comprehensive
Adaptive management
risk management
of land and climate risk
and disaster risk response

Response,
Select Evaluate
Manage recover,
policy outcomes
knowledge reconstruct,
instrument and tradeoffs
rehabilitee

7
Figure 7.6 | Adaptive governance, management and comprehensive iterative risk management. Source: Adapted from Ammann 2013; Allen et al. 2011.

724
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

7.5.5 Performance indicators 7.5.6 Maximising synergies and minimising trade-offs

Measuring performance is important in adaptive management Synergies and trade-offs to address land and climate-related measures
decision-making, policy instrument implementation and governance, are identified and discussed in Chapter  6. Here we outline policies
and can help evaluate policy effectiveness (medium evidence, high supporting Chapter 6 response options (see Table 7.5), and discuss
agreement) (Wheaton and Kulshreshtha 2017; Bennett and Dearden synergies and trade-offs in policy choices and interactions among
2014; Oliveira Júnior et al. 2016; Kaufmann 2009). Indicators policies. Trade-offs will exist between broad policy approaches.
can relate to specific policy problems (climate mitigation, land For example, while legislative and regulatory approaches may
degradation), sectors (agriculture, transportation, etc.), and policy be effective at achieving environmental goals, they may be costly
goals (SDGs, food security). and ideologically unattractive in some countries. Market-driven
approaches such as carbon pricing are cost-effective ways to reduce
It is necessary to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency emissions, but may not be favoured politically and economically
of performing climate actions to ensure the long-term success of (Section  7.4.4). Information provision involves little political risk
climate initiatives or plans. Measurable indicators are useful for or ideological constraints, but behavioural barriers may limit
climate policy development and decision-making processes since their effectiveness (Henstra 2016). This level of trade-off is often
they can provide quantifiable information regarding the progress determined by the prevailing political system.
of climate actions. The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015) focused on
reporting the progress of implementing countries’ pledges  – that Synergies and trade-offs also result from interaction between policies
is, NDCs and national adaptation needs in order to examine the (policy interplay; Urwin and Jordan 2008) at different levels of policy
aggregated results of mitigation actions that have already been (vertical) and across different policies (horizontal) (Section  7.4.8).
implemented. For the case of measuring progress toward achieving If policy mixes are designed appropriately, acknowledging and
LDN, it was suggested to use land-based indicators – that is, trends incorporating trade-offs and synergies, they are better placed to
in land cover and land productivity or functioning of the land, and deliver an outcome such as transitioning to sustainability (Howlett
trends in carbon stock above and below ground (Cowie et al. 2018a). and Rayner 2013; Huttunen et al. 2014) (medium evidence and
There is medium evidence and high agreement that indicators for medium agreement). However, there is limited evidence and medium
measuring biodiversity and ES in response to governance at local agreement that evaluating policies for coherence in responding to
to international scales meet the criteria of parsimony and scale climate change and its impacts is not occurring, and policies are
specificity, are linked to some broad social, scientific and political instead reviewed in a fragmented manner (Hurlbert and Gupta 2016).
consensus on desirable states of ecosystems and biodiversity, and
include normative aspects such as environmental justice or socially
just conservation (Layke 2009; Van Oudenhoven et al. 2012; Turnhout
et al. 2014; Häyhä and Franzese 2014; Guerry et al. 2015; Díaz
et al. 2015).

Important in making choices of metrics and indicators is

understanding that the science, linkages and dynamics in systems
are complex, not amenable to be addressed by simple economic
instruments, and are often unrelated to short-term management
or governance scales (Naeem et al. 2015; Muradian and Rival
2012). Thus, ideally, stakeholders participate in the selection and
use of indicators for biodiversity and ES and monitoring impacts of
governance and management regimes on land–climate interfaces.
The adoption of non-economic approaches that are part of the
emerging concept of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) could
potentially elicit support for conservation from diverse sections of
civil society (Pascual et al. 2017).

Recent studies increasingly incorporate the role of stakeholders

and decision-makers in the selection of indicators for land systems
(Verburg et al. 2015) including sustainable agriculture (Kanter et al.
2016), bioenergy sustainability (Dale et al. 2015), desertification
(Liniger et al. 2019), and vulnerability (Debortoli et al. 2018).
Kanter et al. (2016) propose a four-step ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach
for agriculture trade-off analysis, which involves co-evaluation of
indicators and trade-offs with both stakeholders and decision-makers.
7

725
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Table 7.5 | Selection of policies/programmes/instruments that support response options.

Category Integrated response option Policy instrument supporting response option

Investment in agricultural research for crop and livestock improvement, agricultural technology transfer,
Increased food productivity
inland capture fisheries and aquaculture {7.4.7} agricultural policy reform and trade liberalisation
Improved cropland, grazing, Environmental farm programmes/agri-environment schemes, water-efficiency requirements and water
and livestock management transfer {3.7.5}, extension services
Land management Agroforestry Payment for ecosystem services (ES) {7.4.6}
in agriculture
Elimination of agriculture subsidies {5.7.1}, environmental farm programmes, agri-environmental
Agricultural diversification
payments {7.4.6}, rural development programmes
Reduced grassland conversion to cropland Elimination of agriculture subsidies, remove insurance incentives, ecological restoration {7.4.6}
Integrated water management Integrated governance {7.6.2}, multi-level instruments {7.4.1}

Forest management, reduced deforestation REDD+, forest conservation regulations, payments for ES, recognition of forest rights and land tenure
Land management
and degradation, reforestation and forest {7.4.6}, adaptive management of forests {7.5.4}, land-use moratoriums, reforestation programmes and
in forests
restoration, afforestation investment {4.9.1}

Increased soil organic carbon content, Land degradation neutrality (LDN) {7.4.5}, drought plans, flood plans, flood zone mapping {7.4.3},
Land management reduced soil erosion, reduced soil salinisation, technology transfer (7.4.4}, land-use zoning {7.4.6}, ecological service mapping and stakeholder-based
of soils reduced soil compaction, biochar addition quantification {7.5.3}, environmental farm programmes/agri-environment schemes, water-efficiency
to soil requirements and water transfer {3.7.5}
Fire management Fire suppression, prescribed fire management, mechanical treatments {7.4.3}
Reduced landslides and natural hazards Land-use zoning {7.4.6}
Reduced pollution – acidification Environmental regulations, climate mitigation (carbon pricing) {7.4.4}
Management of invasive species/
Land management Invasive species regulations, trade regulations {5.7.2, 7.4.6}
encroachment
in all other
ecosystems Restoration and reduced conversion
Flood zone mapping {7.4.3}, land-use zoning {7.4.6}
of coastal wetlands
Restoration and reduced conversion
Payment for ES {7.4.6; 7.5.3}, standards and certification programmes {7.4.6}, land-use moratoriums
of peatlands
Biodiversity conservation Conservation regulations, protected areas policies

Carbon dioxide Enhanced weathering of minerals No data

removal (CDR) Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture
land management Standards and certification for sustainability of biomass and land use {7.4.6}
and storage (BECCS)
Awareness campaigns/education, changing food choices through nudges, synergies with health
Dietary change
insurance and policy {5.7.2}
Demand
management Reduced post-harvest losses
Agricultural business risk programmes {7.4.8}; regulations to reduce and taxes on food waste, improved
Reduced food waste (consumer or retailer),
shelf life, circularising the economy to produce substitute goods, carbon pricing, sugar/fat taxes {5.7.2}
material substitution
Food labelling, innovation to switch to food with lower environmental footprint, public procurement
Sustainable sourcing
policies {5.7.2}, standards and certification programmes {7.4.6}
Liberalised international trade {5.7.2}, food purchasing and storage policies of governments, standards
Management of supply chains
Supply and certification programmes {7.4.6}, regulations on speculation in food systems
management Buy local policies; land-use zoning to encourage urban agriculture, nature-based solutions and green
Enhanced urban food systems
infrastructure in cities; incentives for technologies like vertical farming
Improved food processing and retailing,
Agriculture emission trading {7.4.4}; investment in R&D for new technologies; certification
improved energy use in food systems
Management of urban sprawl Land-use zoning {7.4.6}
Livelihood diversification Climate-smart agriculture policies, adaptation policies, extension services {7.5.6}
Risk management Disaster risk management Disaster risk reduction {7.5.4; 7.4.3}, adaptation planning
Insurance, iterative risk management, CAT bonds, risk layering, contingency funds {7.4.3}, agriculture
Risk-sharing instruments
business risk portfolios {7.4.8}

726
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 9 | Climate and land pathways This is a duplicate of Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 6.

Katherine Calvin (The United States of America), Edouard Davin (France/Switzerland), Margot Hurlbert (Canada), Jagdish Krishnaswamy
(India), Alexander Popp (Germany), Prajal Pradhan (Nepal/Germany)

Future development of socio-economic factors and policies influence the evolution of the land–climate system, among others, in terms
of the land used for agriculture and forestry. Climate mitigation policies can also have a major impact on land use, especially in
scenarios consistent with the climate targets of the Paris Agreement. This includes the use of bio-energy or CDR, such as bioenergy with
carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation. Land-based mitigation options have implications for GHG fluxes, desertification,
land degradation, food insecurity, ecosystem services and other aspects of sustainable development.

Shared Socio-economic Pathways

The five pathways are based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al. 2014; Popp et al. 2017; Riahi et al. 2017;
Rogelj et al. 2018b) (Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1). SSP1 is a scenario with a broad focus on sustainability, including human
development, technological development, nature conservation, globalised economy, economic convergence and early international
cooperation (including moderate levels of trade). The scenario includes a peak and decline in population, relatively high agricultural
yields and a move towards food produced in low-GHG emission systems (Van Vuuren et al. 2017b). Dietary change and reductions
in food waste reduce agricultural demands, and effective land-use regulation enables reforestation and/or afforestation. SSP2 is
a scenario in which production and consumption patterns, as well as technological development, follows historical patterns (Fricko
et al. 2017). Land-based CDR is achieved through bioenergy and BECCS and, to a lesser degree, by afforestation and reforestation.
SSP3 is a scenario with slow rates of technological change and limited land-use regulation. Agricultural demands are high due to
material-intensive consumption and production, and barriers to trade lead to reduced flows for agricultural goods. In SSP3, forest
mitigation activities and abatement of agricultural GHG emissions are limited due to major implementation barriers such as low
institutional capacities in developing countries and delays as a consequence of low international cooperation (Fujimori et  al. 2017).
Emissions reductions are achieved primarily through the energy sector, including the use of bioenergy and BECCS.

Policies in the Pathways

SSPs are complemented by a set of shared policy assumptions (Kriegler et al. 2014), indicating the types of policies that may be
implemented in each future world. Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) represent the effect of these policies on the economy, energy
system, land use and climate with the caveat that they are assumed to be effective or, in some cases, the policy goals (e.g., dietary
change) are imposed rather than explicitly modelled. In the real world, there are various barriers that can make policy implementation
more difficult (Section 7.4.9). These barriers will be generally higher in SSP3 than SSP1.

SSP1: A number of policies could support SSP1 in future, including: effective carbon pricing, emission trading schemes (including net CO2
emissions from agriculture), carbon taxes, regulations limiting GHG emissions and air pollution, forest conservation (mix of land sharing
and land sparing) through participation, incentives for ecosystem services and secure tenure, and protecting the environment,
microfinance, crop and livelihood insurance, agriculture extension services, agricultural production subsidies, low export tax and
import tariff rates on agricultural goods, dietary awareness campaigns, taxes on and regulations to reduce food waste, improved
shelf life, sugar/fat taxes, and instruments supporting sustainable land management, including payment for ecosystem services,
land-use zoning, REDD+, standards and certification for sustainable biomass production practices, legal reforms on land ownership
and access, legal aid, legal education, including reframing these policies as entitlements for women and small agricultural producers
(rather than sustainability) (Van Vuuren et al. 2017b; O’Neill et al. 2017) (Section 7.4).

SSP2: The same policies that support SSP1 could support SSP2 but may be less effective and only moderately successful. Policies
may be challenged by adaptation limits (Section 7.4.9), inconsistency in formal and informal institutions in decision-making
(Section 7.5.1) or result in maladaptation (Section 7.4.7). Moderately successful sustainable land management policies result in some
land competition. Land degradation neutrality is moderately successful. Successful policies include those supporting bioenergy and BECCS
(Rao et al. 2017b; Fricko et al. 2017; Riahi et al. 2017) (Section 7.4.6).

SSP3: Policies that exist in SSP1 may or may not exist in SSP3, and are ineffective (O’Neill et  al. 2014). There are challenges to
implementing these policies, as in SSP2. In addition, ineffective sustainable land management policies result in competition for
land between agriculture and mitigation. Land degradation neutrality is not achieved (Riahi et al. 2017). Successful policies include
those supporting bioenergy and BECCS (Kriegler et  al. 2017; Fujimori et  al. 2017; Rao et  al. 2017b) (Section 7.4.6). Demand-side
food policies are absent and supply-side policies predominate. There is no success in advancing land ownership and access policies
for agricultural producer livelihood (Section 7.6.5). 7

727
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 9 (continued)

Land-use and land-cover change

In SSP1, sustainability in land management, agricultural intensification, production and consumption patterns result in reduced need
for agricultural land, despite increases in per capita food consumption. This land can instead be used for reforestation, afforestation
and bioenergy. In contrast, SSP3 has high population and strongly declining rates of crop yield growth over time, resulting in increased
agricultural land area. SSP2 falls somewhere in between, with societal as well as technological development following historical
patterns. Increased demand for land mitigation options such as bioenergy, reduced deforestation or afforestation decreases availability
of agricultural land for food, feed and fibre. In the climate policy scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement, bioenergy/BECCS and
reforestation/afforestation play an important role in SSP1 and SSP2. The use of these options, and the impact on land, is larger in scenarios
that limit radiative forcing in 2100 to 1.9 W m–2 than in the 4.5 W m–2 scenarios. In SSP3, the expansion of land for agricultural
production implies that the use of land-related mitigation options is very limited, and the scenario is characterised by continued deforestation.

Change in Agriculture Land from 2010 Change in Bioenergy Cropland from 2010 Change in Forest from 2010
(Mkm2) (Mkm2) (Mkm2)
SSP SSP SSP
10 SSP1 10 SSP1 10 SSP1
SSP2 SSP2 SSP2
2
1.9 Wm

0 0 0

10 10 10

2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100

Year Year Year
SSP SSP
10 10 SSP1 10 SSP1
SSP2 SSP2
2

SSP3 SSP3
4.5 Wm

0 0 0
SSP
SSP1
10 SSP2 10 10
SSP3

2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100

Year Year Year

Cross-Chapter Box 9, Figure 1 | Changes in agriculture land (left), bioenergy cropland (middle) and forest (right) under three different SSPs
(colours) and two different warming levels (rows). Agricultural land includes both pasture and cropland. Colours indicate SSPs, with SSP1 shown in green,
SSP2 in yellow, and SSP3 in red. For each pathway, the shaded areas show the range across all IAMs; the line indicates the median across models. There is no SSP3 in
the top row, as 1.9 W m–2 is infeasible in this world. Data is from an update of the Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium (IAMC) Scenario Explorer developed
for the SR15 (Huppmann et al. 2018; Rogelj et al. 2018a).

Implications for mitigation and other land challenges

The combination of baseline emissions development, technology options, and policy support makes it much easier to reach the climate
targets in the SSP1 scenario than in the SSP3 scenario. As a result, carbon prices are much higher in SSP3 than in SSP1. In fact, the 1.9
W m–2 target was found to be infeasible in the SSP3 world (Table 1 in Cross-Chapter Box 9). Energy system CO2 emissions reductions
are greater in SSP3 than in SSP1 to compensate for the higher land-based CO2 emissions.

Accounting for mitigation and socio-economics alone, food prices (an indicator of food insecurity) are higher in SSP3 than in SSP1
and higher in the 1.9 W m–2 target than in the 4.5 W m–2 target (Table 1 in Cross-Chapter Box 9). Forest cover is higher in SSP1 than
SSP3 and higher in the 1.9 W m–2 target than in the 4.5 W m–2 target. Water withdrawals and water scarcity are, in general, higher
in SSP3 than SSP1 (Hanasaki et al. 2013; Graham et al. 2018) and higher in scenarios with more bioenergy (Hejazi et al. 2014b);
however, these indicators have not been quantified for the specific SSP-representative concentration pathways (RCP) combinations
discussed here.
7

728
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 9 (continued)

Cross-Chapter Box 9, Table 1 | Quantitative indicators for the pathways. Each cell shows the mean, minimum, and maximum value across IAM models for
each indicator and each pathway in 2050 and 2100. All IAMs that provided results for a particular pathway are included here. Note that these indicators exclude the
implications of climate change. Data is from an update of the IAMC Scenario Explorer developed for the SR15 (Huppmann et al. 2018; Rogelj et al. 2018b).

SSP1 SSP2 SSP3

1.9 W
1.9 W m–2 mean 4.5 W m–2 mean 1.9 W m–2 mean 4.5 W m–2 mean 4.5 W m–2 mean
m–2 mean
(max., min.) (max., min.) (max., min.) (max., min.) (max., min.)
(max., min.)
2050 8.5 (8.5, 8.5) 8.5 (8.5, 8.5) 9.2 (9.2, 9.2) 9.2 (9.2, 9.2) N/A 10.0 (10.0, 10.0)
Population (billion)
2100 6.9 (7.0, 6.9) 6.9 (7.0, 6.9) 9.0 (9.0, 9.0) 9.0 (9.1, 9.0) N/A 12.7 (12.8, 12.6)

Change in GDP per 2050 170.3 (380.1, 130.9) 175.3 (386.2, 166.2) 104.3 (223.4, 98.7) 110.1 (233.8, 103.6) N/A 55.1 (116.1, 46.7)
capita (% rel to 2010) 2100 528.0 (1358.4, 408.2) 538.6 (1371.7, 504.7) 344.4 (827.4, 335.8) 356.6 (882.2, 323.3) N/A 71.2 (159.7, 49.6)

Change in forest 2050 3.4 (9.4, -0.1) 0.6 (4.2, –0.7) 3.4 (7.0, –0.9) –0.9 (2.9, –2.5) N/A –2.4 (–1.0, –4.0)
cover (Mkm2) 2100 7.5 (15.8, 0.4) 3.9 (8.8, 0.2) 6.4 (9.5, –0.8) –0.5 (5.9, –3.1) N/A –3.1 (–0.3, –5.5)

Change in cropland 2050 –1.2 (–0.3, –4.6) 0.1 (1.5, –3.2) –1.2 (0.3, –2.0) 1.2 (2.7, –0.9) N/A 2.3 (3.0, 1.2)
(Mkm2) 2100 –5.2 (–1.8, –7.6) –2.3 (–1.6, –6.4) –2.9 (0.1, –4.0) 0.7 (3.1, –2.6) N/A 3.4 (4.5, 1.9)

Change in energy 2050 2.1 (5.0, 0.9) 0.8 (1.3, 0.5) 4.5 (7.0, 2.1) 1.5 (2.1, 0.1) N/A 1.3 (2.0, 1.3)
cropland (Mkm2) 2100 4.3 (7.2, 1.5) 1.9 (3.7, 1.4) 6.6 (11.0, 3.6) 4.1 (6.3, 0.4) N/A 4.6 (7.1, 1.5)

Change in pasture 2050 –4.1 (–2.5, –5.6) –2.4 (–0.9, –3.3) –4.8 (–0.4, –6.2) –0.1 (1.6, –2.5) N/A 2.1 (3.8, –0.1)
(Mkm2) 2100 –6.5 (–4.8, –12.2) –4.6 (–2.7, –7.3) –7.6 (–1.3, –11.7) –2.8 (1.9, –5.3) N/A 2.0 (4.4, –2.5)

Change in other 2050 0.5 (1.0, –4.9) 0.5 (1.7, –1.0) –2.2 (0.6, –7.0) –2.2 (0.7, –2.2) N/A –3.4 (–2.0, –4.4)
natural land (Mkm2) 2100 0.0 (7.1, –7.3) 1.8 (6.0, –1.7) –2.3 (2.7, –9.6) –3.4 (1.5, –4.7) N/A –6.2 (–5.4, –6.8)
2050 510.4 (4304.0, 150.9) 9.1 (35.2, 1.2) 756.4 (1079.9, 279.9) 37.5 (73.4, 13.6) N/A 67.2 (75.1, 60.6)
Carbon price
(2010 USD per tCO2)a 2164.0 (350, 37.7, 4353.6 (10149.7, 589.6 (727.2,
2100 64.9 (286.7, 42.9) 172.3 (597.9, 112.1) N/A
262.7) 2993.4) 320.4)

Food price 2050 1.2 (1.8, 0.8) 0.9 (1.1, 0.7) 1.6 (2.0, 1.4) 1.1 (1.2, 1.0) N/A 1.2 (1.7, 1.1)
(Index 2010=1) 2100 1.9 (7.0, 0.4) 0.8 (1.2, 0.4) 6.5 (13.1, 1.8) 1.1 (2.5, 0.9) N/A 1.7 (3.4, 1.3)

Increase in Warming 2050 1.5 (1.7, 1.5) 1.9 (2.1, 1.8) 1.6 (1.7, 1.5) 2.0 (2.0, 1.9) N/A 2.0 (2.1, 2.0)
above pre-industrial (°C) 2100 1.3 (1.3, 1.3) 2.6 (2.7, 2.4) 1.3 (1.3, 1.3) 2.6 (2.7, 2.4) N/A 2.6 (2.6, 2.6)
Change in per capita 2050 6.0 (10.0, 4.5) 9.1 (12.4, 4.5) 4.6 (6.7, –0.9) 7.9 (8.0, 5.2) N/A 2.4 (5.0, 2.3)
demand for food,
crops (% rel to 2010)b 2100 10.1 (19.9, 4.8) 15.1 (23.9, 4.8) 11.6 (19.2, –10.8) 11.7 (19.2, 4.1) N/A 2.0 (3.4, –1.0)

Change in per capita 2050 6.9 (45.0, –20.5) 17.9 (45.0, –20.1) 7.1 (36.0, 1.9) 10.3 (36.0, –4.2) N/A 3.1 (5.9, 1.9)
demand for food,
animal products 2100 –3.0 (19.8, –27.3) 21.4 (44.1, –26.9) 17.0 (39.6, –24.1) 20.8 (39.6, –5.3) N/A –7.4 (–0.7, –7.9)
(% rel to 2010)b,c
Agriculture, forestry 2050 –39.0 (–3.8, –68.9) –2.9 (22.4, –23.9) –11.7 (31.4, –59.4) 7.5 (43.0, –15.5) N/A 15.0 (20.1, 3.1)
and other land-use
(AFOLU) CH4 Emissions 2100 –60.5 (–41.7, –77.4) –47.6 (–24.4, –54.1) –40.3 (33.1, –58.4) –13.0 (63.7, –45.0) N/A 8.0 (37.6, –9.1)
(% relative to 2010)

AFOLU N2O Emissions 2050 –13.1 (–4.1, –26.3) 0.1 (34.6, –14.5) 8.8 (38.4, –14.5) 25.4 (37.4, 5.5) N/A 34.0 (50.8, 29.3)
(% relative to 2010) 2100 –42.0 (4.3, –49.4) –25.6 (–3.4, –51.2) –1.7 (46.8, –37.8) 19.5 (66.7, –21.4) N/A 53.9 (65.8, 30.8)
Cumulative Energy
2787.6 (3213.3, 2642.3 (2928.3, 2294.5 (2447.4,
CO2 Emissions until 428.2 (1009.9, 307.6) 380.8 (552.8, –9.4) N/A
2594.0) 2515.8) 2084.6)
2100 (GtCO2)
Cumulative AFOLU
–126.8 (153.0,
CO2 Emissions until –127.3 (5.9, –683.0) –54.9 (52.1, –545.2) 40.8 (277.0, –372.9) N/A 188.8 (426.6, 77.9)
–400.7)
2100 (GtCO2)

a
SSP2–19 is infeasible in two models. One of these models sets the maximum carbon price in SSP1–19; the carbon price range is smaller for SSP2–19
as this model is excluded there. Carbon prices are higher in SSP2–19 than SSP1–19 for every model that provided both simulations.
b Food demand estimates include waste.

c Animal product demand includes meat and dairy.

7

729
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 9 (continued)

Climate change results in higher impacts and risks in the 4.5 W m–2 world than in the 1.9 W m–2 world for a given SSP and these risks
are exacerbated in SSP3 compared to SSP1 and SSP2 due to the population’s higher exposure and vulnerability. For example, the risk
of fire is higher in warmer worlds; in the 4.5 W m–2 world, the population living in fire prone regions is higher in SSP3 (646 million)
than in SSP2 (560 million) (Knorr et al. 2016). Global exposure to multi-sector risk quadruples between 1.5°C1 and 3°C and is a factor
of six higher in SSP3-3°C than in SSP1-1.5°C (Byers et al. 2018). Future risks resulting from desertification, land degradation and food
insecurity are lower in SSP1 compared to SSP3 at the same level of warming. For example, the transition moderate-to-high risk of
food insecurity occurs between 1.3 and 1.7°C for SSP3, but not until 2.5 to 3.5°C in SSP1 (Section 7.2).

Summary
Future pathways for climate and land use include portfolios of response and policy options. Depending on the response options
included, policy portfolios implemented, and other underlying socio-economic drivers, these pathways result in different land-use
consequences and their contribution to climate change mitigation. Agricultural area declines by more than 5 Mkm2 in one SSP but
increases by as much as 5 Mkm2 in another. The amount of energy cropland ranges from nearly zero to 11 Mkm2, depending on the SSP
and the warming target. Forest area declines in SSP3 but increases substantially in SSP1. Subsequently, these pathways have different
implications for risks related to desertification, land degradation, food insecurity, and terrestrial GHG fluxes, as well as ecosystem
services, biodiversity, and other aspects of sustainable development.

7.5.6.1 Trade-offs and synergies between 7.5.6.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Synergies
ecosystem services (ES) and trade-offs

Unplanned or unintentional trade-offs and synergies between The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an international
policy driven response options related to ecosystem services (ES) persuasive policy instrument that apply to all countries, and measure
can happen over space (e.g., upstream-downstream, integrated sustainable and socially just development of human societies at
watershed management, Section  3.7.5.2) or intensify over time all scales of governance (Griggs et al. 2013). The UN SDGs rest on
(reduced water in future dry-season due to growing tree plantations, the premise that the goals are mutually reinforcing and there are
Section 6.4.1). Trade-offs can occur between two or more ES (land inherent linkages, synergies and trade-offs (to a  greater or lesser
for climate mitigation vs food; Sections 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, Cross-Chapter extent) between and within the sub-goals (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018;
Box 8 in Chapter 6; Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7), and Nilsson et al. 2016b; Le Blanc 2015). There is high confidence
between scales, such as forest biomass-based livelihoods versus that opportunities, trade-offs and co-benefits are context  – and
global ES carbon storage (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009) (medium region-specific and depend on a  variety of political, national and
evidence, medium agreement). Trade-offs can be reversible or socio-economic factors (Nilsson et al. 2016b) depending on perceived
irreversible (Rodríguez et al. 2006; Elmqvist et al. 2013) (for example, importance by decision-makers and policymakers (Figure  7.7 and
a soil carbon sink is reversible) (Section 6.4.1.1). Table 7.6). Aggregation of targets and indicators at the national level
can mask severe biophysical and socio-economic trade-offs at local
Although there is robust evidence and high agreement that ES are and regional scales (Wada et al. 2016).
important for human well-being, the relationship between poverty
alleviation and ES can be surprisingly complex, understudied and There is medium evidence and high agreement that SDGs must not
dependent on the political economic context; current evidence be pursued independently, but in a manner that recognises trade-offs
is largely about provisioning services and often ignores multiple and synergies with each other, consistent with a  goal of ‘policy
dimensions of poverty (Suich et al. 2015; Vira et al. 2012). Spatially coherence’. Policy coherence also refers to spatial trade-offs and
explicit mapping and quantification of stakeholder choices in geopolitical implications within and between regions and countries
relation to distribution of various ES can help enhance synergies implementing SDGs. For instance, supply-side food security initiatives
and reduce trade-offs (Turkelboom et al. 2018; Locatelli et al. 2014) of land-based agriculture are impacting on marine fisheries globally
(Section 7.5.5). through creation of dead-zones due to agricultural run-off (Diaz and
Rosenberg 2008).

SDGs 6 (clean water and sanitation), 7 (affordable and clean energy)

and 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) are important SDGs
related to mitigation with adaptation co-benefits, but they have local

7 1 Pathways that limit radiative forcing in 2100 to 1.9 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 to 1.5°C in 2100 (Rogelj et al. 2018b). Pathways limiting radiative forcing
in 2100 to 4.5 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 above 2.5°C (IPCC 2014).

730
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

trade-offs with biodiversity and competing uses of land and rivers A nexus approach is increasingly being adopted to explore synergies
(see Case study: Green energy: Biodiversity conservation vs global and trade-offs between a  select subset of goals and targets (such
environment targets) (medium evidence, high agreement) (Bogardi as the interaction between water, energy and food  – see for
et al. 2012; Nilsson and Berggren 2000; Hoeinghaus et al. 2009; example, Yumkella and Yillia 2015; Conway et al. 2015; Ringler et
Winemiller et al. 2016). This has occurred despite emerging knowledge al. 2015). However, even this approach ignores systemic properties
about the role that rivers and riverine ecosystems play in human and interactions across the system as a whole (Weitz et al. 2017a).
development and in generating global, regional and local ES (Nilsson Pursuit of certain targets in one area can generate rippling effects
and Berggren 2000; Hoeinghaus et al. 2009). The transformation of across the system, and these in turn can have secondary impacts on
river ecosystems for irrigation, hydropower and water requirements yet other targets. Weitz et al. (2017a) found that SDG target 13.2
of societies worldwide is the biggest threat to freshwater and (climate change policy/planning) is influenced by actions in six other
estuarine biodiversity and ecosystems services (Nilsson and Berggren targets. SDG 13.1 (climate change adaption) and also SDG 2.4 (food
2000; Vörösmarty et al. 2010). These projects address important production) receive the most positive influence from progression in
energy and water-related demands, but their economic benefits are other targets.
often overestimated in relation to trade-offs with respect to food
(river capture fisheries), biodiversity and downstream ES (Winemiller There is medium evidence and high agreement that, to be effective,
et al. 2016). Some trade-offs and synergies related to SDG7 impact truly sustainable, and to reduce or mitigate emerging risks, SDGs
on aspirations of greater welfare and well-being, as well as physical need knowledge dissemination and policy initiatives that recognise
and social infrastructure for sustainable development (Fuso Nerini and assimilate concepts of co-production of ES in socio-ecological
et al. 2018) (Section 7.5.6.1, where trade-offs exist between climate systems, cross-scale linkages, uncertainty, spatial and temporal
mitigation and food). trade-offs between SDGs and ES that acknowledge biophysical,
social and political constraints and understand how social change
There are also spatial trade-offs related to large river diversion occurs at various scales (Rodríguez et al. 2006; Norström et al. 2014;
projects and export of ‘virtual water’ through water-intensive crops Palomo et al. 2016). Several methods and tools are proposed in
produced in one region and exported to another, with implications literature to address and understand SDG interactions. Nilsson et al.
for food security, water security and downstream ES of the exporting (2016a) suggest going beyond a simplistic framing of synergies and
region (Hanasaki et al. 2010; Verma et al. 2009). Synergies include trade-offs to understanding the various relationship dimensions,
cropping adaptations that increase food system production and and proposing a seven-point scale to understand these interactions.
eliminate hunger (SDG2) (Rockström et al. 2017; Lipper et al. 2014a;
Neufeldt et al. 2013). Well-adapted agricultural systems are shown This approach, and the identification of clusters of synergy, can
to have synergies, positive returns on investment and contribute help indicate that government ministries work together or establish
to safe drinking water, health, biodiversity and equity goals collaborations to reach their specific goals. Finally, context-specific
(DeClerck 2016). Assessing the water footprint of different sectors analysis is needed. Synergies and trade-offs will depend on the
at the river basin scale can provide insights for interventions and natural resource base (such as land or water availability), governance
decision-making (Zeng et al. 2012). arrangements, available technologies, and political ideas in a given
location (Nilsson et al. 2016b). Figure 7.7 shows that, at the global
Sometimes the trade-offs in SDGs can arise in the articulation and scale, there is less uncertainty in the evidence surrounding SDGs,
nested hierarchy of 17 goals and the targets under them. In terms of but also less agreement on norms, priorities and values for SDG
aquatic life and ecosystems, there is an explicit SDG for sustainable implementation. Although there is some agreement on the regional
management of marine life (SDG 14, Life below water). There is no and local scale surrounding SDGs, there is higher certainty on the
equivalent goal exclusively for freshwater ecosystems, but hidden science surrounding ES.
under SDG 6  (Clean water and sanitation) out of six listed targets,
the sixth target is about protecting and restoring water-related
ecosystems, which suggests a lower order of global priority compared
to being listed as a goal in itself (e.g., SDG 14).

There is limited evidence and limited agreement that binary

evaluations of individual SDGs and synergies and trade-offs that
categorise interactions as either ‘beneficial’ or ‘adverse’ may be
subjective and challenged further by the fact that feedbacks can
often not be assigned as unambiguously positive or negative (Blanc
et al. 2017). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of  1.5°C
(SR15) notes: ‘A reductive focus on specific SDGs in isolation may
undermine the long-term achievement of sustainable climate change
mitigation’ (Holden et al. 2017). Greater work is needed to tease out
these relationships; studies have started that include quantitative
modelling (see Karnib 2017) and nuanced scoring scales (ICSU 2017) 7
of these relationships.

731
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Global Regional Local

f
Uncertainty (knowledge, data, evidence)

b k
High

h
j
e

c
Low d
g i
a

Low High Low High Low High

Agreement (on norms, priorities and values)

Figure 7.7 and Table 7.6 | Risks at various scales, levels of uncertainty and agreement in relation to trade-offs among SDGs and other goals.

SDGs impacted
Land-climate-society hazard by or involved in Selected literature
mutual trade-offs
a Decline of freshwater and riverine ecosystems 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18 Falkenmark 2001; Zarfl et al. 2014; Canonico et al. 2005
Verbyla 2011; Krishnaswamy et al. 2014; McDowell and Allen 2015b; Anderegg et al.
b Forest browning 3, 8, 13, 15
2013; Samanta et al. 2010
Barnett and O’Neill 2010; Wada et al. 2010; Harootunian 2018; Dalin et al. 2017;
c Exhaustion of groundwater 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18
Rockström, Johan Steffen et al. 2009; Falkenmark 2001
d Loss of biodiversity 6, 7, 12, 15, 18 Pereira et al. 2010; Pascual et al. 2017; Pecl et al. 2017; Jumani et al. 2017, 2018
e Extreme events in cities and towns 3, 6, 11, 13 Douglas et al. 2008; Stone et al. 2010; Chang et al. 2007; Hanson et al. 2011
Ansar et al. 2013; Chasek et al. 2015; Melvin et al. 2017; Surminski 2013; Hallegatte et al.
f Stranded assets 8, 9, 11, 12, 13
2013; Larsen et al. 2008; Nicholls and Cazenave 2010
Celentano et al. 2017; Nepstad et al. 2008; Bogaerts et al. 2017; Fearnside 2015; Beuchle
g Expansion of the agricultural frontier into tropical forests 15, 13
et al. 2015; Grecchi et al. 2014
Hasegawa et al. 2018a; Frank et al. 2017; Fujimori et al. 2018b; Zhao et al. 2017
h Food and nutrition security 2, 1, 3, 10, 11

Wu et al. 2016; Patz et al. 2004; McMichael et al. 2006; Young et al. 2017b; Smith et al.
i Emergence of infectious diseases 3, 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13
2014a; Tjaden et al. 2017; Naicker 2011
j Decrease in agricultural productivity 2, 1, 3, 10, 11, 13 Porter et al. 2014; Müller et al. 2013; Rosenzweig et al. 2014
k Expansion of farm and fish ponds 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14 Kale 2017; Boonstra and Hanh 2015

Sustainable Development Goals

1. No poverty 10. Reduced inequality

2. Zero hunger 11. Sustainable cities and communities
3. Good health and well-being 12. Responsible consumption and production
4. Quality education 13. Climate action
5. Gender equality 14. Life below water
6. Clean water and sanitation 15. Life on Land
7. Affordable and clean energy 16. Peace and justice strong institutions
7 8. Decent work and economic growth 17. Partnerships to achieve the goals
9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure

732
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

7.5.6.3 Forests and agriculture In the agricultural sector, there has been little published empirical
work on interactions between adaptation and mitigation policies.
Retaining existing forests, restoring degraded forest and afforestation Smith and Oleson (2010) describe potential relationships, focusing
are response options for climate change mitigation with adaptation particularly on the arable sector, predominantly on mitigation efforts,
benefits (Section 6.4.1). Policies at various levels of governance that and more on measures than policies. The considerable potential of
foster ownership, autonomy, and provide incentives for forest cover the agro-forestry sector for synergies and contributing to increasing
can reduce trade-offs between carbon sinks in forests and local resilience of tropical farming systems is discussed in Verchot et al.
livelihoods (especially when the size of forest commons is sufficiently (2007) with examples from Africa.
large) (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009; Locatelli et al. 2014) (see Table 7.6
this section; Case study: Forest conservation instruments: REDD+ in Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has emerged in recent years as
the Amazon and India, Section 7.4.6). an approach to integrate food security and climate challenges. The
three pillars of CSA are to: (1) adapt and build resilience to climate
Forest restoration for mitigation through carbon sequestration and change; (2) reduce GHG emissions, and; (3) sustainably increase
other ES or co-benefits (e.g., hydrologic, non-timber forest products, agricultural productivity, ultimately delivering ‘triple-wins’ (Lipper
timber and tourism) can be passive or active (although both types et al. 2014c). While the idea is conceptually appealing, a range of
largely exclude livestock). Passive restoration is more economically criticisms, contradictions and challenges exist in using CSA as the
viable in relation to restoration costs as well as co-benefits in other route to resilience in global agriculture, notably around the political
ES, calculated on a net present value basis, especially under flexible economy (Newell and Taylor 2017), the vagueness of the definition,
carbon credits (Cantarello et al. 2010). Restoration can be more cost and consequent assimilation by the mainstream agricultural sector,
effective with positive socio-economic and biodiversity conservation as well as issues around monitoring, reporting and evaluation
outcomes, if costly and simplistic planting schemes are avoided (Arakelyan et al. 2017).
(Menz et al. 2013). Passive restoration takes longer to demonstrate
co-benefits and net economic gains. It can be confused with land Land-based mitigation is facing important trade-offs with
abandonment in some regions and countries, and therefore secure food production, biodiversity and local biogeophysical effects
land-tenure at individual or community scales is important for its (Humpenöder et al. 2017; Krause et al. 2017; Robledo-Abad et al.
success (Zahawi et al. 2014). Potential approaches include improved 2017; Boysen et al. 2016, 2017a,b). Synergies between bioenergy
markets and payment schemes for ES (Tengberg et al. 2016) and food security could be achieved by investing in a combination
(Section 7.4.6). of instruments, including technology and innovations, infrastructure,
pricing, flex crops, and improved communication and stakeholder
Proper targeting of incentive schemes and reducing poverty through engagement (Kline et al. 2017). Managing these trade-offs might
access to ES requires knowledge regarding the distribution of also require demand-side interventions, including dietary change
beneficiaries, information about those whose livelihoods are likely incentives (Section 5.7.1).
to be impacted, and in what manner (Nayak et al. 2014; Loaiza
et al. 2015; Vira et al. 2012). Institutional arrangements to govern Synergies and trade-offs also result from interaction between policies
ecosystems are believed to synergistically influence maintenance (Urwin and Jordan 2008) at different levels of policy (vertical) and
of carbon storage and forest-based livelihoods, especially when across different policies (horizontal) – see also Section 7.4.8. If policy
they incorporate local knowledge and decentralised decision- mixes are designed appropriately, acknowledging and incorporating
making (Chhatre and Agrawal  2009). Earning carbon credits from trade-offs and synergies, they are more apt to deliver an outcome
reforestation with native trees involves the higher cost of certification such as transitioning to sustainability (Howlett and Rayner 2013;
and validation processes, increasing the temptation to choose fast- Huttunen et al. 2014) (medium evidence and medium agreement).
growing (perhaps non-native) species with consequences for native However, there is medium evidence and medium agreement that
biodiversity. Strategies and policies that aggregate landowners or evaluating policies for coherence in responding to climate change
forest dwellers are needed to reduce the cost to individuals and and its impacts is not occurring, and policies are instead reviewed in
payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes can generate synergies a fragmented manner (Hurlbert and Gupta 2016).
(Bommarco et al. 2013; Chhatre and Agrawal 2009). Bundling several
PES schemes that address more than one ES can increase income 7.5.6.4 Water, food and aquatic ecosystem services (ES)
generated by forest restoration (Brancalion et al. 2012).
Trade-offs between some types of water use (e.g., irrigation for food
In the forestry sector, there is evidence that adaptation and security) and other ecosystem services (ES) are expected to intensify
mitigation can be fostered in concert. A recent assessment of the under climate change (Hanjra and Ejaz Qureshi 2010). There is an
California Forestry Offset Project shows that, by compensating urgency to develop approaches to understand and communicate this
individuals and industries for forest conservation, such programmes to policymakers and decision-makers (Zheng et al. 2016). Reducing
can deliver mitigation and sustainability co-benefits (Anderson et al. water use in agriculture (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016) through
2017). Adaptive forest management focusing on reintroducing native policies on both the supply and demand side, such as a shift to less
tree species can provide both mitigation and adaptation benefit by water-intensive crops (Richter et al. 2017; Fishman et al. 2015), and
reducing fire risk and increasing carbon storage (Astrup et al. 2018). a shift in diets (Springmann et al. 2016) has the potential to reduce 7
trade-offs between food security and freshwater aquatic ES (medium

733
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

evidence, high agreement). There is strong evidence that improved farm ponds, with consequences for water justice, inequity and
efficiency in irrigation can actually increase overall water use in sustainability (Kale 2017). These examples highlight the potential
agriculture, and therefore its contribution to improved flows in rivers for maladaptation from farmers’ adaptation decisions as well as the
is questionable (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez 2008). unintended consequences of policy choices; the examples illustrate
the findings of Barnett and O’Neill (2010) that maladaptation can
There are now powerful new analytical approaches, high-resolution include: high opportunity costs (including economic, environmental,
data and decision-making tools that help to predict cumulative and social); reduced incentives to adapt (adaptation measures that
impacts of dams, assess trade-offs between engineering and reduce incentives to adapt by not addressing underlying causes); and
environmental goals, and can help funders and decision-makers path dependency or trajectories that are difficult to change.
compare alternative sites or designs for dam-building as well as to
manage flows in regulated rivers based on experimental releases and In practice, maladaptation is a specific instance of policy incoherence,
adaptive learning. This could minimise ecological costs and maximise and it may be useful to develop a framework in designing policy to
synergies with other development goals under climate change (Poff avoid this type of trade-off. This would specify the type, aim and
et al. 2003; Winemiller et al. 2016). Furthermore, the adoption of target audience of an adaptation action, decision, project, plan,
metrics based on the emerging concept of Nature’s Contributions or policy designed initially for adaptation, but actually at high risk
to People (NCP) under the IPBES framework brings in non-economic of inducing adverse effects, either on the system in which it was
instruments and values that, in combination with conventional developed, or another connected system, or both. The assessment
valuation of ES approaches, could elicit greater support for non- requires identifying system boundaries, including temporal and
consumptive water use of rivers for achieving SDG goals (De Groot geographical scales at which the outcomes are assessed (Magnan
et al. 2010; Pascual et al. 2017). 2014; Juhola et al. 2016). National-level institutions that cover the
spectrum of sectors affected, or enhanced collaboration between
7.5.6.5 Considering synergies and trade-offs relevant institutions, is expected to increase the effectiveness of
to avoid maladaptation policy instruments, as are joint programmes and funds (Morita and
Matsumoto 2018).
Coherent policies that consider synergies and trade-offs can also
reduce the likelihood of maladaptation, which is the opposite of As new knowledge about trade-offs and synergies amongst land-
sustainable adaptation (Magnan et al. 2016). Sustainable adaptation climate processes emerges regionally and globally, concerns over
‘contributes to socially and environmentally sustainable development emerging risks and the need for planning policy responses grow.
pathways including both social justice and environmental integrity’ There is medium evidence and medium agreement that trade-
(Eriksen et al. 2011). In IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) there offs currently do not figure into existing climate policies including
was medium evidence and high agreement that maladaptation NDCs and SDGs being vigorously pursued by some countries (Woolf
is ‘a cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners, where et al. 2018). For instance, the biogeophysical co-benefits of reduced
intervention in one location or sector could increase the vulnerability deforestation and re/afforestation measures (Chapter 6) are usually
of another location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of a group not accounted for in current climate policies or in the NDCs, but there
to future climate change’ (Noble et al. 2014). AR5 recognised that is increasing scientific evidence to include them as part of the policy
maladaptation arises not only from inadvertent, badly planned design (Findell et al. 2017; Hirsch et al. 2018; Bright et al. 2017).
adaptation actions, but also from deliberate decisions where wider
considerations place greater emphasis on short-term outcomes
ahead of longer-term threats, or that discount, or fail to consider,
the full range of interactions arising from planned actions (Noble
et al. 2014).

Some maladaptations are only beginning to be recognised as

we become aware of unintended consequences of decisions.
An example prevalent across many countries is irrigation as an
adaptation to water scarcity. During a drought from 2007–2009 in
California, farmers adapted by using more groundwater, thereby
depleting groundwater elevation by 15 metres. This volume of
groundwater depletion is unsustainable environmentally and also
emits GHG emissions during the pumping (Christian-Smith et al.
2015). Despite the three years of drought, the agricultural sector
performed financially well, due to the groundwater use and crop
insurance payments. Drought compensation programmes through
crop insurance policies may reduce the incentive to shift to lower
water-use crops, thereby perpetuating the maladaptive situation.
7 Another example of maladaptation that may appear as adaptation
to drought is pumping out groundwater and storing in surface

734
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Case study | Green energy: Biodiversity conservation vs global environment targets?

Green and renewable energy and transportation are emerging as important parts of climate change mitigation globally (medium evidence,
high agreement) (McKinnon 2010; Zarfl et al. 2015; Creutzig et al. 2017). Evidence is, however, emerging across many biomes (from
coastal to semi-arid and humid) about how green energy may have significant trade-offs with biodiversity and ecosystem services,
thus demonstrating the need for closer environmental scrutiny and safeguards (Gibson et al. 2017; Hernandez et al. 2015). In most
cases, the accumulated impact of pressures from decades of land use and habitat loss set the context within which the potential
impacts of renewable energy generation need to be considered.

Until recently, small hydropower projects (SHPs) were considered environmentally benign compared to large dams. SHPs are poorly
understood, especially since the impacts of clusters of small dams are just becoming evident (Mantel et al. 2010; Fencl et al. 2015;
Kibler and Tullos 2013). SHPs (<25/30 MW) are labelled ‘green’ and are often exempt from environmental scrutiny (Abbasi and
Abbasi 2011; Pinho et al. 2007; Premalatha et al. 2014b; Era Consultancy 2006). Being promoted in mountainous global biodiversity
hotspots, SHPs have changed the hydrology, water quality and ecology of headwater streams and neighbouring forests significantly.
SHPs have created dewatered stretches of stream immediately downstream and introduced sub-daily to sub-weekly hydro-pulses
that have transformed the natural dry-season flow regime. Hydrologic and ecological connectivity have been impacted, especially for
endemic fish communities and forests in some sites of significant biodiversity values (medium evidence, medium agreement) (Jumani
et al. 2017, 2018; Chhatre and Lakhanpal 2018; Anderson et al. 2006; Grumbine and Pandit 2013). In some sites, local communities
have opposed SHPs due to concerns about their impact on local culture and livelihoods (Jumani et al. 2017, 2018; Chhatre and
Lakhanpal 2018).

Semi-arid and arid regions are often found suitable for wind and solar farms which may impact endemic biodiversity and endangered
species (Collar et al. 2015, Thaker, M, Zambre, A. Bhosale 2018). The loss of habitat for these species over the decades has been largely
due to agricultural intensification driven by irrigation and bad management in designated reserves (Collar et al. 2015; Ledec, George
C.; Rapp, Kennan W.; Aiello 2011) but intrusion of power lines is a major worry for highly endangered species such as the Great Indian
Bustard (Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) and conservation and mitigation efforts are being planned to address such concerns
(Government of India 2012). In many regions around the world, wind-turbines and solar farms pose a threat to many other species
especially predatory birds and insectivorous bats (medium evidence, medium agreement) (Thaker, M, Zambre, A. Bhosale 2018) and
disrupt habitat connectivity (Northrup and Wittemyer 2013).

Additionally, conversion of rivers into waterways has emerged as a fuel-efficient (low carbon emitting) and environment-
friendly alternative to surface land transport (IWAI 2016; Dharmadhikary, S., and Sandbhor 2017). India’s National Waterways seeks
to cut transportation time and costs and reduce carbon emissions from road transport (Admin 2017). There is some evidence that
dredging and under-water noise could impact the water quality, human health and habitat of fish species (Junior et al. 2012; Martins
et al. 2012), disrupt artisanal fisheries and potentially impact species that rely on echo-location (low evidence, medium agreement)
(Dey Mayukh 2018). Off-shore renewable energy projects in coastal zones have been known to have similar impacts on marine fauna
(Gill 2005). The Government of India has decided to support studies of the impact of waterways on the endangered Gangetic dolphin
in order in order to plan mitigation measures.

Responses to mitigating and reducing the negative impacts of small dams include changes in SHP operations and policies to enable
the conservation of river fish diversity. These include mandatory environmental impact assessments, conserving remaining undammed
headwater streams in regulated basins, maintaining adequate environmental flows, and implementing other adaptation measures
based on experiments with active management of fish communities in impacted zones (Jumani et al. 2018). Location of large solar
farms needs to be carefully scrutinised (Sindhu et al. 2017). For mitigating negative impacts of power lines associated with solar
and wind farms in bustard habitats, suggested measures include diversion structures to prevent collision, underground cables and
avoidance in core wildlife habitat, as well as incentives for maintaining low-intensity rainfed agriculture and pasture around existing
reserves, and curtailing harmful infrastructure in priority areas (Collar et al. 2015). Mitigation for minimising the ecological impact of
inland waterways on biodiversity and fisheries is more complicated, but may involve improved boat technology to reduce underwater
noise, maintaining ecological flows and thus reduced dredging, and avoidance in key habitats (Dey Mayukh 2018).

The management of ecological trade-offs of green energy and green infrastructure and transportation projects may be crucial for long-
term sustainability and acceptance of emerging low-carbon economies.

735
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

7.6 Governance: Governing the regulatory agencies, private firms, and community bodies – as well
land–climate interface as people, develop and act in response to institutional frameworks
and the incentives they frame. ‘Institutions can guide, constrain, and
Building on the definition in Section  7.1.2, governance situates shape human interaction through direct control, through incentives,
decision-making and selection or calibration of policy instruments and through processes of socialization’ (IPCC 2014d, p. 1768). Nations
within the reality of the multitude of actors operating in respect with ‘well developed institutional systems are considered to  have
of land and climate interactions. Governance includes all of the greater adaptive capacity’, and better institutional capacity to help
processes, structures, rules and traditions that govern; governance deal with risks associated with future climate change (IPCC, 2001,
processes may be undertaken by actors including a government, p. 896). Institutions may also prevent the development of adaptive
market, organisation, or family (Bevir 2011). Governance processes capacity when they are ‘sticky’ or characterised by strong path
determine how people in societies make decisions (Patterson dependence (Mahoney 2000; North 1991) and prevent changes that
et al. 2017) and involve the interactions among formal and informal are important to address climate change (Section 7.4.9).
institutions (Section  7.4.1) through which people articulate their
interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their legal obligations, and Formal and informal governance structures are composed of these
mediate their differences (Plummer and Baird 2013). institutionalised rule systems that determine vulnerability as
they influence power relations, risk perceptions and establish the
The act of governance ‘is a social function centred on steering context wherein risk reduction, adaptation and vulnerability are
collective behaviour toward desired outcomes [sustainable climate- managed (Cardona 2012). Governance institutions determine the
resilient development] and away from undesirable outcomes’ management of a community’s assets, the community members’
(Young 2017a). This definition of governance allows for it to be relationships with one another, and with natural resources (Hurlbert
decoupled from the more familiar concept of government and and Diaz 2013). Traditional or locally evolved institutions, backed by
studied in the context of complex human–environment relations cultural norms, can contribute to resilience and adaptive capacity.
and environmental and resource regimes (Young 2017a) and used Anderson et al. (2010) suggest that these are a particular feature of
to address the interconnected challenges facing food and agriculture dry land societies that are highly prone to environmental risk and
(FAO 2017b). These challenges include assessing, combining, and uncertainty. Concepts of resilience, and specifically the resilience
implementing policy instruments at different governance levels in of socio-ecological systems, have advanced analysis of adaptive
a mutually reinforcing way, managing trade-offs while capitalising institutions and adaptive governance in relation to climate change
on synergies (Section  7.5.6), and employing experimentalist and land (Boyd and Folke 2011a). In their characterisation, ‘resilience
approaches for improved and effective governance (FAO 2017b), for is the ability to reorganise following crisis, continuing to learn,
example, adaptive climate governance (Section 7.6.3). Emphasising evolving with the same identity and function, and also innovating
governance also represents a shift of traditional resource management and sowing the seeds for transformation. It is a central concept
(focused on hierarchical state control) towards recognition that of adaptive governance’ (Boyd and Folke 2012). In the context of
political and decision-making authority can be exercised through complex and multi-scale socio-ecological systems, important features
interlinked groups of diverse actors (Kuzdas et al. 2015). of adaptive institutions that contribute to resilience include the
characteristics of an adaptive governance system (Section 7.6.6).
This section will start by describing institutions and institutional
arrangements – the core of a governance system (Young 2017)  – There is high confidence that adaptive institutions have a strong
that build adaptive and mitigative capacity. The section then outlines learning dimension and include:
modes, levels and scales of governance for sustainable climate-resilient
development. It does on to describe adaptive climate governance that 1. Institutions advancing the capacity to learn through availability,
responds to uncertainty, and explore institutional dimensions of adaptive access to, accumulation of, and interpretation of information
governance that create an enabling environment for strong institutional (such as drought projections, costing of alternatives land,
capital. We then discuss land tenure (an important institutional context food, and water strategies). Government-supported networks,
for effective and appropriate selection of policy instruments), and learning platforms, and facilitated interchange between
end with the participation of people in decision-making through actors with boundary and bridging organisations, creating
inclusive governance. the necessary self-organisation to prepare for the unknown.
Through transparent, flexible networks, whole sets of complex
problems of land, food and climate can be tackled to develop
7.6.1 Institutions building adaptive shared visions and critique land and food management systems
and mitigative capacity assessing gaps and generating solutions.
2. Institutions advancing learning by experimentation (in interpretation
Institutions are rules and norms held in common by social actors of information, new ways of governing, and treating policy as an
that guide, constrain, and shape human interaction. Institutions ongoing experiment) through many interrelated decisions, but
can be formal – such as laws, policies, and structured decision- especially those that connect the social to the ecological and entail
making processes (Section  7.5.1.1) – or informal – such as norms, anticipatory planning by considering a longer-term time frame.
7 conventions, and decision-making following customary norms Mechanisms to do so include ecological stewardship, and rituals
and habits (Section  7.5.1.2). Organisations – such as parliaments, and beliefs of indigenous societies that sustain ES.

736
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

3. Institutions that decide on pathways to realise system change significant during the past decades (medium evidence, medium
through cultural, inter and intra organisational collaboration, agreement) (Castán Broto 2017; Floater et al. 2014; Albers et al. 2015;
with a flexible regulatory framework allowing for new cognitive Archer et al. 2014). A transformation of sorts has been underway
frames of ‘sustainable’ land management and ‘safe’ water supply through deepening engagement from the private sector and NGOs
that open alternative pathways (Karpouzoglou et al. 2016; Bettini as well as government involvement at multiple levels. It is now
et al. 2015; Boyd et al. 2015; Boyd and Folke 2011b, and 2012). recognised that business organisations, civil society groups, citizens,
and formal governance all have important roles in governance for
Shortcomings of resilience theory include limits in relation to sustainable development (Kemp et al. 2005).
its conceptualisation of social change (Cote and Nightingale
2012), its potential to be used as a normative concept, implying Transnational governance efforts have increased in number, with
politically prescriptive policy solutions (Thorén and Olsson 2017; applications across different economic sectors, geographical
Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015; Milkoreit et al. 2015), its regions, civil society groups and NGOs. When it comes to climate
applicability to local needs and experiences (Forsyth 2018), and its mitigation, transnational mechanisms generally focus on networking
potential to hinder evaluation of policy effectiveness (Newton 2016; and may not necessarily be effective in terms of promoting real
Olsson et al. 2015b). Regardless, concepts of adaptive institutions emissions reductions (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017). However,
building adaptive capacity in complex socio-ecological systems acceleration in national mitigation measures has been determined to
governance have progressed (Karpouzoglou et al. 2016; Dwyer and coincide with landmark international events such as the lead up to the
Hodge 2016) in relation to adaptive governance (Koontz et al. 2015). Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009 (Iacobuta et al. 2018).
There is a tendency for transnational governance mechanisms to lack
The study of institutions of governance, levels, modes, and scale of monitoring and evaluation procedures (Jordan et al. 2015a).
governance, in a multi-level and polycentric fashion is important
because of the multi-scale nature of the challenges to resilience, To address shortcomings of transnational governance, polycentric
dissemination of ideas, networking and learning. governance considers the interaction between actors at different
levels of governance (local, regional, national, and global) for a more
nuanced understanding of the variation in diverse governance
7.6.2 Integration – Levels, modes and scale of outcomes in the management of common-pool resources (such as
governance for sustainable development forests) based on the needs and interests of citizens (Nagendra and
Ostrom 2012). A more ‘polycentric climate governance’ system has
Different types of governance can be distinguished according to emerged that incorporates bottom-up initiatives that can support and
intended levels (e.g., local, regional, global), domains (national, synergise with national efforts and international regimes (Ostrom
international, transnational), modes (market, network, hierarchy), 2010). Although it is clear that many more actors and networks are
and scales (global regimes to local community groups) (Jordan involved, the effectiveness of a more polycentric system remains
et al. 2015b). Implementation of climate change adaptation and unclear (Jordan et al. 2015a).
mitigation has been impeded by institutional barriers, including
multi-level governance and policy integration issues (Biesbroek et al. There is high confidence that a hybrid form of governance, combining
2010). To overcome these barriers, climate governance has evolved the advantages of centralised governance (with coordination,
significantly beyond the national and multilateral domains that stability, compliance) with those of more horizontal structures
tended to dominate climate efforts and initiatives during the early (that allow flexibility, autonomy for local decision-making, multi-
years of the UNFCCC. The climate challenge has been placed in an stakeholder engagement, co-management) is required for effective
Earth System context, showing the existence of complex interactions mainstreaming of mitigation and adaptation in sustainable land
and governance requirements across different levels, and calling for and forest management (Keenan 2015; Gupta 2014; Williamson and
a radical transformation in governance, rather than minor adjustments Nelson 2017; Liniger et al. 2019). Polycentric institutions self-
(Biermann et al. 2012). Climate governance literature has expanded organise, developing collective solutions to local problems as
since AR5 in relation to the sub-national and transnational levels, they arise (Koontz et al. 2015). The public sector (governments
but all levels and their interconnection is important. Expert thinking and administrative systems) are still important in climate change
has evolved from implementing good governance at high levels (with initiatives as these actors retain the political will to implement and
governments) to a decentred problem-solving approach consistent make initiatives work (Biesbroek et al. 2018).
with adaptive governance. This approach involves iterative bottom-
up and experimental mechanisms that might entail addressing Sustainable development hinges on the holistic integration of
tenure of land or forest management through a territorial approach interconnected land and climate issues, sectors, levels of government,
to development, thereby supporting multi-sectoral governance in and policy instruments (Section  7.4.8) that address the increasing
local, municipal and regional contexts (FAO 2017b). volatility in oscillating systems and weather patterns (Young 2017b;
Kemp et al. 2005). Climate adaptation and mitigation goals must be
Local action in relation to mitigation and adaptation continues to integrated or mainstreamed into existing governance mechanisms
be important by complementing and advancing global climate policy around key land-use sectors such as forestry and agriculture. In the
(Ostrom 2012). Sub-national governance efforts for climate policy, EU, mitigation has generally been well-mainstreamed in regional 7
especially at the level of cities and communities, have become policies but not adaptation (Hanger et al. 2015). Climate change

737
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

adaptation has been impeded by institutional barriers, including the 4. Landscape integration: rather than physical separation of
inherent challenges of multi-level governance and policy integration activities (e.g., agriculture, forestry, grazing), uses are spatially
(Biesbroek et al. 2010). integrated by exploiting natural variations while incorporating local
and regional economies (Harvey et al. 2014a). In an assessment of
Integrative polycentric approaches to land use and climate 166 initiatives in 16 countries, integrated landscape initiatives
interactions take different forms and operate with different were found to address the drivers of agriculture, ecosystem
institutions and governance mechanisms. Integrative approaches conservation, livelihood preservation and institutional
can provide coordination and linkages to improve effectiveness and coordination. However, such initiatives struggled to move
efficiency and minimise conflicts (high confidence). Different types of from planning to implementation due to lack of government
integration with special relevance for the land–climate interface can and financial support, and powerful stakeholders sidelining
be characterised as follows: the agenda (Zanzanaini et al. 2017). Special care helps ensure
that initiatives don’t exacerbate socio-spatial inequalities
1. Cross-level integration: local and national level efforts must across diverse developmental and environmental conditions
be coordinated with national and regional policies and also be (Anguelovski et al. 2016b). Integrated land-use planning,
capable of drawing direction and financing from global regimes, coordinated through multiple government levels, balances
thus requiring multi-level governance. Integration of SLM to property rights, wildlife and forest conservation, encroachment
prevent, reduce and restore degraded land is advanced with of settlements and agricultural areas and can reduce conflict
national and subnational policy, including passing the necessary (high confidence) (Metternicht 2018). Land-use planning can also
laws to establish frameworks and provide financial incentives. enhance management of areas prone to natural disasters, such
Examples include: integrated territorial planning addressing as floods, and resolve issues of competing land uses and land
specific land-use decisions; local landscape participatory planning tenure conflicts (Metternicht 2018).
with farmer associations, microenterprises, and local institutions
identifying hot spot areas, identifying land-use pressures and Another way to analyse or characterise governance approaches or
scaling out SLM response options (Liniger et al. 2019). mechanisms might be according to a temporal scale with respect to
2. Cross-sectoral integration: rather than approach each relevant events – for example, those that may occur gradually versus
application or sector (e.g., energy, agriculture, forestry) separately, abruptly (Cash et al. 2006). Desertification and land degradation are
there is a conscious effort at co-management and coordination drawn-out processes that occur over many years, whereas extreme
in policies and institutions, such as with the energy–water–food events are abrupt and require immediate attention. Similarly, the
nexus (Biggs et al. 2015). frequency of events might be of special interest – for example, events
3. End-use/market integration: often involves exploiting that occur periodically versus those that occur infrequently and/or
economies of scope across products, supply chains, and irregularly. In the case of food security, abrupt and protracted events
infrastructure (Nuhoff-Isakhanyan et al. 2016; Ashkenazy et al. of food insecurity might occur. There is a distinction between ‘hunger
2017). For instance, land-use transport models consider land months’ and longer-term food insecurity. Some indigenous practices
use, transportation, city planning, and climate mitigation (Ford already incorporate hunger months whereas structural food deficits
et al. 2018). have to be addressed differently (Bacon et al. 2014). Governance
mechanisms that facilitate rapid response to crises are quite different
from those aimed at monitoring slower changes and responding with
longer-term measures.

Case study | Governance: Biofuels and bioenergy

New policies and initiatives during the past decade or so have increased support for bioenergy as a non-intermittent (stored) renewable
with wide geographic availability that is cost-effective in a range of applications. Significant upscaling of bioenergy requires dedicated
(normally land-based) sources in addition to use of wastes and residues. As a result, a disadvantageous high land-use intensity compared
to other renewables (Fritsche et al. 2017b) that, in turn, place greater demands on governance. Bioenergy, especially traditional fuels,
currently provides the largest share of renewable energy globally and has a significant role in nearly all climate stabilisation scenarios,
although estimates of its potential vary widely (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Policies and governance for bioenergy systems
and markets must address diverse applications and sectors across levels from local to global; here we briefly review the literature in
relation to governance for modern bioenergy and biofuels with respect to land and climate impacts, whereas traditional biomass use
(see Glossary) (> 50% of energy used today with greater land use and GHG emissions impacts in low- and medium-income countries
(Bailis et al. 2015; Masera et al. 2015; Bailis et al. 2017a; Kiruki et al. 2017b)) is addressed elsewhere (Sections 4.5.4 and 7.4.6.4 and
Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7). The bioenergy lifecycle is relevant in accounting for – and attributing – land impacts and GHG
emissions (Section 2.5.1.5). Integrated responses across different sectors can help to reduce negative impacts and promote sustainable
development opportunities (Table 6.9, Table 6.58, Chapter 6).
7

738
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Case study (continued)

It is very likely that bioenergy expansion at a scale that contributes significantly to global climate mitigation efforts (see Cross-Chapter
Box 7 in Chapter 6) will result in substantial land-use change (Berndes et al. 2015; Popp et al. 2014a; Wilson et al. 2014; Behrman et al.
2015; Richards et al. 2017; Harris et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2017a). There is medium evidence and high agreement that land-use change
at such scale presents a variety of positive and negative socio-economic and environmental impacts that lead to risks and trade-offs
that must be managed or governed across different levels (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2018a; Kurian 2017; Franz et al. 2017; Chang et al. 2016;
Larcom and van Gevelt 2017; Lubis et al. 2018; Alexander et al. 2015b; Rasul 2014; Bonsch et al. 2016; Karabulut et al. 2018; Mayor et
al. 2015). There is medium evidence and high agreement that impacts vary considerably according to factors such as initial land-use
type, choice of crops, initial carbon stocks, climatic region, soil types and the management regime and adopted technologies (Qin et
al. 2016; Del Grosso et al. 2014; Popp et al. 2017; Davis et al. 2013; Mello et al. 2014; Hudiburg et al. 2015; Carvalho et al. 2016; Silva-
Olaya et al. 2017;  Whitaker et al. 2018; Alexander et al. 2015b).

There is medium evidence and high agreement that significant socio-economic impacts requiring additional policy responses can occur
when agricultural lands and/or food crops are used for bioenergy, due to competition between food and fuel (Harvey and Pilgrim 2011;
Rosillo Callé and Johnson 2010b), including impacts on food prices (Martin Persson 2015; Roberts and Schlenker 2013; Borychowski
and Czyżewski 2015; Koizumi 2014; Muratori et al. 2016; Popp et al. 2014b; Araujo Enciso et al. 2016) and impacts on food security
(Popp et al. 2014b; Bailey 2013; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2018b; Rulli et al. 2016; Yamagata et al. 2018; Kline et al. 2017; Schröder et al. 2018;
Franz et al. 2017; Mohr et al. 2016). Additionally, crops such as sugarcane, which are water-intensive when used for ethanol production,
have a trade-off with water and downstream ES and other crops more important for food security (Rulli et al. 2016; Gheewala et
al. 2011). Alongside negative impacts that might fall on urban consumers (who purchase both food and energy), there is medium
evidence and medium agreement that rural producers or farmers can increase income or strengthen livelihoods by diversifying into
biofuel crops that have an established market (Maltsoglou et al. 2014; Mudombi et al. 2018a; Gasparatos et al. 2018a,b,c; von Maltitz
et al. 2018; Kline et al. 2017; Rodríguez Morales and Rodríguez López 2017; Dale et al. 2015; Lee and Lazarus 2013; Rodríguez-Morales
2018). A key governance mechanism that has emerged in response to such concerns, (especially during the past decade) are standards
and certification systems that include food security and land rights in addition to general criteria or indicators related to sustainable
use of land and biomass (Section 7.4.6.3). There is medium evidence and medium agreement that policies promoting use of wastes
and residues, use of non-edible crops and/or reliance on degraded and marginal lands for bioenergy could reduce land competition
and associated risk for food security (Manning et al. 2015; Maltsoglou et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2018a; Gu and Wylie 2017; Kline et al.
2017; Schröder et al. 2018; Suckall et al. 2015; Popp et al. 2014a; Lal 2013).

There is medium evidence and high agreement that good governance, including policy coherence and coordination across the different
sectors involved (agriculture, forestry, livestock, energy, transport) (Section 7.6.2) can help to reduce the risks and increase the co-
benefits of bioenergy expansion (Makkonen et al. 2015; Di Gregorio et al. 2017; Schut et al. 2013; Mukhtarov et al.; Torvanger 2019a;
Müller et al. 2015; Nkonya et al. 2015; Johnson and Silveira 2014; Lundmark et al. 2014; Schultz et al. 2015; Silveira and Johnson
2016; Giessen et al. 2016b; Stattman et al. 2018b; Bennich et al. 2017b). There is medium evidence and high agreement that the
nexus approach can help to address interconnected biomass resource management challenges and entrenched economic interests,
and leverage synergies in the systemic governance of risk. (Bizikova et al. 2013; Rouillard et al. 2017; Pahl-Wostl 2017a; Lele et al.
2013; Rodríguez Morales and Rodríguez López 2017; Larcom and van Gevelt 2017; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2018a; Rulli et al. 2016; Rasul and
Sharma 2016; Weitz et al. 2017b; Karlberg et al. 2015).

A key issue for governance of biofuels and bioenergy, as well as land-use governance more generally, during the past decade is
the need for new governance mechanisms across different levels as land-use policies and bioenergy investments are scaled up and
result in wider impacts (Section 7.6). There is low evidence and medium agreement that hybrid governance mechanisms can promote
sustainable bioenergy investments and land-use pathways. This hybrid governance can include multi-level, transnational governance,
and private-led or partnership-style (polycentric) governance, complementing national-level, strong public coordination (government
and public administration) (Section 7.6.2) (Pahl-Wostl 2017a; Pacheco et al. 2016; Winickoff and Mondou 2017; Nagendra and Ostrom
2012; Jordan et al. 2015a; Djalante et al. 2013; Purkus, A, Gawel, E. and Thrän, D. 2012; Purkus et al. 2018; Stattman et al.; Rietig 2018;
Cavicchi et al. 2017; Stupak et al. 2016; Stupak and Raulund-Rasmussen 2016; Westberg and Johnson 2013; Giessen et al. 2016b;
Johnson and Silveira 2014; Stattman et al. 2018b; Mukhtarov et al.; Torvanger 2019b).

739
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 12 | Traditional biomass use: Land, climate and development implications

Francis X. Johnson (Sweden), Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia), Rob Bailis (The United States of America), Suruchi Bhadwal (India), Annette
Cowie (Australia), Tek Sapkota (Nepal)

Introduction and significance

Most biomass used for energy today is in traditional forms (fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural residues) for cooking and heating by
some 3 billion people worldwide (IEA 2017). Traditional biomass has high land and climate impacts, with significant harvesting losses,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil impacts and high conversion losses (Cutz et al. 2017b; Masera et al. 2015; Ghilardi et al. 2016a;
Bailis et al. 2015; Fritsche et al. 2017b; Mudombi et al. 2018b). In addition to these impacts, indoor air pollution from household
cooking is a leading cause of mortality in low- and medium-income countries and especially affects women and children (Smith et al.
2014a; HEI/IHME 2018; Goldemberg et al. 2018b). In rural areas, the significant time needed for gathering fuelwood imposes further
costs on women and children (Njenga and Mendum 2018; Gurung and Oh 2013a; Behera et al. 2015a).

Both agricultural and woody biomass can be upgraded and used sustainably through improved resource management and modern
conversion technologies, providing much greater energy output per unit of biomass (Cutz et al. 2017b; Hoffmann et al. 2015a; Gurung
and Oh 2013b). More relevant than technical efficiency is the improved quality of energy services: with increasing income levels
and/or access to technologies, households transition over time from agricultural residues and fuelwood to charcoal and then to
gaseous or liquid fuels and electricity (Leach 1992; Pachauri and Jiang 2008; Goldemberg and Teixeira Coelho 2004; Smeets et al.
2012a). However, most households use multiple stoves and/or fuels at the same time, known as ‘fuel stacking’ for economic flexibility
and also for socio-cultural reasons (Ruiz-Mercado and Masera 2015a; Cheng and Urpelainen 2014; Takama et al. 2012).

Urban and rural use of traditional biomass

In rural areas, fuelwood is often gathered at no cost to the user, and burned directly whereas, in urban areas, traditional biomass
use  may often involve semi-processed fuels, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa where charcoal is the primary urban cooking fuel.
Rapid urbanisation and/or commercialisation drives a shift from fuelwood to charcoal, which results in significantly higher wood use
(very high confidence) due to losses in charcoal supply chains and the tendency to use whole trees for charcoal production (Santos
et al. 2017; World Bank. 2009a; Hojas-Gascon et al. 2016a; Smeets et al. 2012b). One study in Myanmar found that charcoal required
23 times the land area of fuelwood (Win et al. 2018). In areas of woody biomass scarcity, animal dung and agricultural residues, as
well as lower-quality wood, are often used (Kumar Nath et al. 2013a; Go et al. 2019a; Jagger and Kittner 2017; Behera et al. 2015b).
The fraction of woody biomass harvested that is not ‘demonstrably renewable’ is the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) under
UNFCCC accounting; default values for fNRB for least-developed countries and small island developing states ranged from 40–100%
(CDM Executive Board 2012). Uncertainties in woodfuel data, complexities in spatiotemporal woodfuel modelling and rapid forest
regrowth in some tropical regions present sources of variation in such estimates, and some fNRB values  are likely to have been
overestimated (McNicol et al. 2018a; Ghilardi et al. 2016b; Bailis et al. 2017b).

GHG emissions and traditional biomass

Due to over-harvesting, incomplete combustion and the effects of short-lived climate pollutants, traditional woodfuels (fuelwood and
charcoal) contribute 1.9–2.3% of global GHG emissions; non-renewable biomass is concentrated especially in ‘hotspot’ regions of East
Africa and South Asia (Bailis et al. 2015). The estimate only includes woody biomass and does not account for possible losses in soil
carbon or the effects of nutrient losses from use of animal dung, which can be significant in some cases (Duguma et al. 2014a; Achat
et al. 2015a; Sánchez et al. 2016). Reducing emissions of black carbon alongside GHG reductions offers immediate health co-benefits
(Shindell et al. 2012; Pandey et al. 2017; Weyant et al. 2019a; Sparrevik et al. 2015). Significant GHG emissions reductions, depending
on baseline or reference use, can be obtained through fuel-switching to gaseous and liquid fuels, sustainable harvesting of woodfuels,
upgrading to efficient stoves, and adopting high-quality processed fuels such as wood pellets (medium evidence, high agreement)
(Wathore et al. 2017; Jagger and Das 2018; Quinn et al. 2018; Cutz et al. 2017b; Carter et al. 2018; Bailis et al. 2015; Ghilardi et al.
2018; Weyant et al. 2019b; Hoffmann et al. 2015b).

Land and forest degradation

Land degradation is itself a significant source of GHG emissions and biodiversity loss, with over-harvesting of woodfuel as a major
cause in some regions and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (Pearson et al. 2017; Joana Specht et al. 2015a; Kiruki et  al. 2017b;
Ndegwa et al. 2016; McNicol et al. 2018b). Reliance on traditional biomass is quite land-intensive: supplying one household
sustainably for a year can require more than half a hectare of land, which, in dryland countries such as Kenya, can result in substantial
percentage of total tree cover (Fuso Nerini et al. 2017). In Sub-Saharan Africa and in some other regions, land degradation is widely
7 associated with charcoal production (high confidence), often in combination with timber harvesting or clearing land for agriculture

740
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 12 (continued)

(Kiruki et al. 2017a; Ndegwa et al. 2016; Hojas-Gascon et al. 2016b). Yet charcoal makes a significant contribution to livelihoods in
many areas and thus, in spite of the ecological damage, halting charcoal production is difficult due to the lack of alternative livelihoods
and/or the affordability of other fuels (Smith et al. 2015; Zulu and Richardson 2013a; Jones et al. 2016a; World Bank 2009b).

Use of agricultural residues and animal dung for bioenergy

Although agricultural wastes and residues from almost any crop can be used in many cases for bioenergy, excessive removal or reduction
of forest (or agricultural) biomass can contribute to a loss of soil carbon, which can also, in turn, contribute to land degradation (James
et al. 2016; Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009a; Carvalho et al. 2016; Achat et al. 2015b; Stavi and Lal 2015). Removals are limited to levels
at which problems of soil erosion, depletion of soil organic matter, soil nutrient depletion and decline in crop yield are effectively
mitigated (Ayamga et al. 2015a; Baudron et al. 2014; Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009b). Application or recycling of residues may, in
some cases, be more valuable for soil improvement (medium confidence). Tao et al. (2017) used leftover oil palm fruit bunches and
demonstrated that application of 30 to 90 t ha–1 empty fruit bunches maintains high palm oil yield with low temporal variability.
A wide variety of wastes from palm oil harvesting can be used for bioenergy, including annual crop residues (Go et al. 2019b; Ayamga
et al. 2015b; Gardner et al. 2018b).

Animal dung is a low-quality fuel used where woody biomass is scarce, such as in South Asia and some areas of eastern Africa
(Duguma et al. 2014b; Behera et al. 2015b; Kumar Nath et al. 2013b). Carbon and nutrient losses can be significant when animal dung
is dried and burned as cake, whereas using dung in a biodigester provides high-quality fuel and preserves nutrients in the by-product
slurry (Clemens et al. 2018; Gurung and Oh 2013b; Quinn et al. 2018).

Production and use of biochar

Converting agricultural residues into biochar can also help to reverse trends of soil degradation (Section 4.10.7). The positive effects of
using biochar have been demonstrated in terms of soil aggregate improvement, increase of exchangeable cations, cation exchange
capacity, available phosphorus, soil pH and carbon sequestration as well as increased crop yields (Huang et al. 2018; El-Naggar et
al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018; Oladele et al. 2019; Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009b). The level of biochar effectiveness varies depending on
the kind of feedstock, soil properties and rate of application (Shaaban et al. 2018; Pokharel and Chang 2019). In addition to adding
value to an energy product, the use of biochar offers a climate-smart approach to addressing agricultural productivity (Solomon and
Lehmann 2017).

Relationship to food security and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The population that is food insecure also intersects significantly with those relying heavily on traditional biomass such that poor and
vulnerable populations often expend considerable time (gathering fuel) or use a significant share of household income for low-quality
energy services (Fuso Nerini et al. 2017; McCollum et al. 2018; Rao and Pachauri 2017; Pachauri et al. 2018; Muller and Yan 2018;
Takama et al. 2012). Improvements in energy access and reduction or elimination of traditional biomass use thus have benefits across
multiple SDGs (medium evidence, high agreement) (Masera et al. 2015; Rao and Pachauri 2017; Pachauri et al. 2018; Hoffmann et al.
2017; Jeuland et al. 2015; Takama et al. 2012; Gitau et al. 2019; Quinn et al. 2018; Ruiz-Mercado and Masera 2015b; Duguma et al.
2014b; Sola et al. 2016b). Improved energy access contributes to adaptive capacity, although charcoal production itself can also serve
as a diversification or adaptation strategy (Perera et al. 2015; Ochieng et al. 2014; Sumiya 2016; Suckall et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2016b).

Socio-economic choices and shifts

When confronted with the limitations of higher-priced household energy alternatives, climate mitigation policies can result in trade-
offs with health, energy access and other SDGs (Cameron et al. 2016; Fuso Nerini et al. 2018). The poorest households have  no
margin to pay for higher-cost efficient stoves; a focus on product-specific characteristics, user needs and/or making clean options more
available would improve the market take-up (medium confidence) (Takama et al. 2012; Mudombi et al. 2018c; Khandelwal et al. 2017;
Rosenthal et al. 2017; Cundale et al. 2017; Jürisoo et al. 2018). Subsidies for more efficient end-use technologies, in combination with
promotion of sustainable harvesting techniques, would provide the highest emissions reductions while improving energy services
(Cutz et al. 2017a).

Knowledge gaps
Unlike analyses on modern energy sources, scientific assessments on traditional biomass use are complicated by its informal
nature and the difficulty of tracing data and impacts; more systematic analytical efforts are needed to address this research gap

741
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 12 (continued)

(Cerutti et al. 2015). In general, traditional biomass use is associated with poverty. Therefore, efforts to reduce the dependence
on fuelwood use are to be conducted in coherence with poverty alleviation (McCollum et al. 2018; Joana Specht et al. 2015b;
Zulu  and  Richardson 2013b). The substantial potential co-benefits suggest that the traditional biomass sector remains under-
researched and under-exploited in terms of cost-effective emissions reductions, as well as for synergies between climate stabilisation
goals and other SDGs.

7.6.3 Adaptive climate governance between top-down and bottom-up decision-making that is performed
responding to uncertainty by many actors (including citizens) in both formal and informal
networks, allowing policy measures and governance arrangements
In the 1990s, adaptive governance emerged from adaptive management to be tailored to local context and matched at the appropriate scale
(Holling 1978, 1986), combining resilience and complexity theory, of the problem, allowing for opportunities for experimentation and
and reflecting the trend of moving from government to governance learning by individuals and social groups (Rouillard et al. 2013;
(Hurlbert 2018b). Adaptive governance builds on multi-level and Hurlbert 2018b).
polycentric governance. Adaptive governance is ‘a process of resolving
trade-offs and charting a course for sustainability’ (Boyle et al. 2001, There is high confidence that anticipation is a key component of
p. 28) through a range of ‘political, social, economic and administrative adaptive climate governance wherein steering mechanisms in the
systems that develop, manage and distribute a resource in a manner present are developed to adapt to and/or shape uncertain futures
promoting resilience through collaborative, flexible and learning-based (Vervoort and Gupta 2018; Wiebe et al. 2018; Fuerth 2009). Effecting
issue management across different scales’ (Hurlbert 2018, p. 25). There this anticipatory governance involves simultaneously making
is medium evidence and medium agreement that few alternative short-term decisions in the context of longer-term policy visioning,
governance theories handle processes of change characterised anticipating future climate change models and scenarios in order
by nonlinear dynamics, threshold effects, cascades and limited to realise a more sustainable future (Bates and Saint-Pierre 2018;
predictability; however, the majority of literature relates to the USA or Serrao-Neumann et al. 2013; Boyd et al. 2015). Utilising the decision-
Canada (Karpouzoglou et al. 2016). Combining adaptive governance making tools and practices in Section 7.5, policymakers operationalise
with other theories has allowed good evaluation of important anticipatory governance through a foresight system considering
governance features such as power and politics, inclusion and equity, future scenarios and models, a networked system for integrating
short-term and long-term change, and the relationship between public this knowledge into the policy process, a feedback system using
policy and adaptive governance (Karpouzoglou et al. 2016). indicators (Section  7.5.5) to gauge performance, an open-minded
institutional culture allowing for hybrid and polycentric governance
There is robust evidence and high agreement that resource and (Fuerth and Faber 2013; Fuerth 2009).
disaster crises are crises of governance (Pahl-Wostl 2017b; Villagra
and Quintana 2017; Gupta et al. 2013b). Adaptive governance of risk There is high confidence that, in order to manage uncertainty, natural
has emerged in response to these crises and involves four critical resource governance systems need to allow agencies and stakeholders
pillars (Fra.Paleo 2015): to learn and change over time, responding to ecosystem changes and
new information with different management strategies and practices
1. Sustainability as a response to environmental degradation, that involve experimentation (Camacho 2009; Young 2017b). There is
resource depletion and ES deterioration emerging literature on experimentation in governance surrounding
2. Recognition that governance is required as government is unable climate change and land use (Kivimaa et al. 2017a) including policies
to resolve key societal and environmental problems, including such as REDD+ (Kaisa et al. 2017). Governance experiment literature
climate change and complex problems could be in relation to scaling up policies from the local level for
3. Mitigation as a means to reduce vulnerability and avoid exposure greater application, or downscaling policies addressing broad complex
4. Adaptation responds to changes in environmental conditions. issues such as climate change, or addressing necessary change in social
processes across sectors (such as water energy and food) (Laakso et al.
Closely related to (and arguably components of) adaptive governance 2017). Successful development of new policy instruments occurred in
are adaptive management (Section 7.5.4) (a regulatory environment a governance experiment relating to coastal policy adapting to rising
that manages ecological system boundaries through hypothesis sea levels and extreme weather events through planned retreat (Rocle
testing, monitoring, and re-evaluation (Mostert et al. 2007)), adaptive and Salles 2018). Experiments in emissions trading between 1968
co-management (flexible community-based resource management and 2000 in the USA helped to realise specific models of governance
(Plummer and Baird 2013)), and anticipatory governance (flexible and material practices through mutually supportive lab experiments
decision-making through the use of scenario planning and reiterative and field applications that advanced collective knowledge (Voß and
7 policy review (Boyd et al. 2015)). Adaptive governance can be Simons 2018).
conceptualised as including multilevel governance with a balance

742
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

There is high confidence that an SLM plan is dynamic and adaptive the capacity to monitor local socio-economic processes and implement
over time to (unforeseen) future conditions by monitoring indicators dynamic locally informed institutional responses. In Alaska, adaptive
as early warnings or signals of tipping points, initiating a process governance responded to the dynamic risk of extreme weather events
of change in policy pathway before a harmful threshold is reached and issue of climate migration by providing a continuum of policy from
(Stephens et al. 2018, 2017; Haasnoot et al. 2013; Bloemen et al. protection in place to community relocation, integrating across levels
2018) (Section 7.5.2.2). This process has been applied in relation to and actors in a more effective and less costly response option than
coastal sea level rise, starting with low-risk, low-cost measures and other governance systems (Bronen and Chapin 2013). In comparison
working up to measures requiring greater investment after review to other governance initiatives of ecosystem management aimed at
and reevaluation (Barnett et al. 2014). A first measure was stringent conservation and sustainable use of natural capital, adaptive governance
controls of new development, graduating to managed relocation has visible effects on natural capital by monitoring, communicating and
of low-lying critical infrastructure, and eventually movement of responding to ecosystem-wide changes at the landscape level (Schultz
habitable dwellings to more elevated parts of town, as flooding and et al. 2015). Adaptive governance can be applied to manage drought
inundation triggers are experienced (Haasnoot et al. 2018; Lawrence assistance as a common property resource. Adaptive governance can
et al. 2018; Barnett et al. 2014; Stephens et al. 2018). Nanda et al. manage complex, interacting goals to create innovative policy options,
(2018) apply the concept to a wetland in Australia to identify a mix facilitated through nested and polycentric systems of governance,
of short- and long-term decisions, and Prober et al. (2017) develop effected by watershed or catchment management groups in areas of
adaptation pathways for agricultural landscapes, also in Australia. natural resource management (Nelson et al. 2008).
Both studies identify that longer-term decisions may involve
a  considerable change to institutional arrangements at different There is medium evidence and high agreement that transformational
scales. Viewing climate mitigation as a series of connected decisions change is a necessary societal response option to manage climate
over a long time period and not an isolated decision, reduces the risks which is uniquely characterised by the depth of change needed
fragmentation and uncertainty endemic of models and effectiveness to reframe problems and change dominant mindsets, the scope of
of policy measures (Roelich and Giesekam 2019). change needed (that is larger than just a few people) and the speed
of change required to reduce emissions (O’Brien et al. 2012; Termeer
There is medium evidence and high agreement that participatory et al. 2017). Transformation of governance occurs with changes in
processes in adaptive governance within and across policy regimes values to reflect an understanding that the environmental crisis
overcome limitations of polycentric governance, allowing priorities to occurs in the context of our relation with the earth (Hordijk et al.
be set in sustainable development through rural land management and 2014; Pelling 2010). Transformation can happen by intervention
integrated water resource management (Rouillard et al. 2013). Adaptive strategies that enable small in-depth wins, amplify these small wins
governance addresses large uncertainties and their social amplification through integration into existing practices, and unblock stagnations
through differing perceptions of risk (Kasperson 2012; Fra.Paleo 2015) (locked in structures) preventing transformation by confronting social
offering an approach to co-evolve with risk by implementing policy and cognitive fixations with counterintuitive interventions (Termeer
mixes and assessing effectiveness in an ongoing process, making et al. 2017). Iterative consideration of issues and reformulation of
mid-point corrections when necessary (Fra.Paleo 2015). In respect of policy instruments and response options facilitates transformation by
climate adaptation to coastal and riverine land erosion due to extreme allowing experimentation (Monkelbaan 2019).
weather events impacting on communities, adaptive governance offers

Box 7.2 | Adaptive governance and interlinkages of food, fibre, water, energy and land

Emerging literature and case studies recognise the connectedness of the environment and human activities, and the interrelationships
of multiple resource-use practices in an attempt to understand synergies and trade-offs (Albrecht et al. 2018). Sustainable adaptation –
or actions contributing to environmentally and socially sustainable development pathways (Eriksen et al. 2011) – requires consideration
of the interlinkage of different sectors (Rasul and Sharma 2016). Integrating considerations can address sustainability (Hoff 2011)
showing promise (Allan et al. 2015) for effective adaptation to climate impacts in many drylands (Rasul and Sharma 2016).

Case studies of integrated water resources management (IWRM), landscape- and ecosystem-based approaches illustrate important
dimensions of institutions, institutional coordination, resource coupling and local and global connections (Scott et al. 2011). Integrated
governance, policy coherence, and use of multi-functional systems are required to advance synergies across land, water, energy and
food sectors (Liu et al. 2017).

Case study: Flood and food security

Between 2003 and 2013, floods were the natural disaster that most impacted on crop production (FAO 2015b) (albeit in certain
contexts, such as riverine ecosystems and flood plain communities, floods can be beneficial).
7

743
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Box 7.2 (continued)

In developing countries, flood jeopardises primary access to food and impacts on livelihoods. In Bangladesh, the 2007 flood reduced
average consumption by 103Kcal/cap/day (worsening the existing 19.4% calories deficit), and in Pakistan, the 2010 flood resulted in
a loss of 205 Kcal/cap/day (or 8.5% of the Pakistan average food supply). The 2010 flood affected more than 4.5 million workers, two-
thirds employed in agriculture; and 79% of farms lost greater than one-half of their expected income (Pacetti et al. 2017).

Policy instruments and responses react to the sequential and cascading impacts of flood. In a Malawi study, flood impacts
cascaded  through labour, trade and transfer systems. First a harvest failure occurred, followed by the decline of employment
opportunities and reduction in real wages, followed by a market failure or decline in trade, ultimately followed by a failure in informal
safety nets (Devereux 2007). Planned policy responses include those that address the sequential nature of the cascading impacts,
starting with ‘productivity-enhancing safety nets’ addressing harvest failure, then public works programmes addressing the decline in
employment opportunities, followed by food price subsidies to address the market failure, and finally food aid to address the failure
of informal safety nets (Devereux 2007). In another example in East Africa’s range lands, flood halted livestock sales, food prices
fell, and grain production ceased. Local food shortages couldn’t be supplemented with imports due to destruction of transport links,
and pastoral incomes were inadequate to purchase food. Livestock diseases became rampant and eventually food shortages led to
escalating prices. Due to the contextual nature and timing of events, policy responses initially addressed mobility and resource access,
and eventually longer-term issues such as livestock disease (Little et al. 2001).

In North America, floods are often described in terms of costs. For instance, the 1997 Red River Basin flood cost Manitoba, Canada
1 billion USD and the USA 4 billion USD in terms of impact on agriculture and food production (Adaptation to Climate Change Team
2013). In Canada, floods accounted for 82% of disaster financial assistance spent from 2005–2014 (Public Safety Canada 2017)
and this cost may increase in the future. Future climate change may result in a 2 meter in sea level by 2100, costing from 507 to
882 billion USD, affecting 300 American cities (losing one-half of their homes) and the wholesale loss of 36 cities (Lemann 2018).

Policy measures are important as an increasingly warming world may make post-disaster assistance and insurance increasingly
unaffordable (Surminski et al. 2016). Historic legal mechanisms for retreating from low-lying and coastal areas have failed to
encourage relocation of people out of flood plains and areas of high risk (Stoa 2015). In some places, cheap flood insurance and
massive aid programmes have encouraged the populating of low-lying flood-prone and coastal areas (Lemann 2018). Although
the state makes disaster assistance payments, it is local governments that determine vulnerability through flood zone mapping,
restrictions from building in flood zones, building requirements (Stoa 2015), and integrated planning for flood. A comprehensive policy
mix (Section 7.4.8) (implemented through adaptive management as illustrated in Figure 7.6) reduces vulnerability (Hurlbert 2018a,b).
Policy mixes that allow people to respond to disasters include bankruptcy, insolvency rules, house protected from creditors, income
minimums, and basic agricultural implement protection laws. The portfolio of policies allows people to recover  and,  if necessary,
migrate to other areas and occupations (Hurlbert 2018b).

At the international level, reactionary disaster response has evolved to proactive risk management that combines adaptation
and mitigation responses to ensure effective risk response, build resilient systems and solve issues of structural social inequality
(Innocenti and Albrito 2011). Advanced measures of preparedness are the main instruments to reduce fatalities and limit damage,
as illustrated in Figure 7.8. The Sendai Declaration (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030), is an action plan to
reduce mortality, the number of affected people and economic losses, using four priorities: understanding disaster risk; strengthening
its governance to enhance the ability to manage disaster risk; investing in resilience; and enhancing disaster preparedness. There is
medium evidence and high agreement that the Sendai Declaration significantly refers to adaptive governance and could be a window
of opportunity to transform disaster risk reduction to address the causes of vulnerability (Munene et al. 2018). Addressing disasters
increasingly requires individual, household, community and national planning and commitment to a  new  path of resilience and
shared responsibility through whole community engagement and linking private and public infrastructure interests (Rouillard et al.
2013). It is recommended that a vision and overarching framework of governance be adopted to allow participation and coordination
by government, NGOs, researchers and the private sector, individuals in the neighbourhood community. Disaster risk response is
enhanced with complementary structural and non-structural measures, implemented together with measurable scorecard indicators
(Chen 2011).

744
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Box 7.2 (continued)

Adaptive Governance

Monitor and evaluate

Vulnerability
(marginalized people,
endangered species and Preparedness
ecosystems, food importing
Implement solutions countries, un-adapted land
management)
Adaptive management

Disaster risk response

Exposure
Planning and (frequency/intensity Risks Intervention
decision making of extreme events,
across regions,
biomes)

Hazard
(extreme events,
Identify objectives Event analysis
land degradation,
desertification, forest
dieback, ecosystem
shifts)
Define the problem

Figure 7.8 | Adaptive governance.

Adaptive management identifies and responds to exposure and vulnerability to land and climate change impacts by identifying
problems and objectives, making decisions in relation to response options, and instruments advancing response options in the context
of uncertainty. These decisions are continuously monitored, evaluated and adjusted to changing conditions. Similarly disaster risk
management responds to hazards through preparation, prevention, response, analysis, and reconstruction in an iterative process.

7.6.4 Participation barriers for meaningful participation are surpassed (Clemens et  al.
2015). The absence of systematic leadership, the lack of consensus
It is recognised that more benefits are derived when citizens actively on the place of direct citizen participation, and the limited scope and
participate in land and climate decision-making, conservation, powers of participatory innovations, limits the utility of participation
and policy formation (high confidence) (Jansujwicz et al. 2013; (Fung 2015).
Coenen and Coenen 2009; Hurlbert and Gupta 2015). Local leaders
supported by strong laws, institutions, and collaborative platforms, Multiple methods of participation exist, including multi-stakeholder
are able to draw on local knowledge, challenge external scientists, forums, participatory scenario analyses, public forums and citizen
and find transparent and effective solutions for climate and land juries (Coenen and Coenen 2009). No one method is superior, but
conflicts (Couvet and Prevot 2015; Johnson et al. 2017). Meaningful each method must be tailored for local context (high confidence)
participation is more than providing technical/scientific information (Blue and Medlock 2014; Voß and Amelung 2016). Strategic
to citizens in order to accept decisions already made – rather, it innovation in developing policy initiatives requires a strategic
allows citizens to deliberate about climate change impacts to adaptation framework involving pluralistic and adaptive processes
determine shared responsibilities, creating genuine opportunity to and use of boundary organisations (Head 2014).
construct, discuss and promote alternatives (high confidence) (Lee et
al. 2013; Armeni 2016; Pieraccini 2015; Serrao-Neumann et al. 2015b; The framing of a land and climate issue can influence the manner of
Armeni 2016). Participation is an emerging quality of collective public engagement (Hurlbert and Gupta 2015) and studies have found 7
action and social learning processes (Castella et al. 2014) when that local frames of climate change are particularly important (Hornsey

745
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

et al. 2016; Spence et al. 2012), emphasising diversity of perceptions kinds. ILK can be used in decision-making on climate change
to adaptation and mitigation options (Capstick et al. 2015) – although adaptation, SLM and food security at various scales and levels, and
Singh and Swanson (2017) found little evidence that framing impacted is important for long-term sustainability (high confidence). Cross-
on the perceived importance of climate change. Chapter Box 13 discusses definitional issues associated with ILK,
evidence of its usefulness in responses to land-climate challenges,
Recognition and use of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) constraints on its use, and possibilities for its incorporation in
is an important element of participatory approaches of various decision-making.

Cross-Chapter Box 13 | Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)

John Morton (United Kingdom), Fatima Denton (The Gambia), James Ford (United Kingdom), Joyce Kimutai (Kenya), Pamela McElwee
(The United States of America), Marta Rivera Ferre (Spain), Lindsay Stringer (United Kingdom).

Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can play a key role in climate change adaptation (high confidence) (Mapfumo et al. 2017;
Nyong et al. 2007; Green and Raygorodetsky 2010; Speranza et al. 2010; Alexander et al. 2011; Leonard et al. 2013; Nakashima et al.
2013; Tschakert 2007). The Summary for Policymakers of the Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014b, p. 26) states that ‘Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems and
practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are a major resource for adapting to climate
change, but these have not been used consistently in existing adaptation efforts. Integrating such forms of knowledge with existing
practices increases the effectiveness of adaptation’ (see also Ford et al. 2016). The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C
(SR15) (IPCC 2018a; de Coninck et al. 2018) confirms the effectiveness and potential feasibility of adaptation options based on ILK,
but also raises concerns that such knowledge systems are being threatened by multiple socio-economic and environmental drivers
(high confidence). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Land Degradation
and Restoration Assessment (IPBES 2018) finds the same – that ILK can support adaptation to land degradation, but is threatened.

A variety of terminology has been used to describe ILK: indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, traditional knowledge,
traditional ecological knowledge, and other terms are used in overlapping and often inconsistent ways (Naess 2013). SR15 (IPCC
2018a) reserves ‘indigenous knowledge’ for culturally distinctive ways of knowing associated with ‘societies with long histories of
interaction with their natural surroundings’, while using ‘local knowledge’ for ‘understandings and skills developed by individuals and
populations, specific to the places where they live’, but not all research studies observe this distinction. This Special Report generally
uses ILK as a combined term for these forms of knowledge, but in some sections the terminology used follows that from the research
literature assessed.

In contrast to scientific knowledge, ILK is context-specific, collective, transmitted informally, and is multi-functional (Mistry and Berardi
2016; Naess 2013; Janif et al. 2016). Persson et al. (2018) characterise ILK as ‘practical experience’, as locally held knowledges are
acquired through processes of experience and interaction with the surrounding physical world. ILK is embedded in local institutions
(Naess 2013) and in cultural aspects of landscape and food systems (Fuller and Qingwen 2013; Koohafkan and Altieri 2011). ILK
can encompass such diverse content as factual information about the environment, guidance on rights and management, value
statements about interactions with others, and cosmologies and worldviews that influence how information is perceived and acted
on, among other topics (Spoon 2014; Usher 2000).

This cross-chapter box assesses evidence for the positive role of ILK in understanding climate change and other environmental
processes, and in managing land sustainably in the face of climate change, desertification, land degradation and food insecurity.
It also assesses constraints on and threats to the use of ILK in these challenges, and processes by which ILK can be incorporated
in decision-making and governance processes.

ILK in understanding and responding to climate change impacts

ILK can play a role in understanding climate change and other environmental processes, particularly where formal data collection
is sparse (Alexander et al. 2011; Schick et al. 2018), and can contribute to accurate predictions of impending environmental change
(Green and Raygorodetsky 2010; Orlove et al. 2010) (medium confidence). At both global level (Alexander et al. 2011; Green and
Raygorodetsky 2010), and local level (Speranza et al. 2010; Ayanlade et al. 2017), strong correlations between local perceptions of
climate change and meteorological data have been shown, as calendars, almanacs, and other seasonal and interannual systems
knowledge embedded in ILK hold information about environmental baselines (Orlove et al. 2010; Cochran et al. 2016).

746
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Cross-Chapter Box 13 (continued)

ILK is strongly associated with sustainable management of natural resources, (including land), and with autonomous adaptation to
climate variability and change, while also serving as a resource for externally-facilitated adaptation (Stringer et al. 2009). For example,
women’s traditional knowledge adds value to a society’s knowledge base and supports climate change adaptation practices (Lane
and McNaught 2009). In dryland environments, populations have historically demonstrated remarkable resilience and innovation to
cope with high climatic variability, manage dynamic interactions between local communities and ecosystems, and sustain livelihoods
(Safriel and Adeel 2008; Davies 2017). There is high confidence that pastoralists have created formal and informal institutions based
on ILK for regulating grazing, collection and cutting of herbs and wood, and use of forests across the Middle East and North Africa
(Louhaichi and Tastad 2010; Domínguez 2014; Auclair et al. 2011), Mongolia (Fernandez-Gimenez 2000), the Horn of Africa (Oba 2013)
and the Sahel (Krätli and Schareika 2010). Herders in both the Horn of Africa and the Sahel have developed complex livestock breeding
and selection systems for their dryland environment (Krätli 2008; Fre 2018). Numerous traditional water harvesting techniques are
used across the drylands to adapt to climate variability: planting pits (zai, ngoro) and micro-basins and contouring hill slopes and
terracing (Biazin et al. 2012), alongside the traditional ndiva water harvesting system in Tanzania to capture runoff in community-
managed micro-dams for small-scale irrigation (Enfors and Gordon 2008).

Across diverse agro-ecological systems, ILK is the basis for traditional practices to manage the landscape and sustain food production,
while delivering co-benefits in the form of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a landscape scale (high confidence). Flexibility and
adaptiveness are hallmarks of such systems (Richards 1985a; Biggs et al. 2013), and documented examples include: traditional integrated
watershed management in the Philippines (Camacho et al. 2016); widespread use of terracing, with benefits, in cases of both intensifying
and decreasing rainfall (Arnáez et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2017b) and management of water harvesting and local irrigation systems in the
Indo-Gangetic Plains (Rivera-Ferre et al. 2016). Rice cultivation in East Borneo is sustained by traditional forms of shifting cultivation,
often involving intercropping of rice with bananas, cassava and other food crops (Siahaya et al. 2016), although the use of fire in land
clearance implies trade-offs for climate change mitigation which have been sparsely assessed. Indigenous practices for enhanced soil
fertility have been documented among South Asian farmers (Chandra et al. 2011; Dey and Sarkar 2011) and among Mayan farmers,
where management of carbon has positive impacts on mitigation (Falkowski et al. 2016). Korean traditional groves or ‘bibosoop’ have
been shown to reduce wind speed and evaporation in agricultural landscapes (Koh et al. 2010). Particularly in the context of changing
climates, agriculture based on ILK that focuses on biodiversification, soil management, and sustainable water harvesting holds promise
for long-term resilience (Altieri and Nicholls 2017) and rehabilitation of degraded land (Maikhuri et al. 1997). ILK is also important in other
forms of ecosystem management, such as forests and wetlands, which may be conserved by efforts such as sacred sites (Ens et al. 2015;
Pungetti et al. 2012). ILK can also play an important role in ecological restoration efforts, including for carbon sinks, through knowledge
surrounding species selection and understanding of ecosystem processes, like fire (Kimmerer 2000).

Constraints on the use of ILK

Use of ILK as a resource in responding to climate change can be constrained in at least three ways (high confidence). First, the
rate of climate change and the scale of its impacts may render incremental adaptation based on the ILK of smallholders and others, less
relevant and less effective (Lane and McNaught 2009; Orlowsky and Seneviratne 2012; Huang et al. 2016; Morton 2017). Second,
maintenance and transmission of ILK across generations may be disrupted, for example, by formal education, missionary activity,
livelihood diversification away from agriculture, and a general perception that ILK is outdated and unfavourably contrasted with
scientific knowledge (Speranza et al. 2010), and by HIV-related mortality (White and Morton 2005). Urbanisation can erode ILK,
although ILK is constantly evolving, and becoming integrated into urban environments (Júnior et al. 2016; Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013;
van Andel and Carvalheiro 2013). Third, ILK holders are experiencing difficulty in using ILK due to loss of access to resources, such as
through large-scale land acquisition (Siahaya et al. 2016; Speranza et al. 2010; de Coninck et al. 2018). The increasing globalisation of
food systems and integration into global market economy also threatens to erode ILK (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; Oteros-Rozas
et al. 2013; McCarter et al. 2014). The potential role that ILK can play in adaptation at the local level depends on the configuration
of a policy–institutions–knowledge nexus (Stringer et al. 2018), which includes power relations across levels and interactions with
government strategies (Alexander et al. 2011; Naess 2013).

Incorporation of ILK in decision-making

ILK can be used in decision-making on climate change adaptation, sustainable land management (SLM) and food security at various
scales and levels, and is important for long-term sustainability (high confidence). Respect for ILK is both a requirement and an entry
strategy for participatory climate action planning and effective communication of climate action strategies (Nyong et al. 2007). The
nature, source, and mode of knowledge generation are critical to ensure that sustainable solutions are community-owned and fully
integrated within the local context (Mistry and Berardi 2016). Integrating ILK with scientific information is a prerequisite for such
community-owned solutions. Scientists can engage farmers as experts in processes of knowledge co-production (Oliver et al. 2012), 7

747
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Cross-Chapter Box 13 (continued)

helping to introduce, implement, adapt and promote locally appropriate responses (Schwilch et al. 2011). Specific approaches
to  decision-making that aim to integrate indigenous and local knowledge include some versions of decision support systems
(Jones et al. 2014) as well as citizen science and participatory modelling (Tengö et al. 2014).

ILK can be deployed in the practice of climate governance, especially at the local level where actions are informed by the principles of
decentralisation and autonomy (Chanza and de Wit 2016; Harmsworth and Awatere 2013). International environmental agreements
are also increasingly including attention to ILK and diverse cultural perspectives, for reasons of social justice and inclusive decision-
making (Brondizio and Tourneau 2016). However, the context-specific, and dynamic nature of ILK and its embeddedness in local
institutions and power relations needs consideration (Naess 2013). It is also important to take a gendered approach so as not to
further marginalise certain knowledge, as men and women hold different knowledge, expertise and  transmission patterns (Díaz-
Reviriego et al. 2017).

Citizen science Participation, collective action, and social learning

Citizen science is a democratic approach to science involving As land and climate issues cannot be solved by one individual,
citizens in collecting, classifying, and interpreting data to influence a diverse collective action issue exists for land-use policies and
policy and assist decision processes, including issues relevant to the planning practices (Moroni 2018) at local, national, and regional
environment (Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016). It has flourished in levels. Collective action involves individuals and communities in
recent years due to easily available technical tools for collecting and land-planning processes in order to determine successful climate
disseminating information (e.g., cell phone-based apps, cloud-based adaptation and mitigation (Nkoana et al. 2017; Liu and Ravenscroft
services, ground sensors, drone imagery, and others), recognition 2017; Nieto-Romero et al. 2016; Nikolakis et al. 2016), or as Sarzynski
of its free source of labour, and requirements of funding agencies (2015) finds, a community ‘pulling together’ to solve common
for project-related outreach (Silvertown 2009). There is significant adaptation and land-planning issues.
potential for combining citizen science and participatory modelling
to obtain favourable outcomes and improve environmental decision- Collective action offers solutions for emerging land and climate
making (medium confidence) (Gray et al. 2017). Citizen participation change risks, including strategies that target maintenance or change
in land-use simulation integrates stakeholders’ preferences through of land-use practices, increase livelihood security, share risk through
the generation of parameters in analytical and discursive approaches pooling, and sometimes also aim to promote social and economic
(Hewitt et al. 2014), and thereby supports the translation of narrative goals such as reducing poverty (Samaddar et al. 2015; Andersson and
scenarios to quantitative outputs (Mallampalli et al. 2016), supports Gabrielsson 2012). Collective action has resulted in the successful
the development of digital tools to be used in co-designing decision- implementation of national-level land transfer policies (Liu and
making participatory structures (Bommel et al. 2014), and supports Ravenscroft 2017), rural development and land sparing (Jelsma et
the use of games to understand the preferences of local decision- al. 2017), and the development of tools to identify shared objectives,
making when exploring various balanced policies about risks (Adam trade-offs and barriers to land management (Nieto-Romero et
et al. 2016). al. 2016; Nikolakis et al. 2016). Collective action can also produce
mutually binding agreements, government regulation, privatisation,
There is medium confidence that citizen science improves SLM and incentive systems (IPCC 2014c).
through mediating and facilitating landscape conservation decision-
making and planning, as well as boosting environmental awareness Successful collective action requires understanding and
and advocacy (Lange and Hehl-Lange 2011; Bonsu et al. 2017; implementation of factors that determine successful participation
Graham et al. 2015; Bonsu et al. 2017; Lange and Hehl-Lange 2011; in climate adaptation and mitigation (Nkoana et al. 2017). These
Sayer et al. 2015; McKinley et al. 2017; Johnson et al. 2017, 2014; Gray include ownership, empowerment or self-reliance, time effectiveness,
et al. 2017). One study found limited evidence of direct conservation economic and behavioural interests, livelihood security, and the
impact (Ballard et al. 2017) and most of the cases derive from rich requirement for plan implementation (Samaddar et al. 2015; Djurfeldt
industrialised countries (Loos et al. 2015). There are many practical et al. 2018; Sánchez and Maseda 2016). In a UK study, dynamic trust
challenges to the concept of citizen science at the local level. These relations among members around specific issues, determined the
include differing methods and the lack of universal implementation potential of agri-environmental schemes to offer landscape-scale
framework (Conrad and Hilchey 2011; Jalbert and Kinchy 2016; environmental protection (Riley et al. 2018). Collective action is
Stone et al. 2014). Uncertainty related to citizen science needs to be context specific and rarely scaled up or replicated in other places
recognised and managed (Swanson et al. 2016; Bird et al. 2014; Lin (Samaddar et al. 2015).
et al. 2015) and citizen science projects around the world need better
7 coordination to understand significant issues, such as climate change Collective action in land-use policy has been shown to be more
(Bonney et al. 2014). effective when implemented as bundles of actions rather than as

748
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

single-issue actions. For example, land tenure, food security, and due to poor reporting, lack of legal recognition, and lack of access
market access can mutually reinforce each other when they are to reporting systems by indigenous and rural peoples (Rights and
interconnected (Corsi et al. 2017). For example, Liu and Ravenscroft Resources Initiative 2018a). Around 521 million ha of forest land is
(2017) found that financial incentives embedded in collective forest estimated to be legally owned, recognised, or designated for use by
reforms in China have increased forest land and labour inputs indigenous and local communities as of 2017 (Rights and Resources
in forestry. Initiative 2018b), predominantly in Latin America, followed by Asia.
However, in India approximately 40  million ha of forest land is
A product of participation, equally important in practical terms, managed under customary rights not recognised by the government
is social learning (high confidence) (Reed et al. 2010; Dryzek and (Rights and Resources Initiative 2015b). In 2005 only 1% of land in
Pickering 2017; Gupta 2014), which is learning in and with social Africa was legally registered (Easterly 2008a).
groups through interaction (Argyris 1999) including collaboration
and organisation which occurs in networks of interdependent Much of the world’s carbon is stored in the biomass and soil on the
stakeholders (Mostert et al. 2007). Social learning is defined as territories of customary landowners, including indigenous peoples
a change in understanding measured by a change in behaviour, and (Walker et al. 2014; Garnett et al. 2018), making securing of these
perhaps worldview, by individuals and wider social units, communities land tenure regimes vital in land and climate protection. These lands
of practice and social networks (Reed et al. 2010; Gupta 2014). Social are estimated to hold at least 293 GtC of carbon, of which around
learning is an important factor contributing to long-term climate one-third (72 GtC) is located in areas where indigenous peoples
adaptation whereby individuals and organisations engage in a multi- and local communities lack formal recognition of their tenure rights
step social process, managing different framings of issues while raising (Frechette et al. 2018).
awareness of climate and land risks and opportunities, exploring
policy options and institutionalising new  rights, responsibilities, Understanding the interactions between land tenure and climate
feedback and learning processes (Tàbara et al. 2010). It is important change has to be based on underlying understanding of land tenure
for engaging with uncertainty (Newig et al. 2010) and addressing the and land policy and how they relate to sustainable development,
increasing unequal geography of food security (Sonnino et al. 2014). especially in low- and middle-income countries: such understandings
have changed considerably over the last three decades, and now
Social learning is achieved through reflexivity or the ability of a social show that informal or customary systems can provide secure tenure
structure, process, or set of ideas to reconfigure itself after reflection (Toulmin and Quan 2000). For smallholder systems, Bruce and Migot-
on performance through open-minded people interacting iteratively Adholla (1994) (among other authors) established that African
to produce reasonable and well-informed opinions (Dryzek and customary tenure can provide the necessary security for long-term
Pickering 2017). These processes develop through skilled facilitation investments in farm fertility such as tree-planting. For pastoral
attending to social differences and power, resulting in a shared view systems, Behnke (1994), Lane and Moorehead (1995) and other
of how change might happen (Harvey et al. 2012; Ensor and Harvey authors showed the rationality of communal tenure in situations
2015). When combined with collective action, social learning can of environmental variability and herd mobility. However, where
make transformative change, measured by a change in worldviews customary systems are unrecognised or weakened by governments,
(beliefs about the world and reality) and understanding of power or the rights from them are undocumented or unenforced, tenure
dynamics (Gupta 2014; Bamberg et al. 2015). insecurity may result (Lane 1998; Toulmin and Quan 2000). There is
strong empirical evidence of the links between secure communal
tenure and lower deforestation rates, particularly for intact forests
7.6.5 Land tenure (Nepstad et al. 2006; Persha et al. 2011; Vergara-Asenjo and Potvin
2014). Securing and recognising tenure for indigenous communities
Land tenure, defined as ‘the terms under which land and natural (such as through revisions to legal or policy frameworks) has been
resources are held by individuals, households or social groups’, is a key shown to be highly cost effective in reducing deforestation and
dimension in any discussion of land–climate interactions, including improving land management in certain contexts, and is therefore
the prospects for both adaptation and land-based mitigation, and also apt to help improve indigenous communities’ ability to adapt to
possible impacts on tenure and thus land security of both climate climate changes (Suzuki 2012; Balooni et al. 2008; Ceddia et al. 2015;
change and climate action (Quan and Dyer 2008) (medium evidence, Pacheco et al. 2012; Holland et al. 2017).
high agreement).
Rights to water for agriculture or livestock are linked to land tenure
Discussion of land tenure in the context of land–climate interactions in complex ways still little understood and neglected by policymakers
in developing countries needs to consider the prevalence of informal, and planners (Cotula 2006a). Provision of water infrastructure
customary and modified customary systems of land tenure: estimates tends to increase land values, but irrigation schemes often entail
range widely, but perhaps as much as 65% of the world’s total reallocation of land rights (Cotula 2006b) and new inequalities based
land area is managed under some form of these local, customary on water availability such as the creation of a category of tailenders
or communal tenure systems, and only a small fraction of this (farmers at the downstream end of distribution channels) in large-
(around 15%) is formally recognised by governments (Rights and scale irrigation (Chambers 1988) and disruption of pastoral grazing
Resources Initiative 2015a). These customary land rights can extend patterns through use of riverine land (Behnke and Kerven 2013). 7
across many categories of land, but are difficult to assess properly

749
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Understanding land tenure under climate change also has to take monitoring systems (Sheil et al. 2015), and direct protests against
account of the growth in large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs), also land acquisitions (Hall et al. 2015; Fameree 2016).
referred to as land-grabbing, in developing countries. These LSLAs are
defined by acquisition of more than 200 ha per deal  (Messerli et al. Table 7.7 sets out, in highly summarised form, some key findings on
2014a). Klaus Deininger (2011) links the growth in demand for land the multi-directional inter-relations between land tenure and climate
to the 2007–2008 food price spike, and demonstrates that high levels change, with particular reference to developing countries. The rows
of demand for land at the country level are statistically associated represent different categories of landscape or resource systems. For
with weak recognition of land rights. Land grabs, where LSLAs occur each system the second column summarises current understandings
despite local use of lands, are often driven by direct collaboration of on land tenure and sustainable development, in many cases predating
politicians, government officials and land agencies (Koechlin et al. concerns over climate change. The third column summarises the
2016), involving corruption of governmental land agencies, failures to most important implications of land tenure systems, policy about
register community land claims and illegal lands uses, and lack of the land tenure, and the implementation of that policy, for vulnerability
rule of law and enforcement in resource extraction frontiers (Borras Jr and adaptation to climate change, and the fourth column gives
et al. 2011). Though data is poor, overall, small- and medium-scale a similar summary for mitigation of climate change. The fifth column
domestic investment has in fact been more important than foreign summarises key findings on how climate change and climate action
investment (Deininger 2011; Cotula et al. 2014). There are variations (both adaptation and mitigation) will impact land tenure, and the
in estimates of the scale of LSLAs: Nolte et al. (2016) concluded that final column, findings on implications of climate change for evolving
deals totalled 42.2 million ha worldwide. Cotula et al. (2014) using land policy.
cross-checked data for completed lease agreements in Ethiopia,
Ghana and Tanzania conclude that they cover 1.9%, 1.9% and 1.1%
respectively of each country’s total land suitable for agriculture. The
literature expresses different views on whether these acquisitions
concern marginal lands or lands already in use, thereby displacing
existing users (Messerli et al. 2014b). Land-grabbing is associated
with, and may be motivated by, the acquisition of rights to water,
and erosion of those rights for other users such as those downstream
(Mehta et al. 2012). Quantification of the acquisition of water
rights resulting from LSLAs raises major issues of definition, data
availability, and measurement. One estimate of the total acquisition
of gross irrigation water associated with land-grabbing across the
24 countries most affected is 280 billion m3 (Rulli et al. 2013).

While some authors see LSLAs as investments that can contribute

to more efficient food production at larger scales (World Bank 2011;
Deininger and Byerlee 2012), others have warned that local food
security may be threatened by them (Daniel 2011; Golay and Biglino
2013; Lavers 2012). Reports suggest that recent land-grabbing has
affected 12  million people globally in terms of declines in welfare
(Adnan 2013; Davis et al. 2014). De Schutter (2011) argues that
large-scale land acquisitions will:  a) result in types of farming less
liable to reduce poverty than smallholder systems, b) increase local
vulnerability to food price shocks by favouring export agriculture
and  c) accelerate the development of a  market for land, with
detrimental impacts on smallholders and those depending on
common property resources. Land-grabbing can threaten not only
agricultural lands of farmers, but also protected ecosystems, like
forests and wetlands (Hunsberger et al. 2017; Carter et al. 2017;
Ehara et al. 2018).

The primary mechanisms for combating LSLAs have included

restrictions on the size of land sales (Fairbairn 2015), pressure on
agribusiness companies to agree to Voluntary Guidelines on the
Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in
the Context of National Food Security, known as VGGT, or similar
principles (Collins 2014; Goetz 2013), attempts to repeal biofuels
7 standards (Palmer 2014), strengthening of existing land law and
land registration systems (Bebbington et al. 2018), use of community

750
 Table 7.7 | Major findings on the interactions between land tenure and climate change.

State of understanding of Implications of land tenure Implications of climate

Landscape or natural Implications of land tenure for Impacts of climate change and
land tenure, land policy and for vulnerability and adaptation change and climate action
resource system mitigation of climate change climate action on land tenure
sustainable development to climate change for land policy
Smallholder cropland In South Asia and Latin America, Insecure land rights are one factor Secure land rights, including through Increased frequency and intensity Landscape governance and resource
the poor suffer from limited access, deterring adaptation and accentuating customary systems, can incentivise of extreme weather can lead to tenure reforms at farm and community
including insecure tenancies, though vulnerability.10,11 Specific dimensions farmers to adopt long-term climate- displacement and effective loss levels can facilitate and incentivise
this has been partially alleviated of inequity in customary systems smart practices,15 e.g., planting trees of land rights.17 REDD+ (reducing planning for landscape management
by land reform.1 In Africa informal/ may act as constraints on adaptation in mixed cropland/forest systems.16 emissions from deforestation and and enable the integration of
customary systems may provide in different contexts.12 Large-scale forest degradation) programmes adaptation and mitigation strategies.11
considerable land tenure security land acquisitions (LSLAs) may be tend slightly to increase land tenure
and enable long-term investment in associated with monoculture and insecurity on agricultural forest frontier
land management, but are increasingly other unsustainable land-use practices, lands – but not in forests.18
weakened by demographic pressures have negative consequences for soil
on available land resources increase. degradation13 and disincentivise more
However, creation of freehold rights sustainable forms of agriculture.14
through conventional land titling
is not a necessary condition for
tenure security and may be cost-
ineffective or counterproductive.2,3,4,5
Alternative approaches utilising
low-cost technologies and participatory
methods are available.6 Secure and
defendable land tenure, including
modified customary tenure, has
been positively correlated with
food production increases.7,8,9
Rangelands Communal management of rangelands Many pastoralists in lands at risk from Where pastoralists’ traditional land Increasing conflict on rangelands is Carbon sequestration initiatives on
in pastoral systems is a rational and desertification do not have secure use does not have legal recognition, a possible result of climate change and rangelands may require clarification
internally sustainable response to land tenure, and erosion of traditional or where pastoralists are unable to environmental pressures, but depends and maintenance of land rights.27,28
climate variability and the need for communal rangeland tenure has exclude others from land use, this on local institutions.29 Where land-use
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

mobility. Policies favouring individual been identified as a determinant presents significant challenges for rights for pastoralists are absent or
or small group land-tenure may have of increasing vulnerability to drought carbon sequestration initiatives.27,28 unenforced, demonstrated potential
negative impacts on both ecosystems and climate change and as a driver for carbon sequestration may
and livelihoods.19,20,21 of dryland degradation.22,23,24,25,26 assist advocacy.28

751
Chapter 7

7
 7
State of understanding of Implications of land tenure Implications of climate

752
Landscape or natural Implications of land tenure for Impacts of climate change and
land tenure, land policy and for vulnerability and adaptation change and climate action
resource system mitigation of climate change climate action on land tenure
sustainable development to climate change for land policy
Chapter 7

Forests Poor management of state and open- Land tenure security can lead to Land tenure insecurity has been Findings on both direction of change in Forest tenure policies under climate
access forests has been combated improved adaptation outcomes40,41,42,43 identified as a key driver of tenure security and extent to which this change need to accommodate
in recent years by a move towards but land tenure policy for forests that deforestation and land degradation, has been influenced by REDD+ are very and enable evolving and shifting
forest decentralisation and community focuses narrowly on cultivation has leading to loss of sinks and creating diverse.18 The implications of land- boundaries linked to changing forest
co-management.30,31,32,33,34,35 limited ability to reduce ecological sources of GHGs.45,46,47,48,49 While based mitigation – e.g., bioenergy with livelihoods.10 REDD+ programmes need
Land tenure systems have complex vulnerability or enhance adaptation.39 land tenure systems interact with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) – to be integrated with national-level
interactions with deforestation Secure rights to land and forest land-based mitigation actions in on land tenure systems is currently forest tenure reform.18
processes. Land tenure security resources can facilitate efforts to complex ways,36 forest decentralisation understudied, but evidence from
is generally associated with less stabilise shifting cultivation and and community co-management has biofuels expansion shows negative
deforestation, regardless of whether promote more sustainable resource shown considerable success in slowing impacts on local livelihoods and loss
the tenure form is private, customary use if appropriate technical and forest loss and contributing to carbon of forest sinks where LSLAs override
or communal.33,36,37,38 Historical market support are available.44 mitigation.30,31,32,33,34,35 Communal local land tenure.50,51
injustices towards forest dwellers tenure systems may lower transaction
can be ameliorated with appropriate costs for REDD+ schemes, though with
policy, e.g., 2006 Forest Rights Act risk of elite capture of payments.16
in India.39
Poor and informal urban settlements Residents of poor and informal urban Public land on the outskirts of Urban land-use strategies such as Without proper planning, climate Climate risks increase the requirements
settlements enjoy varying degrees urban areas can be used to adapt tree planting, establishing public parks, hazards can undermine efforts for land-use planning and settlement
of tenure security from different forms to increasing flood risks by protecting can save energy usage by moderating to recognise and strengthen that increases tenure security, with
of tenure. Security will be increased natural assets.53 Secure land titles urban temperature and protect human informal tenure rights without direct involvement of residents,
by building on de facto rights rather in hazardous locations may make settlement from natural disaster such proper planning.55,56 improved use of public land, and
than through abrupt changes in occupants reluctant to move and as flooding or heatwaves.54 innovative collaboration with private
tenure systems.52 raise the costs of compensation and traditional land owners.56,57
and resettlement.17
Riverscapes and riparian fringes Well-defined but spatially flexible Unequal land rights and absence Mitigation measures such as protection Secured but spatially flexible
community tenure can support of land management arrangements of riparian forests and grasslands tenure will enable climate change
regulated and sustainable in floodplains increases vulnerability can potentially play a major role, mitigation in riverscapes to be
artisanal capture fisheries and constrains adaptation.65 provided rights to land and trees synergised with local livelihoods
and biodiversity.58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Marginalised or landless fisherfolk are sufficiently clear.70,71 and ecological security.67,72
will be empowered by tenurial rights
and associated identity to respond
more effectively to ecological
changes in riverscapes, including
riparian zones.66,67,68,69

Sources: 1) Binswanger et al. 1995; 2) Schlager and Ostrom 1992; 3) Toulmin and Quan 2000; 4) Bruce and Migot-Adholla 1994; 5) Easterly 2008; 6) McCall and Dunn 2012; 7) Maxwell and Wiebe 1999; 8) Holden and Ghebru 2016; 9) Corsi
et al. 2017; 10) Quan et al. 2017; 11) Harvey et al. 2014; 12) Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015; 13) Balehegn 2015; 14) Friis and Nielsen, 2016; 15) Scherr et al. 2012; 16) Barbier and Tesfaw 2012; 17) Mitchell 2010; 18) Sunderlin et al. 2018; 19) Behnke
1994; 20) Lane and Moorehead 1995; 21) Davies et al. 2015; 22) Morton 2007; 23) López-i-Gelats et al. 2016; 24) Oba 1994; 25) Fraser et al. 2011; 26) Dougill et al. 2011; 27) Roncoli et al. 2007; 28) Tennigkeit and Wilkes 2008; 29) Adano
et al. 2012; 30) Agrawal et al. 2008; 31) Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009; 32) Gabay and Alam, 2017; 33) Holland et al. 2017; 34) Larson and Pulhin, 2012; 35) Pagdee et al. 2006; 36) Robinson et al. 2014; 37) Blackman et al. 2017; 38) Nelson
et al. 2001; 39) Ramnath 2008; 40) Suzuki 2012; 41) Balooni et al. 2008; 42) Ceddia et al. 2015; 43) Pacheco et al. 2012; 44) Garnett et al. 2013; 45) Clover and Eriksen, 2009; 46) Damnyag et al. 2012; 47) Finley-Brook 2007; 48) Robinson
et al. 2014; 49) Stickler et al. 2017; 50) Romijn 2011; 51) Aha and Ayitey 2017; 52) Payne 2001; 53) Barbedo et al. 2015; 54) Zhao et al. 2018; 55) Satterthwaite et al. 2018; 56) Mitchell et al. 2015; 57) Satterthwaite 2007; 58) Thomas 1996;
59) Welcomme et al. 2010; 60) Silvano and Valbo-Jørgensen 2008; 61) Biermann et al. 2012; 62) Abbott et al. 2007; 63) Béné et al. 2011; 64) McGrath et al. 1993; 65) Barkat et al. 2001; 66) FAO 2015; 67) Hall et al. 2013; 68) Berkes 2001;
69) ISO 2017; 70) Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; 71) Baird and Dearden 2003; 72) Béné et al. 2010.
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

In drylands, weak land tenure security, either for households allows for ‘learning.’The tax revenues could be earmarked to finance
disadvantaged within a customary tenure system or more widely as additional climate change mitigation and/or redistributed to achieve
such a system is eroded, can be associated with increased vulnerability the indicator of ‘fair governance – equity’. It is recommended that
and decreased adaptive capacity (limited evidence, high agreement). carbon pricing measures be implemented using information-sharing
There is medium evidence and medium agreement that land titling and communication devices to enable public acceptance, openness,
and recognition programmes, particularly those that authorise and provide measurement and accountability (Baranzini et al. 2017;
respect indigenous and communal tenure, can lead to improved Siegmeier et al. 2018).
management of forests, including for carbon storage (Suzuki 2012;
Balooni et al. 2008; Ceddia et al. 2015; Pacheco et al. 2012), primarily The impact of flood on a socio-ecological system is reduced with the
by providing legally secure mechanisms for exclusion of others (Nelson governance indicator of both leadership and resources (Emerson and
et al. 2001; Blackman et al. 2017). However, these titling programmes Gerlak 2014).‘Leadership’ pertains to a  broad set of stakeholders
are highly context-dependent and there is also evidence that titling that facilitate adaptation (and might include scientists and leaders
can exclude community and common management, leading to more in NGOs) and those that respond to flood in an open, inclusive, and
confusion over land rights, not less, where poorly implemented fair manner identifying the most pressing issues and actions needed.
(Broegaard et al. 2017). For all the systems, an important finding is Resources are required to support this leadership and includes upfront
that land policies can provide both security and flexibility in the face financial investment in human capital, technology, and infrastructure
of climate change, but through a diversity of forms and approaches (Emerson and Gerlak 2014).
(recognition of customary tenure, community mapping, redistribution,
decentralisation, co-management, regulation of rental markets, Policy instruments advancing the indicator of ‘participation’ in
strengthening the negotiating position of the poor) rather than sole community forest management include favourable loans, tax
focus on freehold title (medium evidence, high agreement) (Quan measures, and financial support to catalyse entrepreneurial
and Dyer, 2008; Deininger and Feder 2009; St. Martin 2009). Land leadership, and build in rewards for supportive and innovative elites
policy can be climate-proofed and integrated with national policies to reduce elite capture and ensure more inclusive participation
such as National Adaptation Programme of Action NAPAs (Quan and (Duguma et al. 2018) (Section 7.6.4).
Dyer 2008). Land administration systems have a vital role in providing
land tenure security, especially for the poor, especially when linked
to an expanded range of information relevant to mitigation and
adaptation (Quan and Dyer 2008; van der Molen and Mitchell 2016).
Challenges to such a role include outdated and overlapping national
land and forest tenure laws, which often fail to recognise community
property rights and corruption in land administration (Monterrosso
et al. 2017), as well as lack of political will and the costs of improving
land administration programmes (Deininger and Feder 2009).

7.6.6 Institutional dimensions of adaptive governance

Institutional systems that demonstrate the institutional dimensions,

or indicators (Table  7.8) enhance the adaptive capacity of the
socio-ecological system to a  greater degree than institutional
systems that do not demonstrate these dimensions (high confidence)
(Gupta et al. 2010; Mollenkamp and Kasten 2009). Governance
processes and policy instruments supporting these characteristics
are context specific (medium evidence, high agreement) (Biermann
2007; Gunderson and Holling 2001; Hurlbert and Gupta 2017; Bastos
Lima et al. 2017a; Gupta et al. 2013a; Mollenkamp and Kasten 2009;
Nelson et al. 2010; Olsson et al. 2006; Ostrom 2011; Pahl-Wostl 2009;
Verweij et al. 2006; Weick and Sutcliffe 2001).

Consideration of these indicators is important when implementing

climate change mitigation instruments. For example, a  ‘variety,’
redundancy, or duplication of climate mitigation policy instruments
is an important consideration for meeting Paris Agreement
commitments. Given that 58% of EU emissions are outside of the
EU Emissions Trading System, implementation of a  ‘redundant’
carbon tax may add co-benefits (Baranzini et al. 2017). Further, 7
a  carbon tax phased in over time through a  schedule of increases

753
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Table 7.8 | I nstitutional dimensions or indicators of adaptive governance. This table represents a summation of characteristics, evaluative criteria, elements,
indicators or institutional design principles that advance adaptive governance.

Indicators/Institutional
Description References
dimensions
Room for a variety of problem frames reflecting different opinions and problem definitions

Variety Participation. Involving different actors at different levels, sectors, and dimensions
Availability of a wide range or diversity of policy options to address a particular problem
Redundancy or duplication of measures, back-up systems
Trust
Single loop learning or ability to improve routines based on past experience
Learning Double loop learning or changed underlying assumptions of institutional patterns
Biermann 2007
Discussion of doubts (openness to uncertainties, monitoring and evaluation of policy experiences)
Gunderson and Holling 2001
Institutional memory (monitoring and evaluation of policy experiences over time) Hurlbert and Gupta 2017
Continuous access to information (data institutional memory and early warning systems) Bastos Lima et al. 2017a
Room for autonomous change Acting according to plan (especially in relation to disasters) Gupta, J., van der Grijp, N., Kuik 2013
Mollenkamp and Kasten 2009
Capacity to improvise (in relation to self-organisation and fostering social capital) Nelson et al. 2010 Olsson et al. 2006
Visionary (long-term and reformist) Ostrom 2011
Leadership Entrepreneurial; leads by example Pahl-Wostl 2009
Verweij et al. 2006
Collaborative
Weick and Sutcliffe 2001
Authority resources or legitimate forms of power
Resources Human resources of expertise, knowledge and labour
Financial resources
Legitimacy or public support
Equity in relation to institutional fair rules
Fair governance
Responsiveness to society
Accountability in relation to procedures

7.6.7 Inclusive governance for analysing and addressing aggregated informal coping strategies of
sustainable development local residents in developing countries, which are important drivers
of natural resource depletions (but often overlooked in conventional
Many sustainable development efforts fail because of lack of policy development processes in natural resource management)
attention to societal issues, including inequality, discrimination, social (Ehara et al. 2018).
exclusion and marginalisation (see Cross-Chapter Box  11 in this
chapter) (Arts 2017a). However, the human-rights-based approach Inclusive adaptive governance makes important contributions to the
of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals commits management of risk. Inclusive governance concerning risk integrates
to leaving no one behind (Arts 2017b). Inclusive governance focuses people’s knowledge and values by involving them in decision-making
attention in issues of equity and the human-rights-based approach processes where they are able to contribute their respective
for development as it includes social, ecological and relational knowledge and values to make effective, efficient, fair, and morally
components used for assessing access to, as well as the allocations of acceptable decisions (Renn and Schweizer 2009). Representation in
rights, responsibilities and risks with respect to social and ecological decision-making would include major actors – government, economic
resources (medium agreement) (Gupta and Pouw 2017). sectors, the scientific community and representatives of civil society
(Renn and Schweizer 2009). Inclusive governance focuses attention
Governance processes that are inclusive of all people in on the well-being and meaningful participation in decision-making
decision-making and management of land, are better able to make of the poorest (in income), vulnerable (in terms of age, gender,
decisions addressing trade-offs of sustainable development (Gupta and location), and the most marginalised, and is inclusive of all
et al. 2015) and achieve SDGs focusing on social and ecological knowledges (Gupta et al. 2015).
inclusiveness (Gupta and Vegelin 2016). Citizen engagement is
important in enhancing natural resource service delivery by citizen
inclusion in management and governance decisions (Section 7.5.5). 7.7 Key uncertainties and knowledge gaps
In governing natural resources, focus is now not only on rights of
citizens in relation to natural resources, but also on citizen obligations, Uncertainties in land, society and climate change processes are
responsibilities (Karar and Jacobs-Mata 2016; Chaney and Fevre outlined in Section  7.2 and Chapter  1. This chapter has reviewed
7 2001), feedback and learning processes (Tàbara et al. 2010). In this literature on risks arising from GHG fluxes, climate change, land
respect, citizen engagement is also an imperative, particularly for degradation, desertification and food security, policy instruments

754
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

responding to these risks, as well as decision-making and adaptive • understanding the full cost of climate change in the context of
climate and land governance, in the face of uncertainty. disagreement on accounting for climate change interactions
and their impact on society, as well as issues of valuation, and
More research is required to understand the complex interconnections attribution uncertainties across generations
of land, climate, water, society, ES and food, including: • new models and Earth observation to understand the complex
interactions described in this section
• new models that allow incorporation of considerations of justice, • the impacts, monitoring, effectiveness, and appropriate selection
inequality and human agency in socio-environmental systems of certification and standards for sustainability (Section 7.4.6.3)
• understanding how policy instruments and response options (Stattman et al. 2018) and the effectiveness of its implementation
interact and augment or reduce risks in relation to acute shocks through the landscape governance approach (Pacheco et al.
and slow-onset climate events 2016) (Section 7.6.3).
• understanding how response options, policy and instrument
portfolios can reduce or augment the cascading impacts of land, Actions to mitigate climate change are rarely evaluated in relation
climate and food security and ES interactions through different to impact on adaptation, SDGs, and trade-offs with food security. For
domains such as health, livelihoods and infrastructure, especially instance, there is a gap in knowledge in the optimal carbon pricing
in relation to non-linear and tipping-point changes in natural and or emission trading scheme together with monitoring, reporting
human systems and verification system for agricultural emissions that will advance
• consideration of trade-offs and synergies in climate, land, water, GHG reductions, food security, and SLM. Better understanding is
ES and food policies needed of the triggers and leveraging actions that build sustainable
• the impacts of increasing use of land due to climate mitigation development and SLM, as well as the effective organisation of the
measures such as BECCS, carbon-centric afforestation/REDD+ and science and society interaction jointly shaping policies in the future.
their impacts on human conflict, livelihoods and displacement What societal interaction in the future will form inclusive and
• understanding how different land tenure systems, both formal equitable governance processes and achieve inclusive governance
and informal, and the land policies and administration systems institutions, especially including land tenure?
that support them, can constrain or facilitate climate adaptation
and mitigation, and on how forms of climate action can enhance As there is a significant gap in NDCs and achieving commitments to
or undermine land tenure security and land justice keep global warming well below 2°C (Section 7.4.4.1), governments
• expanding understanding of barriers to implementation of might consider evaluating national, regional, and local gaps in
land-based climate policies at all levels from the local to the knowledge surrounding response options, policy instruments
global, including methods for monitoring and documenting portfolios, and SLM supporting the achievement of NDCs in the face
corruption, misappropriation and elite capture in climate action of land and climate change.
• identifying characteristics and attributes signalling impending
socio-ecological tipping points and collapse

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 7.1 | How can indigenous knowledge and local knowledge inform land-based mitigation
and adaptation options?
Indigenous knowledge (IK) refers to the understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of
interaction with their natural surroundings. Local knowledge (LK) refers to the understandings and skills developed by individuals
and populations, specific to the place where they live. These forms of knowledge, jointly referred to as Indigenous and Local
Knowledge or ILK, are often highly context specific and embedded in local institutions, providing biological and ecosystem
knowledge with landscape information. For example, they can contribute to effective land management, predictions of natural
disasters, and identification of longer-term climate changes, and ILK can be particularly useful where formal data collection on
environmental conditions may be sparse. ILK is often dynamic, with knowledge holders often experimenting with mixes of local and
scientific approaches. Water management, soil fertility practices, grazing systems, restoration and sustainable harvesting of forests,
and ecosystem-based adaptation are many of the land management practices often informed by ILK. ILK can also be used as an
entry point for climate adaptation by balancing past experiences with new ways to cope. To be effective, initiatives need to take
into account the differences in power between the holders of different types of knowledge. For example, including indigenous and/
or local people in programmes related to environmental conservation, formal education, land management planning and security
tenure rights is key to facilitate climate change adaptation. Formal education is necessary to enhance adaptive capacity of ILK,
since some researchers have suggested that these knowledge systems may become less relevant in certain areas where the rate of
environmental change is rapid and the transmission of ILK between generations is becoming weaker. 7

755
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

FAQ 7.2 | What are the main barriers to and opportunities for land-based responses
to climate change?
Land-based responses to climate change can be mitigation (e.g., renewable energy, vegetation or crops for biofuels, afforestation)
or adaptation (e.g., change in cropping pattern, less water-intensive crops in response to moisture stress), or adaptation with
mitigation co-benefits (e.g., dietary shifts, new uses for invasive tree species, siting solar farms on highly degraded land). Productive
land is an increasingly scarce resource under climate change. In the absence of adequate deep mitigation in the less land-intensive
energy sector, competition for land and water for mitigation and for other sectors such as food security, ecosystem services (ES) and
biodiversity conservation could become a source of conflict and a barrier to land-based responses.
Barriers to land-based mitigation include opposition due to real and perceived trade-offs between land for mitigation and food
security and ES. These can arise due to absence of or uncertain land and water rights. Significant upscaling of mitigation requires
dedicated (normally land-based) sources in addition to use of wastes and residues. This requires high land-use intensity compared
to other mitigation options that, in turn, place greater demands on governance. A key governance mechanism that has emerged in
response to such concerns, especially during the past decade are standards and certification systems that include food security, and
land and water rights, in addition to general criteria or indicators related to sustainable use of land and biomass, with an emphasis
on participatory approaches. Other governance responses include linking land-based mitigation (e.g., forestry) to secure tenure and
support for local livelihoods. A barrier to land-based mitigation is our choice of development pathway. Our window of opportunity –
whether or not we face barriers or opportunities to land-based mitigation – depends on socio-economic decisions or pathways. If
we have high population growth and resource intensive consumption (i.e., SSP3) we will have more barriers. High population and
low land-use regulation results in less available space for land-based mitigation. But if we have the opposite trends (SSP1), we can
have more opportunities.
Other barriers can arise when, in the short term, adaptation to a climate stress (e.g., increased dependence on groundwater during
droughts) can become unsustainable in the longer term, and become a maladaptation. Policies and approaches that lead to land
management that synergises multiple ES and reduce trade-offs could find greater acceptance and enjoy more success.
Opportunities to obtain benefits or synergies from land-based mitigation and adaptation arise from their relation to the land
availability and the demand for such measures in rural areas that may otherwise lack incentives for investment in infrastructure,
livelihoods and institutional capacity. After decades of urbanisation around the world, facilitated by significant investment in urban
infrastructure and centralised energy and agricultural systems, rural areas have been somewhat neglected; this is even as farmers in
these areas provide critical food and materials needed for urban areas. As land and biomass becomes more valuable, there will be
benefits for farmers, forest owners and associated service providers as they diversify and feed into economic activities supporting
bioenergy, value-added products, preservation of biodiversity and carbon sequestration (storage).
A related opportunity for benefits is the potentially positive transformation in rural and peri-urban landscapes that could be
facilitated by investments that prioritise more effective management of ES and conservation of water, energy, nutrients and other
resources that have been priced too low in relation to their environmental or ecological value. Multifunctional landscapes supplying
food, feed, fibre and fuel to both local and urban communities, in combination with reduced waste and healthier diets, could
restore the role of rural producers as stewards of resources rather than providing food at the lowest possible price. Some of these
landscape transformations will function as both mitigation and adaptation responses by increasing resilience, even as they provide
value-added bio-based products.
Governments can introduce a variety of regulations and economic instruments (taxes, incentives) to encourage citizens, communities
and societies to adopt sustainable land management practices, with further benefits in addition to mitigation. Windows of
opportunity for redesigning and implementing mitigation and adaptation can arise in the aftermath of a major disaster or extreme
climate event. They can also arise when collective action and citizen science motivate voluntary shifts in lifestyles supported by
supportive top-down policies.

756
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

References

Aalto, J., M. Kämäräinen, M. Shodmonov, N. Rajabov, and A. Venäläinen, Agarwal, B., 2010: Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy
2017: Features of Tajikistan’s past and future climate. Int. J. Climatol., 37, of Women’s Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford
4949–4961, doi:10.1002/joc.5135. University Press, Oxford, UK, 488 pages. DOI: 10.1177/2321023013482799.
Abatzoglou, J.T., and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate Agarwal, B., 2018a: Gender equality, food security and the sustainable
change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113 development goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 34, 26–32, doi:10.1016/j.
(42), 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113. cosust.2018.07.002.
Abatzoglou, J.T., A. Park Williams, and R. Barbero, 2019a: Global emergence Agarwal, B., 2018b: Gender equality, food security and the sustainable
of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices. Geophys. Res. development goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 34, 26–32, doi:10.1016/j.
Lett., 46, 326–336, doi:10.1029/2018GL080959. cosust.2018.07.002.
Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi, 2011: Small hydro and the environmental Aggarwal, A., 2011: Implementation of Forest Rights Act,
implications of its extensive utilization. Renew. Sustain. energy Rev., 15, changing forest landscape, and ‘politics of REDD+’ in India. J.
2134–2143, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.050. Resour. Energy Dev., 8, 131–148. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
Abbott, J. et al., 2007: Rivers as resources, rivers as borders: Community org/60b4/5b258310186884f99d3333072943dba63e6f.pdf.
and transboundary management of fisheries in the Upper Zambezi River Agrawal, A., A. Chhatre, and R. Hardin, 2008: Changing governance of the
floodplains. Can. Geogr. / Le Géographe Can., 51, 280–302, doi:10.1111/ world’s forests. Science, 320, 1460–1462.
j.1541-0064.2007.00179.x. Agriculture Technical Advisory Group, 2009: Point of Obligation Designs and
Abi-Samra, N.C., and W.P. Malcolm, 2011: Extreme Weather Effects on Power Allocation Methodologies for Agriculture and the New Zealand Emissions
Systems. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, IEEE, Michigan, Trading Scheme. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Pastoral House,
USA, 1–5, doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039594. Wellington, New Zealand, www.parliament.nz/resource/0000077853.
Abid, M., U.A. Schneider, and J. Scheffran, 2016: Adaptation to climate Aguilar-Støen, M., 2017: Better safe than sorry? Indigenous peoples, carbon
change and its impacts on food productivity and crop income: Perspectives cowboys and the governance of REDD in the Amazon. Forum Dev. Stud.,
of farmers in rural Pakistan. J. Rural Stud., 47, 254–266, doi:10.1016/j. 44, 91–108, doi:10.1080/08039410.2016.1276098.
jrurstud.2016.08.005. Aha, B., and J.Z. Ayitey, 2017: Biofuels and the hazards of land grabbing:
Achat, D.L., M. Fortin, G. Landmann, B. Ringeval, and L. Augusto, 2015a: Tenure (in)security and indigenous farmers’ investment decisions in Ghana.
Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci. Rep., Land Use Policy, 60, 48–59, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.10.012.
5, 15991, doi:10.1038/srep15991. Akhtar-Schuster, M. et al., 2017: Unpacking the concept of land degradation
Adam, C., F. Taillandier, E. Delay, O. Plattard, and M. Toumi, 2016: SPRITE – neutrality and addressing its operation through the Rio Conventions.
Participatory Simulation for Raising Awareness About Coastal Flood Risk J. Environ. Manage., 195, 4–15, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.044.
on the Oleron Island. Conference paper, SpringerInternational Publishing, Alam, K., 2015: Farmers’ adaptation to water scarcity in drought-prone
Cham, Switzerland, 33–46 pp. environments: A case study of Rajshahi District, Bangladesh. Agric. Water
Adano, W., and F. Daudi, 2012: Link Between Climate change, Conflict Manag., 148, 196–206, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.011.
and Governance in Africa. Institute for Security Studies, 234, Pretoria, Albers, R.A. W. et al., 2015: Overview of challenges and achievements in
South Africa. the climate adaptation of cities and in the Climate Proof Cities program.
Adano, W.R., T. Dietz, K. Witsenburg, and F. Zaal, 2012: Climate change, violent Building and Environment, 83, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.09.006.
conflict and local institutions in Kenya’s drylands. J. Peace Res., 49, 65–80, Albert, C., J. Hauck, N. Buhr, and C. von Haaren, 2014: What ecosystem services
doi:10.1177/0022343311427344. information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements
Adaptation Sub-committee, 2013: Managing the Land in a Changing Climate among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landsc. Ecol., 29,
Chapter 5: Regulating Services – Coastal Habitats. Committee on Climate 1301–1313, doi:10.1007/s10980-014-9990-5.
Change, London, UK, pp. 92–107. Albrecht, T.R., A. Crootof, and C.A. Scott, 2018: The water-energy-food nexus:
Adaptation to Climate Change Team, 2013: Summary for Decision Makers. A comprehensive review of nexus-specific methods. Environ. Res. Lett., 13
Climate Change Adaptation and Canada’s Crop and Food Supply, 1–33. (4), 043002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6.
SFU Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Aldy, J., A. Krupnick, R. Newell, I. Parry, and W.A. Pizer, 2010: Designing
Adger, W.N., T. Quinn, I. Lorenzoni, C. Murphy, and J. Sweeney, 2013: climate mitigation policy. J. Econ. Lit., 48, 903–934, doi:10.3386/w15022.
Changing social contracts in climate-change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang., Aldy, J.E., and R.N. Stavins, 2012: The promise and problems of pricing carbon.
3, 330–333, doi:10.1038/nclimate1751. J. Environ. Dev., 21, 152–180, doi:10.1177/1070496512442508.
Inland Waterways Authority of India, 2016. Consolidated Environmental Impact Alexander, C. et al., 2011: Linking indigenous and scientific knowledge of
Assessment Report of National Waterways-1: Volume 3. http://documents. climate change. Bioscience, 61, 477–484, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10.
worldbank.org/curated/en/190981468255890798/pdf/SFG2231-V1- Alexander, K.A. et al., 2015a: What factors might have led to the emergence of
REVISED-EA-P148775-Box396336B-PUBLIC-Disclosed-12-5-2016.pdf. Ebola in West Africa? PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis., 9 (6): e0003652, doi:10.1371/
Adnan, S., 2013: Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh: journal.pntd.0003652.
Interactions between neoliberal globalization, state interventions, power Alexander, P. et al., 2015b: Drivers for global agricultural land use change: The
relations and peasant resistance. J. Peasant Stud., 40, 87–128, doi:10.108 nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35,
0/03066150.2012.753058. 138–147, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.011.
Adu, M., D. Yawson, F. Armah, E. Abano, and R. Quansah, 2018: Systematic Alimi, T.O. et al., 2015: Predicting potential ranges of primary malaria vectors
review of the effects of agricultural interventions on food security in and malaria in northern South America based on projected changes
northern Ghana. PLoS One, 13, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203605. in climate, land cover and human population. Parasit. Vectors, 8, 431,
Aeschbach-Hertig, W., and T. Gleeson, 2012: Regional strategies for the doi:10.1186/s13071-015-1033-9.
accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat. Geosci., 5, Alkire, S. et al., 2013a: The women’s empowerment in agriculture index.
853–861, https://doi.org/10.0.4.14/ngeo1617. World Dev., 52, 71–91, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007. 7

757
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Alkire, S. et al., 2013b: The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. Anderson, C.M., C.B. Field, and K.J. Mach, 2017: Forest offsets partner climate-
World Dev., 52, 71–91, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007. change mitigation with conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 359–365,
Allan, T., M. Keulertz, and E. Woertz, 2015: The water–food–energy nexus: doi:10.1002/fee.1515.
An introduction to nexus concepts and some conceptual and operational Anderson, E.P., M.C. Freeman, and C.M. Pringle, 2006: Ecological
problems. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 31, consequences of hydropower development in Central America: Impacts of
301–311, doi:10.1080/07900627.2015.1029118. small dams and water diversion on neotropical stream fish assemblages.
Allen, C.D. et al., 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree River Res. Appl., 22, 397–411, doi:10.1002/rra.899.
mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Anderson, J.E. (ed.), 2010: Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Cengage
Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001. Learning, Massachusetts, USA, 352 pp.
Allen, C.R., J.J. Fontaine, K.L. Pope, and A.S. Garmestani, 2011: Adaptive Anderson, K., and G. Peters, 2016: The trouble with negative emissions.
management for a turbulent future. J. Environ. Manage., 92, 1339–1345, Science, 354, 182–183, doi:10.1126/science.aah4567.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019. Anderson, S., J. Morton, and C. Toulmin, 2010: Climate change for agrarian
Allen, M.R. et al., 2016: New use of global warming potentials to compare societies in drylands: Implications and future pathways. In: Social
cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 773. Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and vulnerability in a warming
doi:10.1038/nclimate2998. world [Mearns, R. and A. Norton (eds.)]. The World Bank, Washington, DC,
Allison, E.H. et al., 2009: Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of USA, pp. 199–230.
climate change on fisheries. Fish Fish., 10, 173–196, doi:10.1111/j.1467- Andersson, E., and S. Gabrielsson, 2012: ‘Because of poverty, we had to come
2979.2008.00310.x. together’: Collective action for improved food security in rural Kenya and
Allwood, J.M., V. Bosetti, N.K. Dubash, L. Gómez-Echeverri, and C. von Uganda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 10, 245–262, doi:10.1080/14735903.2012
Stechow, 2014: Glossary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate .666029.
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Anenberg, S.C., L.W. Horowitz, D.Q. Tong, and J.J. West, 2010: An estimate of
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., the global burden of anthropogenic ozone and fine particulate matter on
R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, premature human mortality using atmospheric modeling. Environ. Health
I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, Perspect., 118 (9), 1189–95, doi:10.1289/ehp.0901220.
C.  von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Angelsen, A. et al., 2018a: Conclusions: Lessons for the path to
Press, Cambridge and New York, New York, USA. a  transformational REDD+. In: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new
Alrø, H.F., H. Moller, J. Læssøe, and E. Noe, 2016: Opportunities and challenges directions [Angelsen, A., C. Martius, V. De Sy, A. Duchelle, A. Larson, and
for multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability. Ecol. Soc., 21, T. Pham (eds.)]. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 203–214.
38, doi:10.5751/ES-08394-210138. Anguelovski, I. et al., 2016a: Equity impacts of urban land use planning for
Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey, 2014: Agriculture in the global economy. J. Econ. climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the Global North and South.
Perspect., 28, 121–46, doi:10.1257/jep.28.1.121. J. Plan. Educ. Res., 36, 333–348, doi:10.1177/0739456X16645166.
Alston, M., 2006: The gendered impact of drought. In: Rural Gender Relations: Ansar, A., B.L. Caldecott, and J. Tilbury, 2013: Stranded assets and the fossil
Issues And Case Studies [Bock, B.B., and S. Shortall, (eds.)]. CABI Publishing, fuel divestment campaign: What does divestment mean for the valuation
Cambridge, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 165–180. of fossil fuel assets? Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment,
Alston, M., 2014: Gender mainstreaming and climate change. Women’s University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–81.
Studies International Forum, 47, 287–294, doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.01.016. Anthoff, D., R.S.J. Tol, and G. Yohe, 2010: Discounting for climate change.
Alston, M., J. Clarke, and K. Whittenbury, 2018a: Contemporary feminist Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 3, 2009–24,
analysis of Australian farm women in the context of climate changes. Soc. doi:10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2009-24.
Sci., 7, 16, doi:10.3390/socsci7020016. Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure
Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls, 2017: The adaptation and mitigation potential arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case
of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Change, 140, 33–45, of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land Use Policy, 49,
doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y. 203–212, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.007.
Altieri, M.A., C.I. Nicholls, A. Henao, and M.A. Lana, 2015: Agroecology and Aragão, L.E.O.C., 2012: Environmental science: The rainforest’s water pump.
the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Nature, 489, 217–218. doi:10.1038/nature11485.
Dev., 35 (3), 869–890, doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2. Arakelyan, I., D. Moran, and A. Wreford, 2017: Climate smart agriculture:
Alvarez, G., M. Elfving, and C. Andrade, 2016: REDD+ governance and A critical review. In: Making Climate Compatible Development Happen
indigenous peoples in Latin America: the case of Suru Carbon Project [Nunan, F. (ed.)]. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 262.
in the Brazilian Amazon Forest. Lat. Am. J. Manag. Sustain. Dev., 3, 133, Araujo Enciso, S.R., T. Fellmann, I. Pérez Dominguez, and F. Santini, 2016:
doi:10.1504/LAJMSD.2016.083705. Abolishing biofuel policies: Possible impacts on agricultural price
Alverson, K., and Z. Zommers, eds., 2018: Resilience The Science of levels, price variability and global food security. Food Policy, 61, 9–26,
Adaptation to Climate Change. Elsevier Science BV, 360 pp, doi:https://doi. doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2016.01.007.
org/10.1016/C2016-0-02121-6. Archer, D. et al., 2014: Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation:
Ammann, W.J., 2013: Disaster risk reduction. Encyclopedia of Earth Approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change
Sciences Series. at city and national scale. Clim. Dev., 6, 345–356, doi:10.1080/17565529
van Andel, T., and L.G. Carvalheiro, 2013: Why urban citizens in developing .2014.918868.
countries use traditional medicines: the case of suriname. Evid. Based. Argyris, C. (ed.), 1999: On Organizational Learning. Wiley-Blackwell, 480 pp.
Complement. Alternat. Med., 2013, 687197, doi:10.1155/2013/687197. ISBN: 978-0-631-21309-3. www.wiley.com/en-us/On+Organizational+
Andela, N. et al., 2017: A human-driven decline in global burned area. Science, Learning%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780631213093.
356, 1356–1362, doi:10.1126/science.aal4108. Armeni, C., 2016: Participation in environmental decision-making: Reflecting
Anderegg, W.R. L., J.M. Kane, and L.D.L. Anderegg, 2013: Consequences of on planning and community benefits for major wind farms. J. Environ. Law,
widespread tree mortality triggered by drought and temperature stress. 28, 415–441, doi:10.1093/jel/eqw021.
7 Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 30–36, doi:10.1038/nclimate1635.

758
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Arnáez, J., N. Lana-Renault, T. Lasanta, P. Ruiz-Flaño, and J. Castroviejo, 2015: Bailis, R., R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera, 2015: The carbon footprint
Effects of farming terraces on hydrological and geomorphological processes. of traditional woodfuels. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 266–272, doi:10.1038/
A review. CATENA, 128, 122–134, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2015.01.021. nclimate2491.
Arnell, N.W., and B. Lloyd-Hughes, 2014: The global-scale impacts of climate Bailis, R., Y. Wang, R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera, 2017a: Getting the
change on water resources and flooding under new climate and socio- numbers right: Revisiting woodfuel sustainability in the developing world.
economic scenarios. Clim. Change, 122, 127–140, doi:10.1007/s10584- Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 115002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa83ed.
013-0948-4. Baird, I.G., and P. Dearden, 2003: Biodiversity conservation and resource
Arora-Jonsson, S., 2011: Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, tenure regimes: A case study from Northeast Cambodia. Environ. Manage.,
gender and climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, 744–751, 32, 541–550, doi:10.1007/s00267-003-2995-5.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005. Baker, D., A. Jayadev, and J. Stiglitz, 2017: Innovation, Intellectual Property,
Arora-Jonsson, S., 2014: Forty years of gender research and environmental and Development: A Better Set of Approaches for the 21st Century. Access
policy: Where do we stand? Womens. Stud. Int. Forum, 47, 295–308, IBSA, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), Washington DC, USA.
doi:10.1016/J.WSIF.2014.02.009. http://ip-unit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IP-for-21st-Century-EN.pdf.
Arrow, K.J. et al., 2014: Should governments use a declining discount rate Di Baldassarre, G., M. Kooy, J.S. Kemerink, and L. Brandimarte, 2013: Towards
in project analysis? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, doi:10.1093/reep/reu008. understanding the dynamic behaviour of floodplains as human-water
Arts, K., 2017a: Inclusive sustainable development: A human rights systems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3235–3244, doi:10.5194/hess-17-
perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 24, 58–62, doi:10.1016/j. 3235-2013.
cosust.2017.02.001. Balehegn, M., 2015: Unintended consequences: The ecological repercussions
Ashcroft, M. et al., 2016: Expert judgement. Br. Actuar. J., 21, 314–363, of land grabbing in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environment, 57, 4–21, doi:10.10
doi:10.1017/S1357321715000239. 80/00139157.2015.1001687.
Ashkenazy, A. et al., 2017: Operationalising resilience in farms and rural Ballard, H.L., C.G.H. Dixon, and E.M. Harris, 2017: Youth-focused citizen
regions – Findings from fourteen case studies. J. Rural Stud., 59, 211–221, science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and
doi:10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2017.07.008. agency for conservation. Biol. Conserv., 208, 65–75, doi:10.1016/j.
Ashoori, N., D.A. Dzombak, and M.J. Small, 2015: Sustainability Review of biocon.2016.05.024.
Water-Supply Options in the Los Angeles Region. J. Water Resour. Plan. Balooni, K., J.M. Pulhin, and M. Inoue, 2008: The effectiveness of
Manag., 141 (12): A4015005, doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000541. decentralisation reforms in the Philippines’s forestry sector. Geoforum, 39,
Astrup, R., R.M. Bright, P.Y. Bernier, H. Genet, and D.A. Lutz, 2018: A sensible 2122–2131, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.003.
climate solution for the boreal forest. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 11–12, Bamberg, S., J. Rees, and S. Seebauer, 2015: Collective climate action:
doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0043-3. Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-
Atkinson, G., B. Groom, N. Hanley, and S. Mourato, 2018: Environmental environmental initiatives. J. Environ. Psychol., 43, 155–165, doi:10.1016/J.
valuation and benefit-cost analysis in UK policy. J. Benefit-Cost Anal., JENVP.2015.06.006.
9, 1–23, doi:10.1017/bca.2018.6. Bamberg, S., J.H. Rees, and M. Schulte, 2018: Environmental protection through
Auclair, L., P. Baudot, D. Genin, B. Romagny, and R. Simenel, 2011: Patrimony societal change: What psychology knows about collective climate action–
for resilience: Evidence from the forest Agdal in the Moroccan High Atlas And what it needs to find out. In: Psychology and Climate Change [Clayton,
Mountains. Ecol. Soc., 16, art24, doi:10.5751/ES-04429-160424. S. and C. Manning (eds.)]. Academic Press, Elsevier, Massachusetts, USA,
Awal, M.A., 2013: Social safety net, disaster risk management and climate 312pp., doi:10.1016/C2016-0-04326-7.
change adaptation: Examining their integration potential in Bangladesh. Banerjee, A. et al., 2015: A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for
Int. J. Sociol. Study, 1, 62–72. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ the very poor: Evidence from six countries. Science, 348 (6236), 1260799,
d353/9315f1f8162618e98958e662a23210fb4d6e.pdf. doi:10.1126/science.1260799.
Ayamga, E.A., F. Kemausuor, and A. Addo, 2015a: Technical analysis of crop Baral, H., R.J. Keenan, S.K. Sharma, N.E. Stork, and S. Kasel, 2014: Economic
residue biomass energy in an agricultural region of Ghana. Resour. Conserv. evaluation of ecosystem goods and services under different landscape
Recycl., 96, 51–60, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.007. management scenarios. Land Use Policy, 39, 54–64, doi:10.1016/j.
Ayanlade, A., M. Radeny, and J. Morton, 2017: Comparing smallholder landusepol.2014.03.008.
farmers’ perception of climate change with meteorological data: A case Baranzini, A. et al., 2017: Carbon pricing in climate policy: Seven reasons,
study from south-western Nigeria. Weather Clim. Extrem., 15, 24–33, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. Wiley
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2016.12.001. Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 8:e462, doi:10.1002/wcc.462.
Ayeb-Karlsson, S., K. van der Geest, I. Ahmed, S. Huq, and K. Warner, 2016: Barbedo, J., M. Miguez, D. van der Horst, P. Carneiro, P. Amis, and A. Ioris,
A people‐centred perspective on climate change, environmental stress, 2015: Policy dimensions of land use change in peri-urban floodplains: The
and livelihood resilience in Bangladesh. Sustain. Sci., 11, 679–694, case of Paraty. Ecol. Soc., 20, doi:10.5751/ES-07126-200105.
doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0379-z. Barbier, E.B., 2011: Pricing nature. Annual Review of Resource Economics,
Bacon, C.M. et al., 2014: Explaining the ‘hungry farmer paradox’: Smallholders 3, 337–353, doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120115.
and fair trade cooperatives navigate seasonality and change in Barbier, E.B., and A.T. Tesfaw, 2012: Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of
Nicaragua’s corn and coffee markets. Glob. Environ. Chang., 25, 133–149, payments and tenure. Forests, 3, 881–895, doi:10.3390/f3040881.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.005. Barkat, A., S. uz Zaman, S. Raihan, M. Rahman Chowdhury, and E. Director,
Badola, R., S.C. Barthwal, and S.A. Hussain, 2013: Payment for ecosystem 2001: Political economy of Khas land in Bangladesh. Association for Land
services for balancing conservation and development in the rangelands Reform and Development, Dhaka,  270 pp. www.hdrc-bd.com/admin_
of the Indian Himalayan region. In: Ning W., G.S Rawat, S. Joshi, M. Ismail, panel/images/notice/1389588575.3. cover 11 text.pdf.
E. Sharma, 2013. High-Altitude Rangelands their Interfaces Hindu Kush Barnett, J., and S. O’Neill, 2010: Maladaptation. Global Environmental
Himalayas, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Change, 20, 211–213, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004.
Kathmandu, Nepal, 175 pp. Barnett, J., and J.P. Palutikof, 2014: The limits to adaptation: A comparative
Bailey, R., 2013: The ‘Food versus fuel’ nexus. In: The Handbook of Global analysis. In: Applied Studies in Climate Adaptation [Palutikof, J.P., S.L.
Energy Policy [Goldthau, A. (ed.)]. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, USA, Boulter, J. Barnett, D. Rissik (eds.)]. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 7
doi:10.1002/9781118326275. UK, pp. 231–240, doi:10.1002/9781118845028.ch26.

759
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Barnett, J. et al., 2014: A local coastal adaptation pathway. Nat. Clim. Chang., livelihoods and conservation. World Dev., 33, 1435–1452, doi:10.1016/j.
4, 1103–1108, doi:10.1038/nclimate2383. worlddev.2004.10.007.
Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2005: Potential impacts of Bellemare, M.F., 2015: Rising food prices, food price volatility, and social
a  warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. unrest. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 97, 1–21, doi:10.1093/ajae/aau038.
Nature, 438, 303–309, doi:10.1038/nature04141. Below, T.B. et al., 2012: Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be
Barrett, C.B., 2005: Rural poverty dynamics: Development policy implications. explained by socio-economic household-level variables? Glob. Environ.
Agric. Econ., 32, 45–60, doi:10.1111/j.0169-5150.2004.00013.x. Chang., 22, 223–235, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.012.
Barrientos, A., 2011: Social protection and poverty. Int. J. Soc. Welf., 20, Ben-Ari, T., and D. Makowski, 2016: Analysis of the trade-off between high
240–249, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00783.x. crop yield and low yield instability at the global scale. Environ. Res. Lett.,
Barros, F.S.M., and N.A. Honório, 2015: Deforestation and malaria on 11, 104005 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104005.
the Amazon frontier: Larval clustering of Anopheles darlingi (Diptera: Béné, C., B. Hersoug, and E.H. Allison, 2010: Not by rent alone: Analysing the
Culicidae) determines focal distribution of malaria. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., pro‐poor functions of small‐scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev.
93, 939–953, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0042. Policy Rev., 28, 325–358, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00486.x.
Bastos Lima, M.G. et al., 2017a: The sustainable development goals and Béné, C., et al., 2011: Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context:
REDD+: Assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. Experience from the Niger River Basin. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21,
Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 17, 589–606, doi:10.1007/ 1173–1184, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.002.
s10784-017-9366-9. Béné, C., S. Devereux, and R. Sabates-Wheeler, 2012: Shocks and social
Bastos Lima, M.G., I.J. Visseren-Hamakers, J. Braña-Varela, and A. Gupta, protection in the Horn of Africa: Analysis from the Productive Safety Net
2017b: A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: Lessons programme in Ethiopia. IDS Working Paper, 2012, 1–120, doi:10.1111/
from Latin America. For. Policy Econ., 78, 10–20, doi:10.1016/J. j.2040-0209.2012.00395.x.
FORPOL.2016.12.013. Bennett, J.E., 2013: Institutions and governance of communal rangelands in
Bates, S., and P. Saint-Pierre, 2018: Adaptive policy framework through the South Africa. African J. Range Forage Sci., 30, 77–83, doi:10.2989/10220
lens of the viability theory: A theoretical contribution to sustainability 119.2013.776634.
in the Anthropocene Era. Ecol. Econ., 145, 244–262, doi:10.1016/j. Bennett, N.J., and P. Dearden, 2014: From measuring outcomes to providing
ecolecon.2017.09.007. inputs: Governance, management, and local development for more
Batie, S.S., 2008: Wicked problems and applied economics. Am. J. Agric. Econ., effective marine protected areas. Mar. Policy, 50, 96–110, doi:10.1016/j.
90, 1176–1191, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01202.x. marpol.2014.05.005.
Baudron, F., M. Jaleta, O. Okitoi, and A. Tegegn, 2014: Conservation agriculture Bennich, T., S. Belyazid, T. Bennich, and S. Belyazid, 2017a: The route to
in African mixed crop-livestock systems: Expanding the niche. Agric. sustainability – Prospects and challenges of the bio-based economy.
Ecosyst. Environ., 187, 171–182, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.020. Sustainability, 9, 887, doi:10.3390/su9060887.
Baulch, B., J. Wood, and A. Weber, 2006: Developing a social protection index Bentz, B.J. et al., 2010: Climate change and bark beetles of the western United
for Asia. Dev. Policy Rev., 24, 5–29, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00311.x. States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. Bioscience, 60, 602–613,
Baumgart-Getz, A., L.S. Prokopy, and K. Floress, 2012: Why farmers adopt doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6.
best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of Benveniste, H., O. Boucher, C. Guivarch, H. Le Treut, and P. Criqui, 2018:
the adoption literature. J. Environ. Manage., 96, 17–25, doi:10.1016/j. Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse
jenvman.2011.10.006. gas emissions: Uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions. Environ.
Bausch, J., L. Bojo’rquez-Tapia, and H. Eakin, 2014: Agroenvironmental Res. Lett., 13, 014022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa0b9.
sustainability assessment using multi-criteria decision analysis and system van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., and W.J.W. Botzen, 2014: A lower bound to the
analysis. Sustain. Sci., 9, 303–319, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 253–258, doi:10.1038/
014-0243-y. nclimate2135.
Bayisenge, J., 2018: From male to joint land ownership: Women’s experiences Berhane, G., 2014: Can social protection work in Africa? The impact of
of the land tenure reform programme in Rwanda. J. Agrar. Chang., 18, Ethiopia’s productive safety net programme. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change, 63,
588–605, doi:10.1111/joac.12257. 1–26, doi:10.1086/677753.
Bebbington, A.J. et al., 2018: Resource extraction and infrastructure threaten Berke, P.R., and M.R. Stevens, 2016: Land use planning for climate adaptation.
forest cover and community rights. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 115, 13164– J. Plan. Educ. Res., 36, 283–289, doi:10.1177/0739456X16660714.
13173, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1812505115. Berkes, F., Mahon R., McConney P., Pollnac R., and Pomeroy R. 2001: Managing
Beca Ltd, 2018: Assessment of the Administration Costs and Barriers of Small-Scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. IDRC. Canada.
Scenarios to Mitigate Biological emissions from Agriculture. Beca Limited. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/31968.
New Zealand. www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32146/direct. Berndes, G., S. Ahlgren, P. Böorjesson, and A.L. Cowie, 2015: Bioenergy
Behera, B., B. Rahut, A. Jeetendra, and A. Ali, 2015a: Household collection and land use change-state of the art. In: Advances in Bioenergy: The
and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia. Energy, 85, 468–480, Sustainability Challenge [Lund, P.D., J. Byrne, G. Berndes, and I. Vasalos
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.059. (eds.)], Wiley, 560 pp., doi:10.1002/9781118957844.
Behnke, R., 1994: Natural resource management in pastoral Africa. Dev. Policy Bertram, M.Y. et al., 2018: Investing in non-communicable diseases: An
Rev., 12, 5–28, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.1994.tb00053.x. estimation of the return on investment for prevention and treatment
Behnke, R., and C. Kerven, 2013: Counting the costs: Replacing pastoralism services. The Lancet, 391, 2071–2078, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736
with irrigated agriculture in the Awash valley, north-eastern Ethiopia. In: (18)30665-2.
Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Changes at the Margins, Bettini, G., and G. Gioli, 2016: Waltz with development: Insights on the
[Catley, A., J. Lind, andI. Scoones (eds.)]. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 49. developmentalization of climate-induced migration. Migr. Dev., 5, 171–
Behrman, K.D., T.E. Juenger, J.R. Kiniry, and T.H. Keitt, 2015: Spatial land use 189, doi:10.1080/21632324.2015.1096143.
trade-offs for maintenance of biodiversity, biofuel, and agriculture. Landsc. Bettini, Y., R.R. Brown, and F.J. de Haan, 2015: Exploring institutional adaptive
Ecol., 30, 1987–1999, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0225-1. capacity in practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia.
7 Belcher, B., M. Ruíz-Pérez, and R. Achdiawan, 2005: Global patterns and Ecol. Soc., 20, Art. 47, doi:10.5751/ES-07291-200147.
trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for

760
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Beuchelt, T.D., and L. Badstue, 2013: Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart Blackman, A., L. Corral, E.S. Lima, and G.P. Asner, 2017: Titling indigenous
food production: Opportunities and trade-offs. Food Secur., 5, 709–721, communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
doi:10.1007/s12571-013-0290-8. 114, 4123–4128, doi:10.1073/pnas.1603290114.
Beuchle, R. et al., 2015: Land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado and Le Blanc, D., 2015: Towards integration at last? The sustainable development
Caatinga biomes from 1990 to 2010 based on a systematic remote goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev., 23, 176–187, doi: https://doi.
sensing sampling approach. Appl. Geogr., 58, 116–127, doi:10.1016/J. org/10.1002/sd.1582.
APGEOG.2015.01.017. Le Blanc, D., C. Freire, and M. Vierro, 2017: Mapping the linkages between
Bevir, M., 2011: The SAGE handbook of governance. Sage Publishing, pp 592. oceans and other Sustainable Development Goals : A preliminary
California, USA. exploration. DESA Working Paper No. 149, New York, USA, 34  pp.,
Biagini, B., and A. Miller, 2013: Engaging the private sector in adaptation to doi:10.18356/3adc8369-en.
climate change in developing countries: Importance, status, and challenges. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal, 2009a: Crop residue removal impacts on soil
Clim. Dev., 5, 242–252, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.821053. productivity and environmental quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 28, 139–
Biagini, B., L. Kuhl, K.S. Gallagher, and C. Ortiz, 2014: Technology transfer for 163, doi:10.1080/07352680902776507.
adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 828–834, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2305. Bloemen, P., M. Van Der Steen, and Z. Van Der Wal, 2018: Designing a century
Biazin, B., G. Sterk, M. Temesgen, A. Abdulkedir, and L. Stroosnijder, 2012: ahead: Climate change adaptation in the Dutch Delta. Policy and Society,
Rainwater harvesting and management in rainfed agricultural systems 38, 58–76, doi:10.1080/14494035.2018.1513731.
in Sub-Saharan Africa – A review. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C, 47–48, Blue, G., and J. Medlock, 2014: Public engagement with climate change as
139–151, doi:10.1016/J.PCE.2011.08.015. scientific citizenship: A case study of worldwide views on global warming.
Bierbaum, R., and A. Cowie, 2018: Integration: To Solve Complex Sci. Cult. (Lond)., 23, 560–579, doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.917620.
Environmental Problems. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Bodnár, F., B. de Steenhuijsen Piters, and J. Kranen, 2011: Improving
Global Environment Facility. Washington, DC, USA, www.stapgef.org. Food Security: A systematic review of the impact of interventions in
Biermann, F., 2007: ‘Earth System governance’ as a crosscutting theme of agricultural production, value chains, market regulation and land security.
global change research. Glob. Environ. Chang., 17, 326–337, doi:10.1016/j. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Hague, Netherlands.
gloenvcha.2006.11.010. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/hunger-foodsecurity-nutrition/document/
Biermann, F. et al., 2012: Science and government. Navigating the improving-food-security-systematic-review-impact-interventions-
anthropocene: Improving Earth System governance. Science, 335, 1306– agricultural-production-valu.
1307, doi:10.1126/science.1217255. Bodnar, P. et al., 2018: Underwriting 1.5°C: Competitive approaches to
Biesbroek, G.R. et al., 2010: Europe adapts to climate change: Comparing financing accelerated climate change mitigation. Clim. Policy, 18, 368–382,
National Adaptation Strategies. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20, 440–450, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1389687.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.005. Bogaerts, M. et al., 2017: Climate change mitigation through intensified
Biesbroek, R., B.G. Peters, and J. Tosun, 2018: Public bureaucracy and climate pasture management: Estimating greenhouse gas emissions on cattle farms
change adaptation. Rev. Policy Res., doi:10.1111/ropr.12316. in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Clean. Prod., 162, 1539–1550, doi:10.1016/J.
Biggs, E.M., E.L. Tompkins, J. Allen, C. Moon, and R. Allen, 2013: Agricultural JCLEPRO.2017.06.130.
adaptation to climate change: Observations from the mid hills of Nepal. Bogale, A., 2015a: Weather-indexed insurance: An elusive or achievable
Clim. Dev., 5, 165–173, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.789791. adaptation strategy to climate variability and change for smallholder
Biggs, E.M. et al., 2015: Sustainable development and the water-energy- farmers in Ethiopia. Clim. Dev., 7, 246–256, doi:10.1080/17565529.201
food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy, 54, 389–397, 4.934769.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002. Bogardi, J.J. et al., 2012: Water security for a planet under pressure:
Biggs, H.C., J.K. Clifford-Holmes, S. Freitag, F.J. Venter, and J. Venter, 2017: Interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions.
Cross-scale governance and ecosystem service delivery: A case narrative Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 4, 35–43, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2011.12.002.
from the Olifants River in north-eastern South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv., Bohra-Mishra, P., and D.S. Massey, 2011: Environmental degradation and out-
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.008. migration: New evidence from Nepal. In: Migration and Climate Change
Binswanger, H.P., K. Deininger, and F. Gershon, 1995: Power, distortions, revolt, [Piguet, E., A. Pécoud and P. de Guchteneire (eds.)]. Cambridge University
and reform in agricultural land relations. Handb. Dev. Econ., 3, 2659–2772, Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4471 (95)30019-8. Böhringer, C., J.C. Carbone, and T.F. Rutherford, 2012: Unilateral climate
Birch, J.C. et al., 2010: Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration policy design: Efficiency and equity implications of alternative instruments
evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., to reduce carbon leakage. Energy Econ., 34, S208–S217, doi:10.1016/j.
107, 21925–21930. eneco.2012.09.011.
Bird, T.J. et al., 2014: Statistical solutions for error and bias in global Boillat, S., and F. Berkes, 2013: Perception and interpretation of climate
citizen science datasets. Biol. Conserv., 173, 144–154, doi:10.1016/J. change among Quechua farmers of Bolivia: Indigenous knowledge as
BIOCON.2013.07.037. a resource for adaptive capacity. Ecol. Soc., 18, Art. 21, doi:10.5751/ES-
Bishop, I.D., C.J. Pettit, F. Sheth, and S. Sharma, 2013: Evaluation of data 05894-180421.
visualisation options for land use policy and decision-making in response Bommarco, R., D. Kleijn, and S.G. Potts, 2013: Ecological intensification:
to climate change. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des., 40, 213–233, doi:10.1068/ Harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28,
b38159. 230–238, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012.
Bizikova, L., D. Roy, D. Swanson, H.D. Venema, M. McCandless, 2013: The Water- Bommel, P. et al., 2014: A further step towards participatory modelling.
Energy-Food Security Nexus: Towards a Practical Planning and Decision- Fostering stakeholder involvement in designing models by using executable
support Framework for Landscape Investment and Risk Management. UML. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul., 17, 1–9, doi:10.18564/jasss.2381.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada. Bonan, G.B., 2008: Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and
www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/wef_nexus_2013.pdf. the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320, 1444–1449, doi:10.1126/
Black, R., N.W. Arnell, W.N. Adger, D. Thomas, and A. Geddes, 2013: Migration, science.1155121.
immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events. Environ. Bonatti, M. et al., 2016: Climate vulnerability and contrasting climate 7
Sci. Policy, 27, S32-S43, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.001. perceptions as an element for the development of community adaptation

761
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

strategies: Case studies in southern Brazil. Land Use Policy, 58, 114–122, Breininger, D., B. Duncan, M. Eaton, F. Johnson, and J. Nichols, 2014:
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.033. Integrating land cover modeling and adaptive management to conserve
Bonney, R. et al., 2014: Citizen science. Next steps for citizen science. Science, endangered species and reduce catastrophic fire risk. Land, 3, 874–897,
343, 1436–1437, doi:10.1126/science.1251554. doi:10.3390/land3030874.
Bonsch, M. et al., 2016: Trade-offs between land and water requirements for Brenkert-Smith, H., P.A. Champ, and N. Flores, 2006: Insights into wildfire
large-scale bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 11–24, doi:10.1111/ mitigation decisions among wildland-urban interface residents. Soc. Nat.
gcbb.12226. Resour., 19, 759–768, doi:10.1080/08941920600801207.
Bonsu, N.O., Á.N. Dhubháin, and D. O’Connor, 2017: Evaluating the use of Bresch, D.N. et al., 2017: Sovereign Climate and Disaster Risk Pooling.
an integrated forest land-use planning approach in addressing forest World Bank Technical Contribution to the G20. World Bank.
ecosystem services confliciting demands: Expereince within an Irish forest Washington DC, USA, 76  pp. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
landscape. Futures, 86, 1–17, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.08.004. en/837001502870999632/pdf/118676-WP-v2-PUBLIC.pdf.
Boonstra, W.J., and T.T.H. Hanh, 2015: Adaptation to climate change as social- Bright, R.M. et al., 2017: Local temperature response to land cover and
ecological trap: A case study of fishing and aquaculture in the Tam Giang management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat. Clim. Chang.,
Lagoon, Vietnam. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 17, 1527–1544. 7, 296–302, doi:10.1038/nclimate3250.
Borras Jr., S.M., R. Hall, I. Scoones, B. White, and W. Wolford, 2011: Towards Broegaard, R.B., T. Vongvisouk, and O. Mertz, 2017: Contradictory land use
a better understanding of global land grabbing: An editorial introduction. plans and policies in Laos: Tenure security and the threat of exclusion.
J. Peasant Stud., 38, 209–216, doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.559005. World Dev., 89, 170–183, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.08.008.
Borychowski, M., and A. Czyżewski, 2015: Determinants of prices increase of Brondizio, E.S., and F.-M. L. Tourneau, 2016: Environmental governance for all.
agricultural commodities in a global context. Management, 19, 152–167, Science, 352, 1272–1273, doi:10.1126/science.aaf5122.
doi:10.1515/manment-2015-0020. Bronen, R., and F.S. Chapin, 2013: Adaptive governance and institutional
Boyce, J.K., 2018: Carbon pricing: Effectiveness and equity. Ecol. Econ., 150, strategies for climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. Proc. Natl.
52–61, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.030. Acad. Sci., 110, 9320–9325, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210508110.
Boyd, E., and C. Folke (eds.), 2011a: Adapting Institutions: Governance, Brooks, J., 2014: Policy coherence and food security: The effects of OECD
Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience. Cambridge University Press, countries’ agricultural policies. Food Policy, 44, 88–94, doi:10.1016/j.
Cambridge, UK, 290 pp. foodpol.2013.10.006.
Boyd, E., and C. Folke, 2012: Adapting institutions, adaptive governance Brown, C., P. Alexander, S. Holzhauer, and M.D.A. Rounsevell, 2017: Behavioral
and complexity: An introduction. In: Adapting Institutions: Governance, models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land-based sectors.
Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience [Boyd, E. and C. Folke, (eds.)]. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 8, e448, doi:10.1002/wcc.448.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, Brown, I., and M. Castellazzi, 2014: Scenario analysis for regional decision-
NY, USA, pp. 1–8. making on sustainable multifunctional land uses. Reg. Environ. Chang., 14,
Boyd, E., B. Nykvist, S. Borgström, and I.A. Stacewicz, 2015: Anticipatory 1357–1371, doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0579-3.
governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio, 44, 149–161, Brown, M.L., 2010: Limiting corrupt incentives in a global REDD regime. Ecol.
doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0604-x. Law Q., 37, 237–267, doi:10.15779/Z38HC41.
Boyle, M., Kay, J.J.; Pond, B., 2001: Monitoring in support of policy: An adaptive Bruce, J.W., and S.E. Migot-Adholla, 1994: Introduction: Are indigenous
ecosystem approach. Encylopedia Glob. Environ. Chang., 4,  116–137. African tenure systems insecure? In: Searching for Land Tenure Security in
http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co/openbiblio/bvirtual/017931/ Africa [Bruce, J.W., and S.E. Migot-Adholla (ed.)]. World Bank, Washington,
DocumentosIndicadores/Temasvarios/Docum8.pdf. DC, USA, pp. 282.
Boysen, L.R., W. Lucht, D. Gerten, and V. Heck, 2016: Impacts devalue de Bruin, K., R. Dellink, S. Agrawala, and R. Dellink, 2009: Economic aspects
the potential of large-scale terrestrial CO2 removal through biomass of adaptation to climate change: Integrated assessment modelling of
plantations. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 095010, doi:10.1088/1748- adaptation costs and benefits. OECD Environ. Work. Pap., 22, 36–38,
9326/11/9/095010. doi:10.1787/225282538105.
Boysen, L.R., W. Lucht, and D. Gerten, 2017a: Trade-offs for food production, Bruvoll, A., and B.M. Larsen, 2004: Greenhouse gas emissions in Norway: Do
nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal carbon taxes work? Energy Policy, 32, 493–505, doi:10.1016/S0301-4215
potential. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 4303–4317, doi:10.1111/gcb.13745. (03)00151-4.
Boysen, L.R. et al., 2017b: The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial Bryan, B.A., D. King, and E. Wang, 2010: Biofuels agriculture: Landscape‐
carbon removal. Earth’s Future, 5, 463–474, doi:10.1002/2016EF000469. scale trade‐offs between fuel, economics, carbon, energy, food, and
Brancalion, P.H.S., R.A.G. Viani, B.B.N. Strassburg, and R.R. Rodrigues, 2012: fiber. Gcb Bioenergy, 2, 330–345, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-
Finding the money for tropical forest restoration. Unasylva, 239 (63), 1707.2010.01056.x.
41–50. www.fao.org/3/i2890e/i2890e07.pdf. Bryngelsson, D., S. Wirsenius, F. Hedenus, and U. Sonesson, 2016: How can
Brander, K., 2015: Improving the reliability of fishery predictions under the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and
climate change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 40–48, doi:10.1007/s40641- demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy, 59, 152–164,
015-0005-7. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012.
Brander, K.M., 2007: Global fish production and climate change. Proc. Natl. Burby, R.J., and P.J. May, 2009: Command or cooperate? Rethinking
Acad. Sci., 104, 19709–19714, doi:10.1073/pnas.0702059104. traditional central governments’ hazard mitigation policies. In: NATO
Branger, F., and P. Quirion, 2014: Climate policy and the ‘carbon haven’ effect. Science for Peace and Security Series – E: Human and Societal Dynamics
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 5,  53–71, doi:10.1002/wcc.245. [Fra Paleo, U. (ed.)]. IOS Press Ebooks, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 21–33.
Bratton, M., 2007: Formal versus informal institutions in Africa. J. Democr., 18, doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-046-9-21.
96–110, doi:10.1353/jod.2007.0041. Burton, R.J.F., C. Kuczera, and G. Schwarz, 2008: Exploring farmers’ cultural
Brechin, S.R., and M.I. Espinoza, 2017: A case for further refinement of the resistance to voluntary agrienvironmental schemes. Sociol. Ruralis, 48,
green climate fund’s 50:50 ratio climate change mitigation and adaptation 16–37, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x.
allocation framework: Toward a more targeted approach. Clim. Change, Busch, J., 2018: Monitoring and evaluating the payment-for-performance
7 142, 311–320, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1938-8. premise of REDD+: The case of India’s ecological fiscal transfers. Ecosyst.
Heal. Sustain., 4, 169–175, doi:10.1080/20964129.2018.1492335.

762
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Busch, J., and A. Mukherjee, 2017: Encouraging state governments to protect Casellas Connors, J.P., and A. Janetos, 2016: Assessing the Impacts of Multiple
and restore forests using ecological fiscal transfers: India’s tax revenue Breadbasket Failures. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, American Geophysical
distribution reform. Conserv. Lett., 00, 1–10, doi:10.1111/conl.12416. Union, Washington, DC, USA.2016AGUFMNH21B..07C.
Byerlee, D., D. Byerlee, and X. Rueda, 2015: From public to private standards Cash, D.W. et al., 2006: Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and
for tropical commodities: A century of global discourse on land governance information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc., 11, art8, doi:10.5751/ES-
on the forest frontier. Forests, 6, 1301–1324, doi:10.3390/f6041301. 01759-110208.
Byers, E. et al., 2018a: Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector Castán Broto, V., 2017: Urban governance and the politics of climate change.
development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 055012, World Dev., 93, 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.031.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf45. Castella, J.-C., J. Bourgoin, G. Lestrelin, and B. Bouahom, 2014: A model of
Byers, E., et al., 2018b: Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector the science-practice-policy interface in participatory land use planning:
development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 055012, Lessons from Laos. Landsc. Ecol., 29, 1095–1107, doi:10.1007/s10980-
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf45. 014-0043-x.
Camacho, A.E., 2009: Adapting governance to climate change: Managing Cavicchi, B. et al., 2017: The influence of local governance: Effects on the
uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law J., 59, 1–77, sustainability of bioenergy innovation. Sustainability, 9, 406, doi:10.3390/
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1352693. su9030406.
Camacho, L.D., D.T. Gevaña, Antonio P. Carandang, and S.C. Camacho, 2016: CDM Executive Board, 2012: Default Values of Fraction of Non-Renewable
Indigenous knowledge and practices for the sustainable management of Biomass for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing
Ifugao forests in Cordillera, Philippines. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. States. UNFCCC/CCNUCC, 13  pp. https://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Notes/
Manag., 12, 5–13, doi:10.1080/21513732.2015.1124453. meth/meth_note12.pdf.
Cameron, C. et al., 2016: Policy trade-offs between climate mitigation and Ceddia, M., U. Gunter, and A. Corriveau-Bourque, 2015: Land tenure and
clean cook-stove access in South Asia. Nat. Energy, 1, 15010, doi:10.1038/ agricultural expansion in Latin America: The role of indigenous peoples’
nenergy.2015.10. and local communities’ forest rights. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35, 316–322,
Campillo, G., M. Mullan, and L. Vallejo, 2017: Climate Change Adaptation and doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.010.
Financial Protection. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 120, OECD Celentano, D. et al., 2017: Degradation of Riparian Forest affects soil
Publishing, Paris, France, pp 59. doi:10.1787/0b3dc22a-en. properties and ecosystem services provision in eastern Amazon of Brazil.
Caney, S., 2014: Climate change, intergenerational equity and L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 482–493, doi:10.1002/ldr.2547.
the social discount rate. Polit. Philos. Econ., 13 (4), 320–342, Cerutti, P.O. et al., 2015: The socio-economic and environmental impacts
doi:10.1177/1470594X14542566. of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic map
Canonico, G.C., A. Arthington, J.K. McCrary, and M.L. Thieme, 2005: The protocol. Environ. Evid., 4, 12, doi:10.1186/s13750-015-0038-3.
effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Chadburn, S.E., (2017). An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss
Freshw. Ecosyst., 15, 463–483, doi:10.1002/aqc.699. as a function of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 7, 340–344,
Cantarello, E. et al., 2010: Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration doi:10.1038/nclimate3262.
evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Chaffin, B.C., H. Gosnell, and B.A. Cosens, 2014: A decade of adaptive
107, 21925–21930, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003369107. governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecol. Soc., 19,
Capstick, S., L. Whitmarsh, W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, and P. Upham, 2015: Art. 56, doi:10.5751/ES-06824-190356.
International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the Challinor, A.J., W.N. Adger, and T.G. Benton, 2017: Climate risks across borders
past quarter century. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 35–61, and scales. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 621–623, doi:10.1038/nclimate3380.
doi:10.1002/wcc.321. Chambers, R. (ed.), 1988: Managing Canal Irrigation: Practical Analysis from
Cardona, O., and M.K. van Aalst, 2012: Determinants of Risk: Exposure and South Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 279 pp.
Vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Chambwera, M., and G. Heal, 2014: Economics of Adaptation. In: Climate
Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and
D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, Sectoral Aspects [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp. B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.
Carleton, T.A., and S.M. Hsiang, 2016a: Social and economic impacts of White (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
climate. Science, 353, aad9837, doi:10.1126/science.aad9837. and New York, NY, USA, pp. 945–977.
Carroll, T. et al., 2012: Catalyzing Smallholder Agricultural Finance. Dalberg Chandra, A., P.P. Saradhi, R.K. Maikhuri, K.G. Saxena, and K.S. Rao, 2011:
Global Development Advisors. https://oneacrefund.org/documents/101/ Traditional agrodiversity management: A case study of central Himalayan
Dalberg_Skoll_Citi_Catalyzing_Smallholder_Agricultural_Finance_Farm_ village ecosystem. J. Mt. Sci., 8, 62–74, doi:10.1007/s11629-011-1081-3.
Finance.pdf. Chaney, P., and R. Fevre, 2001: Inclusive governance and ‘minority’
Carter, A., 2017: Placeholders and changemakers: Women farmland owners groups: The role of the third sector in Wales. Voluntas, 12, 131–156,
navigating gendered expectations. Rural Sociol., 82, 499–523, doi:10.1111/ doi:10.1023/A:1011286602556.
ruso.12131. Chang, S.E., T.L. McDaniels, J. Mikawoz, and K. Peterson, 2007: Infrastructure
Carter, E. et al., 2018: Development of renewable, densified biomass for failure interdependencies in extreme events: Power outage consequences
household energy in China. Energy Sustain. Dev., 46, 42–52, doi:10.1016/j. in the 1998 ice storm. Nat. Hazards, 41, 337–358, doi:https://doi.
esd.2018.06.004. org/10.1007/s11069-006-9039-4.
Carter, S. et al., 2017: Large scale land acquisitions and REDD plus: A synthesis Chang, Y., G. Li, Y. Yao, L. Zhang, and C. Yu, 2016: Quantifying the water-
of conflictsand opportunities. Environ. Res. Lett., 12 (3): 035010, energy-food nexus: Current status and trends. Energies, 9, 65, doi:10.3390/
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6056. en9020065.
Carvalho, J.L.N., T.W. Hudiburg, H.C.J. Franco, and E.H. Delucia, 2016: Chanza, N., and A. de Wit, 2016: Enhancing climate governance through
Contribution of above- and belowground bioenergy crop residues to soil indigenous knowledge: Case in sustainability science. S. Afr. J. Sci., 112,
carbon. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 1333–1343, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12411. 1–7, doi:10.17159/sajs.2016/20140286. 7

763
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Chapin, F.S. et al., 2010: Resilience of Alaska’s boreal forest to climatic change. Approaches [Fletcher, A. and W. Kubik (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK,
Can. J. For. Res., 40, 1360–1370, doi:10.1139/X10-074. and New York, USA, pp. 13–22.
Chasek, P., U. Safriel, S. Shikongo, and V.F. Fuhrman, 2015: Operationalizing Clarvis, M.H., E. Bohensky, and M. Yarime, 2015: Can resilience thinking
zero net land degradation: The next stage in international efforts to inform resilience investments? Learning from resilience principles for
combat desertification? J. Arid Environ., 112, 5–13, doi:10.1016/j. disaster risk reduction. Sustain., 7, 9048–9066, doi:10.3390/su7079048.
jaridenv.2014.05.020. Clemens, H., R. Bailis, A. Nyambane, and V. Ndung’u, 2018: Africa Biogas
Chatzopoulos, T., I. Pérez Domínguez, M. Zampieri, and A. Toreti, 2019: Climate Partnership Program: A review of clean cooking implementation through
extremes and agricultural commodity markets: A global economic analysis market development in East Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev., 46, 23–31,
of regionally simulated events. Weather Clim. Extrem., doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2018.05.012.
wace.2019.100193. In press. Clemens, M., J. Rijke, A. Pathirana, J. Evers, and N. Hong Quan, 2015: Social
Chávez Michaelsen, A. et al., 2017: Effects of drought on deforestation learning for adaptation to climate change in developing countries:
estimates from different classification methodologies: Implications for Insights from Vietnam. J. Water Clim. Chang., 7, 365–378, doi:10.2166/
REDD+ and other payments for environmental services programs. Remote wcc.2015.004.
Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ., 5, 36–44, doi:10.1016/J.RSASE.2017.01.003. Clover, J., and S. Eriksen, 2009: The effects of land tenure change on
Chen, D., W. Wei, and L. Chen, 2017a: Effects of terracing practices on sustainability: Human security and environmental change in southern
water erosion control in China: A meta-analysis. Earth-Science Rev., 173, African savannas. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 53–70, doi:10.1016/j.
109–121, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.08.007. envsci.2008.10.012.
Chen, J., 2011: Modern disaster theory: Evaluating disaster law as Coady, D., I. Parry, L. Sears, and B. Shang, 2017: How large are global fossil fuel
a portfolio of legal rules. Emory Int. Law Rev., 25. University of Louisville subsidies? World Dev., 91, 11–27, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004.
School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011–05. Available at Coates, J., 2013: Build it back better: Deconstructing food security for improved
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1910669. measurement and action. Glob. Food Sec., 2, 188–194, doi:10.1016/j.
Chen, Y., Y. Tan, and Y. Luo, 2017b: Post-disaster resettlement and livelihood gfs.2013.05.002.
vulnerability in rural China. Disaster Prev. Manag., 26, 65–78, doi:10.1108/ Cochran, F.V. et al., 2016: Indigenous ecological calendars define scales for
DPM-07-2016-0130. climate change and sustainability assessments. Sustain. Sci., 11, 69–89,
Cheng, C.-Y., and J. Urpelainen, 2014: Fuel stacking in India: Changes in the doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0303-y.
cooking and lighting mix, 1987-2010. Energy, 76, 306–317, doi:10.1016/j. Coenen, F., and F.H.J.M. Coenen (eds.), 2009: Public Participation and Better
energy.2014.08.023. Environmental Decisions. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Chhatre, A., and A. Agrawal, 2009: Trade-offs and synergies between carbon 183–209 pp.
storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Cohen, R., and M. Bradley, 2010: Disasters and displacement: Gaps in
106, 17667–17670, doi:10.1073/pnas.0905308106. protection. J. Int. Humanit. Leg. Stud., 1, 1–35, doi:10.1163/18781521
Chhatre, A., and S. Lakhanpal, 2018: For the environment, against conservation: 0X12766020139884.
Conflict between renewable energy and biodiversity protection in India. Cole, S., 2015: Overcoming barriers to microinsurance adoption: Evidence
In: Conservation and Development in India [Bhagwat, S. (ed.)]. Routledge, from the field. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. – Issues Pract., 40, 720–740.
London, UK, pp. 52–72. Cole, S. et al., 2013: Barriers to household risk management: Evidence from
Chomba, S., J. Kariuki, J.F. Lund, and F. Sinclair, 2016: Roots of inequity: How India. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ., 5, 104–135, doi:10.1257/app.5.1.104.
the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy, Collar, N.J., P. Patil, and G.S. Bhardwaj, 2015: What can save the Great Indian
50, 202–213, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.021. Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps?Bird. ASIA, 23, 15–24.
Chopra, K., 2017: Land and forest policy: Resources for development or our Collins, A.M., 2014: Governing the global land grab: What role for gender in
natural resources? In: Development and Environmental Policy in India the voluntary guidelines and the principles for responsible investment?
[Chopra, K. (ed.)]. Springer, Singapore, pp. 13–25. Globalizations, 11, 189–203, doi:10.1080/14747731.2014.887388.
Christenson, E., M. Elliott, O. Banerjee, L. Hamrick, and J. Bartram, 2014: Collins, R.D., R. de Neufville, J. Claro, T. Oliveira, and A.P. Pacheco, 2013:
Climate-related hazards: A method for global assessment of urban and Forest fire management to avoid unintended consequences: A case
rural population exposure to cyclones, droughts, and floods. Int. J. Environ. study of Portugal using system dynamics. J. Environ. Manage., 130, 1–9,
Res. Public Health, 11, 2169–2192, doi:10.3390/ijerph110202169. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.033.
Christian-Smith, J., M.C. Levy, and P.H. Gleick, 2015: Maladaptation to de Coninck, H. et al., 2018: Strengthening and Implementing the Global
drought: A case report from California, USA. Sustain. Sci., 10, 491–501, Response. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the
doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0269-1. Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and
Chung Tiam Fook, T., 2017: Transformational processes for community- Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of
focused adaptation and social change: A synthesis. Clim. Dev., 9, 5–21, Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change
doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1086294. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla,
Church, S.P. et al., 2017: Agricultural trade publications and the 2012 A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R.
Midwestern US drought: A missed opportunity for climate risk Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor,
communication. Clim. Risk Manag., 15, 45–60, doi:10.1016/j. and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
crm.2016.10.006. Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Clarke, D., and S. Dercon, 2016a: Dull Disasters? How Planning Ahead Conrad, C.C., and K.G. Hilchey, 2011: A review of citizen science and
Will Make a Difference.  pp 154, Oxford University Press, Oxford. community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/962821468836117709/Dull- Environ. Monit. Assess., 176, 273–291, doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5.
disasters-How-planning-ahead-will-make-a-difference. Conradt, S., R. Finger, and M. Spörri, 2015: Flexible weather index-based
Clarke, D.J., 2016: A theory of rational demand for index insurance. Am. Econ. insurance design. Clim. Risk Manag., 10, 106–117, doi:10.1016/j.
J. Microeconomics, 8, 283–306, doi:10.1257/mic.20140103. crm.2015.06.003.
Clarke, J., and M. Alston, 2017: Understanding the ‘local’ and ‘global’: Conway, D., and E.L. F. Schipper, 2011: Adaptation to climate change in Africa:
7 Intersections engendering change for women in family farming in Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Glob. Environ.
Australia. In: Women in Agriculture Worldwide: Key Issues and Practical Chang., 21, 227–237, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.013.

764
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Conway, D., et al., 2015: Climate and southern Africa’s water-energy-food Cummins, J.D., and M.A. Weiss, 2016: Equity capital, internal capital markets,
nexus. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 837, doi:10.1038/nclimate2735. and optimal capital structure in the US property-casualty insurance
Cook, S., and J. Pincus, 2015: Poverty, inequality and social protection industry. Annu. Rev. Financ. Econ., 8, 121–153, doi:10.1146/annurev-
in Southeast Asia: An Introduction. Southeast Asian Econ., 31, 1–17, financial-121415-032815.
doi:10.1355/ae31-1a. Cundale, K., R. Thomas, J.K. Malava, D. Havens, K. Mortimer, and L. Conteh,
Cooke, S.J., et al., 2016: On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a 2017: A health intervention or a kitchen appliance? Household costs and
future for the forgotten. Ambio, 45, 753–764, doi:10.1007/s13280-016- benefits of a cleaner burning biomass-fuelled cookstove in Malawi. Soc.
0787-4. Sci. Med., 183, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.017.
Cools, J., D. Innocenti, and S. O’Brien, 2016: Lessons from flood early Cutter, S., Osman-Elasha, B., Campbell, J., Cheong, S.M., McCormick, S.,
warning systems. Environ. Sci. Policy, 58, 117–122, doi:10.1016/J. Pulwarty, R., Supratid, S., Ziervogel, G., Calvo, E., Mutabazi, K., Arnall, A.,
ENVSCI.2016.01.006. Arnold, M., Bayer, J.L., Bohle, H.G., Emrich, C., Hallegatte, S., Koelle, B.,
Cooper, M.H., and C. Rosin, 2014: Absolving the sins of emission: The politics Oettle, N., Polack, E., Ranger, N., 2012a: Managing the Risks from Climate
of regulating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. Extremes at the Local Level. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
J. Rural Stud., 36, 391–400, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.008. and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros,
Cooper, M.H., J. Boston, and J. Bright, 2013: Policy challenges for livestock T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,
emissions abatement: Lessons from New Zealand. Clim. Policy, 13, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
110–133, doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.699786. University Press, Cambridge, UK, 582 pp.
Corfee-Morlot, J. et al., 2009: Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Cutter, S., B. Osman-Elasha, J. Campbell, S.-M. Cheong, S. McCormick, R.
Governance. OECD Environmental Working Papers N° 14, 2009, OECD Pulwarty, S. Supratid, and G. Ziervogel, 2012b: Managing the Risks from
publishing, Paris, France, pp. 1–125. Climate Extremes at the Local Level. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme
Corradini, M., V. Costantini, A. Markandya, E. Paglialunga, and G. Sforna, Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special
2018: A dynamic assessment of instrument interaction and timing Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B.,
alternatives in the EU low-carbon policy mix design. Energy Policy, 120, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea,
73–84, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.068. K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Corsi, S., L.V. Marchisio, and L. Orsi, 2017: Connecting smallholder farmers Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA,
to local markets: Drivers of collective action, land tenure and food 291–338 pp.
security in East Chad. Land Use Policy, 68, 39–47, doi:10.1016/J. Cutz, L., O. Masera, D. Santana, and A.P. C. Faaij, 2017a: Switching to
LANDUSEPOL.2017.07.025. efficient technologies in traditional biomass intensive countries: The
Cosens, B., et al., 2017: The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc., 22, resultant change in emissions. Energy, 126, 513–526, doi:10.1016/J.
Art. 30, doi:10.5751/ES-08731-220130. ENERGY.2017.03.025.
Costanza, R. et al., 2014: Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Czembrowski, P., and J. Kronenberg, 2016: Hedonic pricing and different
Glob. Environ. Chang., 26, 152–158, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002. urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing
Costella, C. et al., 2017a: Scalable and sustainable: How to build ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan., 146, 11–19, doi:10.1016/j.
anticipatory capacity into social protection systems. IDS Bull., 48, 31–46, landurbplan.2015.10.005.
doi:10.19088/1968-2017.151. Dale, V.H., R.A. Efroymson, K.L. Kline, and M.S. Davitt, 2015: A framework
Cote, M., and A.J. Nightingale, 2012: Resilience thinking meets social theory: for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioprod.
Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Biorefining, 9, 435–446, doi:10.1002/bbb.1562.
Hum. Geogr., 36, 475–489, doi:10.1177/0309132511425708. Dalin, C., Y. Wada, T. Kastner, and M.J. Puma, 2017: Groundwater depletion
Cotula, L. (ed.), 2006a: Land and Water Rights in the Sahel: Tenure Challenges embedded in international food trade. Nature, 543, 700.
of Improving Access to Water for Agriculture. International Institute for Dallimer, M. et al., 2018: Who uses sustainable land management practices
Environment and Development, Drylands Programme, London, UK, 92 pp. and what are the costs and benefits? Insights from Kenya. L. Degrad. Dev.,
Cotula, L. (ed.), 2006b: Land and Water Rights in the Sahel: Tenure Challenges 29, 2822–2835, doi:10.1002/ldr.3001.
of Improving Access to Water for Agriculture. International Institute for van Dam, J., M. Junginger, and A.P. C. Faaij, 2010: From the global efforts
Environment and Development, Drylands Programme, London, UK, 92 pp. on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on
Cotula, L. et al., 2014: Testing claims about large land deals in Africa: Findings sustainable land use planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 2445–
from a multi-country study. J. Dev. Stud., 50, 903–925, doi:10.1080/0022 2472, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2010.07.010.
0388.2014.901501. Damnyag, L., O. Saastamoinen, M. Appiah, and A. Pappinen, 2012: Role of
Couvet, D., and A.C. Prevot, 2015: Citizen-science programs: Towards tenure insecurity in deforestation in Ghana’s high forest zone. For. Policy
transformative biodiversity governance. Environ. Dev., 13, 39–45, Econ., 14, 90–98, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.006.
doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2014.11.003. Dan, R., 2016: Optimal adaptation to extreme rainfalls in current and future
Cowie, A.L. et al., 2011: Towards sustainable land management in the climate. Water Resour. Res., 53, 535–543, doi:10.1002/2016WR019718.
drylands: Scientific connections in monitoring and assessing dryland Daniel, S., 2011: Land grabbing and potential implications for world
degradation, climate change and biodiversity. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, food security. In: Sustainable Agricultural Development [Behnassi,
248–260, doi:10.1002/ldr.1086. M., S.A. Shahid, J. D’Silva (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
Cowie, A.L. et al., 2018a: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual Netherlands, pp. 25–42.
framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35, Darnhofer, I., 2014: Socio-technical transitions in farming: Key concepts. In:
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.011. Transition Pathways Towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies
Craig, R.K., 2010: ‘Stationary is dead’ – Long live transformation: Five from Europe [Sutherland, L.-A., L. Zagata (eds.)]. CABI, Oxfordshire,
principles for climate change adaptation law. Harvard Environ. Law Rev., UK, pp. 246.
34, 9–73, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1357766. Daron, J.D., and D.A. Stainforth, 2014: Assessing pricing assumptions for
Creutzig, F. et al., 2017: The underestimated potential of solar energy weather index insurance in a changing climate. Clim. Risk Manag.,
to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy, 2, 17140, doi:https://doi. 1, 76–91, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2014.01.001. 7
org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.140.

765
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Das, S., and J.R. Vincent, 2009: Mangroves protected villages and reduced T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S.
death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
7357–7360, doi:10.1073/pnas.0810440106. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
Dasgupta, P., A.P. Kinzig, and C. Perrings, 2013: The value of biodiversity. In: NY, USA, 1101–1131.
Encyclopedia of Biodiversity: Second Edition [Levin, S. (ed.)]. Academic Dercon, S., R.V. Hill, D. Clarke, I. Outes-Leon, and A. Seyoum Taffesse, 2014:
Press, Elsevier, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 5504. Offering rainfall insurance to informal insurance groups: Evidence from
Dasgupta, P., J.F. Morton, D. Dodman, B. Karapinar, F. Meza, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, a field experiment in Ethiopia. J. Dev. Econ., 106, 132–143, doi:10.1016/j.
A. Toure Sarr, and K.E. Vincent, 2014: Rural Areas. In: Climate Change 2014: jdeveco.2013.09.006.
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Deryng, D., D. Conway, N. Ramankutty, J. Price, and R. Warren, 2014: Global
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. futures. Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 041001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034011.
Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Deryugina, T., 2013: Reducing the cost of ex post bailouts with ex ante
Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, regulation: Evidence from building codes. SSRN Electron. J., 2009, 1–37,
P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2314665.
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 613–657. Devereux, S., 2007: The impact of droughts and floods on food security and
Davies, J. (ed.), 2017: The Land in Drylands: Thriving in Uncertainty policy options to alleviate negative effects. Agricultural Economics, 37,
Through Diversity. Global Land Outlook Working Paper, UNCCD, Bonn, 47–58, doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00234.x.
Germany, 18 pp. Dey, Mayukh 2018: Conserving river dolphins in a changing soundscape:
Davies, J., C. Ogali, P. Laban, and G. Metternicht, 2015: Homing in on the acoustic and behavioural responses of Ganges river dolphins to
Range: Enabling Investments for Sustainable Land Management. IUCN, anthropogenic noise in the Ganges River, India.  MSc thesis, xii+121p, Tata
Global Drylands Initiative. vii,  23 pp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ Institute of Fundamental Research, India.  
node/47775. Dey, P., and A. Sarkar, 2011: Revisiting indigenous farming knowledge of
Davies, M., B. Guenther, J. Leavy, T. Mitchell, and T. Tanner, 2009: Climate Jharkhand (India) for conservation of natural resources and combating
Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Social Protection: climate change. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl., 10, 71–79. www.fao.org/fsnforum/
Complementary Roles in Agriculture and Rural Growth?Institute of sites/default/files/discussions/contributions/Indian_J_Traditional_
Development Studies Working Papers, University of Sussex, Brighton, Knowledge.pdf.
United Kingdom. 1–37 pp, doi:10.1111/j.2040-0209.2009.00320_2.x. Dharmadhikary, S., and Sandbhor, J., 2017: National Inland Waterways in
Davies, M., C. Béné, A. Arnall, T. Tanner, A. Newsham, and C. Coirolo, 2013: India: A Strategic Status Report. Manthan Adhyayan Kendra and SRUTI,
Promoting resilient livelihoods through adaptive social protection: Manthan, India. 67 pp.
Lessons from 124 programmes in South Asia. Dev. Policy Rev., 31, 27–58, Diaz-Chavez, R., 2015: Assessing sustainability for biomass energy production
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2013.00600.x. and use., in Rosillo-Calle F, de Groot P, S Hemstock and Woods J., The
Davis, K.F., P. D’Odorico, and M.C. Rulli, 2014: Land grabbing: A preliminary Biomass assessment Handbook. Energy for a sustainable environment,
quantification of economic impacts on rurallivelihoods. Popul. Environ., 36, Second Edition, Routledge, Editors: pp.181–209.
180–192, doi:10.1007/s11111-014-0215-2. Diaz-Chavez, R.A., 2011: Assessing biofuels: Aiming for sustainable
Davis, S.C. et al., 2013: Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. development or complying with the market? Energy Policy, 39, 5763–
GCB Bioenergy, 5, 623–638, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12042. 5769, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.03.054.
Debortoli, N.S., J.S. Sayles, D.G. Clark, and J.D. Ford, 2018: A systems network Díaz-Reviriego, I., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P.L. Howard, J.L. Molina, and V.
approach for climate change vulnerability assessment. Environ. Res. Lett., Reyes-García, 2017: Fishing in the Amazonian forest: A gendered social
13, 104019, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aae24a. network puzzle. Soc. Nat. Resour., 30, 690–706, doi:10.1080/08941920.
DeClerck, F., 2016: IPBES: Biodiversity central to food security. Nature, 531, 2016.1257079.
305, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/531305e. Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg, 2008: Spreading dead zones and consequences for
Deininger, K., 2011: Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland marine ecosystems. Science, 321, 926–929, doi:10.1126/science.1156401.
investment. J. Peasant Stud., 38, 217–247, doi:10.1080/03066150.2011. Díaz, S. et al., 2015: The IPBES Conceptual Framework– Connecting nature
559007. and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14, 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.
Deininger, K., and O. Feder, 2009: Land registration, governance, and cosust.2014.11.002.
development: Evidence and implications for policy. World Bank Diffenbaugh, N.S., T.W. Hertel, M. Scherer, and M. Verma, 2012: Response of
Res. Obs., 24, 233–266.http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ corn markets to climate volatility under alternative energy futures. Nat.
en/869031468150595587/Land-registration-governance-and- Clim. Chang., 2, 514–518, doi:10.1038/nclimate1491.
development-evidence-and-implications-for-policy. Dillon, R.L., C.H. Tinsley, and W.J. Burns, 2014: Near-misses and future disaster
Deininger, K., and D. Byerlee, 2011: The rise of large farms in land abundant preparedness. Risk Anal., 34, 1907–1922, doi:10.1111/risa.12209.
countries: Do they have a future?World Development, 40, 701–714, Distefano, T., F. Laio, L. Ridolfi, and S. Schiavo, 2018: Shock transmission in the
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.030. international food trade network. PLoS One, 13, e0200639, doi:10.1371/
Dellasala, D.A., J.E. Williams, C.D. Williams, and J.F. Franklin, 2004: Beyond journal.pone.0200639.
smoke and mirrors: A synthesis of fire policy and science. Conserv. Biol., 18, Dittrich, R., A. Wreford, C.F. E. Topp, V. Eory, and D. Moran, 2017: A guide
976–986, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00529.x. towards climate change adaptation in the livestock sector: Adaptation
Dennison, P.E., S.C. Brewer, J.D. Arnold, and M.A. Moritz, 2014: Large wildfire options and the role of robust decision-making tools for their economic
trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, appraisal. Reg. Environ. Chang., 17, doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1134-4.
2928–2933, doi:10.1002/2014GL059576. Djalante, R., C. Holley, F. Thomalla, and M. Carnegie, 2013: Pathways for
Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, adaptive and integrated disaster resilience. Nat. Hazards, 69, 2105–2135,
T.  Masui, K.L. O’Brien, and K. Warner, 2014: Climate-Resilient Pathways: doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0797-5.
Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. In: Climate Change Djoudi, H., and M. Brockhaus, 2011: Is adaptation to climate change gender
7 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forests in
Aspects [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, northern Mali. Int. For. Rev., 13, 123–135, doi:10.1505/146554811797406606.

766
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Djoudi, H., B. Locatelli, C. Vaast, K. Asher, M. Brockhaus, and B. Basnett Sijapati, change in central Arizona. Regional Environmental Change, 16, 801–814,
2016: Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting inequalities in climate doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0789-y.
change studies. Ambio, 45, 248–262, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2. Easdale, M.H., 2016: Zero net livelihood degradation – The quest for
Domínguez, P., 2014: Current situation and future patrimonializing a multidimensional protocol to combat desertification. SOIL, 2, 129–134,
perspectives for the governance of agropastoral resources in the Ait doi:10.5194/soil-2-129-2016.
Ikis transhumants of the High Atlas (Morocco), pp. 148–166. In Herrera, Easterly, W., 2008a: Institutions: Top down or bottom up? Am. Econ. Rev., 98,
P M., Davies, J., and Baena, P M. First Edition. Routledge. London. United 95–99, doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.95.
Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768014pp 320. Easterly, W., 2008b: Institutions: Top down or bottom up? Am. Econ. Rev., 98,
Donato, D.C., J.B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M. Stidham, and M. 95–99, doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.95.
Kanninen, 2011: Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the EEA, 2016: Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe: Transforming
tropics. Nat. Geosci., 4, 293, doi:10.1038/ngeo1123. Cities in a Changing Climate. EEA Report No 12/2016, Copenhagen,
Dooley, K., and S. Kartha, 2018: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for Denmark, 135 pp.
climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Ehara, M. et al., 2018: Addressing maladaptive coping strategies of
Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 18, 79–98, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9. local communities to changes in ecosystem service provisions using
Doss, C., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold, 2015a: the DPSIR Framework. Ecol. Econ., 149, 226–238 doi:10.1016/j.
Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myth and ecolecon.2018.03.008.
reality. Agric. Econ., 46, 403–434, doi:10.1111/agec.12171. El-Naggar, A. et al., 2018: Influence of soil properties and feedstocks on
Doss, C., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Quisumbing, and S. Theis, 2018a: Women biochar potential for carbon mineralization and improvement of infertile
in agriculture: Four myths. Glob. Food Sec., 16, 69–74, doi:10.1016/J. soils. Geoderma, 332, 100–108, doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.06.017.
GFS.2017.10.001. ELD Initiative, 2015: The Value of Land: Prosperous Lands and Positive
Dougill, A.J., E.D. G. Fraser, and M.S. Reed, 2011: Anticipating vulnerability Rewards Through Sustainable Land Management. ELD Secretariat, Bonn,
to climate change in dryland pastoral systems: Using dynamic systems Germany. ELD Initiative (2015). https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/
models for the Kalahari. Ecol. Soc., 15, ART. 17, www.ecologyandsociety. files/resources/ELD-main-report_05_web_72dpi.pdf.
org/vol15/iss2/art17/. Eldridge, D.J. et al., 2011: Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem
Douglas, I., K. Alam, M. Maghenda, Y. Mcdonnell, L. Mclean, and J. Campbell, structure and functioning: Towards a global synthesis. Ecol. Lett., 14, 709–
2008: Unjust waters: Climate change, flooding and the urban poor in 722, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01630.x.
Africa. Environ. Urban., 20, 187–205, doi:10.1177/0956247808089156. Eling, M., S. Pradhan, and J.T. Schmit, 2014: The determinants of microinsurance
Dow, K., F. Berkhout, and B.L. Preston, 2013: Limits to adaptation to climate demand. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. – Issues Pract., 39, 224–263, doi:10.1057/
change: A risk approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 384–391, gpp.2014.5.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.005. Ellis, F., S. Devereux, and P. White, 2009: Social Protection in Africa. Enterp.
Dowdy,A.J., and A. Pepler, 2018: Pyroconvection risk in Australia: Climatological Dev. Microfinance, 20, 158–160, doi:10.3362/1755-1986.2009.015.
changes in atmospheric stability and surface fire weather conditions. Ellison, D. et al., 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2005–2013, doi:10.1002/2017GL076654. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
Downing, T., 2012: Views of the frontiers in climate change adaptation Elmqvist, T. et al., 2003: Response diversity, ecosystem change, and
economics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 3, 161–170, doi:10.1002/ resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ., 1, 488–494, doi:10.1890/1540-9295
wcc.157. (2003)001[0488:rdecar]2.0.co; 2.
Driscoll, D.A., M. Bode, R.A. Bradstock, D.A. Keith, T.D. Penman, and O.F. Elmqvist, T., M. Tuvendal, J. Krishnaswamy, and K. Hylander, 2013: Managing
Price, 2016: Resolving future fire management conflicts using multicriteria trade-offs in ecosystem services. In: Values, Payments Institutions
decision-making. Conserv. Biol., 30, 196–205, doi:10.1111/cobi.12580. Ecosystem Management [Kumar, P., and I. Thiaw (eds.)]. Edward Elgar
Dryzek, J.S., and J. Pickering, 2017: Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 70–89.
environmental governance. Ecol. Econ., 131, 353–360, doi:10.1016/j. Emerson, K., and A.K. Gerlak, 2014: Adaptation in collaborative governance
ecolecon.2016.09.011. regimes. Environ. Manage., 54, 768–781, doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0334-7.
Duchelle, A.E. et al., 2017: Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: Implications Endres, J. et al., 2015: Sustainability certification. In: Bioenergy & Sustainability:
for social safeguards. Ecol. Soc., 22, art2, doi:10.5751/ES-09334-220302. Bridging the Gaps [Souza, G., R. Victoria, C.A. Joly, L.M. Verdade, (eds.)].
Duguma, L.A., P.A. Minang, O.E. Freeman, and H. Hager, 2014a: System-wide pp 660–680. SCOPE, Paris, France.
impacts of fuel usage patterns in the Ethiopian highlands: Potentials for Enfors, E.I., and L.J. Gordon, 2008: Dealing with drought: The challenge of
breaking the negative reinforcing feedback cycles. Energy for Sustainable using water system technologies to break dryland poverty traps. Glob.
Development, 20, 77–85, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2014.03.004. Environ. Chang., 18, 607–616, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2008.07.006.
Duguma, L.A., P.A. Minang, D. Foundjem-Tita, P. Makui, and S.M. Piabuo, Engel, S., and A. Muller, 2016: Payments for environmental services to promote
2018: Prioritizing enablers for effective community forestry in Cameroon. ‘climate-smart agriculture’? Potential and challenges. Agric. Econ., 47,
Ecol. Soc., 23, Art. 1, doi:10.5751/ES-10242-230301. 173–184, doi:10.1111/agec.12307.
Durigan, G., and J.A. Ratter, 2016: The need for a consistent fire policy Englund, O., and G. Berndes, 2015: How do sustainability standards consider
for Cerrado conservation. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 11–15, doi:10.1111/1365- biodiversity? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 4, 26–50, doi:10.1002/
2664.12559. wene.118.
Duru, M., O. Therond, and M. Fares, 2015: Designing agroecological Ens, E.J. et al., 2015: Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science
transitions; A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 1237–1257, doi:10.1007/ and management: Review and insight from Australia. Biol. Conserv., 181,
s13593-015-0318-x. 133–149, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.11.008.
Dwyer, J., and I. Hodge, 2016: Governance structures for social-ecological Ensor, J., 2011: Uncertain Futures: Adapting Development to a Changing
systems: Assessing institutional options against a social residual claimant. Climate. Practical Action Publishing, London, UK, 108 pp.
Environ. Sci. Policy, 66, 1–10, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.017. Ensor, J., and B. Harvey, 2015: Social learning and climate change adaptation:
Eakin, H.C., 2016: Cognitive and institutional influences on farmers’ adaptive Evidence for international development practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.
capacity: Insights into barriers and opportunities for transformative Clim. Chang., 6, 509–522, doi:10.1002/wcc.348. 7

767
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Eory, V., C.F.E. Topp, A. Butler, and D. Moran, 2018: Addressing uncertainty Fankhauser, S., 2017:Adaptation to Climate Change. Annual Review of Resource
in efficient mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. J. Agric. Economics, 9, 209–230, doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-033554.
Econ., 69, 627–645, doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12269. FAO, 2010: Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing
EPA, 2018: Ireland’s Final Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2016. for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Food and Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency, Dublin, Ireland, 12 pp. Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 49 pp.
Epanchin-Niell, R.S. et al., 2010: Controlling invasive species in complex social FAO, 2011a: State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011. Food and Agriculture
landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ., 8, 210–216, doi:10.1890/090029. Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 147 pp.
Era Consultancy, 2006: The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, FAO, 2011b: The State of Food and Agriculture Women in Agriculture
2006. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, 2010–11. Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Food and Agriculture
India, 15 pp. Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 160 pp.
Eriksen, S. et al., 2011: When not every response to climate change is a good FAO, 2015a: Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Clim. Dev., 3, 7–20, Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Food and
doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0060. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 34 pp.
Erkossa, T., A. Wudneh, B. Desalegn, and G. Taye, 2015: Linking soil erosion to FAO, 2015b: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food
on-site financial cost: Lessons from watersheds in the Blue Nile basin. Solid and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
Earth, 6, 765–774, doi:10.5194/se-6-765-2015. FAO, 2015c: Gender and Land Statistics Recent developments in FAO’s
Estrin, D., 2016: Limiting Dangerous Climate Change the Critical Role of Gender and Land Rights Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of
Citizen Suits and Domestic Courts – Despite the Paris Agreement. CIGI the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 35 pp.
Papers No. 101, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Ontario, FAO, 2016: The Agriculture Sectors in the Intended Nationally Determined
Canada, 36 pp. Contributions: Analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Estrin, D., and S.V. Tan, 2016: Thinking Outside the Boat about Climate Nations, Rome, Italy, 92 pp.
Change Loss and Damage: Innovative Insurance, Financial and Institutional FAO, 2017a: The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. Food
Mechanisms to Address Climate Harm Beyond the Limits of Adaptation. and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 180 pp.
International Workshop Report, Washington, DC, USA, 24 pp. FAO, 2017b: FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Brief. Food and Agriculture
Estrin, S., and M. Prevezer, 2011: The role of informal institutions in corporate Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared. Asia Pacific Farber, D.A., 2015: Coping with uncertainty: Cost-benefit analysis, the
J. Manag., 28, 41–67, doi:10.1007/s10490-010-9229-1. precautionary principle, and climate change. Washingt. Law Rev., 54,
Etkin, D., J. Medalye, and K. Higuchi, 2012: Climate warming and natural 23–46, doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23.
disaster management: An exploration of the issues. Clim. Change, 112, Farfan, J., and C. Breyer, 2017: Structural changes of global power generation
585–599, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0259-6. capacity towards sustainability and the risk of stranded investments
European Commission, 2012: Renewable Energy Progress and Biofuels supported by a sustainability indicator. J. Clean. Prod., 141, 370–384,
Sustainability. ECOFYS BV, Utrecht. Netherlands, 410 pp. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.068.
European Union, 2018: Directives Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Fawcett, A., L. Clarke, S. Rausch, and J.P. Weyant, 2014: Overview of EMF 24
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion policy scenarios. Energy J., 35, 33–60, doi:10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.3.
of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. Official Journal of the Faye, B. et al., 2018: Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0°c on cereal yields in the West
European Union , Cardiff, UK, 128  pp. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- African Sudan Savanna. Environ. Res. Lett., 13034014, doi:10.1088/1748-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L2001&from=EN. 9326/aaab40.
Ewel, K., R. Twilley, and J.I.N. Ong, 1998: Different kinds of mangrove forests Fearnside, P.M., 2015: Deforestation soars in the Amazon. Nature, 521, 423–
provide different goods and services. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett., 7, 83–94, 423, doi:10.1038/521423b.
doi:10.2307/2997700. Feliciano, D., C. Hunter, B. Slee, and P. Smith, 2014: Climate change mitigation
Faaij, A.P., 2018: Securing Sustainable Resource Availability of Biomass for options in the rural land use sector: Stakeholders’ perspectives on barriers,
Energy Applications in Europe; Review of Recent Literature. The Role of enablers and the role of policy in North East Scotland. Environ. Sci. Policy,
Biomass for Energy and Materials for GHG Mitigation from a Global and 44, 26–38, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.010.
European Perspective. University of Groningen. The Netherlands, 26  pp. Fellmann, T. et al., 2018: Major challenges of integrating agriculture into
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/48c6/62527d3a7a7ea491d531472dc63a climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitigation and Adaptation
1ae76efb.pdf. Strategies for Global Change, 23, 451–468, doi:10.1007/s11027-017-
Fadairo, O.S., R. Calland, Y. Mulugetta, and J. Olawoye, 2017: A corruption 9743-2.
risk assessment for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest Fencl, J.S., M.E. Mather, K.H. Costigan, and M.D. Daniels, 2015: How big of an
degradation in Nigeria. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Impacts Responses, 10, 1–21, effect do small dams have? Using geomorphological footprints to quantify
doi:10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v10i01/1-21. spatial impact of low-head dams and identify patterns of across-dam
Fairbairn, M., 2015: Foreignization, financialization and land grab regulation. variation. PLoS One, 10, e0141210, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141210.
J. Agrar. Chang., 15, 581–591, doi:10.1111/joac.12112. Ferguson, G., and T. Gleeson, 2012: Vulnerability of coastal aquifers to
Falkenmark, M., 2001: The greatest water problem: The inability to link groundwater use and climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 342–345,
environmental security, water security and food security. Int. J. Water doi:10.1038/nclimate1413.
Resour. Dev., 17, 539–554, doi:10.1080/07900620120094073. Fernandes, K. et al., 2017: Heightened fire probability in Indonesia in non-
Falkowski, T.B., S.A. W. Diemont, A. Chankin, and D. Douterlungne, 2016: drought conditions: The effect of increasing temperatures. Environ. Res.
Lacandon Maya traditional ecological knowledge and rainforest Lett., 12, 054002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6884.
restoration: Soil fertility beneath six agroforestry system trees. Ecol. Eng., Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2000: The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists’
92, 210–217, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLENG.2016.03.002. ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecol. Appl., 10, 1318–
Fameree, C., 2016: Political contestations around land deals: Insights from 1326, doi:10.1890/1051-0761 (2000)010[1318:TROMNP]2.0.CO; 2.
Peru. Can. J. Dev. Stud.. Revue canadienned’études du développement, 37, Few, R., and M.G.L. Tebboth, 2018: Recognising the dynamics that
7 541–559, doi:10.1080/02255189.2016.1175340. surround drought impacts. J. Arid Environ., 157, 113–115, doi:10.1016/j.
jaridenv.2018.06.001.

768
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Feyen, E., R. Lester, and R. Rocha, 2011: What Drives the Development of the LSE Cities, London School of Economics and Political Science, London,
Insurance Sector? An Empirical Analysis based on a Panel of Developed UK, 49 pp.
and Developing Countries. Policy Research Working Paper Series 5572, The Folke, C. et al., 2010: Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 46 pp. and transformability. Ecol. Soc., 15, ART. 20, doi:10.5751/ES-03610-
Filatova, T., 2014: Market-based instruments for flood risk management: 150420.
A review of theory, practice and perspectives for climate adaptation policy. Fontaine, J.J., 2011: Improving our legacy: Incorporation of adaptive
Environ. Sci. Policy, 37, 227–242, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.005. management into state wildlife action plans. J. Environ. Manage., 92,
Filiberto, B.D., E. Wethington, and K. Pillemer, 2010: Older people and 1403–1408, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.015.
climate change: Vulnerability and health effects. Generations, 33, 19–25, Ford, A., R. Dawson, P. Blythe, and S. Barr, 2018: Land use transport models
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asag/gen/2009/00000033/00000004/ for climate change mitigation and adaptation planning. J. Transp. Land Use,
art00004#expand/collapse. 11, 83–101, doi:10.5198/jtlu.2018.1209.
Findell, K.L. et al., 2017: The impact of anthropogenic land use and land cover Ford, J.D., and T. Pearce, 2010: What we know, do not know, and need to
change on regional climate extremes. Nat. Commun., 8, 989, doi:10.1038/ know about climate change vulnerability in the western Canadian
s41467-017-01038-w. Arctic: A systematic literature review. Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 014008,
Finley-Brook, M., 2007: Indigenous land tenure insecurity fosters illegal doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014008.
logging in Nicaragua. Int. For. Rev., 9, 850–864, doi:10.1505/ifor.9.4.850. Ford, J.D., and C. Goldhar, 2012: Climate change vulnerability and adaptation
Fischer, C., and R.G. Newell, 2008: Environmental and technology policies for in resource dependent communities: A case study from West Greenland.
climate mitigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 55, 142–162, doi:10.1016/j. Clim. Res., 54, 181–196, doi:10.3354/cr01118.
jeem.2007.11.001. Ford, J.D., and L. Berrang-Ford, 2016: The 4Cs of adaptation tracking:
Fischer, E.M., and R. Knutti, 2015: Anthropogenic contribution to global Consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness, coherency. Mitig. Adapt.
occurrenceof heavy-precipitation andhigh-temperature extremes. Nat. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 21, 839–859, doi:10.1007/s11027-014-9627-7.
Clim. Chang., 5, 560–564, doi:10.1038/nclimate2617. Ford, J.D., L. Cameron, J. Rubis, M. Maillet, D. Nakashima, A.C. Willox, and
Fischer, J. et al., 2017: Reframing the food-biodiversity challenge. Trends Ecol. T. Pearce, 2016: Including indigenous knowledge and experience in
Evol., 32, 335–345, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.009. IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 349–353, doi:10.1038/
Fishman, R., N. Devineni, and S. Raman, 2015: Can improved agricultural nclimate2954.
water use efficiency save India’s groundwater? Environ. Res. Lett., 10, Forsyth, T., 2018: Is resilience to climate change socially inclusive?
084022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084022. Investigating theories of change processes in Myanmar. World Dev., 111,
Fiszbein, A., R. Kanbur, and R. Yemtsov, 2014: Social protection and poverty 13–26, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.023.
reduction: Global patterns and some targets. World Dev., 61, 167–177, Foudi, S., and K. Erdlenbruch, 2012: The role of irrigation in farmers’ risk
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.04.010. management strategies in France. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 39, 439–457,
Flahaux, M.-L., and H. De Haas, 2016: African migration: Trends, patterns, doi:10.1093/erae/jbr024.
drivers. Comp. Migr. Stud., 4, 1–25, doi:10.1186/s40878-015-0015-6. Foxon, T.J., M.S. Reed, and L.C. Stringer, 2009: Governing long-term social–
Fleskens, L., L.C. Stringer, 2014: Land management and policy responses to Ecological change: What can the adaptive management and transition
mitigate desertification and land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 25, 1–4, management approaches learn from each other? Change, 20, 3–20,
doi:10.1002/ldr.2272. doi:10.1002/eet.
Fleskens, L., D. Nainggolan, and L.C. Stringer, 2014: An exploration of scenarios FraPaleo, U. (ed.), 2015: Risk Governance: The Articulation of Hazard, Politics
to support sustainable land management using integrated environmental and Ecology. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 515 pp.
socio-economic models. Environ. Manage., 54, 1005–1021, doi:10.1007/ Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture
s00267-013-0202-x. without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 105004,
Fletcher, A.J., 2017: ‘Maybe tomorrow will be better’: Gender and farm work doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.
in a changing climate. In: Climate Change and Gender in Rich Countries: Franz, M., N. Schlitz, and K.P. Schumacher, 2017: Globalization and the water-
Work, Public Policy and Action [Cohen, M. (ed.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, energy-food nexus – Using the global production networks approach to
and New York, USA, pp. 185–198. analyze society-environment relations. Environmental Science and Policy,
Fletcher, A.J., 2018: What works for women in agriculture? In: Women in 90, 201–212, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.004.
Agriculture Worldwide: Key Issues and Practical Approaches [Fletcher, Fraser, E.D. G., W. Mabee, and F. Figge, 2005: A framework for assessing the
A.J. and W. Kubik, (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, and New York, vulnerability of food systems to future shocks. Futures, 37, 465–479,
USA, pp. 257–268. doi:10.1016/J.FUTURES.2004.10.011.
Fletcher, A.J., and E. Knuttila, 2016: Gendering change: Canadian farm women Fraser, E.D. G. et al., 2011: Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland
respond to drought. In: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Drought: The livelihood systems: Conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions.
Canadian Prairies and South America [Diaz, H., M. Hurlbert, and J. Warren Ecol. Soc., 16, art3, doi:10.5751/ES-03402-160303.
(eds.)]. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Canada, pp. 159–177. Fre, Z., 2018: Knowledge Sovereignty Among African Cattle Herders. UCL
Fleurbaey M., S. Kartha, S. Bolwig, Y.L. Chee, Y. Chen, E. Corbera, F. Lecocq, Press, London, UK, 216 pp.
W. Lutz, M.S. Muylaert, R.B. Norgaard, C. Oker-eke, and A.D. Sagar, Frechette, A., C. Ginsburg, W. Walker, S. Gorelik, S. Keene, C. Meyer, K. Reytar,
2014: Sustainable Development and Equity. In: Climate Change 2014: and P. Veit, 2018: A Global Baseline of Carbon Storage in Collective Lands.
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to Washington, DC, USA, 12 pp.
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Fredriksson, P.G., and E. Neumayer, 2016: Corruption and climate change
Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, policies: Do the bad old days matter? Environ. Resour. Econ., 63, 451–469,
K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, doi:10.1007/s10640-014-9869-6.
J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Freebairn, J., 2016: A comparison of policy instruments to reduce greenhouse
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, gas emissions. Econ. Pap., 35, 204–215, doi:10.1111/1759-3441.12141.
NY, USA, pp. 283–350. French, S., 2013: Cynefin, statistics and decision analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 64,
Floater, G., P. Rode, B. Friedel, and A. Robert, 2014: Steering Urban Growth: 547–561, doi:10.1057/jors.2012.23. 7
Governance, Policy and Finance. New Climate Economy Cities Paper 02,

769
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

French, S., 2015: Cynefin: Uncertainty, small worlds and scenarios. J. Oper. Res. from a CDM project survey. Clim. Policy, 16, 1065–1084, doi:10.1080/146
Soc., 66, 1635–1645, doi:10.1057/jors.2015.21. 93062.2015.1069176.
Fridahl, M., and B.O. Linnér, 2016: Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: Garcia, C., and C.J. Fearnley, 2012: Evaluating critical links in early warning
Possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation. Clim. systems for natural hazards. Environmental Hazards, 11, 123–137, doi:10.
Dev., 8, 105–109, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1040368. 1080/17477891.2011.609877.
Friis, C., and J.Ø. Nielsen, 2016: Small-scale land acquisitions, large-scale Gardner, T.A. et al., 2018a: Transparency and sustainability in global commodity
implications: Exploring the case of Chinese banana investments in Northern supply chains. World Development, 121, 163–177, doi:10.1016/j.
Laos. Land Use Policy, 57, 117–129, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.028. worlddev.2018.05.025.
Fritsche, U. et al., 2017a: Energy and Land Use: Global Land Outlook Working Garnett, S.T. et al., 2018: A spatial overview of the global importance of
Paper. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain., 1, 369–374, doi:10.1038/
Bonn, Germany, 60 pp. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.24905.44648. s41893-018-0100-6.
Fuerth, L.S., 2009: Operationalizing anticipatory governance. Prism, 4, 31–46, Garnett, T. et al., 2013: Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises
https://cco.ndu.edu/Portals/96/Documents/prism/prism_2-4/Prism_31-46_ and Policies. Science, 341, 33–34, doi:10.1126/science.1234485.
Fuerth.pdf. Garrett, R.D. et al., 2019: Criteria for effective zero-deforestation
Fuerth, L.S., and E.M. H. Faber, 2013: Anticipatory governance: Winning the commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54, 135–147, doi:10.1016/j.
future. Futurist, 47, 42–49. www.dropbox.com/s/4ax1mpkt27rohq0/ gloenvcha.2018.11.003.
Futurist.pdf?dl=0. Gasparatos, A. et al., 2018a: Mechanisms and indicators for assessing the
Fujimori, S. et al., 2018a: Inclusive climate change mitigation and food impact of biofuel feedstock production on ecosystem services. Biomass
security policy under 1.5°C climate goal. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 074033, and Bioenergy, 114, 157–173, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.01.024.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7. Gasparatos, A.et al., 2018b: Survey of local impacts of biofuel crop production
Fuller, T., and M. Qingwen, 2013: Understanding agricultural heritage sites and adoption of ethanol stoves in southern Africa. Sci. Data, 5, 180186,
as complex adaptive systems: The challenge of complexity. 4, 195–201, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.186.
doi:10.5814/J.ISSN.1674-764X.2013.03.002. Gasparatos, A. et al., 2018c: Using an ecosystem services perspective to assess
Fung, A., 2015: Putting the public back into governance: The challenges biofuel sustainability. Biomass and Bioenergy, 114, 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.
of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm. Rev., 75, 513–522, biombioe.2018.01.025.
doi:10.1111/puar.12361. Gazol, A. et al., 2018: Beneath the canopy: Linking drought-induced forest
Furtado, F., 2018: A construção da natureza e a natureza da construção: die off and changes in soil properties. For. Ecol. Manage., 422, 294–302,
Políticas de incentivo aos serviços ambientais no Acre e no Mato Grosso. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.028.
Estud. Soc. e Agric, 26, 123–147, https://revistaesa.com/ojs/index.php/esa/ GBEP, 2017: The Global Bioenergy Partnership: A Global Commitment to
article/view/1152/558. Bioenergy. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Fuso Nerini, F., C. Ray, and Y. Boulkaid, 2017: The cost of cooking a meal. Rome, Italy, 4 pp.
The case of Nyeri County, Kenya. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 065007, Geddes, A., T.S. Schmidt, and B. Steffen, 2018: The multiple roles of state
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6fd0. investment banks in low-carbon energy finance: An analysis of Australia,
Fuso Nerini, F. et al., 2018: Mapping synergies and trade-offs between the UK and Germany. Energy Policy, 115, 158–170, doi:10.1016/j.
energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy, 3, 10–15, enpol.2018.01.009.
doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5. Geden, O., G.P. Peters, and V. Scott, 2019: Targeting carbon dioxide removal
Fuss, S. et al., 2014: Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, in the European Union. Clim. Policy, 19, 487–494, doi:10.1080/14693062
850–853, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392. .2018.1536600.
Fuss, S.et al., 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side van der Geest, K., and K. Warner, 2014: Vulnerability, coping and loss and
effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 063002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f. damage from climate events. In: Hazards, Risks and, Disasters in Society
Fussell, E., L.M. Hunter, and C.L. Gray, 2014: Measuring the environmental [Shroder, J., A. Collins Jones, S. Bernard Manyena, J. Jayawickrama (eds.)].
dimensions of human migration: The demographer’s toolkit. Glob. Environ. Academic Press, Elsevier, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 424, doi:10.1016/b978-
Chang., 28, 182–191, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.001. 0-12-396451-9.00008-1.
Fyson, C., and L. Jeffery, 2018: Examining treatment of the LULUCF sector Geisler, C., and B. Currens, 2017: Impediments to inland resettlement under
in the NDCs. In: 20th EGU Gen. Assem. EGU2018, Proc. from Conf. held conditions of accelerated sea level rise. Land Use Policy, 66, 322–330,
4–13 April. 2018 Vienna, Austria, 20, 16542, https://meetingorganizer. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.029.
copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-16542.pdf. German, L., and G. Schoneveld, 2012: A review of social sustainability
Gabay, M., and M. Alam, 2017: Community forestry and its mitigation considerations among EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels,
potential in the Anthropocene: The importance of land tenure governance with implications for rural livelihoods. Energy Policy, 51, 765–778,
and the threat of privatization. For. Policy Econ., 79, 26–35, doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.09.022.
forpol.2017.01.011. Gersonius, B., R. Ashley, A. Pathirana, and C. Zevenbergen, 2013: Climate
Gallagher, J., 2014: Learning about an infrequent event: Evidence from flood change uncertainty: Building flexibility into water and flood risk
insurance take-up in the United States. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ., 6, 206– infrastructure. Clim. Change, 116, 411–423, doi:10.1007/s10584-
233, doi:10.1257/app.6.3.206. 012-0494-5.
Gallina, V., S. Torresan, A. Critto, A. Sperotto, T. Glade, and A. Marcomini, 2016: Gheewala, S.H., G. Berndes, and G. Jewitt, 2011: The bioenergy and water
A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences nexus. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining, 5, 353–360, doi:10.1002/bbb.316.
and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. J. Environ. Ghilardi, A. et al., 2016a: Spatiotemporal modeling of fuelwood environmental
Manage., 168, 123–132, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011. impacts: Towards improved accounting for non-renewable biomass.
Gan, J., A. Jarrett, and C.J. Gaither, 2014: Wildfire risk adaptation: Propensity Environ. Model. Softw., 82, 241–254, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.04.023.
of forestland owners to purchase wildfire insurance in the southern United Ghilardi, A., A. Tarter, and R. Bailis, 2018: Potential environmental benefits
States. Can. J. For. Res., 44, 1376–1382, doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0301. from woodfuel transitions in Haiti: Geospatial scenarios to 2027. Environ.
7 Gandenberger, C., M. Bodenheimer, J. Schleich, R. Orzanna, and L. Macht, Res. Lett., 13, 035007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa846.
2016: Factors driving international technology transfer: Empirical insights

770
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Ghosh, A., S. Schmidt, T. Fickert, and M. Nüsser, 2015: The Indian Sundarban Goh, A.H. X., 2012: A literature review of the gender-differentiated impacts
mangrove forests: History, utilization, conservation strategies and local of climate change on women’s and men’s assets and well-being in
perception. Diversity, 7, 149–169, doi:10.3390/d7020149. developing countries. CAPRi Working Paper No. 106, International Food
Ghosh, S. et al., 2016: Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall: Implications of Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 44  pp, doi:10.2499/
contrasting trends in the spatial variability of means and extremes. PLoS CAPRiWP106.
One, 11, e0158670, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158670. Golay, C., and I. Biglino, 2013: Human rights responses to land grabbing: A
Gibson, L., E.N. Wilman, and W.F. Laurance, 2017: How Green is ‘Green’ right to food perspective. Third World Q., 34, 1630–1650, doi:10.1080/01
energy? Trends Ecol. Evol., 32, 922–935, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.09.007. 436597.2013.843853.
Giessen, L., S. Burns, M.A. K. Sahide, and A. Wibowo, 2016a: From governance Gold Standard: 2018: Gold standard for the global goals. The Gold Standard
to government: The strengthened role of state bureaucracies in forest Foundation. Geneva, Switzerland, www.goldstandard.org/our-work/what-
and agricultural certification. Policy Soc., 35, 71–89, doi:10.1016/j. we-do.
polsoc.2016.02.001. Goldemberg, J., and S. Teixeira Coelho, 2004: Renewable energy-traditional
Gilbert, C.L., 2010: How to understand high food prices. J. Agric. Econ., 61, biomass vs. modern biomass. Energy Policy, 32, 711–714, doi:10.1016/
398–425, doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00248.x. S0301-4215 (02)00340-3.
Gill, A.B., 2005: Offshore renewable energy: Ecological implications of Goldemberg, J., J. Martinez-Gomez, A. Sagar, and K.R. Smith, 2018a:
generating electricity in the coastal zone. J. Appl. Ecol., 42, 605–615, Household air pollution, health, and climate change: Cleaning the air.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01060.x. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 030201, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49d.
Girard, C., M. Pulido-Velazquez, J.-D. Rinaudo, C. Pagé, and Y. Caballero, 2015: Gómez-Baggethun, E., S. Mingorría, V. Reyes-García, L. Calvet, and C. Montes,
Integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches to design global change 2010: Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market
adaptation at the river basin scale. Glob. Environ. Chang., 34, 132–146, economy: Empirical study in the Doñana natural areas. Conserv. Biol., 24,
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.002. 721–729, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01401.x.
Girma, H.M., R.M. Hassan, and G. Hertzler, 2012: Forest conservation versus Gopakumar, G., 2014: Transforming Urban Water Supplies in India: The
conversion under uncertain market and environmental forest benefits Role of Reform and Partnerships in Globalization, 1st Edition. Routledge,
in Ethiopia: The case of Sheka forest. For. Policy Econ., 21, 101–107, Abingdon, UK, and New York, USA, 168 pp.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.001. Gordon, S.M., 2016: The foreign corrupt practices act: Prosecute corruption
Gitau, J.K. et al., 2019: Implications on livelihoods and the environment of and end transnational illegal logging. Bost. Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev.,
uptake of Gasifier cook stoves among Kenya’s rural households. Appl. Sci., 43111, https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol43/iss1/5.
9, 1205, doi:10.3390/app9061205. Götz, L., T. Glauben, and B. Brümmer, 2013: Wheat export restrictions and
Glachant, M., and A. Dechezleprêtre, 2017: What role for climate negotiations domestic market effects in Russia and Ukraine during the food crisis. Food
on technology transfer? Clim. Policy, 17, 962–981, doi:10.1080/1469306 Policy, 38, 214–226, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.001.
2.2016.1222257. Goudie, A.S., 2014: Desert dust and human health disorders. Environ. Int., 63,
Glauben, T., T. Herzfeld, S. Rozelle, and X. Wang, 2012: Persistent poverty in 101–113, doi:10.1016/J.ENVINT.2013.10.011.
rural China: Where, why, and how to escape? World Dev., 40, 784–795, Goulder, L.H., and R.C. Williams, 2012: The Choice of Discount Rate for Climate
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.09.023. Change Policy Evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 18301, Climate Change
Gleick, P.H., 2014: Water, drought, climate change, and conflict in Syria. Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., pp. 1250024-1-
Weather. Clim. Soc., 6, 331–340, doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1. 1, doi:10.3386/w18301.
Glemarec, Y., 2017: Addressing the gender differentiated investment risks Government of France, 2019: Ending deforestation caused by importing
to climate-smart agriculture. AIMS Agric. Food, 2, 56–74, doi:10.3934/ unsustainable products Gouvernement.fr., Paris, France, www.
agrfood.2017.1.56. gouvernement.fr/en/ending-deforestation-caused-by-importing-
Go, A.W., A.T. Conag, R.M. B. Igdon, A.S. Toledo, and J.S. Malila, 2019a: unsustainable-products.
Potentials of agricultural and agroindustrial crop residues for the Government of India, National Mission for a Green India. Under the
displacement of fossil fuels: A Philippine context. Energy Strateg. Rev., 23, National Action Plan on Climate Change. New Delhi, India, 37  pp.,
100–113, doi:10.1016/j.esr.2018.12.010. www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/green-india-mission.pdf.
Godar, J., and T. Gardner, 2019: Trade and land use telecouplings. Government of India, 2012: Guidelines for Preparation of State Action Plan
In:  Telecoupling [Friis, C., J.Ø. Nielsen (eds.)]. Springer International for Bustards’ Recovery Programme. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 149–175. New Delhi, India, 29  pp, www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/
Godar, J., U.M. Persson, E.J. Tizado, and P. Meyfroidt, 2015: Methodological Bustards%E2%80%99%20Recovery%20Programme.pdf.
and ideological options towards more accurate and policy relevant Government Office for Science, 2011: Migration and global environmental
footprint analyses: Tracing fine-scale socio-environmental impacts of change: Future challenges and opportunities. Foresight: Migration and
production to consumption. Ecol. Econ., 112, 25–35, doi:10.1016/j. Global Environmental Change. The Final Project Report. London, UK,
ecolecon.2015.02.003. 234 pp. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/22475/1/11-1116-migration-and-global-
Godar, J., C. Suavet, T.A. Gardner, E. Dawkins, and P. Meyfroidt, 2016: Balancing environmental-change.pdf.
detail and scale in assessing transparency to improve the governance of Van de Graaf, T., 2017: Is OPEC dead? Oil exporters, the Paris Agreement and
agricultural commodity supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 035015, the transition to a post-carbon world. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 23, 182–188,
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035015. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.10.005.
Goetz, A., 2013: Private Governance and Land Grabbing: The Equator Graham, L.J., R.H. Haines-Young, and R. Field, 2015: Using citizen science data
Principles and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, Globalizations, 10, for conservation planning: Methods for quality control and downscaling
199–204, doi:10.1080/14747731.2013.760949. for use in stochastic patch occupancy modelling. Biol. Conserv., 192, 65–
Goetz, S.J., M. Hansen, R.A. Houghton, W. Walker, N. Laporte, and J. Busch, 73, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.002.
2015: Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for Grainger, A., 2015: Is land degradation neutrality feasible in dry areas? J. Arid
addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation Environ., 112, 14–24, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.05.014.
under REDD+. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 123001, doi:10.1088/1748- 7
9326/10/12/123001.

771
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Gray, S. et al., 2017: Combining participatory modelling and citizen science Gupta, J., N. van der Grijp, and O. Kuik, 2013a: Climate Change, Forests, and
to support volunteer conservation action. Biol. Conserv., 208, 76–86, REDD Lessons for Institutional Design. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, and New
doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2016.07.037. York, USA, 288 pp.
Greatrex, H. et al., 2015: Scaling up index insurance for smallholder farmers: Gupta, J., C. Pahl-Wostl, and R. Zondervan, 2013b: ‘Glocal’ water governance:
Recent evidence and insights. CCAFS Rep., 14, 1–32, doi:1904-9005. A multi-level challenge in the anthropocene. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.,
Grecchi, R.C., Q.H. J. Gwyn, G.B. Bénié, A.R. Formaggio, and F.C. Fahl, 2014: Land 5, 573–580, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.003.
use and land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado: A multidisciplinary Gupta, J., N.R. M. Pouw, and M.A. F. Ros-Tonen, 2015: Towards an elaborated
approach to assess the impacts of agricultural expansion. Appl. Geogr., 55, theory of inclusive development. Eur. J. Dev. Res., 27, 541–55, doi:10.1057/
300–312, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.09.014. ejdr.2015.30.
Green, D., and G. Raygorodetsky, 2010: Indigenous knowledge of a changing Gurung, A., and S.E. Oh, 2013a: Conversion of traditional biomass into modern
climate. Clim. Change, 100, 239–242, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9804-y. bioenergy systems: A review in context to improve the energy situation in
Di Gregorio, M. et al., 2017: Climate policy integration in the land use sector: Nepal. Renew. Energy, 50, 206–213, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.06.021.
Mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages. Environ. Sci. Haasnoot, M., J.H. Kwakkel, W.E. Walker, and J. ter Maat, 2013: Dynamic
Policy, 67, 35–43, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.004. adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions
Greiner, R., and D. Gregg, 2011: Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the for a  deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 23, 485–498,
adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006.
Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy, 28, 257–265, Haasnoot, M., S. van ’t Klooster, and J. van Alphen, 2018: Designing
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006. a monitoring system to detect signals to adapt to uncertain climate change.
Griggs, D. et al., 2013: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Glob. Environ. Chang., 52, 273–285, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.003.
Nature, 495, 305. doi:10.1038/495305a. Hadarits, M., J. Pittman, D. Corkal, H. Hill, K. Bruce, and A. Howard, 2017:
Griggs, D.et al., 2014: An integrated framework for sustainable development The interplay between incremental, transitional, and transformational
goals. Ecol. Soc., 19, art49-art49, doi:10.5751/ES-07082-190449. adaptation: A case study of Canadian agriculture. Reg. Environ. Chang.,
De Groot, R.S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen, 2010: 17, 1515–1525, doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1111-y.
Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values Haddeland, I. et al., 2014: Global water resources affected by human
in landscape planning, management and decision-making. Ecol. Complex., interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. A., 111, 3251–
7, 260–272, doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006. 3256, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222475110.
Grosjean, G. et al., 2018: Options to overcome the barriers to pricing European Haites, E., 2018a: Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading
agricultural emissions. Clim. Policy, 18, 151–169, doi:10.1080/14693062. systems: What have we learned? Clim. Policy, 18, 955–966, doi:10.1080
2016.1258630. /14693062.2018.1492897.
Del Grosso, S., P. Smith, M. Galdos, A. Hastings, and W. Parton, 2014: Hajjar, R., R.A. Kozak, H. El-Lakany, and J.L. Innes, 2013: Community forests
Sustainable energy crop production. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 9–10, for forest communities: Integrating community-defined goals and
20–25, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.007. practices in the design of forestry initiatives. Land Use Policy, 34, 158–167,
Grumbine, R.E., and M.K. Pandit, 2013: Threats from India’s Himalaya dams. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.002.
Science, 339, 36–37, doi:10.1126/science.1227211. Hall, R. et al., 2015: Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction
Grzymala-Busse, A., 2010: The best laid plans: The impact of informal rules to landgrabbing and political reactions ‘from below’. J. Peasant Stud., 42,
on formal institutions in transitional regimes. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev., 45, 467–488, doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1036746.
311–333, doi:10.1007/s12116-010-9071-y. Hall, S.J., R. Hilborn, N.L. Andrew, and E.H. Allison, 2013: Innovations in capture
Gu, Y., and B.K. Wylie, 2017: Mapping marginal croplands suitable for cellulosic fisheries are an imperative for nutrition security in the developing world.
feedstock crops in the Great Plains, United States. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 836– Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110, 8393–8398, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208067110.
844, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12388. Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate. Glob. Environ.
Guerry, A.D. et al., 2015: Natural capital and ecosystem services informing Chang., 19, 240–247, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003.
decisions: From promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 7348–7355, Hallegatte, S., A. Shah, R.J. Lempert, C. Brown, and S. Gill, 2012: Investment
doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112. Decision-Making Under Deep Uncertainty – Application to Climate Change.
Gunderson, L.H., and C. Holling (eds.), 2001: Panarchy: Understanding Policy Research Working Paper; No. 6193. World Bank, Washington,
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 41  pp https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/
DC, USA, 507 pp. handle/10986/12028/wps6193.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y License: CC
Gupta, H., and L.C. Dube, 2018: Addressing biodiversity in climate change BY 3.0 IGO.
discourse: Paris mechanisms hold more promise. Int. For. Rev., 20, 104– Hallegatte, S., C. Green, R.J. Nicholls, and J. Corfee-Morlot, 2013: Future
114, doi:10.1505/146554818822824282. flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 802, doi:10.1038/
Gupta, J. (ed.), 2014: The History of Global Climate Governance. Cambridge nclimate1979.
University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 1–244 pp. Hallegatte, S., A. Vogt-Schilb, M. Bangalore, and J. Rozenberg, 2017:
Gupta, J., and C. Vegelin, 2016: Sustainable development goals and inclusive Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural
development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 16, 433–448, Disasters.   Climate Change and Development Series. World Bank,
doi:10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z. Washington, DC, USA, 201 pp.
Gupta, J., and N. Pouw, 2017: Towards a transdisciplinary conceptualization Haller, T., G. Acciaioli, and S. Rist, 2016: Constitutionality: Conditions for
of inclusive development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 24, 96–103, crafting local ownership of institution-building processes. Soc. Nat.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.03.004. Resour., 29, 68–87, doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1041661.
Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S. Hanasaki, N., T. Inuzuka, S. Kanae, and T. Oki, 2010: An estimation of global
Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma, 2010: The adaptive capacity wheel: A method virtual water flow and sources of water withdrawal for major crops and
to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive livestock products using a global hydrological model. J. Hydrol., 384, 232–
capacity of society. Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 459–471, doi:10.1016/j. 244, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.028.
7 envsci.2010.05.006.

772
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013a: A global water scarcity assessment under shared Hashemi, S.M. and de Montesquiou, A. (eds.), 2011: Reaching the Poorest:
socio-economic pathways – Part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Lessons from the Graduation Model. Focus Note 69, Washington, DC,
Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013. USA, 16 pp.
Handmer, J., Y. Honda, Z.W. Kundzewicz, N. Arnell, G. Benito, J. Hatfield, I.F. Häyhä, T., and P.P. Franzese, 2014: Ecosystem services assessment: A review
Mohamed, P. Peduzzi, S. Wu, B. Sherstyukov, K. Takahashi, and Z. Yan, 2012: under an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Modell., 289,
Changes in Impacts of Climate Extremes: Human Systems and Ecosystems. 124–132, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.002.
In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Head, B.W., 2014: Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate
Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on change decision-making in Australia. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 32,
Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. 663–679, doi:10.1068/c1240.
Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and Headey, D., 2011: Rethinking the global food crisis: The role of trade shocks.
P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New Food Policy, 36, 136–146, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.003.
York, NY, USA, 582 pp. Headey, D., J. Hoddinott, and S. Park, 2017: Accounting for nutritional changes
Hanger, S., C. Haug, T. Lung, and L.M. Bouwer, 2015: Mainstreaming climate in six success stories: A regression-decomposition approach. Glob. Food
change in regional development policy in Europe: Five insights from the Sec., 13, 12–20, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.02.003.
2007–2013 programming period. Reg. Environ. Chang., 15, 973–985, Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018a: Biomass-based negative
doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0549-9. emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim.
Hanjra, M.A., and M. Ejaz Qureshi, 2010: Global water crisis and future Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy, 35, 365–377, HEI/IHME, 2018: A Special Report on Global Exposure To Air Pollution and Its
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.05.006. Disease Burden. Health Effects Institute, Boston, USA, 24 pp.
Hanson, S., R. Nicholls, N. Ranger, S. Hallegatte, J. Corfee-Morlot, C. Herweijer, Hejazi, M.I. et al., 2014: Integrated assessment of global water scarcity over
and J. Chateau, 2011: A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to the 21st century under multiple climate change mitigation policies. Hydrol.
climate extremes. Clim. Change, 104, 89–111, doi:10.1007/s10584-010- Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2859–2883, doi:10.5194/hess-18-2859-2014.
9977-4. Helmke, G., and S. Levitsky, 2004: Informal institutions and comparative
Härdle, W.K., and B.L. Cabrera, 2010: Calibrating CAT bonds for politics: A research agenda. Perspect. Polit., 2, 725–740, doi:10.1017/
Mexican earthquakes. J. Risk Insur., 77, 625–650, doi:10.1111/j.1539- S1537592704040472.
6975.2010.01355.x. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Relationships between
Harmsworth, G., and S. Awatere, 2013: 2013. Indigenous Māori knowledge individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive
and perspectives of ecosystems. In: Ecosystem services in New Zealand – trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Glob.
Conditions and trends [J. Dymond (ed.)]. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, Chang. Biol., 23, 1691–1710, doi:10.1111/gcb.13428.
New Zealand., pp. 274–286. Henderson, B., 2018: A Global Economic Evaluation of GHG Mitigation Policies
Harootunian, G., 2018: California: It’s Complicated: Drought, drinking water for Agriculture. Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment.
and drylands. Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate Change Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France,
[Alverson, K. , and Z. Zommers (eds.)]. Elsevier, London, UK, 127–142, 38  pp. www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811891-7.00010-4. =COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC (2018)7/FINAL&docLanguage=En.
Harris, E., 2013: Financing social protection floors: Considerations of fiscal Hendrix, C.S., and I. Salehyan, 2012: Climate change, rainfall, and social conflict
space. Int. Soc. Secur. Rev., 66, 111–143, doi:10.1111/issr.12021. in Africa. J. Peace Res., 49, 35–50, doi:10.1177/0022343311426165.
Harris, Z.M., R. Spake, and G. Taylor, 2015: Land use change to bioenergy: Henriksen, H.J., M.J. Roberts, P. van der Keur, A. Harjanne, D. Egilson, and
A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, L. Alfonso, 2018: Participatory early warning and monitoring systems:
82, 27–39, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008. A Nordic framework for web-based flood risk management. Int. J. Disaster
Harrod, K.S., 2015: Ebola: History, treatment, and lessons from a new Risk Reduct., doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.038.
emerging pathogen. Am. J. Physiol. – Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol., 308, L307– Henstra, D., 2016: The tools of climate adaptation policy: Analysing
L313, doi:10.1152/ajplung.00354.2014. instruments and instrument selection. Clim. Policy, 16, 496–521, doi:10.10
Harvey, B., J. Ensor, L. Carlile, B. Garside, and Z. Patterson, 2012: Climate 80/14693062.2015.1015946.
Change Communication and Social Learning – Review and Strategy Herendeen, N., and N. Glazier, 2009: Agricultural best management practices
Development for CCAFS. CCAFS Working Paper No. 22. CGIAR Research for Conesus Lake: The role of extension and soil/water conservation
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), districts. J. Great Lakes Res., 35, 15–22, doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2008.08.005.
Copenhagen, Denmark, 53 pp. Herman, J.D., H.B. Zeff, P.M. Reed, and G.W. Characklis, 2014: Beyond
Harvey, C.A. et al., 2014a: Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and optimality: Multistakeholder robustness tradeoffs for regional water
challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. portfolio planning under deep uncertainty. Water Resour. Res., 50, 7692–
Conserv. Lett., 7, 77–90, doi:10.1111/conl.12066. 7713, doi:10.1002/2014WR015338.
Harvey, C.A. et al., 2014b: Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to Hermann, A., Koferl, P., Mairhofer, J.P., 2016: Climate Risk Insurance: New
agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Approaches and Schemes. Economic Research Working Paper. Germany,
B Biol. Sci., 369, 20130089, doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0089. 22  pp. www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/
Harvey, M., and S. Pilgrim, 2011: The new competition for land: Food, migration/media/economic_research/publications/working_papers/en/
energy, and climate change. Food Policy, 36, S40-S51, doi:10.1016/j. ClimateRisk.pdf.
foodpol.2010.11.009. Hernandez, R.R., M.K. Hoffacker, M.L. Murphy-Mariscal, G.C. Wu, and M.F.
Hasegawa, T., S. Fujimori, K. Takahashi, T. Yokohata, and T. Masui, 2016: Allen, 2015: Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and
Economic implications of climate change impacts on human health protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 13579–13584.
through undernourishment. Clim. Change, 136, 189–202, doi:10.1007/ Hertel, T.W., M.B. Burke, and D.B. Lobell, 2010: The poverty implications of
s10584-016-1606-4. climate-induced crop yield changes by 2030. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20,
Hasegawa, T.et al., 2018a: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent 577–585, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.001.
global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 699–703, Hewitt, K. et al., 2017: Identifying emerging issues in disaster risk reduction, 7
doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x. migration, climate change and sustainable development. Identifying

773
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Emerging Issues in Disaster Risk Reduction, Migration, Climate Change Reserve in Ecuador. Glob. Environ. Chang., 44, 27–38, doi:10.1016/j.
and Sustainable Development. Springer International Publishing, Cham, gloenvcha.2017.02.004.
Switzerland, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33880-4, 281 pp. Holling, C.S. (ed.), 1978: Adaptive Environmental Assessment and
Hewitt, R., H. van Delden, and F. Escobar, 2014: Participatory land use Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 402 pp.
modelling, pathways to an integrated approach. Environ. Model. Softw., Holling, C.S., 1986: Adaptive environmental management. Environment:
52, 149–165, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2013.10.019. Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 28, 39, doi:10.1080/00
Higgins, S.A., I. Overeem, K.G. Rogers, and E.A. Kalina, 2018: River linking in 139157.1986.9928829.
India: Downstream impacts on water discharge and suspended sediment Holstenkamp, L., and F. Kahla, 2016: What are community energy companies
transport to deltas. Elem Sci Anth, 6, 20, doi:10.1525/elementa.269. trying to accomplish? An empirical investigation of investment motives
Himanen, S.J., P. Rikkonen, and H. Kahiluoto, 2016: Codesigning a resilient in the German case. Energy Policy, 97, 112–122, doi:10.1016/j.
food system. Ecol. Soc., 21, Art. 41, doi:10.5751/ES-08878-210441. enpol.2016.07.010.
Hinkel, J. et al., 2014: Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st Hordijk, M., L.M. Sara, and C. Sutherland, 2014: Resilience, transition or
century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 3292–3297, doi:10.1073/ transformation? A comparative analysis of changing water governance
pnas.1222469111. systems in four southern cities. Environ. Urban., 26, 130–146,
Hirsch, A.L. et al., 2018: Biogeophysical impacts of land use change on doi:10.1177/0956247813519044.
climate extremes in low-emission scenarios: Results from HAPPI-Land. Hornsey, M.J., E.A. Harris, P.G. Bain, and K.S. Fielding, 2016: Meta-analyses
Earth’s Futur., 6, 396–409, doi:10.1002/2017EF000744. of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim.
Hjort, J., Karjalainen, O., Aalto, J., Westermann, S., Romanovsky, V.E., Nelson, Chang., 6, 622–626, doi:10.1038/nclimate2943.
F.E., Luoto, M. (2018). Degrading permafrost puts Arctic infrastructure at Hossain, M., 2018: Introduction: Pathways to a sustainable economy. In:
risk by mid-century. Nature Communications, 9 (1), 5147, doi:10.1038/ Pathways to a Sustainable Economy. Springer International Publishing,
s41467-018-07557-4. Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1–1.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al., 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C Global Warming on Natural Hou, D., 2016: Divergence in stakeholder perception of sustainable
and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report remediation. Sustain. Sci., 11, 215–230, doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0346-0.
on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels Hou, D., and A. Al-Tabbaa, 2014: Sustainability: A new imperative in
and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context contaminated land remediation. Environ. Sci. Policy, 39, 25–34,
of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.003.
[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, Howlett, M., and J. Rayner, 2013: Patching vs packaging in policy formulation:
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Assessing policy portfolio design. Polit. Gov., 1, 170, doi:10.17645/pag.
Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, v1i2.95.
and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and Huang, J., and G. Yang, 2017: Understanding recent challenges and new
New York, NY, USA, 630 pp. food policy in China. Glob. Food Sec., 12, 119–126, doi:10.1016/j.
Hoeinghaus, D.J. et al., 2009: Effects of river impoundment on ecosystem gfs.2016.10.002.
services of large tropical rivers: Embodied energy and market value of Huang, J., H. Yu, X. Guan, G. Wang, and R. Guo, 2016: Accelerated dryland
artisanal fisheries. Conserv. Biol., 23, 1222–1231, doi:10.1111/j.1523- expansion under climate  change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 166–171,
1739.2009.01248.x. doi:10.1038/nclimate2837.
Hoff, H., 2011: Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Huang, J., H. Yu, A. Dai, Y. Wei, and L. Kang, 2017: Drylands face potential
Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus, Stockholm threat under 2°C global warming target. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 417–422,
Environment Institute, Stockholm, 1–52 pp. doi:10.1038/nclimate3275.
van der Hoff, R., R. Rajão, and P. Leroy, 2018: Clashing interpretations Huang, R., D. Tian, J. Liu, S. Lv, X. He, and M. Gao, 2018: Responses of soil
of REDD+ ‘results’ in the Amazon Fund. Clim. Change, 150, 433–445, carbon pool and soil aggregates associated organic carbon to straw and
doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x. straw-derived biochar addition in a dryland cropping mesocosm system.
Hoffmann, H., G. Uckert, C. Reif, K. Müller, and S. Sieber, 2015a: Traditional Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 265, 576–586, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2018.07.013.
biomass energy consumption and the potential introduction of firewood Huber-Sannwald, E. et al., 2012: Navigating challenges and opportunities
efficient stoves: Insights from western Tanzania. Reg. Environ. Chang., 15, of land degradation and sustainable livelihood development in dryland
1191–1201, doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0738-1. social-ecological systems: A case study from Mexico. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B
Hoffmann, H.K., K. Sander, M. Brüntrup, and S. Sieber, 2017: Applying the Biol. Sci., 367, 3158–77. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0349.
water-energy-food nexus to the charcoal value chain. Front. Environ. Sci., Hudiburg, T.W., S.C. Davis, W. Parton, and E.H. Delucia, 2015: Bioenergy
5, 84, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2017.00084. crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management
Höhne, N. et al., 2017: The Paris Agreement: Resolving the inconsistency practices. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 366–374, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12152.
between global goals and national contributions. Clim. Policy, 17, 16–32, Hudson, P., W.J. W. Botzen, L. Feyen, and J.C. J.H. Aerts, 2016: Incentivising
doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1218320. flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: Trade-
Hojas-Gascon, L., H.D. Eva, D. Ehrlich, M. Pesaresi, F. Achard, and J. Garcia, offs between affordability and risk reduction. Ecol. Econ., 125, 1–13,
2016a: Urbanization and forest degradation in east Africa – A case study doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2016.01.015.
around Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Hugo, G.J., 2011: Lessons from past forced resettlement for climate
Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), IEEE. Institute Of Electrical And change migration. In: E. Piguet, A. Pécoud and P. de Guchteneire (eds.),
Electronics Engineers. Beijing, China, 7293–7295. Migration and Climate Change, UNESCO Publishing/Cambridge University
Holden, E., K. Linnerud, and D. Banister, 2017: The imperatives of sustainable Press, pp. 260–288.
development. Sustain. Dev., 25, 213–226, doi:10.1002/sd.1647. Huisheng, S., 2015: Between the formal and informal: Institutions and village
Holden, S.T., and H. Ghebru, 2016: Land tenure reforms, tenure security and governance in rural China. An Int. J., 13, 24–44. https://muse.jhu.edu/
food security in poor agrarian economies: Causal linkages and research article/589970.
gaps. Glob. Food Sec., 10, 21–28, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.07.002. Humpenöder, F. et al., 2017: Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve
7 Holland, M.B., K.W. Jones, L. Naughton-Treves, J.L. Freire, M. Morales, and sustainability trade-offs? Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 1–15, doi:10.1088/1748-
L. Suárez, 2017: Titling land to conserve forests: The case of Cuyabeno 9326/aa9e3b.

774
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Hunsberger, C. et al., 2017: Climate change mitigation, land grabbing and IEA, 2017: World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris,
conflict: Towards a landscape-based and collaborative action research France, 753 pp.
agenda. Can. J. Dev. Stud., 38, 305–324, doi:10.1080/02255189.2016.1 Ighodaro, I.D., F.S. Lategan, and W. Mupindu, 2016: The impact of soil erosion
250617. as a food security and rural livelihoods risk in South Africa. J. Agric. Sci.,
Hunzai, K., T. Chagas, L. Gilde, T. Hunzai, and N. Krämer, 2018: Finance 8, 1, doi:10.5539/jas.v8n8p1.
Options and Instruments for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation. Overview and Iglesias, A., and L. Garrote, 2015: Adaptation strategies for agricultural water
Compilation of Ten Examples. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale management under climate change in Europe. Agric. Water Manag., 155,
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Bonn, Germany, 76 pp. 113–124, doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014.
Hurlbert, M., 2015a: Climate justice: A call for leadership. Environ. Justice, Iizumi, T. et al., 2013: Prediction of seasonal climate-induced variations in
8, 51–55, doi:10.1089/env.2014.0035. global food production. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 904–908, doi:10.1038/
Hurlbert, M., 2015b: Learning, participation, and adaptation: Exploring nclimate1945.
agri-environmental programmes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 58, 113–134, Innocenti, D., and P. Albrito, 2011: Reducing the risks posed by natural hazards
doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.847823. and climate change: The need for a participatory dialogue between the
Hurlbert, M., 2018a: The challenge of integrated flood risk governance: Case scientific community and policy makers. Environ. Sci. Policy, 14, 730–733,
studies in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. Int. J. River Basin Manag., doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.010.
16, 287–297, doi:10.1080/15715124.2018.1439495. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2017: Global Disaster Displacement
Hurlbert, M., and J. Pittman, 2014: Exploring adaptive management in Risk – A Baseline for Future Work. Internal Displacement Monitoring
environmental farm programs in Saskatchewan, Canada. J. Nat. Resour. Centre (IDMC), Geneva, Switzerland, 40 pp.
Policy Res., 6, 195–212, doi:10.1080/19390459.2014.915131. IPBES, 2018: The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration.
Hurlbert, M., and J. Gupta, 2015: The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 744 pp.
strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. IPCC, 2000: Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer
Environ. Sci. Policy, 50, 100–113, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011. [Metz, B., O. Davidson, J.-W. Martens, S. Van Rooijen, and L. Van Wie
Hurlbert, M., and J. Gupta, 2016: Adaptive governance, uncertainty, and risk: Mcgrory (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 466 pp.
Policy framing and responses to climate change, drought, and flood. Risk IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In:
Anal., 36, 339–356, doi:10.1111/risa.12510. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Hurlbert, M., and P. Mussetta, 2016: Creating resilient water governance for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani,
irrigated producers in Mendoza, Argentina. Environ. Sci. Policy, 58, 83–94, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White (eds)]. Cambridge University Press,
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.004. Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 1032.
Hurlbert, M., and J. Gupta, 2017: The adaptive capacity of institutions in IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Canada, Argentina, and Chile to droughts and floods. Reg. Environ. Chang., Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II
17, 865–877, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1078-0. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros,
Hurlbert, M.A., 2018b: Adaptive Governance of Disaster: Drought and Flood T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,
in Rural Areas. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 258 pp, DOI: 10.1007/978-3- G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
319-57801-9. University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, 594 pp.
Hurlbert, M.A., and H. Diaz, 2013: Water governance in Chile and Canada: IPCC, 2014a: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
A comparison of adaptive characteristics. Ecol. Soc., 18, 61, doi:10.5751/ Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to
ES-06148-180461. the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Hurlbert, M., and E. Montana, 2015: Dimensions of adaptive water governance Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
and drought in Argentina and Canada. J. Sustain. Dev., 8,  120–137, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S.
doi:10.5539/jsd.v8n1p120. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)].
Hurlbert, M.A., and J. Gupta, 2018: An institutional analysis method for Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
identifying policy instruments facilitating the adaptive governance NY, USA, 1132 pp.
of drought. Environ. Sci. Policy, 93, 221–231, doi:10.1016/j. IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
envsci.2018.09.017. Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Hurlimann, A.C., and A.P. March, 2012: The role of spatial planning in adapting Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 3,  477–488, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J.
doi:10.1002/wcc.183. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Huttunen, S., P. Kivimaa, and V. Virkamäki, 2014: The need for policy coherence Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.
to trigger a transition to biogas production. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, Mastrandrea, and L.L. White Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K. (eds.)].
12, 14–30, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2014.04.002. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
Huyer, S., J. Twyman, M. Koningstein, J. Ashby, and S. Vermeulen, 2015a: NY, USA.
Supporting women farmers in a changing climate: Five policy lessons. IPCC, 2014c: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
CCAFS Policy Brief 10, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), 8 pp. Panel on Climate Change [Pachauri, R.K., and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC,
Iacobuta, G., N.K. Dubash, P. Upadhyaya, M. Deribe, and N. Höhne, 2018: Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
National climate change mitigation legislation, strategy and targets: IPCC, 2014d: Annex II: Glossary [Agard, J., E.L.F. Schipper, J. Birkmann,
A global update. Clim. Policy, 18, 1114–1132, doi:10.1080/14693062.20 M.  Campos, C. Dubeux, Y. Nojiri, L. Olsson, B. Osman-Elasha, M. Pelling,
18.1489772. M.J. Prather, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, O.C. Ruppel, A. Sallenger, K.R. Smith,
ICCC, 2018: Interim Climate Change Committee Terms of Reference and A.L. St. Clair, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, and T.E. Bilir (eds.)]. In: Climate
Appointment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, 7 pp. Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional
ICSU, 2017: A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implentation. Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report
International Science Council, Paris, France, 239 pp. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, 7
D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,

775
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, Jaleta, M., M. Kassie, and B. Shiferaw, 2013: Tradeoffs in crop residue utilization
P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, in mixed crop-livestock systems and implications for conservation
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1757–1776. agriculture. Agric. Syst., 121, 96–105, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.05.006.
IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An Jaleta, M., M. Kassie, and O. Erenstein, 2015: Determinants of maize stover
IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre- utilization as feed, fuel and soil amendment in mixed crop-livestock systems,
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, Ethiopia. Agric. Syst., 134, 17–23, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.010.
in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of James, J., R. Harrison, J. James, and R. Harrison, 2016: the effect of harvest on
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty forest soil carbon: A meta-analysis. Forests, 7, 308, doi:10.3390/f7120308.
[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, James, R., R. Washington, C.F. Schleussner, J. Rogelj, and D. Conway,
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. 2017: Characterizing half-a-degree difference: A review of methods for
Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets. Wiley
and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 8, e457, doi:10.1002/wcc.457.
Switzerland, 32 pp. Janetos, A., C. Justice, M. Jahn, M. Obersteiner, J. Glauber, and W. Mulhern,
IPCC, 2018b: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts 2017: The Risks of Multiple Breadbasket Failures in the 21st Century:
of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global A Science Research Agenda. The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of
Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the the Longer-Range Future, Massachusetts, USA, 24 pp.
Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, Janif, S.Z., P.D. Nunn, P. Geraghty, W. Aalbersberg, F.R. Thomas, and
and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, M.  Camailakeba, 2016: Value of traditional oral narratives in building
D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.  Péan, climate-change resilience: Insights from rural communities in Fiji. Ecol.
R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.  Gomis, Soc., 21, art7, doi:10.5751/ES-08100-210207.
E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. Jansujwicz, J.S., A.J. K. Calhoun, and R.J. Lilieholm, 2013: The Maine Vernal
ISEAL Alliance, 2018: Private Sustainability Standards and the EU Renewable Pool Mapping and Assessment Program: Engaging municipal officials and
Energy Directive. ISEAL Alliance, London, UK, www.isealalliance.org/ private landowners in community-based citizen science. Environ. Manage.,
impacts-and-benefits/case-studies/private-sustainability-standards-and- 52, 1369–1385, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0168-8.
eu-renewable-energy. Jantarasami, L.C., J.J. Lawler, and C.W. Thomas, 2010: Institutional barriers to
Ishida, H. et al., 2014: Global-scale projection and its sensitivity analysis climate change adaptation in US National parks and forests. Ecol. Soc., 15,
of the health burden attributable to childhood undernutrition under the 33, doi:10.5751/ES-03715-150433.
latest scenario framework for climate change research. Environ. Res. Lett., Jeffrey, S.R., D.E. Trautman, and J.R. Unterschultz, 2017: Canadian agricultural
9, 064014, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064014. business risk management programs: Implications for farm wealth and
Ismail, F. et al., 2017: Market Trends in Family and General Takaful. MILLIMAN, environmental stewardship. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. d’agroeconomie, 65,
Washington, DC, USA. 543–565, doi:10.1111/cjag.12145.
ISO, 2009: Australia and New Zealand Risk Management Standards Jelsma, I., M. Slingerland, K. Giller, J.B.-J. of R. Studies, 2017: Collective action
31000:2009. International Organization for Standardization, ISO Central in a smallholder oil palm production system in Indonesia: The key to
Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. sustainable and inclusive smallholder palm oil? Journal of Rural Studies,
ISO, 2015: ISO 13065:2015 – Sustainability Criteria for Bioenergy. 54, 198–210, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.005.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, Jepson, E.J., and A.L. Haines, 2014: Zoning for sustainability: A review and
Geneva, Switzerland, 57 pp. analysis of the zoning ordinances of 32 cities in the United States. J. Am.
ISO, 2017: Environmental Management – Guidelines for Establishing Good Plan. Assoc., 80, 239–252, doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.981200.
Practices for Combatting Land Degradation and Desertification – Part 1: Jeuland, M., S.K. Pattanayak, and R. Bluffstone, 2015: The economics of
Good Practices Framework. International Organization for Standardization, household air pollution. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 7, 81–108, doi:10.1146/
ISO Central Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 31 pp. annurev-resource-100814-125048.
IWAI, 2016: Consolidated Environmental Impact Assessment Report of Jiang, J., W. Wang, C. Wang, and Y. Liu, 2017: Combating climate change
National Waterways-1 : Volume – 3. Environmental Impact Assessment calls for a global technological cooperation system built on the concept of
Reports, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. ecological civilization. Chinese J. Popul. Resour. Environ., 15, 21–31, doi:10
Iyahen, E., and J. Syroka, 2018: Managing risks from climate change on the .1080/10042857.2017.1286145.
African continent: The African risk capacity (arc) as an innovative risk Jjemba, E.W., B.K. Mwebaze, J. Arrighi, E. Coughlan de Perez, and M. Bailey,
financing mechanism. In: Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate 2018: Forecast-based financing and climate change adaptation: Uganda
Change [Zommers, Z., and K. Alverson (eds.)]. Elsevier. makes history using science to prepare for floods. In: Resilience: The
Jagger, P., and J. Pender, 2006: Influences of programs and organizations on Science of Adaptation to Climate Change [Alverson, K. and Z. Zommers
the adoption of sustainable land management technologies in Uganda. In: (eds.)]. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 237–243.
Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands Joana Specht, M. et al., 2015a: Burning biodiversity: Fuelwood harvesting
[Pender, J., F. Place, S. Ehui, (eds.)]. International Food Policy Research causes forest degradation in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Glob.
Institute, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 277–306. Ecol. Conserv., 3, 200–209, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.002.
Jagger, P., and N. Kittner, 2017: Deforestation and biomass fuel dynamics Johnson, B.B., and M.L. Becker, 2015: Social-ecological resilience and adaptive
in Uganda. Biomass and Bioenergy, 105, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j. capacity in a transboundary ecosystem. Soc. Nat. Resour., 28, 766–780,
biombioe.2017.06.005. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1037035.
Jagger, P., and I. Das, 2018: Implementation and scale-up of a biomass pellet Johnson, F.A., 2011a: Learning and adaptation in the management of
and improved cookstove enterprise in Rwanda. Energy Sustain. Dev., 46, waterfowl harvests. J. Environ. Manage., 92, 1385–1394, doi:10.1016/j.
32–41, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2018.06.005. jenvman.2010.10.064.
Jalbert, K., and A.J. Kinchy, 2016: Sense and influence: Environmental Johnson, F.X., 2011b: Regional-global linkages in the energy-climate-
monitoring tools and the power of citizen science. J. Environ. Policy Plan., development policy nexus: The case of biofuels in the EU Renewable energy
7 18, 379–397, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1100985. directive. Renew. Energy Law Policy Rev., 2, 91–106, doi:10.2307/24324724.

776
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Johnson, F.X., 2017: Biofuels, bioenergy and the bioeconomy in North and Ethnobiology [Albuquerque, U.P., R.R. N. Alves (eds.)]. Springer International
South. Ind. Biotechnol., 13, 289–291, doi:10.1089/ind.2017.29106.fxj. Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 251–256, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
Johnson, F.X., and S. Silveira, 2014: Pioneer countries in the transition to 28155-1.
alternative transport fuels: Comparison of ethanol programmes and Jürisoo, M., F. Lambe, and M. Osborne, 2018: Beyond buying: The application
policies in Brazil, Malawi and Sweden. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 11, of service design methodology to understand adoption of clean cookstoves
1–24, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.08.001. in Kenya and Zambia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 39, 164–176, doi:10.1016/j.
Johnson, F.X., H. Pacini, and E. Smeets, 2012: Transformations in EU biofuels erss.2017.11.023.
markets under the Renewable Energy Directive and the implications for Kabeer, N., K. Mumtaz, and A. Sayeed, 2010: Beyond risk management:
land use, trade and forests. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Vulnerability, social protection and citizenship in Pakistan. J. Int. Dev., 22,
Johnson, M.F. et al., 2014: Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as 1–19, doi:10.1002/jid.1538.
agents for environmental advocacy. Glob. Environ. Chang., 29, 235–245, Kaenzig, R., and E. Piguet, 2014: Migration and climate change in Latin
doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2014.10.006. America and the Caribbean. In: People on the Move in a Changing Climate.
Gray, S.et al., 2017: Combining participatory modelling and citizen science The Regional Impact of Environmental Change on Migration [Piguet, E.,
to support volunteer conservation action. Biol. Conserv., 208, 76–86, F. Laczko (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 253.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.037. Kaijser, A., and A. Kronsell, 2014: Climate change through the lens of
Jolly, W.M., M.A. Cochrane, P.H. Freeborn, Z.A. Holden, T.J. Brown, G.J. intersectionality. Env. Polit., 23, 417–433, doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.8
Williamson, and D.M. J.S. Bowman, 2015: Climate-induced variations 35203.
in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun., 6, 7537, Kainuma, M., K. Miwa, T. Ehara, O. Akashi, and Y. Asayama, 2013: A low-
doi:10.1038/ncomms8537. carbon society: Global visions, pathways, and challenges. Clim. Policy, 13,
Jones, A., and B. Hiller, 2017: Exploring the dynamics of responses to food 5–21, doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.738016.
production shocks. Sustainability, 9, 960, doi:10.3390/su9060960. Kaisa, K.K. et al., 2017: Analyzing REDD+ as an experiment of transformative
Jones, D., C.M. Ryan, and J. Fisher, 2016a: Charcoal as a diversification climate governance: Insights from Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy, 73,
strategy: The flexible role of charcoal production in the livelihoods of 61–70, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.014.
smallholders in central Mozambique. Energy for Sustainable Development, Kakota, T., D. Nyariki, D. Mkwambisi, and W. Kogi-Makau, 2011: Gender
32, 14–21, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2016.02.009. vulnerability to climate variability and household food insecurity. Clim.
Jones, N., and E. Presler-Marshall, 2015: Cash transfers. In: International Dev., 3, 298–309, doi:10.1080/17565529.2011.627419.
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. Elsevier. Kale, E., 2017: Problematic uses and practices of farm ponds in Maharashtra.
Jones, R.N. A. Patwardhan, S.J. Cohen, S. Dessai, A. Lammel, R.J. Lempert, Econ. Polit. Wkly., 52, 20–22.
M.M.Q. Mirza, and H. von Storch, 2014: Foundations for Decision-Making. Kallbekken, S., and H. Sælen, 2013: ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food
In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part waste as a win-win environmental measure. Econ. Lett., 119, 325–327,
A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019.
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Kangalawe, R.Y.M, Noe. C, Tungaraza. F.S.K, G. Naimani, M. Mlele, 2014:
Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, Understanding of traditional knowledge and indigenous institutions on
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. sustainable land management in Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania. Open J. Soil
Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Sci., 4, 469–493, doi:10.4236/ojss.2014.413046.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, Kanta Kafle, S., 2017: Disaster early warning systems in Nepal: Institutional
NY, USA, pp. 195–228. and operational frameworks. J. Geogr. Nat. Disasters, doi:10.4172/2167-
Jongman, B. et al., 2014: Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large 0587.1000196.
floods. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 264–268, doi:10.1038/nclimate2124. Kanter, D.R. et al., 2016: Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age
Jordan, A.J. et al., 2015a: Emergence of polycentric climate governance of sustainable development. Agric. Syst., 163, 73–88, doi:10.1016/J.
and its future prospects. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 977–982, doi:10.1038/ AGSY.2016.09.010.
nclimate2725. Karabulut, A.A., E. Crenna, S. Sala, and A. Udias, 2018: A proposal for
Jordan, R., A. Crall, S. Gray, T. Phillips, and D. Mellor, 2015b: Citizen science integration of the ecosystem-water-food-land-energy (EWFLE) nexus
as a distinct field of inquiry. Bioscience, 65, 208–211, doi:10.1093/biosci/ concept into life cycle assessment: A synthesis matrix system for food
biu217. security. J. Clean. Prod., 172, 3874–388, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.092.
Jost, C. et al., 2016: Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture Karar, E., and I. Jacobs-Mata, 2016: Inclusive governance: The role of
and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev., knowledge in fulfilling the obligations of citizens. Aquat. Procedia, 6, 15–
8, 133–144, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978. 22, doi:10.1016/j.aqpro.2016.06.003.
Juhola, S., E. Glaas, B.O. Linnér, and T.S. Neset, 2016: Redefining maladaptation. Karim, M.R., and A. Thiel, 2017: Role of community based local institution for
Environ. Sci. Policy, 55, 135–140, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.014. climate change adaptation in the Teesta riverine area of Bangladesh. Clim.
Jumani, S., S. Rao, S. Machado, and A. Prakash, 2017: Big concerns with small Risk Manag., 17, 92–103 doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.002.
projects: Evaluating the socio-ecological impacts of small hydropower Karlberg, L. et al., 2015: Tackling Complexity: Understanding the Food-
projects in India. Ambio, 46, 500–511, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0855-9. Energy-Environment Nexus in Ethiopia’s Lake Tana Sub-basin. Water
Jumani, S. et al., 2018: Fish community responses to stream flow alterations Altern., 8, 710–734.
and habitat modifications by small hydropower projects in the Western Karnib, A., 2017: A quanitative nexus approach to analyse the interlinkages
Ghats biodiversity hotspot, India. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., across the sustainable development goals. J. Sustain. Dev., 10, 173–180,
28, 979–993. doi:10.5539/jsd.v10n5p173.
Junior, S., S.R. Santos, M. Travassos, and M. Vianna, 2012: Impact on a fish Karpouzoglou, T., A. Dewulf, and J. Clark, 2016: Advancing adaptive
assemblage of the maintenance dredging of a navigation channel in a governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity.
tropical coastal ecosystem. Brazilian J. Oceanogr., 60, 25–32, doi:10.1590/ Environ. Sci. Policy, 57, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.011.
S1679-87592012000100003. Kasperson, R.E., 2012: Coping with deep uncertainty: Challenges for
Júnior, W.S. F., F.R. Santoro, I. Vandebroek, and U.P. Albuquerque, 2016: environmental assessment and decision-making. In: Uncertainty and 7
Urbanization, modernization, and nature knowledge. In: Introduction to Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives [Bammer, G., and M. Smithson (ed.)].

777
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Earthscan Risk in Society Series, London, UK, pp. 382, doi:10.1111/j.1468- Kivimaa, P., H.L. Kangas, and D. Lazarevic, 2017b: Client-oriented evaluation
5973.2009.00565.x. of ‘creative destruction’ in policy mixes: Finnish policies on building energy
Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation efficiency transition. Energy Research and Social Science, 33, 115–127,
when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.002.
Natl Acad. Sci. Usa, 109, 7156–7161. Klein, R.J.T., G.F. Midgley, B.L. Preston, M. Alam, F.G.H. Berkhout, K.D., and
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi, 2009: Governance Matters VIII M.  Shaw, 2014: Adaptation Opportunities, Constraints, and Limits. In:
Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008 (English). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:
Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 4978. World Bank, Washington, Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
DC, USA, doi:10.1080/713701075. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kaval, P., J. Loomis, and A. Seidl, 2007: Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir,
the Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface. For. Policy Econ., 9, 928–937. M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel,
Keenan, R.J., 2015: Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. Mastreanda, and L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
management: A review. Ann. For. Sci., 72, 145–167, doi:10.1007/s13595- University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 899–943.
014-0446-5. Kleindorfer, P.R., H. Kunreuther, and C. Ou-Yang, 2012: Single-year and multi-
Kelkar, N., 2016: Digging our rivers’ graves?Dams, Rivers, People Newsl., year insurance policies in a competitive market. J. Risk Uncertain., 45,
14, 1–6. 51–78, doi:10.1007/s11166-012-9148-2.
Kelley, C.P., S. Mohtadi, M.A. Cane, R. Seager, and Y. Kushnir, 2015: Climate Kline, K.L. et al., 2017: Reconciling food security and bioenergy: Priorities for
change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. action. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 557–576, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 3241–3246, doi:10.1073/pnas.1421533112. Knoke, T., K. Messerer, and C. Paul, 2017: The role of economic diversification in
Kemp, R., S. Parto, and R. Gibson, 2005: Governance for sustainable forest ecosystem management. Curr. For. Reports, 3, 93–106, doi:10.1007/
development: Moving from theory to practice. International J. Sustain. s40725-017-0054-3.
Dev., 8, doi:10.1504/IJSD.2005.007372. Knook, J., V. Eory, M. Brander, and D. Moran, 2018: Evaluation of farmer
Kern, F., and M. Howlett, 2009: Implementing transition management as participatory extension programmes. J. Agric. Educ. Ext., 24, 309–325, doi:
policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sci., 42, 10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717.
391–408, doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9099-x. Knorr, W., A. Arneth, and L. Jiang, 2016a: Demographic controls of future
Kerr, S., and A. Sweet, 2008: Inclusion of agriculture into a domestic emissions global fire risk. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 781–785, doi:10.1038/nclimate2999.
trading scheme: New Zealand’s experience to date. Farm Policy J., 5. Koechlin, L., J. Quan, and H. Mulukutla, 2016: Tackling corruption in land
Kesternich, M., C. Reif, and D. Rübbelke, 2017: Recent trends in behavioral governance. A LEGEND Analytical paper.
environmental economics. Environ. Resour. Econ., 67, 403–411, Koh, I., S. Kim, and D. Lee, 2010: Effects of bibosoop plantation on wind
doi:10.1007/s10640-017-0162-3. speed, humidity, and evaporation in a traditional agricultural landscape
Khan, M.R., and J.T. Roberts, 2013: Adaptation and international climate of Korea: Field measurements and modeling. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 135,
policy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 4, 171–189, doi:10.1002/ 294–303, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2009.10.008.
wcc.212. Koizumi, T., 2014: Biofuels and food security. SpringerBriefs in Applied
Khandelwal, M. et al., 2017: Why have improved cook-stove initiatives in Sciences and Technology.
india failed? World Dev., 92, 13–27, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.006. Kolstad, C., K. Urama, J. Broome, A. Bruvoll, M. Cariño Olvera, D. Fullerton,
Kibler, K.M., and D.D. Tullos, 2013: Cumulative biophysical impact of small C. Gollier, W.M. Hanemann, R. Hassan, F. Jotzo, M.R. Khan, L. Meyer, and
and large hydropower development in Nu River, China. Water Resour. Res., L. Mundaca, 2014: Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods.
49, 3104–3118. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Kiendrebeogo, Y., K. Assimaidou, and A. Tall, 2017: Social protection for Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
poverty reduction in times of crisis. J. Policy Model., 39, 1163–1183, Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona,
doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.09.003. E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier,
Kim, K., T. Park, S. Bang, and H. Kim, 2017: Real Options-based framework B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and
for hydropower plant adaptation to climate change. J. Manag. Eng., 33, J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
04016049, doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000496. and New York, NY, USA.
Kimmerer, R.W., 2000: Native knowledge for native ecosystems. J. For., 98, Kompas, T., V.H. Pham, and T.N. Che, 2018: The effects of climate change on GDP
4–9, doi:10.1093/jof/98.8.4. by country and the global economic gains from complying with the Paris
Kiruki, H.M., E.H. van der Zanden, Ž. Malek, and P.H. Verburg, 2017a: Land climate accord. Earth’s Futur., 6, 1153–1173, doi:10.1029/2018EF000922.
cover change and woodland degradation in a charcoal producing semi- Koohafkan, P., and M.A. Altieri, 2011: Globally Important Agricultural
arid area in Kenya. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 472–481, doi:10.1002/ldr.2545. Heritage Systems A Legacy for the Future GIAHS Globally Important
Kissinger, G., M. Herold, and V. De Sy, 2012: Drivers of Deforestation and Agricultural Heritage Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD + Policymakers. Lexeme United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Consulting, Vancouver, Canada, 48 pp. Koontz, T.M., D. Gupta, P. Mudliar, and P. Ranjan, 2015: Adaptive institutions
Kissinger, G., A. Gupta, I. Mulder, and N. Unterstell, 2019: Climate financing in social-ecological systems governance: A synthesis framework. Environ.
needs in the land sector under the Paris Agreement: An assessment Sci. Policy, 53, 139–151, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003.
of developing country perspectives. Land Use Policy, 83, 256–269, Van Koppen, B., L. Hope, and W. Colenbrander, 2013a: Gender Aspects of
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.007. Small-scale Private Irrigation in Africa, IWMI Working Paper. International
Kivimaa, P., and F. Kern, 2016: Creative destruction or mere niche support? Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy, 45, 205– Kousky, C., and R. Cooke, 2012: Explaining the failure to insure catastrophic
217, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008. risks. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. – Issues Pract., 37, 206–227, doi:10.1057/
Kivimaa, P., M. Hildén, D. Huitema, A. Jordan, and J. Newig, 2017a: Experiments gpp.2012.14.
in climate governance – A systematic review of research on energy and Kousky, C., E.O. Michel-Kerjan, and P.A. Raschky, 2018a: Does federal disaster
7 built environment transitions. J. Clean. Prod., 169, 17–29, doi:10.1016/j. assistance crowd out.
jclepro.2017.01.027.

778
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Krätli, S., 2008: Cattle breeding, complexity and mobility in a structurally Kust, G., O. Andreeva, and A. Cowie, 2017: Land degradation neutrality:
unpredictable environment: The WoDaaBe herders of Niger. Nomad. Concept development, practical applications and assessment. J. Environ.
Peoples, 12, 11–41, doi:10.3167/np.2008.120102. Manage., 195, 16–24, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.043.
Krätli, S., and N. Schareika, 2010: Living off uncertainty: The intelligent Kuzdas, C., A. Wiek, B. Warner, R. Vignola, and R. Morataya, 2015: Integrated
animal production of dryland pastoralists. Eur. J. Dev. Res., 22, 605–622, and participatory analysis of water governance regimes: The case of
doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.41. the Costa Rican dry tropics. World Dev., 66, 254–266, doi:10.1016/j.
Krause, A. et al., 2017: Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy worlddev.2014.08.018.
cultivation on ecosystem service indicators. Biogeosciences, 14, 4829– Kwakkel, J.H., M. Haasnoot, and W.E. Walker, 2016: Comparing robust
4850, doi:10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017. decision-making and dynamic adaptive policy pathways for model-based
Krause, A. et al., 2018: Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land- decision support under deep uncertainty. Environ. Model. Softw., 86,
based climatechange mitigation efforts. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 3025–3038, 168–183, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017.
doi:10.1111/gcb.14144. Kweka, E.J., E.E. Kimaro, and S. Munga, 2016: Effect of deforestation and
Krishnaswamy, J., R. John, and S. Joseph, 2014: Consistent response of land use changes on mosquito productivity and development in Western
vegetation dynamics to recent climate change in tropical mountain Kenya highlands: Implication for malaria risk. Front. public Heal., 4, 238,
regions. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 203–215, doi:10.1111/gcb.12362. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00238.
Kristjanson, P., A. Waters-Bayer, N. Johnson, A. Tipilda, J. Njuki, I. Baltenweck, Laakso, S., A. Berg, and M. Annala, 2017: Dynamics of experimental
D. Grace, and S. MacMillan, 2014: Livestock and women’s livelihoods. governance: A meta-study of functions and uses of climate governance
In: Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap [Quisumbing, experiments. J. Clean. Prod., 169, 8–16, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.140.
A.R., R.  Meinzen-Dick, T.L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J.A. Behrman, Laczko, F., and E. Piguet, 2014: Regional perspectives on migration, the
and A.  Peterman (eds.)]. International Food Policy Research Institute, environment and climate change. In: People on the Move in an Changing
Washington, DC, USA, 209–234 pp. Climate: The Regional Impact of Environmental Change on Migration.
Krug, J.H. A., 2018: Accounting of GHG emissions and removals from forest Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 253.
management: A long road from Kyoto to Paris. Carbon Balance Manag., Lahiff, E., 2015: The great African land grab? Agricultural investments and the
13, 1, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0089-6. global food system. J. Peasant Stud., 42, 239–242, doi:10.1080/0306615
Kuhfuss, L., R. Préget, S. Thoyer, N. Hanley, P. Le Coent, and M. Désolé, 2016: 0.2014.978141.
Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Lal, P.N. et al., 2012: National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate
Land Econ., 92, 641–655, doi:10.3368/le.92.4.641. Extremes and Disasters. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Kullenberg, C., and D. Kasperowski, 2016: What is citizen science? Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of
A  scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11, e0147152, doi:10.1371/ Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
journal.pone.0147152. Change [Field, C.B., Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D.
Kumar Nath, T., T. Kumar Baul, M.M. Rahman, M.T. Islam, and M. Harun- Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M.
Or-Rashid, 2013a: Traditional Biomass Fuel Consumption by Rural Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York,
Households in Degraded Sal (Shorea Robusta) Forest Areas of Bangladesh. NY, USA, 339–392.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Lal, R., 2013: Food security in a changing climate. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol., 13,
3, 537–544 pp. 8–21, doi:10.1016/j.ecohyd.2013.03.006.
Kumpula, T., A. Pajunen, E. Kaarlejärvi, B.C. Forbes, and F. Stammler, 2011: Lam, P.T. I., and A.O. K. Law, 2016: Crowdfunding for renewable and
Land use and land cover change in Arctic Russia: Ecological and social sustainable energy projects: An exploratory case study approach. Renew.
implications of industrial development. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, Sustain. Energy Rev., 60, 11–20, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.046.
550–562, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.010. Lam, Q.D., B. Schmalz, and N. Fohrer, 2011: The impact of agricultural Best
Kundzewicz, Z.W., 2002: Non-structural flood protection and sustainability. Management Practices on water quality in a North German lowland
Water Int., 27, 3–13, doi:10.1080/02508060208686972. catchment. Environ. Monit. Assess., 183, 351–379, doi:10.1007/s10661-
Kunreuther, H., and R. Lyster, 2016: The role of public and private insurance 011-1926-9.
in reducing losses from extreme weather events and disasters. Asia Pacific Lamarque, P., A. Artaux, C. Barnaud, L. Dobremez, B. Nettier, and S. Lavorel,
J. Environ. Law, 19, 29–54. 2013: Taking into account farmers’ decision-making to map fine-scale land
Kunreuther, H., S. Gupta, V. Bosetti, R. Cooke, V. Dutt, M. Ha-Duong, H. Held, management adaptation to climate and socio-economic scenarios. Landsc.
J. Llanes-Regueiro, A. Patt, E. Shittu, and E. Weber, 2014: Integrated Risk Urban Plan., 119, 147–157, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.012.
and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. In: Lambin, E.F. et al., 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change:
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269,
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental doi:10.1016/S0959-3780 (01)00007-3.
Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, Lambin, E.F. et al., 2014: Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments
E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Chang., 28,
B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and 129–140, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2014.06.007.
J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom Lane, C., and R. Moorehead, 1995: New directions in rangeland and resource
and New York, NY, USA. tenure and policy. In: Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral
Kuriakose, A.T., R. Heltberg, W. Wiseman, C. Costella, R. Cipryk, and S. Cornelius, Development in Africa [Scoones, I. (ed.)]. Practical Action Publishing,
2012: Climate-Responsive Social Protection Climate ‐ responsive Social Warwickshire, UK, pp. 116–133.
Protection. Social Protection and Labor Strategy No.1210, World Bank, Lane, C.R., 1998: Custodians of the Commons: Pastoral Land Tenure in East
Washington, DC, USA. and West Africa. Earthscan, London, UK, 238 pp.
Kurian, M., 2017: The water-energy-food nexus: Trade-offs, thresholds and Lane, R., and R. McNaught, 2009: Building gendered approaches to adaptation
transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development. Environ. Sci. in the Pacific. Gend. Dev., 17, 67–80, doi:10.1080/13552070802696920.
Policy, 68, 97–106, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.006. Lange, E., and S. Hehl-Lange, 2011: Citizen participation in the conservation
and use of rural landscapes in Britain: The Alport Valley case study. Landsc. 7
Ecol. Eng., 7, 223–230, doi:10.1007/s11355-010-0115-2.

779
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Langholtz, M. et al., 2014: Climate risk management for the US cellulosic Lele, U., M. Klousia-Marquis, and S. Goswami, 2013: Good Governance for
biofuels supply chain. Clim. Risk Manag., 3, 96–115, doi:10.1016/j. Food, Water and Energy Security. Aquat. Procedia, 1, 44–63, doi:10.1016/j.
crm.2014.05.001. aqpro.2013.07.005.
Larcom, S., and T. van Gevelt, 2017: Regulating the water-energy-food nexus: Lelieveld, J., C. Barlas, D. Giannadaki, and A. Pozzer, 2013: Model calculated
Interdependencies, transaction costs and procedural justice. Environ. Sci. global, regional and megacity premature mortality due to air pollution.
Policy, 72, 55–64, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.003. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 7023–7037, doi:10.5194/acp-13-7023-2013.
Larkin, A., J. Kuriakose, M. Sharmina, and K. Anderson, 2018: What if negative Lemann, A.B., 2018: Stronger than the storm: Disaster law in a defiant age.
emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement Louisiana Law Review, 78, 437–497.
for big emitting nations. Clim. Policy, 18, 690–714, doi:10.1080/146930 Lempert, R., 2013: Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust
62.2017.1346498. responses. Clim. Change, 117, 627–646, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0574-6.
Larsen, P.H. et al., 2008: Estimating future costs for Alaska public Lempert, R.J., and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Robust strategies for abating climate
infrastructure at risk from climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang., 18, 442– change. Clim. Change, 45, 387–401, doi:10.1023/A:1005698407365.
457, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.005. Lenderink, G., and E. van Meijgaard, 2008: Increase in hourly precipitation
Larson, A., and J. Pulhin, 2012: Enhancing forest tenure reforms through extremes beyond expectations from temperaturechanges. Nat. Geosci., 1,
more responsive regulations. Conserv. Soc., 10, 103, doi:10.4103/0972- 511–514, doi:10.1038/ngeo262.
4923.97482. Leonard, S., M. Parsons, K. Olawsky, and F. Kofod, 2013: The role of culture and
Lashley, J.G., and K. Warner, 2015: Evidence of demand for microinsurance traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation: Insights from East
for coping and adaptation to weather extremes in the Caribbean. Clim. Kimberley, Australia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 23, 623–632, doi:10.1016/J.
Change, 133, 101–112, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0922-1. GLOENVCHA.2013.02.012.
Laube, W., B. Schraven, and M. Awo, 2012: Smallholder adaptation to climate Leys, A.J., and J.K. Vanclay, 2011: Social learning: A knowledge and capacity
change: Dynamics and limits in Northern Ghana. Clim. Change, 111, building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes.
753–774, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0199-1. Land Use Policy, 28, 574–584, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.006.
Lavell, A., M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-Wood, Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016a: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review.
and S. Myeong, 2012: Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
Exposure, Vulnerability, and Resilience. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Lilleør, H.B., and K. Van den Broeck, 2011: Economic drivers of migration and
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special climate change in LDCs. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, S70–S81, doi:10.1016/j.
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., gloenvcha.2011.09.002.
V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, Lin, B., and X. Li, 2011: The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions.
K.J.  Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Energy Policy, 39, 5137–5146, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.050.
A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel Lin, Y.-P., D. Deng, W.-C. Lin, R. Lemmens, N.D. Crossman, K. Henle, and
on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, D.S. Schmeller, 2015: Uncertainty analysis of crowd-sourced and professionally
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 25–64. collected field data used in species distribution models of Taiwanese moths.
Lavers, T., 2012: ‘Land grab’ as development strategy? The political economy Biol. Conserv., 181, 102–110, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.11.012.
of agricultural investment in Ethiopia. J. Peasant Stud., 39, 105–132, Lindner, M. et al., 2010: Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and
doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.652091. vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage., 259,
Lawrence, J., R. Bell, P. Blackett, S. Stephens, and S. Allan, 2018: National 698–709, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.023.
guidance for adapting to coastal hazards and sea-level rise: Anticipating Liniger, H., N. Harari, G. van Lynden, R. Fleiner, J. de Leeuw, Z. Bai, and
change, when and how to change pathway. Environ. Sci. Policy, 82, W. Critchley, 2019: Achieving land degradation neutrality: The role of SLM
100–107, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.012. knowledge in evidence-based decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy, 94,
Lawrence, J., R. Bell, and A. Stroombergen, 2019: A hybrid process to 123–134, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.001.
address uncertainty and changing climate risk in coastal areas using Linnerooth-bayer, J., S. Surminski, L.M. Bouwer, I. Noy, and R. Mechler, 2018:
dynamic adaptive pathways planning, multi-criteria decision analysis Insurance as a Response to Loss and Damage? In: Loss and Damage from
andreal options analysis: A New Zealand application. Sustain., 11, 1–18, Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options [Mechler,  R.,
doi:10.3390/su11020406. L.M. Bouwer, T. Schinko, S. Surminski, and J. Linnerooth-bayer (eds.)].
Layke, C., 2009: Measuring Nature’s Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap SpringerInternational Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 483–512.
for Improving Ecosystem Service Indicators. World Resources Institute, Linnerooth-Bayer, J., and S. Hochrainer-Stigler, 2015: Financial instruments for
Washington, DC, USA, 36 pp. disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Clim. Change,
Lazo, J.K., A. Bostrom, R. Morss, J. Demuth, and H. Lazrus, 2014: Communicating 133, 85–100, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1035-6.
hurricane warnings: Factors affecting protective behavior. Conference on Lipper, L. et al., 2014a: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim.
Risk, Perceptions, and Response, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA, Chang., 4, 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.
33 pp. Little, P.D., H. Mahmoud, and D.L. Coppock, 2001: When deserts flood: Risk
Leach, G., 1992: The energy transition. Energy Policy, 20, 116–123, management and climatic processes among East African pastoralists. Clim.
doi:10.1016/0301-4215 (92)90105-B. Res., 19, 149–159, doi:10.3354/cr019149.
Ledec, George C., Rapp, W. Kennan, R.G.Aiello, 2011: Greening the wind: Liu, J. et al., 2017: Challenges in operationalizing the water-energy-food nexus.
Environmental and Social Considerations For Wind Power Development. Hydrol. Sci. J., 62, 1714–1720, doi:10.1080/02626667.2017.1353695.
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 172 pp. Liu, P., and N. Ravenscroft, 2017: Collective action in implementing top-down
Lee, C.M., and M. Lazarus, 2013: Bioenergy projects and sustainable land policy: The case of Chengdu, China. Land Use Policy, 65, 45–52,
development: Which project types offer the greatest benefits? Clim. Dev., doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2017.03.031.
5, 305–317, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.812951. Loaiza, T., U. Nehren, and G. Gerold, 2015: REDD+ and incentives: An analysis
Lee, M. et al., 2013: Public participation and climate change infrastructure. of income generation in forest-dependent communities of the Yasuní
J. Environ. Law, 25, 33–62, doi:10.1093/jel/eqs027. Biosphere Reserve, Ecuador. Appl. Geogr., 62, 225–236, doi:10.1016/J.
7 APGEOG.2015.04.020.

780
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Loaiza, T, M.O. Borja, U. Nehren, and G. Gerold, 2017: Analysis of land Mahul, O., and F. Ghesquiere, 2010: Financial protection of the state against
management and legal arrangements in the Ecuadorian Northeastern natural disasters: A primer. Policy Research working paper No. WPS 5429,
Amazon as preconditions for REDD+ implementation. For. Policy Econ., 83, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 26 pp, doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5429.
19–28, doi:10.1016/J.FORPOL.2017.05.005. Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Senwal, K.S. Rao, and K.G. Saxena, 1997: Rehabilitation
Loarie, S.R., P.B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G.P. Asner, C.B. Field, and D.D. Ackerly, of degraded community lands for sustainable development in Himalaya:
2009: The velocity of climate change. Nature, 462, 1052–1055, A case study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.,
doi:10.1038/nature08649. 4, 192–203, doi:10.1080/13504509709469954.
Lobell, D.B., U.L. C. Baldos, and T.W. Hertel, 2013: Climate adaptation as Majumder, M., 2015: Impact of Urbanization on Water Shortage in Face of
mitigation: The case of agricultural investments. Environ. Res. Lett., Climatic Aberrations. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 98 pp.
8, 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012. Makkonen, M., S. Huttunen, E. Primmer, A. Repo, and M. Hildén, 2015: Policy
Locatelli, B., P. Imbach, and S. Wunder, 2014: Synergies and trade-offs coherence in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach
between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environ. Conserv., 41, 27–36, to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy sources. For. Policy Econ., 50,
doi:10.1017/S0376892913000234 . 153–162, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.003.
Locatelli, B., G. Fedele, V. Fayolle, and A. Baglee, 2016: Synergies between Maldonado, J.K., C. Shearer, R. Bronen, K. Peterson, and H. Lazrus, 2014: The
adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance. Int. J. Clim. Chang. impact of climate change on tribal communities in the US: Displacement,
Strateg. Manag., 8, 112–128, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0088. relocation, and human rights. In: Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples
Lontzek, T.S., Y. Cai, K.L. Judd, and T.M. Lenton, 2015: Stochastic integrated in the United States: Impacts, Experiences and Actions [Maldonado, J.K.,
assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate C. Benedict, R. Pandya (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham,
policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 441–444, doi:10.1038/nclimate2570. Switzerland, 174pp.
Loos, J., A.I. Horcea-Milcu, P. Kirkland, T. Hartel, M. Osváth-Ferencz, and Mallampalli, V.R. et al., 2016: Methods for translating narrative scenarios into
J.  Fischer, 2015: Challenges for biodiversity monitoring using citizen quantitative assessments of land use change. Environ. Model. Softw., 82,
science in transitioning social-ecological systems. J. Nat. Conserv., 26, 7–20, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2016.04.011.
45–48, doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05.001. Malogdos, F.K., and E. Yujuico, 2015a: Reconciling formal and informal
López-i-Gelats, F., E.D. G. Fraser, J.F. Morton, and M.G. Rivera-Ferre, 2016: decision-making on ecotourist infrastructure in Sagada, Philippines.
What drives the vulnerability of pastoralists to global environmental J. Sustain. Tour., doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1049608.
change? A qualitative meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang., 39, 258–274, von Maltitz, G.P. et al., 2018: Institutional arrangements of outgrower
doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.05.011. sugarcane production in southern Africa. Dev. South. Afr., 36, 175–197,
Lotze-Campen, H., and A. Popp, 2012: Agricultural adaptation options: doi:10.1080/0376835X.2018.1527215.
Production technology, insurance, trade. In: Climate Change, Justice and Maltsoglou, I. et al., 2014: Combining bioenergy and food security:
Sustainability [Edenhofer, O., J. Wallacher, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Reder, An approach and rapid appraisal to guide bioenergy policy formulation.
B. Knopf (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 171–178. Biomass and Bioenergy, 79, 80–95, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.007.
Louhaichi, M., and A. Tastad, 2010: The Syrian Steppe: Past trends, current Manning, P., G. Taylor, and M.E. Hanley, 2015: Bioenergy, food production
status, and future priorities. Rangelands, 32, 2–7, doi:10.2307/40588043. and biodiversity – An unlikely alliance? GCB Bioenergy, 7, 570–576,
Lubis, R.F., R. Delinom, S. Martosuparno, and H. Bakti, 2018: Water-food nexus doi:10.1111/gcbb.12173.
in Citarum Watershed, Indonesia. Earth Environ. Sci., 118, 012023, IOP Mantel, S.K., D.A. Hughes, and N.W. J. Muller, 2010: Ecological impacts of
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, doi:10.1088/1755- small dams on South African rivers part 1: Drivers of change-water quantity
1315/118/1/012023. and quality. Water Sa, 36, 351–360.
Luderer, G., R.C. Pietzcker, C. Bertram, E. Kriegler, M. Meinshausen, and Mapfumo, P., F. Mtambanengwe, and R. Chikowo, 2016: Building on
O.  Edenhofer, 2013: Economic mitigation challenges: How further delay indigenous knowledge to strengthen the capacity of smallholder farming
closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environmental Research communities to adapt to climate change and variability in southern Africa.
Letters, 8, 3, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033. Clim. Dev., 8, 72–82, doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.998604.
Lundmark, T. et al., 2014: Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context Mapfumo, P. et al., 2017: Pathways to transformational change in the face of
of climate change mitigation. Forests, 5, 557–578, doi:10.3390/f5040557. climate impacts: An analytical framework. Clim. Dev., 9, 439–451, doi:10.1
Lunt, T., A.W. Jones, W.S. Mulhern, D.P. M. Lezaks, and M.M. Jahn, 2016: 080/17565529.2015.1040365.
Vulnerabilities to agricultural production shocks: An extreme, plausible Maraseni, T.N., and T. Cadman, 2015: A comparative analysis of global
scenario for assessment of risk for the insurance sector. Clim. Risk Manag., stakeholders’ perceptions of the governance quality of the clean
13, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2016.05.001. development mechanism (CDM) and reducing emissions from
Lybbert, T.J., and D.A. Sumner, 2012: Agricultural technologies for deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Int. J. Environ. Stud., 72,
climate change in developing countries: Policy options for innovation 288–304, doi:10.1080/00207233.2014.993569.
and technology diffusion. Food Policy, 37, 114–123, doi:10.1016/j. Marcacci, S., 2018: India Coal Power is About to Crash: 65% of Existing
foodpol.2011.11.001. Coal Costs More Than New Wind and Solar. Forbes Energy Innovation,
Lynch, A.J. et al., 2016: The social, economic, and environmental importance www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/01/30/india-coal-power-
of inland fish and fisheries. Environ. Rev., 24, 115–121, doi:10.1139/er- is-about-to-crash-65-of-existing-coal-costs-more-than-new-wind-and-
2015-0064 . solar/#68419e4c0fab.
MacGregor, S., 2010: ‘Gender and climate change’: From impacts to discourses. Marchand, P. et al., 2016: Reserves and trade jointly determine exposure
J. Indian Ocean Reg., 6, 223–238, doi:10.1080/19480881.2010.536669. to food supply shocks. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 1–11, doi:10.1088/1748-
Macintosh, A.K., 2012: LULUCF in the post-2012 regime: Fixing the problems of 9326/11/9/095009.
the past? Clim. Policy, 12, 341–355, doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.605711. Marjanac, S., L. Patton, and J. Thornton, 2017: Acts of god, human infuence
Magnan, A., 2014: Avoiding maladaptation to climate change: Towards and litigation. Nat. Geosci., 10, 616–619, doi:10.1038/ngeo3019.
guiding principles. S.A.P.I.E.N.S., 7, 1–11. Markusson, N., D. McLaren, and D. Tyfield, 2018a: Towards a cultural political
Magnan, A.K. et al., 2016: Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies
change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 646–665, doi:10.1002/ (NETs). Glob. Sustain., 1, e10, doi:10.1017/sus.2018.10. 7
wcc.409.

781
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Marshall, N., S. Park, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, and S. Howden, 2012: McGrath, D.G., F. de Castro, C. Futemma, B.D. de Amaral, and J. Calabria, 1993:
Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environ. Fisheries and the evolution of resource management on the lower Amazon
Res. Lett., 7, 1–9, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034022. floodplain. Hum. Ecol., 21, 167–195, doi:10.1007/BF00889358.
Martin, D.R., and K.L. Pope, 2011: Luring anglers to enhance fisheries. McIntosh, C., A. Sarris, and F. Papadopoulos, 2013: Productivity, credit, risk,
J. Environ. Manage., 92, 1409–1413, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.002. and the demand for weather index insurance in smallholder agriculture
St. Martin, K., 2009: Toward a cartography of the commons: Constituting the in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. (United Kingdom), 44, 399–417, doi:10.1111/
political and economic possibilities of place. Prof. Geogr., 61, 493–507, agec.12024.
doi:10.1080/00330120903143482. McKinley, D.C. et al., 2017: Citizen science can improve conservation science,
Martin Persson, U., 2015: The impact of biofuel demand on agricultural natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol.
commodity prices: A systematic review. Wires Energy and Environment, Conserv., 208, 15–28, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015.
4, 410–428, doi:10.1002/wene.155. McKinnon, A., 2010: Green logistics: The carbon agenda. Electron. Sci.
Martinez, G., E. Williams, and S. Yu, 2015: The economics of health damage J. Logist., 6, 1–9.
and adaptation to climate change in Europe: A review of the conventional McLeman, R.A. (ed.), 2013: Climate and Human Migration: Past Experiences,
and grey literature. Climate, 3, 522–541, doi:10.3390/cli3030522. Future Challenges. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New
Martins, M. et al., 2012: Impact of remobilized contaminants in Mytilus York, NY, USA, doi:10.1017/CBO9781139136938.
edulis during dredging operations in a harbour area: Bioaccumulation and McMichael, A.J., R.E. Woodruff, and S. Hales, 2006: Climate change and human
biomarker responses. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 85, 96–103, doi:10.1016/j. health: Present and future risks. Lancet, 367, 859–869, doi:10.1016/
ecoenv.2012.08.008. S0140-6736 (06)68079-3.
Masera, O.R., R. Bailis, R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and I. Ruiz-Mercado, 2015: McNicol, I.M., C.M. Ryan, and E.T. A. Mitchard, 2018a: Carbon losses from
Environmental burden of traditional bioenergy use. Annu. Rev. Environ. deforestation and widespread degradation offset by extensive growth
Resour., 40, 121–150, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021318. in African woodlands. Nat. Commun., 9, 3045, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-
Mathy, S., and O. Blanchard, 2016: Proposal for a poverty-adaptation- 05386-z.
mitigation window within the Green Climate Fund. Clim. Policy, 16, McSweeney, K., and O.T. Coomes, 2011: Climate-related disaster opens
752–767, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1050348. a window of opportunity for rural poor in north-eastern Honduras. Proc.
Matthies, B.D., T. Kalliokoski, T. Ekholm, H.F. Hoen, and L.T. Valsta, 2015: Risk, Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 5203–5208, doi:10.1073/pnas.1014123108.
reward, and payments for ecosystem services: A portfolio approach to Measham, T.G., 2011: Adapting to climate change through local municipal
ecosystem services and forestland investment. Ecosyst. Serv., 16, 1–12, planning: Barriers and challenges. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 16,
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.006. 889–909, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2.
Maxwell, D., and K. Wiebe, 1999: Land tenure and food security: Exploring Mechler, R. et al., 2014: Managing unnatural disaster risk from climate
dynamic linkages. Dev. Change, 30, 825–849, doi:10.1111/1467- extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 235–237, doi:10.1038/nclimate2137.
7660.00139. Mehta, L., G.J. Veldwisch, and J. Franco, 2012: Introduction to the special
Maynard, T., 2015: Food System Shock: The Insurance Impacts of Acute issue: Water grabbing? Focus on the (re)appropriation of finite water
Disruption to Global Food Supply. Lloyd’s Emerging Risk Report. Lloyd’s, resources. Water Altern., 5, 193–207.
London, UK, 27 pp. Meijer, S.S., D. Catacutan, O.C. Ajayi, G.W. Sileshi, and M. Nieuwenhuis,
Mayor, B., E. López-Gunn, F.I. Villarroya, and E. Montero, 2015: Application of 2015: The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of
a water-energy-food nexus framework for the Duero river basin in Spain. agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in
Water Int., 40, 791–808, doi:10.1080/02508060.2015.1071512. Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., doi:10.1080/14735903.2014.9
Maystadt, J.F., and O. Ecker, 2014: Extreme weather and civil war: Does 12493.
drought fuel conflict in Somalia through livestock price shocks? Am. J. van Meijl, H. et al., 2018a: Comparing impacts of climate change and
Agric. Econ., 96, 1157–1182, doi:10.1093/ajae/aau010. mitigation on global agriculture by 2050. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 064021,
McCall, M.K., and C.E. Dunn, 2012: Geo-information tools for participatory doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabdc4.
spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum, Meinzen-dick, R. et al., 2010: Engendering Agricultural Research. IFPRI
43, 81–94, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007. Disscussion Pap. 973, 72, International Food Policy Research Institute, 63 pp.
McCarter, J., M.C. Gavin, S. Baereleo, and M. Love, 2014: The challenges Mekonnen, M.M., and A.Y. Hoekstra, 2016: Sustainability: Four billion
of maintaining indigenous ecological knowledge. Ecol. Soc., 19, art39, people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv., 2, e1500323, doi:10.1126/
doi:10.5751/ES-06741-190339. sciadv.1500323.
McClean, C., R. Whiteley, and N.M. Hayes, 2010: ISO 31000 — The New, Meli, P. et al., 2017: A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs.
Streamlined Risk Management Standard. Forrester Research Inc, passive restoration effects on forest recovery. PLoS One, 12, e0171368,
Cambridge, USA, 1–4 pp. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171368.
McClelland, S.C., C. Arndt, D.R. Gordon, and G. Thoma, 2018: Type and Mello, D., and M. Schmink, 2017a: Amazon entrepreneurs: Women’s economic
number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle empowerment and the potential for more sustainable land use practices.
assessment: A systematic review. Livest. Sci., 209, 39–45, doi:10.1016/j. Womens. Stud. Int. Forum, 65, 28–36, doi:10.1016/J.WSIF.2016.11.008.
livsci.2018.01.008. Mello, F.F. C. et al., 2014: Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol.
McCollum, D.L. et al., 2018: Connecting the sustainable development Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 605–609, doi:10.1038/nclimate2239.
goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 033006, Melvin, A.M. et al., 2017: Climate change damages to Alaska public
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3. infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Mcdermott, C.L., L.C. Irland, and P. Pacheco, 2015: Forest certification and Sci., 114, E122-E131, doi:10.1073/pnas.1611056113.
legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for effective and Menz, M.H. M., K.W. Dixon, and R.J. Hobbs, 2013: Hurdles and opportunities
equitable forest governance. For. Policy Econ., 50, 134–142, doi:10.1016/j. for landscape-scale restoration. Science, 339, 526–527, doi:10.1126/
forpol.2014.05.011. science.1228334.
McDowell, N.G., and C.D. Allen, 2015a: Darcy’s law predicts widespread Mersha, A.A., and F. Van Laerhoven, 2016: A gender approach to
7 forest mortality under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 669–672, understanding the differentiated impact of barriers to adaptation:
doi:10.1038/nclimate2641.

782
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Responses to climate change in rural Ethiopia. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry, and N.D. Tribal Affairs,
1701–1713, doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0921-z. Government of India, 2010: Manthan: Report of the National Committee
Messerli, P., M. Giger, M.B. Dwyer, T. Breu, and S. Eckert, 2014a: The on Forest Rights Act. New Delhi, India, 284 pp.
geography of large-scale land acquisitions: Analysing socio-ecological Mistry, J., and A. Berardi, 2016: Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge.
patterns of target contexts in the Global South. Appl. Geogr., 53, 449–459, Science, 352, 1274–1275, doi:10.1126/science.aaf1160.
doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.07.005. Mitchell, D., 2010: Land tenure and disaster risk management. L. Tenure
Metternicht, G. (ed.), 2018: Contributions of Land Use Planning to Sustainable J., 1, 121–141.
Land Use and Management. SpringerInternational Publishing, Cham, Mitchell, D., S. Enemark, and P. van der Molen, 2015: Climate resilient urban
Switzerland, 35–51 pp. development: Why responsible land governance is important. Land Use
Meyer, M.A., and J.A. Priess, 2014: Indicators of bioenergy-related certification Policy, 48, 190–198, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.05.026.
schemes – An analysis of the quality and comprehensiveness for assessing Miteva, D.A., C.J. Loucks, and S.K. Pattanayak, 2015: Social and environmental
local/regional environmental impacts. Biomass and Bioenergy, 65, 151– impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PLoS One, 10,
169, doi:10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2014.03.041. e0129675, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129675.
Meyfroidt, P., E.F. Lambin, K.H. Erb, and T.W. Hertel, 2013: Globalization of Mobarak, A.M., and M.R. Rosenzweig, 2013: Informal risk sharing, index
land use: Distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement insurance, and risk taking in developing countries. American Economic
of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 438–444, doi:10.1016/j. Review, 103, 375–380, doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.375.
cosust.2013.04.003. Mochizuki, J., S. Vitoontus, B. Wickramarachchi, S. Hochrainer-Stigler,
Michaelowa, K., and A. Michaelowa, 2017: Transnational climate governance K.  Williges, R. Mechler, and R. Sovann, 2015: Operationalizing iterative
initiatives: Designed for effective climate change mitigation? Int. Interact., risk management under limited information: Fiscal and economic risks
43, 129–155, doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1256110. due to natural disasters in Cambodia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 6, 321–334,
Michel-Kerjan, E., 2011: Catastrophe Financing for Governments: Learning doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0069-y.
from the 2009–2012 MultiCat Program in Mexico. Press release, World Mohapatra, S., 2013: Displacement due to climate change and international
Bank, Washington, DC, USA, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press- law. Int. J. Manag. Soc. Sci. Res. 2, 1–8.
release/2012/10/12/mexico-launches-second-catastrophe-bond-to- Mohmmed, A. et al., 2018: Assessing drought vulnerability and adaptation
provide-coverage-against-earthquakes-and-hurricanes. among farmers in Gadaref region, Eastern Sudan. Land Use Policy, 70,
Middleton, N., U. Kang, N. Middleton, and U. Kang, 2017: Sand and dust 402–413, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.027.
storms: Impact mitigation. Sustainability, 9, 1053, doi:10.3390/su9061053. Mohr, A., T. Beuchelt, R. El Schneider, and D. Virchow, 2016: Food security criteria
Milder, J.C. et al., 2015: An agenda for assessing and improving conservation for voluntary biomass sustainability standards and certifications. Biomass
impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Biol., and Bioenergy, 89, 133–145, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.019.
29, 309–320, doi:10.1111/cobi.12411. van der Molen, P., and D. Mitchell, 2016: Climate change, land use and
Milkoreit, M., M.L. Moore, M. Schoon, and C.L. Meek, 2015: Resilience land surveyors. Surv. Rev., 48, 148–155, doi:10.1179/175227061
scientists as change-makers – Growing the middle ground between 5Y.0000000029.
science and advocacy? Environ. Sci. Policy, 53, 87–95, doi:10.1016/j. Mollenkamp, S., and B. Kasten, 2009: Institutional Adaptation to Climate
envsci.2014.08.003. Change: The Current Status and Future Strategies in the Elbe Basin,
Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens, 2007: Climate change and Germany. In: Climate Change Adaptation in the Water Sector [Ludwig, F.,
forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl., 17, P. Kabat, H. Van Schaik, M. Michael Van Der Valk (eds.)]. Earthscan, London,
2145–2151, doi:10.1890/06-1715.1. UK, pp. 227–249.
Miller, L., R. Carriveau, and S. Harper, 2018: Innovative financing for renewable Monchuk, V., 2014: Reducing Poverty and Investing in People: The New Role
energy project development – Recent case studies in North America. Int. of Safety Nets in Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 20 pp.
J. Environ. Stud., 75, 121–134, doi:10.1080/00207233.2017.1403758. Monkelbaan, J., 2019: Governance for the Sustainable Development Goals:
Millo, G., 2016: The Income Elasticity of Nonlife Insurance: A Reassessment. Exploring an Integrative Framework of Theories, Tools, and Competencies.
J. Risk Insur., 83, 335–362, doi:10.1111/jori.12051. Springer Singapore, XXI, 214 pp.
Milton, S.J., W.R. J. Dean, and D.M. Richardson, 2003: Economic incentives for Montaña, E., H.P. Diaz, and M. Hurlbert, 2016: Development, local livelihoods,
restoring natural capital in southern African rangelands. Front. Ecol. Environ., and vulnerabilities to global environmental change in the South American
1, 247–254, doi:10.1890/1540-9295 (2003)001[0247:EIFRNC]2.0.CO; 2. Dry Andes. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, 2215–2228, doi:10.1007/s10113-
Mimura, N., R.S. Pulwarty, D.M. Duc, I. Elshinnawy, M.H. Redsteer, H.Q. Huang, 015-0888-9.
J.N. Nkem, and R.A. Sanchez, Rodriguez, 2014: Adaptation Planning and Montanarella, L., 2015: The importance of land restoration for achieving
Implementation. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and a land degradation-neutral world. In: Land Restoration: Reclaiming
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Landscapes for a Sustainable Future [Chabay, I., M. Frick, and J. Helgeson
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel (eds.)]. Academic Press, Elsevier, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 249–258.
on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Monterrosso, I., P. Cronkleton, D. Pinedo, and A. Larson, 2017: Reclaiming
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, Collective Rights: Land and Forest Tenure Reforms in Peru (1960–2016).
B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. CIFOR Working Paper no. 224, Center for International Forestry Research
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, 31 pp.
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 869–898. Moore, C.T., E.V. Lonsdorf, M.G. Knutson, H.P. Laskowski, and S.K. Lor, 2011:
Minang, P.A. et al., 2014: REDD+ readiness progress across countries: Time Adaptive management in the US National Wildlife Refuge System: Science-
for reconsideration. Clim. Policy, 14, 685–708, doi:10.1080/14693062.20 management partnerships for conservation delivery. J. Environ. Manage.,
14.905822. 92, 1395–1402, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.065.
Mini, C., T.S. Hogue, and S. Pincetl, 2015: The effectiveness of water Moore, F.C., and D.B. Diaz, 2015: Temperature impacts on economic
conservation measures on summer residential water use in Los Angeles, growth warrant stringent mitigation policy. 5, 127–132, doi:10.1038/
California. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 94, 136–145, doi:10.1016/j. NCLIMATE2481.
resconrec.2014.10.005. 7

783
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Moosa, C.S., and N. Tuana, 2014: Mapping a research agenda concerning Munene, M.B., Å.G. Swartling, and F. Thomalla, 2018: Adaptive governance
gender and climate change: A review of the literature. Hypatia, 29, as a catalyst for transforming the relationship between development and
677–694, doi:10.1111/hypa.12085. disaster risk through the Sendai Framework? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.,
Moran, D. et al., 2010: Marginal abatement cost curves for UK agricultural 28, 653–663, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.021.
greenhouse gas emissions. J. Agric. Econ., 62, 93–118, doi:10.1111/j.1477- Munthali, K., and Y. Murayama, 2013: Interdependences between smallholder
9552.2010.00268.x . farming and environmental management in rural Malawi: A case of
Morita, K., and K. Matsumoto, 2018: Synergies among climate change and agriculture-induced environmental degradation in Malingunde Extension
biodiversity conservation measures and policies in the forest sector: Planning Area (EPA). Land, 2, 158–175, doi:10.3390/land2020158.
A case study of Southeast Asian countries. For. Policy Econ., 87, 59–69, Muradian, R., and L. Rival, 2012: Between markets and hierarchies: The
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.013. challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv., 1, 93–100,
Moroni, S., 2018: Property as a human right and property as a special title. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009.
Rediscussing private ownership of land. Land Use Policy, 70, 273–280, Muratori, M., K. Calvin, M. Wise, P. Kyle, and J. Edmonds, 2016: Global economic
doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2017.10.037. consequences of deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Morton, J.F., 2017: Climate change and African agriculture: Unlocking the (BECCS). Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 1–9, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095004.
potential of research and advisory services. Making Climate Compatible Murphy, K., G.A. Kirkman, S. Seres, and E. Haites, 2015: Technology transfer
Development Happen [Nunan, F., (ed.)]. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 87–113. in the CDM: An updated analysis. Clim. Policy, 15, 127–145, doi:10.1080/
Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and 14693062.2013.812719.
subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. A., 104, 19680–19685, Murthy, I.K., V. Varghese, P. Kumar, and S. Sridhar, 2018a: Experience of
doi:10.1073/pnas.0701855104. participatory forest management in India: Lessons for governance and
Mostert, E., C. Pahl-Wostl, Y. Rees, B. Searle, D. Tàbara, and J. Tippett, 2007: institutional arrangements under REDD+. In: Global Forest Governance
Social learning in European river-basin management: Barriers and fostering and Climate Change [Nuesiri, E.O. (ed.)]. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham,
mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecol. Soc., 12, ART. 19, doi:10.5751/ES- Switzerland, 175–201, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71946-7.
01960-120119. Mustalahti, I., and O.S. Rakotonarivo, 2014: REDD+ and empowered
Mowo, J., Z. Adimassu, D. Catacutan, J. Tanui, K. Masuki, and C. Lyamchai, deliberative democracy: Learning from Tanzania. World Dev., 59, 199–211,
2013: The importance of local traditional institutions in the management doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.022.
of natural resources in the highlands of East Africa. Hum. Organ., 72, Naeem, S. et al., 2015: Get the science right when paying for nature’s services.
154–163, doi:10.17730/humo.72.2.e1x3101741127x35. Science, 347, 1206–1207, doi:10.1126/science.aaa1403.
Mozumder, P., R. Helton, and R.P. Berrens, 2009: Provision of a wildfire risk Naess, L.O., 2013: The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate
map: Informing residents in the wildland urban interface. Risk Anal. An Int. change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Chang., 4, 99–106, doi:10.1002/Wcc.204.
J., 29, 1588–1600, doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01289.x. Nagel, L.M. et al., 2017: Adaptive silviculture for climate change: A national
Mozumder, P., E. Flugman, and T. Randhir, 2011: Adaptation behavior in experiment in manager-scientist partnerships to apply an adaptation
the face of global climate change: Survey responses from experts and framework. J. For., 115, 167–178, doi:10.5849/jof.16-039.
decision makers serving the Florida Keys. Ocean Coast. Manag., 54, 37–44, Nagendra, H., and E. Ostrom, 2012: Polycentric governance of multifunctional
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.008. forested landscapes. Int. J. Commons, 6, 104–133, doi:10.18352/ijc.321.
Mubaya, C.P., and P. Mafongoya, 2017: The role of institutions in managing Naicker, P., 2011: The impact of climate change and other factors on zoonotic
local level climate change adaptation in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Clim. Risk diseases. Arch. Clin. Microbiol., 2, 1–6, doi:10:3823/226.
Manag., 16, 93–105, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.003. Nakashima, D., K.G. McLean, H.D. Thulstrup, A.R. Castillo, and J.T. Rubis,
Mudombi, S. et al., 2018a: Multi-dimensional poverty effects around 2013: Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change
operational biofuel projects in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. Assessment and Adaptation. UNESCO, Paris, France, and UNU, Darwin,
Biomass and Bioenergy, 114, 41–54, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.09.003. Australia, 120 pp.
Mudombi, S et al., 2018c: User perceptions about the adoption and use of Nakhooda, S., C. Watson, and L. Schalatek, 2016: The Global Climate Finance
ethanol fuel and cookstoves in Maputo, Mozambique. Energy Sustain. Architecture. Clim. Financ. Fundam., 5, Heinrich Boll Stiftung North
Dev., 44, 97–108, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2018.03.004. America and Overseas Development Institute, Washington DC, USA and
Mukherjee, N. et al., 2015: The Delphi technique in ecology and biological London, UK, 5 pp.
conservation: Applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol., 6, 1097– Nalau, J., and J. Handmer, 2015: When is transformation a viable
1109, doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12387. policy alternative? Environ. Sci. Policy, 54, 349–356, doi:10.1016/j.
Mukhtarov, F., P. Osseweijer, and R. Pierce, Global governance of biofuels: envsci.2015.07.022.
A case for public-private governance? Bio-based and Applied Economics, Namubiru-Mwaura, E., 2014a: Land Tenure and Gender: Approaches and
3, 285–294, doi:10.13128/BAE-14767. Challenges for Strengthening Rural Women’s Land Rights. Women’s Voice,
Müller, A. et al., 2015: IASS Working Paper The Role of Biomass in the Agency, and Participation Research Series No. 6., World Bank Group,
Sustainable Development Goals: A Reality Check and Governance Washington, DC, USA, 32 pp.
Implications. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Nanda, A.V., J. Rijke, L. Beesley, B. Gersonius, M.R. Hipsey, and A. Ghadouani,
Germany, 35 pp. 2018: Matching ecosystem functions with adaptive ecosystem
Muller, C., and H. Yan, 2018: Household fuel use in developing countries: management : Decision pathways to overcome institutional barriers.
Review of theory and evidence. Energy Econ., 70, 429–439, doi:10.1016/j. Water, 10, 672, doi:10.3390/w10060672.
eneco.2018.01.024. Narassimhan, E. et al., 2018: Carbon pricing in practice: A review of existing
Müller, C. et al., 2013: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the emissions trading systems. Climate Policy, 18, 967–9913062, doi:10.1080
21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. /14693062.2018.1467827.
Acad. Sci., 9, 3268–3273, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110. Nawrotzki, R.J., and M. Bakhtsiyarava, 2017: International climate migration:
Munang, R., I. Thiaw, K. Alverson, M. Mumba, J. Liu, and M. Rivington, 2013: Evidence for the Climate Inhibitor Mechanism and the agricultural
Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation: A new pragmatic pathway. Popul. Space Place, 23, e2033, doi:10.1002/psp.2033.
7 approach to buffering climate change impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain., 5, 67–71, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001.

784
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Nawrotzki, R.J., A.M. Schlak, and T.A. Kugler, 2016: Climate, migration, and and human needs of rivers remains one of the most important
the local food security context: Introducing Terra Populus. Popul. Environ., questions of our time. AIBS Bull., 50, 783–792, doi:10.1641/0006-3568
38, 164–184, doi:10.1007/s11111-016-0260-0. (2000)050[0783:AORECB]2.0.CO; 2.
Nayak, R.R., S. Vaidyanathan, and J. Krishnaswamy, 2014: Fire and grazing Nilsson, M., and Å. Persson, 2012: Can Earth System interactions be
modify grass community response to environmental determinants in governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation
savannas: Implications for sustainable use. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 185, with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection. Ecol. Econ., 75,
197–207, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.002. 61–71, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2011.12.015.
Ndegwa, G.M., U. Nehren, F. Grüninger, M. Iiyama, and D. Anhuf, 2016: Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, and M. Visback, 2016a: Map the interactions
Charcoal production through selective logging leads to degradation of between sustainable development Goa. Nature, 534, 320–322,
dry woodlands: A case study from Mutomo District, Kenya. J. Arid Land, doi:10.1038/534320a.
8, 618–631, doi:10.1007/s40333-016-0124-6. Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, and M. Visbeck, 2016b: Map the interactions
Nelson, G.C., V. Harris, and S.W. Stone, 2001: Deforestation, land use, and between sustainable development goals. Nature, 534, 320–323,
property rights: Empirical evidence from Darien, Panama. Land Econ., 77, doi:10.1038/534320a.
187, doi:10.2307/3147089. Niño-Zarazúa, M., A. Barrientos, S. Hickey, and D. Hulme, 2012: Social
Nelson, R., M. Howden, and M.S. Smith, 2008: Using adaptive governance to protection in Sub-Saharan Africa: Getting the politics right. World Dev., 40,
rethink the way science supports Australian drought policy. Environ. Sci. 163–176, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.004.
Policy, 11, 588–601, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.06.005. Nischalke, S.M., 2015: Adaptation options adaptation options to improve
Nelson, R. et al., 2010: The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to food security in a changing climate in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region.
climate variability and change: Part II – Integrating impacts with adaptive Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, Springer Berlin, Berlin, Germany,
capacity. Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 18–27, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.09.007. 1423–1442.
Nepstad, D. et al., 2006: Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks Njenga, M., and R. Mendum, 2018: Recovering Bioenergy in Sub-Saharan
and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol., 20, 65–73, doi:10.1111/j.1523- Africa: Gender Dimensions, Lessons and Challenges. International Water
1739.2006.00351.x. Management Institute (IWMI), CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land
Nepstad, D.C., C.M. Stickler, B. Soares-Filho, and F. Merry, 2008: Interactions and Ecosystems (WLE), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 96 pp, doi:10.5337/2018.226.
among Amazon land use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near- Nkengasong, J.N., and P. Onyebujoh, 2018: Response to the Ebola virus
term forest tipping point. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B. Biol. Sci., 363, disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lancet, 391,
1737–1746, doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0036. 2395–2398, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (18)31326-6.
Neufeldt, H. et al., 2013: Beyond climate-smart agriculture: Toward safe Nkoana, E.M., T. Waas, A. Verbruggen, C.J. Burman, and J. Hugé, 2017:
operating spaces for global food systems. Agric. Food Secur., 2, 1–6, Analytic framework for assessing participation processes and outcomes
doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-12. of climate change adaptation tools. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 19, 1731–1760,
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2018: New Zealand’s Greenhouse doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9825-4.
Gas Inventory 1990–2016. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Nkonya, E., J. von Braun, A. Mirzabaev, Q.B. Le, H.Y. Kwon, and O. Kirui, 2013:
Wellington, New Zealand, 497 pp. Economics of Land Degradation Initiative: Methods and Approach for
New Zealand Productivity Commission, 2018: Low-Emissions Economy: Global and National Assessments. ZEF – Discussion Papers on Development
Final Report. New Zealand Productivity Commission, Wellington, New Policy No. 183, Bonn, Germany, 41 pp, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2343636.
Zealand, 588 pp. Nkonya, E., T. Johnson, H.Y. Kwon, and E. Kato, 2015: Economics of land
Newell, P., and O. Taylor, 2017: Contested landscapes: The global political degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Economics of Land Degradation
economy of climate-smart agriculture. J. Peasant Stud., 45, 108–129, and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development
doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1324426. [Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, J. von Braun (eds.)]. Springer International
Newig, J., D. Gunther, and C. Pahl-Wostl, 2010: Synapses in the network: Publishing, Cham, Switzerland,  pp. 215–259, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
Learning in governance networks in the context of environmental 19168-3.
management. Ecol. Soc., 15, 24, 1–16. Nkonya, E. et al., 2016: Global cost of land degradation. In: Economics
Newton, A.C., 2016: Biodiversity risks of adopting resilience as a policy goal. of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for
Conserv. Lett., 9, 369–376, doi:10.1111/conl.12227. Sustainable Development [Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, and J. Von Braun
Newton, P. et al., 2018: The role of zero-deforestation commitments in (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 117–165,
protecting and enhancing rural livelihoods. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3_6.
32, 126–133, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.023. Nolte, K., W. Chamberlain, and M. Giger, 2016: International Land Deals
Nguyen, T., and J. Lindenmeier, 2014: Catastrophe risks, cat bonds and for Agriculture. Fresh Insights from the Land Matrix: Analytical Report
innovation resistance. Qual. Res. Financ. Mark., 6, 75–92, doi:10.1108/ II. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Centre
QRFM-06-2012-0020. de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le
Nicholls, R.J., and A. Cazenave, 2010: Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal développement, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, University of
zones. Science, 328, 1517–1520, doi:10.1126/science.1185782. Pretoria, Bern Open Publishing, Germany, doi:10.7892/boris.85304, 56 pp.
Nieto-Romero, M., A. Milcu, J. Leventon, F. Mikulcak, and J. Fischer, 2016: The Nordhaus, W., 2014: Estimates of the social cost of carbon: Concepts and
role of scenarios in fostering collective action for sustainable development: results from the DICE-2013R model and alternative approaches. J. Assoc.
Lessons from central Romania. Land Use Policy, 50, 156–168, doi:10.1016/J. Environ. Resour. Econ., 1, 273–312, doi:10.1086/676035.
LANDUSEPOL.2015.09.013. Nordhaus, W.D., 1999: Roll the DICE Again: The economics of global warming.
Nikolakis, W., S. Akter, and H. Nelson, 2016: The effect of communication Draft Version, 28, 1999, 79 pp.
on individual preferences for common property resources: A case study Norström, A. et al., 2014: Three necessary conditions for establishing effective
of two Canadian First Nations. Land Use Policy, 58, 70–82, doi:10.1016/J. Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Soc., 19, Art. 8,
LANDUSEPOL.2016.07.007. doi:10.5751/ES-06602-190308.
Nilsson, C., and K. Berggren, 2000: Alterations of Riparian Ecosystems caused North, D., 1991: Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect., 5, 97–112, doi:10.1257/
by river regulation: Dam operations have caused global-scale ecological jep.5.1.97. 7
changes in riparian ecosystems. How to protect river environments

785
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Northrup, J.M., and G. Wittemyer, 2013: Characterising the impacts of Wildlife Fund and Conservation International Foundation, Washington, DC,
emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. USA, doi:10.13140/2.1.2987.0083, 92 pp.
Ecol. Lett., 16, 112–125, doi:10.1111/ele.12009. Ojea, E., 2015: Challenges for mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation
Nugent, R. et al., 2018: Investing in non-communicable disease prevention into the international climate agenda. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14,
and management to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. The 41–48, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.006.
Lancet, 391, 2029–2035, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (18)30667-6. Oke, T.R., G. Mills, A. Christen, and J.A. Voogt, 2017: Urban climates.
Nuhoff-Isakhanyan, G., E. Wubben, and S.W. F. Omta, 2016: Sustainability Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA,
benefits and challenges of inter-organizational collaboration in bio- doi:10.1017/9781139016476, 526 pp.
based business: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 8, 307, Oladele, S.O., A.J. Adeyemo, and M.A. Awodun, 2019: Influence of rice husk
doi:10.3390/su8040307. biochar and inorganic fertilizer on soil nutrients availability and rain-fed
Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha, 2007: The value of indigenous rice yield in two contrasting soils. Geoderma, 336, 1–11, doi:10.1016/J.
knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in GEODERMA.2018.08.025.
the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 12, 787–797, Oliveira Júnior, J.G. C., R.J. Ladle, R. Correia, and V.S. Batista, 2016: Measuring
doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0. what matters – Identifying indicators of success for Brazilian marine
Nyström, M. et al., 2012: Confronting feedbacks of degraded marine protected areas. Mar. Policy, 74, 91–98, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.018.
ecosystems. Ecosystems, 15, 695–710, doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9530-6. Oliver, D.M., R.D. Fish, M. Winter, C.J. Hodgson, A.L. Heathwaite, and D.R.
IPCC, 2012: Toward a sustainable and resilient future. Managing the Risks Chadwick, 2012: Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data:
of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation Farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environ.
[Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Model. Softw., 36, 76–85, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2011.09.013.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Olsson, A., S. Grönkvist, M. Lind, and J. Yan, 2016: The elephant in the room –
Midgley (eds.)]., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New A comparative study of uncertainties in carbon offsets. Environmental
York, NY, USA, 437–486 pp. Science & Policy, 56, 32–38, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.004.
O’Brien, C.O. et al., 2018: Shock-Responsive Social Protection Systems Olsson, L., M. Opondo, P. Tschakert, A. Agrawal, S.H. Eriksen, S. Ma, L.N. Perch,
Research Synthesis Report. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, UK, 89 pp. and S.A. Zakieldeen, 2014: Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Climate Change
O’Hare, P., I. White, and A. Connelly, 2016: Insurance as maladaptation: 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Resilience and the ‘business as usual’ paradox. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report
34, 1175–1193, doi:10.1177/0263774X15602022. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2017a: IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,
risks. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 28–37, doi:10.1038/nclimate3179. Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,
Oakes, L.E., N.M. Ardoin, and E.F. Lambin, 2016: ‘I know, therefore I adapt?’ P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Complexities of individual adaptation to climate-induced forest dieback in Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 793–832.
Alaska. Ecol. Soc., 21, art40, doi:10.5751/ES-08464-210240. Olsson, L., A. Jerneck, H. Thoren, J. Persson, and D. O’Byrne, 2015b: Why
Oba, G., 1994: The importance of pastoralists’ indigenous coping strategies resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical
for planning drought management in the arid zone of Kenya. Nomad. investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Sci. Adv., 1, 1–12,
People., 5, 89–119, doi:10.2307/43123620. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400217.
Oba, G., 2013: The sustainability of pastoral production in Africa. In: Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and
Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins C.S. Holling, 2006: Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive
[Andy Catley, Jeremy Lind, Ian Scoones (Eds.)]. Routledge, London, UK and governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc., 11, ART. 18, 1–18
New York, USA, 54–61, doi:10.4324/9780203105979. Onibon, A., B. Dabiré, and L. Ferroukhi, 1999: Local practices and the
Oberlack, C., 2017: Diagnosing institutional barriers and opportunities for decentralization and devolution of natural resource management in
adaptation to climate change. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 22, French-speaking West Africa. Unasylva, 50, no. 4.
805–838, doi:10.1007/s11027-015-9699-z. Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R. Warren, J. Birkmann, G. Luber, B. O’Neill, and
Ochieng, C., S. Juhola, and F.X. Johnson, 2014: The societal role of charcoal K. Takahashi, 2014: Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities. Climate Change
production in climate change adaptation of the arid and semi-arid 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral
lands (ASALs) of Kenya. Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report
Transforming Paradigms and Practices [Inderberg, T.H., S.H. Eriksen, K.L. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
O’Brien, and L. Sygna (eds.)]. Routledge, London, UK. D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,
Ockwell, D., A. Sagar, and H. de Coninck, 2015: Collaborative research Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,
and development (R&D) for climate technology transfer and uptake in P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
developing countries: Towards a needs driven approach. Clim. Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1039–1100.
131, 401–415, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1123-2. OECD, 2008: Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs,
OECD, 2014: Social Institutions and Gender Index. OECD Development Benefits and Policy Instruments. OECD Development Centre, Paris,
Centre, Paris, France, 68 pp. France, 133 pp.
OECD, 2015: Climate Finance in 2013–14 and the USD 100 billion goal. World Orlove, B., C. Roncoli, M. Kabugo, and A. Majugu, 2010: Indigenous
Economic Forum, Cologny, Switzerland, doi:10.1787/9789264249424-en, climate knowledge in southern Uganda: The multiple components of
64 pp. a  dynamic regional system. Clim. Change, 100, 243–265, doi:10.1007/
OECD, 2018: Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment: s10584-009-9586-2.
A Global Economic Evaluation Of GHG Mitigation Policies For Agriculture. Orlowsky, B., and S.I. Seneviratne, 2012: Global changes in extreme
Paris, France, 38 pp. events: Regional and seasonal dimension. Clim. Change, 110, 669–696,
Oels,A., 2013: Rendering climate change governable by risk: From probability to doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0122-9.
contingency. Geoforum, 45, 17–29, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.007. Orr, A.L. et al., 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation
7 Oglethorpe, J., J. Ericson, R. Bilsborrow, and J. Edmond, 2007: People on the Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations
Move: Reducing the Impact of Human Migration on Biodiversity. World Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany, 128 pp.

786
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Osei-Tutu, P., M. Pregernig, and B. Pokorny, 2014: Legitimacy of informal Pahl-Wostl, C. et al., 2013: Towards a sustainable water future: Shaping the
institutions in contemporary local forest management: Insights from Ghana. next decade of global water research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 708–
Biodivers. Conserv., 23, 3587–3605, doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0801-8. 714, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.012.
Ostrom, E., 2010: Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of Pahl-Wostl, C., A. Bhaduri, and A. Bruns, 2018a: Editorial special issue: The nexus
complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev., 100, 641–672, doi:10.1257/ of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective.
aer.100.3.641. Environ. Sci. Policy, 90, 161–163, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021.
Ostrom, E., 2011: Background on the institutional analysis anddevelopment Palmer, J.R., 2014: Biofuels and the politics of land use change: Tracing the
framework. Policy Stud. J., 39, 7–27, doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x. interactions of discourse and place in European policy making. Environ.
Ostrom, E., 2012: Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we Plan. A, 46, 337–352, doi:10.1068/a4684.
wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other Palomo, I., M.R. Felipe-Lucia, E.M. Bennett, B. Martín-López, and U. Pascual,
scales? Econ. Theory, 49, 353–369, doi:10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6. 2016: Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-
Oteros-Rozas, E. et al., 2013: Traditional ecological knowledge among production. Advances in Ecological Research, 54, 245–283, doi:10.1016/
transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc., 18, art33, bs.aecr.2015.09.003.
doi:10.5751/ES-05597-180333. Pandey, A. et al., 2017: Aerosol emissions factors from traditional biomass
Otto, F.E. L. et al., 2015: Explaining extreme events of 2014 from a climate cookstoves in India: Insights from field measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
perspective: Factors other than climate change, main drivers of 2014/2015 17, 13721–13729, doi:10.5194/acp-17-13721-2017.
water shortage in Southeast Brazil. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, S35–S40, Pannell, D., 2008: Public benefits, private benefits, and policy mechanism
doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00120.1. choice for land use change for environmental benefits. Land Econ., 84,
Van Oudenhoven, A.P. E., K. Petz, R. Alkemade, L. Hein, and R.S. de Groot, 225–240, doi:10.3368/le.84.2.225.
2012: Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of Panteli, M., and P. Mancarella, 2015: Influence of extreme weather and
land management on ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic., 21, 110–122, climate change on the resilience of power systems: Impacts and possible
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012. mitigation strategies. Electr. Power Syst. Res., 127, 259–270, doi:10.1016/j.
Outka, U., 2012: Environmental law and fossil fuels: Barriers to renewable epsr.2015.06.012.
energy. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 65, 1679–1721. Papaioannou, K.J., 2016: Climate shocks and conflict: Evidence from colonial
Outreville, J.F., 2011a: The relationship between insurance growth and Nigeria. Polit. Geogr., 50, 33–47, doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.07.001.
economic development – 80 empirical papers for a review of the literature. Papathoma-Köhle, M., C. Promper, and T. Glade, 2016: A common
ICER Working Papers 12-2011, ICER – International Centre for Economic methodology for risk assessment and mapping of climate change related
Research, Torino, Italy, 51 pp. hazards – Implications for climate change adaptation policies. Climate,
Owen, R., G. Brennan, and F. Lyon, 2018: Enabling investment for the transition 4, 8, doi:10.3390/cli4010008.
to a low carbon economy: Government policy to finance early stage green Park, S.E., N. Marshall, E. Jakku, A. Dowd, S. Howden, E. Mendham, and
innovation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 31, 137–145, doi:10.1016/j. A. Fleming, 2012: Informing adaptation responses through theories
cosust.2018.03.004. of transformation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 22, 115–126, doi:10.1016/j.
Pacetti, T., E. Caporali, and M.C. Rulli, 2017: Floods and food security: gloenvcha.2011.10.003.
A method to estimate the effect of inundation on crops availability. Adv. Parnell, S., and R. Walawege, 2011: Sub-Saharan African urbanisation and
Water Resour., 110, 494–504, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.06.019. global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, S12–S20,
Pachauri, S., and L. Jiang, 2008: The household energy transition in India and doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.014.
China. Energy Policy, 36, 4022–4035, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.016. Pascual, U. et al., 2017: Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES
Pachauri, S., N.D. Rao, and C. Cameron, 2018: Outlook for modern cooking approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 26–27, 7–16, doi:10.1016/j.
energy access in Central America. PLoS One, 13, e0197974, doi:10.1371/ cosust.2016.12.006.
journal.pone.0197974. Pathirana, A., Radhakrishnan, M., Ashley, R. et al, 2018: Managing urban
Pacheco, P., D. Barry, P. Cronkleton, and A. Larson, 2012: The recognition water systems with significant adaptation deficits– Unified framework
of forest rights in Latin America: Progress and shortcomings of forest for secondary cities: Part II– The practice. Clim. Change, 149, 57–74.
tenure reforms. Soc. Nat. Resour., 25, 556–571, doi:10.1080/089419 doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2059-0.
20.2011.574314. Patterson, J. et al., 2017: Exploring the governance and politics of
Pacheco, P., R. Poccard-Chapuis, I. Garcia Drigo, M.-G. Piketty, and M. Thales, transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions,
2016: Linking Sustainable Production and Enhanced Landscape 24, 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
Governance in the Amazon: Towards Territorial Certification (Terracert). Patz, J.A. et al., 2004: Unhealthy landscapes: Policy recommendations on land
CIRAD, Montpellier, France. use change and infectious disease emergence. Environ. Health Perspect.,
Pagdee, A., Y.S. Kim, and P.J. Daugherty, 2006: What makes community forest 112, 1092–1098, doi:10.1289/EHP.6877.
management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout Paul, S., S. Ghosh, K. Rajendran, and R. Murtugudde, 2018: Moisture supply
the world. Soc. Nat. Resour., 19, 33–52, doi:10.1080/08941920500323260. from the Western Ghats forests to water deficit east coast of India.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009: A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4337–4344, doi:10.1029/2018GL078198.
and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Paveglio, T.B., C. Kooistra, T. Hall, and M. Pickering, 2016: Understanding the
Environ. Chang., 19, 354–365, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001. effect of large wildfires on residents’ well-being: What factors influence
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2017a: Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: wildfire impact?Forest Science, 62, 59–69, doi:10.5849/forsci.15-021.
A  multi-level coordination challenge. Environmental Science and Policy, Payne, G., 2001: Urban land tenure policy options: Titles or rights? Habitat
92, 356–367, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.017. Int., 3, 415–429, doi:10.1016/S0197-3975 (01)00014-5 .
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2017b: An evolutionary perspective on water governance: From Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas
understanding to transformation. Water Resour. Manag., 31, 2917–2932, emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source.
doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1727-1. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
Pahl-Wostl, C. et al., 2007: Managing change toward adaptive water Pecl, G.T. et al., 2017: Biodiversity redistribution under climate change:
management through social learning. Ecol. Soc., 12, 1–18. doi:30. Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355, eaai9214, 7
doi:10.1126/science.aai9214.

787
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Peel, J., and H.M. Osofsky, 2017: A Rights Turn in Climate Change Pinho, P., R. Maia, and A. Monterroso, 2007: The quality of Portuguese
Litigation? Transnational Environmental Law, 7, 37–67, doi:10.1017/ Environmental Impact Studies: The case of small hydropower projects.
S2047102517000292. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 27, 189–205, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.10.005.
Pelling, M., 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Pistorius, T., S. Reinecke, and A. Carrapatoso, 2017: A historical institutionalist
Transformation: From Resilience to Transformation. Routledge, Abingdon, view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement.
UK, and New York, USA, 224 pp. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 17, 623–638, doi:10.1007/
Pelling, M., and B. Wisner, 2012: African cities of hope and risk. In: Disaster s10784-016-9330-0.
Risk Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa [Pelling, M., B. Wisner (eds.)]. Pittelkow, C.M. et al., 2015: Productivity limits and potentials of the
Routledge, London, UK, pp. 17–42. principles of conservation agriculture. Nature, 517, 365–368, doi:10.1038/
Pendrill, F., M. Persson, J. Godar, and T. Kastner, 2019: Deforestation displaced: nature13809.
Trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest Plambeck, E.L., C. Hope, and J. Anderson, 1997: The Page95 model: Integrating
transition. Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 5, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab0d41. the science and economics of global warming. Energy Econ., 19, 77–101,
Pereira, H.M. et al., 2010: Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. doi:10.1016/S0140-9883 (96)01008-0.
Science, 330, 1496–1501, doi:10.1126/science.1196624. Plummer, R., and J. Baird, 2013: Adaptive co-management for climate change
Perera, N., E. Boyd Gill Wilkins, and R. Phillips Itty, 2015: Literature Review adaptation: Considerations for the barents region. Sustain., 5, 629–642,
on Energy Access and Adaptation to Climate Change. UK Department for doi:10.3390/su5020629.
International Development, London, UK, 89 pp. Poff, N.L. et al., 2003: River flows and water wars: Emerging science for
Pérez, I., M.A. Janssen, and J.M. Anderies, 2016: Food security in the face environmental decision-making. Front. Ecol. Environ., 1, 298–306,
of climate change: Adaptive capacity of small-scale social-ecological doi:10.1890/1540-9295 (2003)001[0298:RFAWWE]2.0.CO; 2.
systems to environmental variability. Glob. Environ. Chang., 40, 82–91, Pokharel, P., and S.X. Chang, 2019: Manure pellet, woodchip and their
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.005. biochars differently affect wheat yield and carbon dioxide emission from
Perry, J., 2015: Climate change adaptation in the world’s best places: A wicked bulk and rhizosphere soils. Sci. Total Environ., 659, 463–472, doi:10.1016/J.
problem in need of immediate attention. Landsc. Urban Plan., 133, 1–11, SCITOTENV.2018.12.380.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.013. Popp, A. et al., 2014a: Land use transition for bioenergy and climate
Persha, L., and K. Andersson, 2014: Elite capture risk and mitigation in stabilization: Model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with
decentralized forest governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang., 24, other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change, 123, 495–509,
265–276, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.12.005. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x.
Persha, L., A. Agrawal, and A. Chhatre, 2011: Social and ecological synergy: Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land use futures in the shared socio-economic
Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/J.
331, 1606–1608, doi:10.1126/science.1199343. GLOENVCHA.2016.10.002.
Persson, J., E.L. Johansson, and L. Olsson, 2018: Harnessing local knowledge Popp, J., K. Peto, and J. Nagy, 2013: Pesticide productivity and food
for scientific knowledge production: Challenges and pitfalls within security. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 33, 243–255, doi:10.1007/
evidence-based sustainability studies. Ecol. Soc., 23, art38, doi:10.5751/ s13593-012-0105-x.
ES-10608-230438. Popp, J., Z. Lakner, M. Harangi-Rákos, and M. Fári, 2014b: The effect of
Pert, P.L. et al., 2015: Mapping cultural ecosystem services with rainforest bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renew. Sustain.
aboriginal peoples: Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social Energy Rev., 32, 559–578, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056.
variation. Ecosyst. Serv., 13, 41–56, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.012. Porras, I., and N. Asquith, 2018: Ecosystems, Poverty Alleviation and
Von Peter, G., S. Von Dahlen, and S. Saxena, 2012: Unmitigated disasters? Conditional Transfers Guidance for Practitioners. IIED, London, UK, 59 pp.
New evidence on the macroeconomic cost of natural catastrophes. BIS Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal,
Working Papers No. 394, BIS, Basel, Switzerland, www.bis.org. D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food security and food production
Pezzey, J.C.V., 2019: Why the social cost of carbon will always be disputed. systems. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 10, 1–12, doi:10.1002/wcc.558. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to
Pielke, R.A. et al., 2002: The influence of land use change and landscape the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
dynamics on the climate system: Relevance to climate-change policy Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma,
A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 360, 1705–1719, doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1027. E.S.  Kissel, A.N.  Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White
Pieraccini, M., 2015: Rethinking participation in environmental decision- (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
making: Epistemologies of marine conservation in Southeast England. J. York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
Environ. Law, 27, 45–67, doi:10.1093/jel/equ035. Poudyal, M. et al., 2016: Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’
Pierson, F.B., and C.J. Williams, 2016: Ecohydrologic Impacts of Rangeland Fire people? Lessons from Madagascar. Glob. Environ. Chang., 37, 31–42,
on Runoff and Erosion: A Literature Synthesis. General Technical Report doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.004.
(GTR), Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Premalatha, M., T. Abbasi, and S.A. Abbasi, 2014a: Wind energy: Increasing
Station, Fort Collins, USA, 110 pp. deployment, rising environmental concerns. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
Pierson, F.B. et al., 2011: Fire, plant invasions, and erosion events on 31, 270–288, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.019.
Western Rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 64, 439–449, doi:10.2111/ Premalatha, M., T. Abbasi, and S.A. Abbasi, 2014b: A critical view on the eco-
REM-D-09-00147.1. friendliness of small hydroelectric installations. Sci. Total Environ., 481,
Pingali, P., 2015: Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes – Getting 638–643, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.047.
beyond the preoccupation with staple grains. Food Secur., 7, 583–591, Priefer, C., J. Jörissen, and O. Frör, 2017: Pathways to shape the bioeconomy.
doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0461-x. Resources, 6, 10, doi:10.3390/resources6010010.
Pingali, P.L., 2012: Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Prober, S.M. et al., 2017: Informing climate adaptation pathways in multi-use
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 31, 12302–12308, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109. woodland landscapes using the values-rules-knowledge framework. Agric.
7 Ecosyst. Environ., 241, 39–53, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.021.

788
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Prokopy, L.S., K. Floress, D. Klotthor-Weinkauf, and A. Baumgart-Getz, 2008: Quisumbing, A.R. et al., 2014: Closing the knowledge gap on gender in
Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence agriculture. In: Gender in Agriculture [Quisumbing, A.R., R. Meinzen-Dick,
from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv., 63, 300–311, doi:10.2489/ T.L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J.A. Behrman, A. Peterman (eds.)]. Springer
jswc.63.5.300. Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 3–27,
Prokopy, L.S. et al., 2015: Farmers and climate change: A cross-national Radeloff, V.C. et al., 2018: Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface
comparison of beliefs and risk perceptions in high-income countries. raises wildfire risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 115, 3314–3319.
Environ. Manage., 56, 492–504, doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2. Radhakrishnan, M., Nguyen, H., Gersonius, B. et al., 2018: Coping capacities
Public Safety Canada, 2017: 2016–2017 Evaluation of the Disaster Financial for improving adaptation pathways for flood protection in Can Tho,
Assistance Arrangements. Public Safety Canada, Ottawa, Canada, Vietnam. Clim. Change, 149, 29–41, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1999-8.
www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/vltn-dsstr-fnncl-ssstnc-2016-17/ Radhakrishnan, M., A. Pathirana, R. Ashley, and C. Zevenbergen, 2017:
index-en.aspx, 20 pp. Structuring climate adaptation through multiple perspectives: Framework
Puma, M.J., S. Bose, S.Y. Chon, and B.I. Cook, 2015: Assessing the evolving and case study on flood risk management. Water, 9, 129, doi:10.3390/
fragility of the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 1–15, w9020129.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024007. Rahman, M.M., M.N.I. Khan, A.K.F. Hoque, I. Ahmed, 2014: Carbon stock in
Pungetti, G., G. Oviedo, and D. Hooke, 2012: Sacred Species and Sites: the Sundarbans mangrove forest: Spatial variations in vegetation types
Advances in Biocultural Conservation. Cambridge University Press, and salinity zones. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 23, 269–283, doi:10.1007/s11273-
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 472 pp. 014-9379-x.
Purkus, Alexandra; Gawel, Erik; Thrän, D., 2012: Bioenergy Governance Rahman, H.M.T., S.K. Sarker, G.M. Hickey, M. Mohasinul Haque, and N. Das,
Between Market and Government Failures: A New Institutional Economics 2014: Informal institutional responses to government interventions:
Perspective. UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2012, Helmholtz Centre for Lessons from Madhupur National Park, Bangladesh. Environ. Manage., 54,
Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS), Leipzig, 1175–1189, doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0325-8.
Germany, 27 pp. Rahman, M.A., 2018: Governance matters: Climate change, corruption, and
Purkus, A., E. Gawel, and D. Thrän, 2018: Addressing uncertainty in livelihoods in Bangladesh. Clim. Change, 147, 313–326, doi:10.1007/
decarbonisation policy mixes – Lessons learned from German and s10584-018-2139-9.
European bioenergy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 33, 82–94, doi:10.1016/j. Rajamani, L., 2011: The cancun climate agreements: Reading the text,
erss.2017.09.020. subtext and tea leaves. Int. Comp. Law Q., 60, 499–519, doi:10.1017/
Pynegar, E.L., J.P.G. Jones, J.M. Gibbons, and N.M. Asquith, 2018: The S0020589311000078.
effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services at delivering Raju, K. V, A. Aziz, S.S.M. Sundaram, M. Sekher, S.P. Wani, and T.K. Sreedevi, 2008:
improvements in water quality: Lessons for experiments at the landscape Guidelines for Planning and Implementation of Watershed Development
scale. PeerJ, 6, e5753, doi:10.7717/peerj.5753. Program in India: A Review. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report
Qasim, S., R.P. Shrestha, G.P. Shivakoti, and N.K. Tripathi, 2011: Socio-economic no. 48. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics,
determinants of land degradation in Pishin sub-basin, Pakistan. Int. J. Patancheru, Hyderabad, India, http://oar.icrisat.org/2353/, 92 pp.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., 18, 48–54, doi:10.1080/13504509.2011.543844. Raleigh, C., H.J. Choi, and D. Kniveton, 2015: The devil is in the details:
Qin, Z., J.B. Dunn, H. Kwon, S. Mueller, and M.M. Wander, 2016: Soil carbon An investigation of the relationships between conflict, food price and
sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: climate across Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang., 32, 187–199, doi:10.1016/j.
Empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 66–80, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12237. gloenvcha.2015.03.005.
Quan, J., and N. Dyer, 2008: Climate Change and Land Tenure: The Implications Ramnath, M., 2008: Surviving the Forest Rights Act: Between Scylla and
of Climate Change for Land Tenure and Land Policy. Land Tenure Working Charybdis. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 43, 37–42.
Paper 2, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Ramos, J.M., 2014: Anticipatory governance: Traditions and trajectories for
Italy, 62 pp. strategic design. J. Futur. Stud., 19, 35–52.
Quan, J., L.O. Naess, A. Newsham, A. Sitoe, and M.C. Fernandez, 2017: The Ranatunga, T., S.T.Y. Tong, Y. Sun, and Y.J. Yang, 2014: A total water
political economy of REDD+ in Mozambique: Implications for climate management analysis of the Las Vegas Wash watershed, Nevada. Phys.
compatible development. In: Making Climate Compatible Devevelopment Geogr., 35, 220–244, doi:10.1080/02723646.2014.908763.
Happen [Nunan, F. (ed)]. Routledge, London, UK,  pp. 151–181, Singh, R.K. et al., 2018. Classification and management of community
doi:10.4324/9781315621579. forests in Indian Eastern Himalayas: Implications on ecosystem
Quatrini, S., and N.D. Crossman, 2018: Most finance to halt desertification services, conservation and livelihoods. Ecological Processes, 7, 27, 1–15
also benefits multiple ecosystem services: A key to unlock investments in doi:10.1186/s13717-018-0137-5.
land degradation neutrality? Ecosyst. Serv., 31, 265–277, doi:10.1016/j. Singh, S.P., and M. Swanson, 2017: How issue frames shape beliefs about
ecoser.2018.04.003. the importance of climate change policy across ideological and partisan
Quay, R., 2010: Anticipatory Governance. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 76, 496–511, do groups. PLoS One, 12, 1–14, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181401.
i:10.1080/01944363.2010.508428. Rao, N., 2017a: Assets, agency and legitimacy: Towards a relational
Le Quesne, F., 2017: The Role of Insurance in Integrated Disaster and Climate understanding of gender equality policy and practice. World Dev., 95,
Risk Management: Evidence and Lessons Learned. UNU-EHS, Bonn, 43–54, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.018.
Germany, 64 pp. Rao, N.D., and S. Pachauri, 2017: Energy access and living standards:
Quinn, A.K. et al., 2018: An analysis of efforts to scale up clean household Some observations on recent trends. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 025011,
energy for cooking around the world. Energy Sustain. Dev., 46, 1–10, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa5b0d.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2018.06.011. Rasul, G., 2014: Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: A nexus
Quirion, P., 2009: Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable perspective from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Environ. Sci. Policy, 39,
allowances: A comparison. Clim. Policy, 9, 575–592, doi:10.3763/ 35–48, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.010.
cpol.2008.0618. Rasul, G., and B. Sharma, 2016: The nexus approach to water-energy-food
security: An option for adaptation to climate change. Clim. Policy, 16,
682–702, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865. 7

789
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Rauken, T., P.K. Mydske, and M. Winsvold, 2014: Mainstreaming climate Rietig, K., 2018: The links among contested knowledge, beliefs, and learning
change adaptation at the local level. Local Environ., 20, 408–423, doi:10.1 in European climate governance: From consensus to conflict in reforming
080/13549839.2014.880412. biofuels policy. Policy Stud. J., 46, 137–159, doi:10.1111/psj.12169.
Ravera, F., I. Iniesta-Arandia, B. Martín-López, U. Pascual, and P. Bose, Rights and Resources Initiative, 2015a: Who Owns the World’s Land? A Global
2016: Gender perspectives in resilience, vulnerability and adaptation Baseline of Formally Recognized Indigenous and Community Land Rights.
to global environmental change. Ambio, 45, 235–247, doi:10.1007/ Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC, USA, 44 pp.
s13280-016-0842-1. Rights and Resources Initiative, 2018a: At a crossroads: Consequential trends
Ray, B., and R. Shaw, 2016: Water stress in the megacity of kolkata, india, and in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. Rights
its implications for urban resilience. In: Urban Disasters and Resilience in and Resources Initiative, Washington DC, USA.
Asia [Shaw, R., Atta-ur-Rahman, A. Surjan, G. Ara Parvin (eds.)]. Elsevier, Rights and Resources Initiative, 2018b: At a Crossroads: Consequential Trends
Oxford, UK, pp. 317–336. in Recognition of Community-based Forest Tenure From 2002–2017. Rights
Raza, W., and E. Poel, 2016: Impact and spill-over effects of an asset Resour. Initiat.,
transfer program on malnutrition: Evidence from a randomized control Rigon, A., 2014: Building local governance: Participation and Elite capture
trial in Bangladesh. J. Health Econ., 62, 105–120, doi:10.1016/j. in slum-upgrading in Kenya. Dev. Change, 45, 257–283, doi:10.1111/
jhealeco.2018.09.011. dech.12078.
Reddy, M.G., K.A. Kumar, P.T. Rao, and O. Springate-Baginski, 2011: Issues Van Rijn, F., E. Bulte, and A. Adekunle, 2012: Social capital and agricultural
related to Implementation of the Forest rights Act in Andhra Pradesh. Econ. innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Syst., 108, 112–122, doi:10.1016/j.
Polit. Wkly., 46, 73–81. agsy.2011.12.003.
Reed, M. et al., 2010: What is Social Learning? Ecol. Soc., 15, r1. Riley, M., H. Sangster, H. Smith, R. Chiverrell, and J. Boyle, 2018: Will
Reed, M.S. et al., 2014: Improving the link between payments and the farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’
provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosyst. cooperation in agri-environment measures. Land Use Policy, 70, 635–646,
Serv., 9, 44–53, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.008. doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2017.10.049.
Reichardt, K., K.S. Rogge, and S. Negro, 2015: Unpacking the policy processes Ring, I., and C. Schröter-Schlaack, 2011: Instruments Mixes for Biodiversity
for addressing systemic problems: The case of the technological innovation Policies. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig,
system of offshore wind in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Germany, 119–144 pp.
Reviews, 80, 1217–1226, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.280. Ringler, E., A. Pašukonis, W.T. Fitch, L. Huber, W. Hödl, and M. Ringler, 2015:
Reid, H., 2016: Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: Learning from Flexible compensation of uniparental care: Female poison frogs take
community-based natural resource management management. Clim. Dev., over when males disappear. Behav. Ecol., 26, 1219–1225, doi:10.1093/
8, 4–9, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1034233. beheco/arv069.
Reisinger, A., P. Havlik, K. Riahi, O. van Vliet, M. Obersteiner, and M. Herrero, del Río, P., and E. Cerdá, 2017: The missing link: The influence of instruments
2013: Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and and design features on the interactions between climate and renewable
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Clim. Change, 117, 677–690, electricity policies. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 33, 49–58, doi:10.1016/j.
doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0593-3. erss.2017.09.010.
Ren, Z. et al., 2016: Predicting malaria vector distribution under climate Rivera-Ferre, M.G. et al., 2016: Local agriculture traditional knowledge
change scenarios in China: Challenges for malaria elimination. Sci. Rep., to ensure food availability in a changing climate: Revisiting water
6, 20604, doi:10.1038/srep20604. management practices in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Agroecol. Sustain. Food
Renn, O., and P. Schweizer, 2009: Inclusive Risk Governance: Concepts Syst., 40, 965–987, doi:10.1080/21683565.2016.1215368.
andapplication to environmental policy making. Environ. Policy Gov., 19, Roberts, J.T. et al., 2017: How will we pay for loss and damage? Ethics, Policy
174–185, doi:10.1002/eet.507. Environ., 20, 208–226, doi:10.1080/21550085.2017.1342963.
Reyer, C.P.O. et al., 2017: Turn down the heat: Regional climate change Roberts, M.J., and W. Schlenker, 2013: Identifying supply and demand
impacts on development. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1563– elasticities of agricultural commodities: Implications for the US ethanol
1568, doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1187-4. mandate. Am. Econ. Rev., 103, 2265–95, doi:10.1257/aer.103.6.2265.
Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The shared socio-economic pathways and their energy, Robinson, B.E., M.B. Holland, and L. Naughton-Treves, 2014: Does secure land
land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land
Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.05.009. tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 29, 281–293,
Richards, M., T.B. Bruun, B.M. Campbell, L.E. Gregersen, S. Huyer, et al., 2015: doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.05.012.
How Countries Plan to Address Agricultural Adaptation and Mitigation: Robledo-Abad, C. et al., 2017: Bioenergy production and sustainable
An Analysis of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. CGIAR development: Science base for policymaking remains limited. GCB
Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Bioenergy, 9, 541–556, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12338.
(CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–8 pp. Rocca, M.E., P.M. Brown, L.H. MacDonald, and C.M. Carrico, 2014: Climate
Richards, M. et al., 2017: High-resolution spatial modelling of greenhouse gas change impacts on fire regimes and key ecosystem services in Rocky
emissions from land use change to energy crops in the United Kingdom. Mountain forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 327, 290–305, doi:10.1016/j.
GCB Bioenergy, 9, 627–644, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12360. foreco.2014.04.005.
Richards, P., 1985a: Indigenous agricultural revolution: Ecology and food Rochecouste, J.-F., P. Dargusch, D. Cameron, and C. Smith, 2015: An analysis
production in West Africa. American Anthropology, 89, 240–241, of the socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of conservation
doi:10.1525/aa.1987.89.1.02a01040. agriculture as a climate change mitigation activity in Australian dryland
Richards, P. (ed.), 1985b: Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and grain production. Agric. Syst., 135, 20–30, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.12.002.
Food Production in West Africa. Westview Press, Colorado, USA, 192 pp. Rocheleau, D., and D. Edmunds, 1997: Women, men and trees: Gender, power
Richter, B.D. et al., 2017: Opportunities for saving and reallocating agricultural and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Dev., 25, 1351–
water to alleviate water scarcity. Water Policy, 19, 886–907, doi:10.2166/ 1371, doi:10.1016/S0305-750X (97)00036-3.
wp.2017.143. Rockström, Johan Steffen, W. et al., 2009: A safe operating space for humanity.
7 Nature, doi:10.1038/461472a.

790
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Rockström, J. et al., 2009: A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, Rosenzweig, C. et al., 2014: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change
472–475, doi:10.1038/461472a. in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc.
Rockström, J. et al., 2017: Sustainable intensification of agriculture for Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 3268–3273, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110.
human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46, 4–17, doi:10.1007/ Rosillo Callé, F., and F.X. Johnson (eds.), 2010a: Food versus fuel: An Informed
s13280-016-0793-6. Introduction to Biofuels. Zed Books, London, UK, 217 pp.
Rocle, N., and D. Salles, 2018: ‘Pioneers but not guinea pigs’: Experimenting Rosin, C., 2013: Food security and the justification of productivism in New
with climate change adaptation in French coastal areas. Policy Sci., 51, Zealand. J. Rural Stud., 29, 50–58, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.01.015.
231–247, doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9279-z. Roudier, P., B. Muller, P. Aquino, C. Roncoli, M.A. Soumaré, L. Batté, and
Rodell, M., I. Velicogna, and J.S. Famiglietti, 2009: Satellite-based estimates B.  Sultan, 2014: The role of climate forecasts in smallholder agriculture:
of groundwater depletion in India. Nature, 460, 999–1002, doi:10.1038/ Lessons from participatory research in two communities in Senegal. Clim.
nature08238. Risk Manag., 2, 42–55, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2014.02.001.
Rodríguez-Morales, J.E., 2018: Convergence, conflict and the historical Rouillard, J., D. Benson, A.K. Gain, and C. Giupponi, 2017: Governing for the
transition of bioenergy for transport in Brazil: The political economy of nexus: Empirical, theoretical and normative Dimensions. In: Water-Energy-
governance and institutional change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 44, 324–335, Food Nexus: Principles and Practices [Salam, P.A., S. Shrestha , V.P. Pandey,
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.031. A.K. Anal (eds.)]. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Rodriguez-Takeuchi, L., and K.S. Imai, 2013: Food price surges and poverty in Rouillard, J.J., K.V. Heal, T. Ball, and A.D. Reeves, 2013: Policy integration for
urban colombia: New evidence from household survey data. Food Policy, adaptive water governance: Learning from Scotland’s experience. Environ.
43, 227–236, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.017. Sci. Policy, 33, 378–387, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.003.
Rodriguez-Ward, D., A.M. Larson, and H.G. Ruesta, 2018: Top-down, bottom- Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P. Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta,
up and sideways: The multilayered complexities of multi-level actors B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C. Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi,
shaping forest governance and REDD+ arrangements in Madre de Dios, and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018: Sustainable Development , Poverty
Peru. Environ. Manage., 62, 98–116, doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0982-5. Eradication and Reducing Inequalities. Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC
Rodríguez, J., T.D. Beard Jr., E. Bennett, G. Cumming, S. Cork, J. Agard, special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
A. Dobson, and G. Peterson, 2006: Trade-offs across space, time, and industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in
ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc., 11, ART. 28. the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate
Rodríguez Morales, J.E., and F. Rodríguez López, 2017: The political economy change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea,
of bioenergy in the United States: A historical perspective based on P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors,
scenarios of conflict and convergence. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 27, 141–150, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock,
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.03.002. M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Roelich, K., and J. Giesekam, 2019: Decision-making under uncertainty in UK, and New York, NY, USA, 445–538.
climate change mitigation: Introducing multiple actor motivations, agency Rozin, P., S. Scott, M. Dingley, J.K. Urbanek, H. Jiang, and M. Kaltenbach, 2011:
and influence. Clim. Policy, 19, 175–188, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.14 Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake.
79238. Judgm. Decis. Mak., 6, 323–332.
Rogelj, J. et al., 2016: Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to Rudolph, D.L., J.F. Devlin, and L. Bekeris, 2015: Challenges and a strategy for
keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature, 534, 631–639, doi:10.1038/ agricultural BMP monitoring and remediation of nitrate contamination
nature18307. in unconsolidated aquifers. Groundw. Monit. Remediat., 35, 97–109,
Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. doi:10.1111/gwmr.12103.
Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, Ruiz-Mercado, I., and O. Masera, 2015a: Patterns of stove use in the context
2018: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of of fuel-device stacking: rationale and implications. Ecohealth, 12, 42–56,
Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special doi:10.1007/s10393-015-1009-4.
report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial Rulli, M.C., A. Saviori, and P. D’Odorico, 2013: Global land and water grabbing.
levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110, 892–897, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1213163110.
context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate Rulli, M.C., D. Bellomi, A. Cazzoli, G. De Carolis, and P. D’Odorico, 2016: The
change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. water-land-food nexus of first-generation biofuels. Sci. Rep., 6, 22521,
Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. doi:10.1038/srep22521.
Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, Ryan, S.J., A. McNally, L.R. Johnson, E.A. Mordecai, T. Ben-Horin, K. Paaijmans,
and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and and K.D. Lafferty, 2015: Mapping physiological suitability limits for malaria
New York, NY, USA, 93–174. in africa under climate change. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis., 15, 718–725,
Rogge, K.S., and K. Reichardt, 2016: Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: doi:10.1089/vbz.2015.1822.
An extended concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy, 45, 1620– Safriel, U., 2017: Land degradation neutrality (LDN) in drylands and beyond
1635, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004. – Where has it come from and where does it go. Silva Fenn., 51, 1650,
Romijn, H.A., 2011: Land clearing and greenhouse gas emissions from doi:10.14214/sf.1650.
Jatropha biofuels on African Miombo Woodlands. Energy Policy, 39, 5751– Safriel, U., and Z. Adeel, 2008: Development paths of drylands: Thresholds and
5762, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2010.07.041. sustainability. Sustain. Sci., 3, 117–123, doi:10.1007/s11625-007-0038-5.
Roncoli, C., C. Jost, C. Perez, K. Moore, A. Ballo, S. Cissé, and K. Ouattara, Salehyan, I., and C.S. Hendrix, 2014: Climate shocks and political violence.
2007: Carbon sequestration from common property resources: Lessons Glob. Environ. Chang., 28, 239–250, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.007.
from community-based sustainable pasture management in north-central Saluja, N and Singh, S., 2018: Coal-fired power plants set to get renewed
Mali. Agric. Syst., 94, 97–109, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.10.010. push. Economic Times, New Delhi, India, https://economictimes.indiatimes.
Rosenthal, J., A. Quinn, A.P. Grieshop, A. Pillarisetti, and R.I. Glass, 2017: Clean com/industry/energy/power/coal-fired-power-plants-set-to-get-renewed-
cooking and the SDGs: Integrated analytical approaches to guide energy push/articleshow/64769464.cms.
interventions for health and environment goals. Energy for Sustainable Salvati, L., and M. Carlucci, 2014: Zero Net Land Degradation in Italy: The
Development, 42, 152–159, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2017.11.003. role of socio-economic and agroforest factors. J. Environ. Manage., 145, 7
299–306, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.006.

791
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Salzman, J., G. Bennett, N. Carroll, A. Goldstein, and M. Jenkins, 2018: The Sayer, J., C. Margules, I.C. Bohnet, A.K. Boedhihartono, 2015: The role of citizen
global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nat. Sustain., science in landscape and seascape approaches to integrating conservation
1, 136–144, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0. and development. Land, 4, 1200–1212, doi:10.3390/land4041200.
Samaddar, S. et al., 2015: Evaluating effective public participation in disaster Scarano, F.R., 2017: Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: Concept,
management and climate change adaptation: Insights from Northern scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv., 15,
Ghana through a user-based approach. Risk, Hazards Cris. Public Policy, 65–73, doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.05.003.
6, 117–143, doi:10.1002/rhc3.12075. Scarlat, N., and J.-F. Dallemand, 2011: Recent developments of biofuels/
Samanta, A., S. Ganguly, H. Hashimoto, S. Devadiga, E. Vermote, Y. bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy, 39,
Knyazikhin, R.R. Nemani, and R.B. Myneni, 2010: Amazon forests did 1630–1646, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2010.12.039.
not green‐up during the 2005 drought. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 1–5, Schalatek, L., and S. Nakhooda, 2013: The Green Climate Fund. Clim.
doi:10.1029/2009GL042154. Financ. Fundam., 11, Heinrich Boll Stiftung North America and Overseas
Samuwai, J., and J. Hills, 2018: Assessing climate finance readiness in the Development Institute, Washington DC, USA and London, UK, pp. 1–4.
Asia-Pacific Region. Sustainability, 10, 1–18, doi:10.3390/su10041192. Scheffran, J., E. Marmer, and P. Sow, 2012: Migration as a contribution to
Sánchez, B. et al., 2016: Management of agricultural soils for greenhouse gas resilience and innovation in climate adaptation: Social networks and co-
mitigation: Learning from a case study in NE Spain. J. Environ. Manage., development in Northwest Africa. Appl. Geogr., 33, 119–127, doi:10.1016/j.
170, 37–49, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.003. apgeog.2011.10.002.
Sánchez, J.M.T., and R.C. Maseda, 2016: Forcing and avoiding change. Scherr, S.J., S. Shames, and R. Friedman, 2012: From climate-smart agriculture
Exploring change and continuity in local land use planning in Galicia to climate-smart landscapes. Agric. Food Secur., 1, 12, doi:10.1186/2048-
(Northwest of Spain) and The Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 50, 74–82, 7010-1-12.
doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.09.006. Schick, A. et al., 2018: People-centered and ecosystem-based knowledge co-
Sanderson, T., G. Hertzler, T. Capon, and P. Hayman, 2016: A real options production to promote proactive biodiversity conservation and sustainable
analysis of Australian wheat production under climate change. Aust. development in Namibia. Environ. Manage., 62, 858–876, doi:10.1007/
J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 60, 79–96, doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12104. s00267-018-1093-7.
Sandifer, P.A., A.E. Sutton-Grier, and B.P. Ward, 2015: Exploring connections Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom, 1992: Property-rights regimes and natural
among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Econ., 68, 249, doi:10.2307/3146375.
well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Schleussner, C.F. et al., 2016: Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant
Ecosyst. Serv., 12, 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007. limits to global warming: The case of 1.5°C and 2°C. Earth Syst. Dyn.,
Sandstrom, S., and S. Juhola, 2017: Continue to blame it on the rain? 7, 327–351, doi:10.5194/esd-7-327-2016.
Conceptualization of drought and failure of food systems in the Greater Schmalensee, R., and R.N. Stavins, 2017: Lessons learned from three decades
Horn of Africa. Environ. Hazards, 16, 71–91, doi:10.1080/17477891.201 of experience with cap and trade. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11, 59–79,
6.1229656. doi:10.1093/reep/rew017.
Santos, M.J., S.C. Dekker, V. Daioglou, M.C. Braakhekke, and D.P. van Vuuren, Schmidhuber, J., and F.N. Tubiello, 2007: Global food security under climate
2017: Modeling the Effects of Future Growing Demand for Charcoal in the change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 19703–19708, doi:10.1073/
Tropics. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 1–12, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2017.00028. pnas.0701976104.
Sanz, M.J. et al., 2017: Sustainable Land Management Contribution to Schmitz, C. et al., 2012: Trading more food: Implications for land use,
Successful Land-Based Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system. Glob. Environ. Chang.,
A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. A Report of the Science-Policy 22, 189–209, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.013.
Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Schmitz, O.J. et al., 2015: Conserving biodiversity: Practical guidance about
Bonn, Germany, 170 pp. climate change adaptation approaches in support of land-use planning.
Sarap, K., T.K. Sarangi, and J. Naik, 2013: Implementation of Forest Rights Act Source Nat. Areas J., 35, 190–203, doi:10.3375/043.035.0120.
2006 in Odisha: Process, constraints and outcome. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 48, Schneider, L., and S. La Hoz Theuer, 2019: Environmental integrity of
61–67. international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Clim.
Sarzynski, A., 2015: Public participation, civic capacity, and climate Policy, 19, 386–400, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1521332.
change adaptation in cities. Urban Clim., 14, 52–67, doi:10.1016/J. Schröder, P. et al., 2018: Intensify production, transform biomass to energy
UCLIM.2015.08.002. and novel goods and protect soils in Europe – A vision how to mobilize
Sassi, F. et al., 2018: Equity impacts of price policies to promote healthy marginal lands. Sci. Total Environ., 616–617, 1101–1123, doi:10.1016/j.
behaviours. The Lancet, 391, 2059–2070, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 scitotenv.2017.10.209.
(18)30531-2. Schultz, L., C. Folke, H. Österblom, and P. Olsson, 2015: Adaptive governance,
Satterthwaite, D. (ed.), 2007: Climate Change and Urbanization: Effects and ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112,
Implications for Urban Governance. UNDESA, United Nations Expert Group 7369–7374, doi:10.1073/pnas.1406493112.
Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Schut, M., N.C. Soares, G. Van De Ven, and M. Slingerland, 2013: Multi-
Development, New York, USA, 29 pp. actor governance of sustainable biofuels in developing countries:
Satterthwaite, D., D. Archer, S. Colenbrander, D. Dodman, J. Hardoy, and The case of Mozambique. Energy Policy, 65, 631–643, doi:10.1016/j.
S. Patel, 2018: Responding to climate change in cities and in their informal enpol.2013.09.007.
settlements and economies. IIED and IIED-América Latina, London, UK, De Schutter, O., 2011: How not to think of land-grabbing: Three critiques of
61 pp. large-scale investments in farmland. J. Peasant Stud., 38, 249–279, doi:10
Sauerwald, S., and M.W. Peng, 2013: Informal institutions, shareholder .1080/03066150.2011.559008.
coalitions, and principal-principal conflicts. Asia Pacific J. Manag., 30, Schuur, E.A.G. et al., 2015: Climate change and the permafrost carbon
853–870, doi:10.1007/s10490-012-9312-x. feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179, doi:10.1038/nature14338.
Savaresi, A., 2016: The Paris Agreement: A new beginning? J. Energy Nat. Schwartz, N.B., M. Uriarte, R. DeFries, V.H. Gutierrez-Velez, and M.A.
Resour. Law, 34, 16–26, doi:10.1080/02646811.2016.1133983. Pinedo-Vasquez, 2017: Land use dynamics influence estimates of carbon
7 sequestration potential in tropical second-growth forest. Environ. Res.
Lett., 12, 074023, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa708b.

792
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Schwilch, G. et al., 2011: Experiences in monitoring and assessment of Shue, H., 2018a: Mitigation gambles: Uncertainty, urgency and the last
sustainable land management. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 214–225, doi:10.1002/ gamble possible. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Eng. Sci., 376, 20170105,
ldr.1040. doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0105.
Scott, C.A., S.A. Pierce, M.J. Pasqualetti, A.L. Jones, B.E. Montz, and J.H. Shvidenko, A.Z., D.G. Shchepashchenko, E.A. Vaganov, A.I. Sukhinin, S.S.
Hoover, 2011: Policy and institutional dimensions of the water-energy Maksyutov, I. McCallum, and I.P. Lakyda, 2012: Impact of wildfire in Russia
nexus. Energy Policy, 39, 6622–6630, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.013. between 1998–2010 on ecosystems and the global carbon budget. Dokl.
Scott, D., C.M. Hall, and S. Gössling, 2016: A report on the Paris Climate Earth Sci., 441, 1678–1682, doi:10.1134/s1028334x11120075.
Change Agreement and its implications for tourism: Why we will always Siahaya, M.E., T.R. Hutauruk, H.S.E.S. Aponno, J.W. Hatulesila, and A.B.
have Paris. J. Sustain. Tour., 24, 933–948, doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1 Mardhanie, 2016: Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation
187623. and forest management in East Borneo, Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci.
Seager, J., 2014: Disasters are gendered: What’s new? In: Reducing Disaster: Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 14–23, doi:10.1080/21513732.2016.1169559.
Early Warning Systems for Climate Change [Singh, A. and Z. Zommers Siddig, E.F.A., K. El-Harizi, and B. Prato, 2007: Managing conflict over natural
(eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 265–281. resources in greater Kordofan, Sudan: Some recurrent patterns and
Seaman, J.A., G.E. Sawdon, J. Acidri, and C. Petty, 2014: The household governance implications. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00711, International Food
economy approach. Managing the impact of climate change on poverty Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA, 98 pp.
and food security in developing countries. Clim. Risk Manag., 4–5, 59–68, Siebert, A., 2016: Analysis of the future potential of index insurance in the
doi:10.1016/j.crm.2014.10.001. West African Sahel using CMIP5 GCM results. Clim. Change, 134, 15–28,
Selvaraju, R., 2011: Climate risk assessment and management in agriculture. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1508-x.
In: Building Resilience for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Agriculture Siegmeier, J. et al., 2018: The fiscal benefits of stringent climate change
Sector [Meybeck, A., J. Lankoski, S. Redfern, N. Azzu, V. Gitz (eds.)]. mitigation: An overview. 3062, Climate Policy, 18, 352–367, doi:10.1080/
Proceedings of a Joint FAO/OECD Workshop, Food and Agriculture 14693062.2017.1400943.
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 71–89. Sietz, D., L. Fleskens, and L.C. Stringer, 2017: Learning from non-linear
Seng, D.C., 2012: Improving the governance context and framework ecosystem dynamics is vital for achieving land degradation neutrality.
conditions of natural hazard early warning systems. J. Integr. Disaster Risk L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 2308–2314, doi:10.1002/ldr.2732.
Manag., 2, 1–25, doi:10.5595/idrim.2012.0020. Sigurdsson, J.H., L.A. Walls, and J.L. Quigley, 2001: Bayesian belief nets for
Serrao-Neumann, S., B.P. Harman, and D. Low Choy, 2013: The role of managing expert judgement and modelling reliability. Qual. Reliab. Eng.
anticipatory governance in local climate adaptation: Observations from Int., 17, 181–190, doi:10.1002/qre.410.
Australia. Plan. Pract. Res., 28, 440–463, doi:10.1080/02697459.2013.7 Silva-Olaya, A.M. et al., 2017: Modelling SOC response to land use change
95788. and management practices in sugarcane cultivation in South-Central
Serrao-Neumann, S., F. Crick, B. Harman, G. Schuch, and D.L. Choy, 2015a: Brazil. Plant Soil, 410, 483–498, doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3030-y.
Maximising synergies between disaster risk reduction and climate change Silva, R.A. et al., 2013: Global premature mortality due to anthropogenic
adaptation: Potential enablers for improved planning outcomes. Environ. outdoor air pollution and the contribution of past climate change. Environ.
Sci. Policy, 50, 46–61, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.017. Res. Lett., 8, 031002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034005.
Serrao-Neumann, S., B. Harman, A. Leitch, and D. Low Choy, 2015b: Public Silva, R. A et al., 2016: The effect of future ambient air pollution on human
engagement and climate adaptation: insights from three local governments premature mortality to 2100 using output from the ACCMIP model
in Australia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 58, 1196–1216, doi:10.1080/09640 ensemble. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 9847–9862, doi:10.5194/acp-16-
568.2014.920306. 9847-2016.
Seto, K.C., 2011: Exploring the dynamics of migration to mega-delta cities in Silvano, R.A.M., and J. Valbo-Jørgensen, 2008: Beyond fishermen’s tales:
Asia and Africa: Contemporary drivers and future scenarios. Glob. Environ. Contributions of fishers’ local ecological knowledge to fish ecology and
Chang., 21, S94-S107, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.005. fisheries management. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 10, 657–675, doi:10.1007/
Shaaban, M. et al., 2018: A concise review of biochar application to s10668-008-9149-0.
agricultural soils to improve soil conditions and fight pollution. J. Environ. Silveira, S., and F.X. Johnson, 2016: Navigating the transition to sustainable
Manage., 228, 429–440, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2018.09.006. bioenergy in Sweden and Brazil: Lessons learned in a European and
Sharples, J.J. et al., 2016a: Natural hazards in Australia: Extreme bushfire. International context. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 13, 180–193, doi:10.1016/j.
Clim. Change, 139, 85–99, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1811-1. erss.2015.12.021.
Sheil, D., M. Boissière, and G. Beaudoin, 2015: Unseen sentinels: Local Silvertown, J., 2009: A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology
monitoring and control in conservation’s blind spots. Ecol. Soc., 20, art39, & Evolution, 24, 467–471, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017.
doi:10.5751/ES-07625-200239. Simonet, G., J. Subervie, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, M. Cromberg, and A.E. Duchelle,
Sheng, J., X. Han, H. Zhou, and Z. Miao, 2016: Effects of corruption on 2019: Effectiveness of a REDD+ project in reducing deforestation in
performance: Evidence from the UN-REDD Programme. Land Use Policy, the Brazilian Amazon. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 101, 211–229, doi:10.1093/
59, 344–350, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.014. ajae/aay028.
Shiferaw, B. et al., 2014: Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing Sindhu, S., V. Nehra, and S. Luthra, 2017: Investigation of feasibility study
livelihood resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa: Technological, institutional of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case
and policy options. Weather Clim. Extrem., 3, 67–79, doi:10.1016/j. study of India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 73, 496–511, doi:10.1016/j.
wace.2014.04.004. rser.2017.01.135.
Shindell, D. et al., 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change Singh, R., P.M. Reed, and K. Keller, 2015: Many-objective robust decision-
and improving human health and food security. Science, 335, 183–189, making for managing an ecosystem with a deeply uncertain threshold
doi:10.1126/science.1210026. response. Ecol. Soc., 20, 1–32, doi:10.5751/ES-07687-200312.
Shogren, J.F., and L.O. Taylor, 2008: On behavioural-environmental economics. Slater, R., 2011: Cash transfers, social protection and poverty reduction. Int.
Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 2, 26–44, doi:10.1093/reep/rem027. J. Soc. Welf., 20, 250–259, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00801.x.
Shreve, C.M., and I. Kelman, 2014: Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost- Smeets, E., F.X. Johnson, and G. Ballard-Tremeer, 2012a: Traditional and
benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster improved use of biomass for energy in Africa. In: Bioenergy for Sustainable 7
Risk Reduction, 10, 213–235, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004.

793
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Development in Africa [Janssen, R., D. Rutz (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Sorice, M.G., C. Josh Donlan, K.J. Boyle, W. Xu, and S. Gelcich, 2018: Scaling
Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 3–12. participation in payments for ecosystem services programs. PLoS One, 13,
Smith, C.B., 2011: Adaptive management on the central Platte River – Science, e0192211, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192211.
engineering, and decision analysis to assist in the recovery of four species. Sorokin, A. et al., 2015: The economics of land degradation in Russia. In:
J Env. Manag., 92, 1414–1419, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.013. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment
Smith, H.E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M.D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, for Sustainable Development [Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, J. von Braun
2015: Criminals by necessity: The risky life of charcoal transporters in (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 541–576.
Malawi. For. Trees Livelihoods, 24, 259–274, doi:10.1080/14728028.201 Sovacool, B.K., 2018: Bamboo beating bandits: Conflict, inequality,
5.1062808. and vulnerability in the political ecology of climate change
Smith, K.R. et al., 2014a: millions Dead: How do we know and what does it adaptation in Bangladesh. World Dev., 102, 183–194, doi:10.1016/J.
mean? Methods used in the comparative risk assessment of household air WORLDDEV.2017.10.014.
pollution. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 35, 185–206, doi:10.1146/annurev- Sparrevik, M., C. Adam, V. Martinsen, and G. Cornelissen, 2015: Emissions
publhealth-032013-182356. of gases and particles from charcoal/biochar production in rural areas
Smith, P., and J.E. Olesen, 2010: Synergies between the mitigation of, and using medium-sized traditional and improved ‘retort’ kilns. Biomass and
adaptation to, climate change in agriculture. J. Agric. Sci., 148, 543–552, Bioenergy, 72, 65–73, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.016.
doi:10.1017/S0021859610000341. Sparrow, R., A. Suryahadi, and W. Widyanti, 2013: Social health insurance for
Smith, P. et al., 2007: Policy and technological constraints to implementation the poor: Targeting and impact of Indonesia’s Askeskin programme. Soc.
of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Sci. Med., 96, 264–271, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.043.
Environ., 118, 6–28, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.006. Spence, A., W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon, 2012: The psychological distance
Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, of climate change. Risk Anal., 32, 957–972, doi:10.1111/j.1539-
H.  Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, 6924.2011.01695.x.
N.H.  Ravindranath, C.W.  Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, Speranza, C.I., B. Kiteme, P. Ambenje, U. Wiesmann, and S. Makali, 2010:
F.  Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014b: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: Insights
Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni District, Kenya. Clim.
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Change, 100, 295–315, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9713-0.
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, Spoon, J., 2014: Quantitative, qualitative, and collaborative methods:
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, Approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity. Ecol. Soc.,
I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, 19, art33, doi:10.5751/ES-06549-190333.
C.  von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Spracklen, D. V, S.R. Arnold, and C.M. Taylor, 2012: Observations of increased
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 811–922. tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature, 489, 282,
Smith, P. et al., 2016: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 doi:10.1038/nature11390.
emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/nclimate2870. Springmann, M., H.C.J. Godfray, M. Rayner, and P. Scarborough, 2016:
Smucker, T.A., and E.E. Wangui, 2016: Gendered knowledge and adaptive Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits
practices: Differentiation and change in Mwanga District, Tanzania. Ambio, of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 4146–4151, doi:10.1073/
45, 276–286, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0828-z. pnas.1523119113.
Le Saout, S. et al., 2013: Protected areas and effective biodiversity Stattman, S. et al., 2018a: Toward sustainable biofuels in the European
conservation. Science, 342, 803–805, doi:10.1126/science.1239268. Union? Lessons from a decade of hybrid biofuel governance. Sustainability,
Sola, P., C. Ochieng, J. Yila, and M. Iiyama, 2016a: Links between energy 10, 4111, doi:10.3390/su10114111.
access and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa: An exploratory review. Stattman, S.L., A. Gupta, and L. Partzsch, 2016: Biofuels in the European
Food Secur., 8, 635–642, doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0570-1. Union: Can Hybrid Governance Promote Sustainability?In: ECPR General
Solomon et al., 2015: Socio-Economic Scenarios of Low Hanging Fruits for Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 1–17.
Developing Climate-Smart Biochar Systems in Ethiopia: Biomass Resource Stavi, I., and R. Lal, 2015: Achieving zero net land degradation: Challenges
Availability to Sustainably Improve Soil Fertility, Agricultural Productivity and opportunities. J. Arid Environ., 112, 44–51, doi:10.1016/j.
and Food and Nutrition Security. School of Integrative Plant Science Soil jaridenv.2014.01.016.
and Crop Sciences Section, Cornell University, New York, USA, 89 pp. Stavropoulou, M., R. Holmes, and N. Jones, 2017: Harnessing informal
Somanathan, E., R. Prabhakar, and B.S. Mehta, 2009: Decentralization institutions to strengthen social protection for the rural poor. Glob. Food
for cost-effective conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 4143–4147, Sec., 12, 73–79, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.005.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0810049106. Steffen, W. et al., 2015: Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on
Somanthan, E., T. Sterner, T. Sugiyama, D. Chimanikire, N.K. Dubash, a changing planet. Science, 347, 1259855, doi:10.1126/science.1259855.
J. Essandoh-Yeddu, S. Fifita, L. Goulder, A. Jaffe, X. Labandeira, S. Managi, Stephens, S., R. Bell, and J. Lawrence, 2017: Applying principles of uncertainty
C. Mitchell, J.P. Montero, F. Teng, and T. Zylicz, 2014: 15. National and Sub- within coastal hazard assessments to better support coastal adaptation.
National Policies and Institutions. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 5, 40, doi:10.3390/jmse5030040.
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Stephens, S.A., R.G. Bell, and J. Lawrence, 2018: Developing signals to trigger
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., adaptation to sea-level rise. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-
R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, 9326/aadf96.
I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, Stern, N., 2007: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University
C.  von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, 692 pp.
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1141–1206. Stern, N., 2013: The structure of economic modeling of the potential impacts
Song, X.-P. et al., 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, of climate change: Grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already
639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9. narrow science models. J. Econ. Lit., 51, 838–859, doi:10. 257/jel.51.3.838.
Sonnino, R., C. Lozano Torres, and S. Schneider, 2014: Reflexive governance Sternberg, T., 2012: Chinese drought, bread and the Arab Spring. Appl. Geogr.,
7 for food security: The example of school feeding in Brazil. J. Rural Stud., 36, 34, 519–524, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.02.004.
1–12, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.003.

794
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Sternberg, T., 2017: Climate hazards in Asian drylands. Climate Hazard Crises Sun, K., and S.S. Chaturvedi, 2016: Forest conservation and climate change
in Asian Societies and Environments [Sternberg, T. (ed.)]. Routledge, mitigation potential through REDD+ mechanism in Meghalaya, north-
Abingdon, UK, and New York, USA. eastern India: A review. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol., 5, 3643–3650.
Stevanovic, M. et al., 2016: The impact of high-end climate change on Sunderlin, W., C. de Sassi, A. Ekaputri, M. Light, and C. Pratama, 2017: REDD+
agricultural welfare. Sci. Adv., 2, e1501452–e1501452, doi:10.1126/ contribution to well-being and income is marginal: The perspective of local
sciadv.1501452. stakeholders. Forests, 8, 125, doi:10.3390/f8040125.
Stickler, M.M., H. Huntington, A. Haflett, S. Petrova, and I. Bouvier, 2017: Does Sunderlin, W.D. et al., 2018: Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for
de facto forest tenure affect forest condition? Community perceptions from REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future. World Dev., 106,
Zambia. For. Policy Econ., 85, 32–45, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.014. 376–392, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2018.01.010.
Stoa, R.B., 2015: Droughts, floods, and wildfires: Paleo perspectives on diaster Sundström, A., 2016: Understanding illegality and corruption in forest
law in the Anthropocene. Georg. Int. Environ. Law Rev., 27, 393–446. governance. J. Environ. Manage., 181, 779–790, doi:10.1016/j.
Stone, B., J.J. Hess, and H. Frumkin, 2010: Urban form and extreme heat events: jenvman.2016.07.020.
Are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact Surminski, S., 2013: Private-sector adaptation to climate risk. Nat. Clim.
cities? Environ. Health Perspect., 118, 1425, doi:10.1289/ehp.0901879. Chang., 3, 943–945, doi:10.1038/nclimate2040.
Stone, J. et al., 2014: Risk reduction through community-based monitoring: Surminski, S. et al., 2016: Submission to the UNFCCC Warsaw International
The vigías of Tungurahua, Ecuador. J. Appl. Volcanol., 3, 11, doi:10.1186/ Mechanism by the Loss and Damage Network, 8 pp.
s13617-014-0011-9. Surminski, S., L.M. Bouwer, and J. Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016: How insurance can
Storbjörk, S., 2010: ‘It takes more to get a ship to change course’: Barriers for support climate resilience. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 333–334, doi:10.1038/
organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. J. Environ. nclimate2979.
Policy Plan., 12, 235–254, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2010.505414. Suzuki, R., 2012: Linking Adaptation and Mitigation through Community
Stringer, L.C., and A.J. Dougill, 2013: Channelling science into policy: Enabling Forestry: Case Studies from Asia. RECOFTC – The Center for People and
best practices from research on land degradation and sustainable land Forests. RECOFTC, The Center for People and Forests, Bangkok, Thailand,
management in dryland Africa. J. Environ. Manage., 114, 328–335, 80 pp.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.025. Swanson, A., M. Kosmala, C. Lintott, and C. Packer, 2016: A generalized
Stringer, L.C. et al., 2009: Adaptations to climate change, drought and approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data
desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environ. from wildlife images. Conserv. Biol., 30, 520–531, doi:10.1111/cobi.12695.
Sci. Policy, 12, 748–765, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2009.04.002. Tàbara, J.D. et al., 2010: The climate learning ladder. A pragmatic procedure
Stringer, L.C. et al., 2018: A new framework to enable equitable outcomes: to support climate adaptation. Environ. Policy Gov., 20, 1–11, doi:10.1002/
Resilience and nexus approaches combined. Earth’s Futur., 6, 902–918, eet.530.
doi:10.1029/2017EF000694. Takama, T., S. Tsephel, and F.X. Johnson, 2012: Evaluating the relative
Stupak, I., and K. Raulund-Rasmussen, 2016: Historical, ecological, and strength of product-specific factors in fuel switching and stove choice
governance aspects of intensive forest biomass harvesting in Denmark. decisions in Ethiopia. A discrete choice model of household preferences for
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 5, 588–610, doi:10.1002/wene.206. clean cooking alternatives. Energy Econ., 34, 1763–1773, doi:10.1016/J.
Stupak, I. et al., 2016: A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences ENECO.2012.07.001.
for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of Tallis, H., P. Kareiva, M. Marvier, and A. Chang, 2008: An ecosystem services
bioenergy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 5, 89–118, doi:10.1002/ framework to support both practical conservation and economic
wene.166. development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 9457–9464, 10.1073/
Sturm, M., M.A. Goldstein, H.P. Huntington, and T.A. Douglas, 2017: Using pnas.0705797105.
an option pricing approach to evaluate strategic decisions in a rapidly Tanner, T. et al., 2015: Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. Nat.
changing climate: Black-Scholes and climate change. Clim. Change, 140, Clim. Chang., 5, 23–26, doi:10.1038/nclimate2431.
437–449, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1860-5. Tao, H.-H. et al., 2017: Long-term crop residue application maintains oil palm
Sturrock, R.N. et al., 2011: Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol., yield and temporal stability of production. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 33,
60, 133–149, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x. doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0439-5.
Suckall, N., L.C. Stringer, and E.L. Tompkins, 2015: Presenting triple-wins? Taylor, R.G. et al., 2013: Ground water and climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang.,
Assessing projects that deliver adaptation, mitigation and development 3, 322–329, doi:10.1038/nclimate1744.
co-benefits in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Ambio, 44, 34–41, doi:10.1007/ Teeb, T., 2009: The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and
s13280-014-0520-0. international policy makers – Summary: Responding to the value of nature
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., M. Fernández, J.C. Gaillard, L. Guadagno, and M. 2009. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National
Jaboyedoff, 2017: Exploring linkages between disaster risk reduction, and International Policy Makers, Geneva, Switzerland, 39 pp.
climate change adaptation, migration and sustainable development. In: Temper, L., and J. Martinez-Alier, 2013: The god of the mountain and
Identifying Emerging Issues in Disaster Risk Reduction, Migration, Climate Godavarman: Net Present Value, indigenous territorial rights and
Change and Sustainable Development [Sudmeier-Rieux, K., M. Fernández, sacredness in a bauxite mining conflict in India. Ecol. Econ., 96, 79–87,
I.M. Penna, M. Jaboyedoff, J.C. Gaillard (eds.)]. Springer International doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.011.
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1–11. Tengberg, A., and S. Valencia, 2018: Integrated approaches to natural
Suich, H., C. Howe, and G. Mace, 2015: Ecosystem services and poverty resources management-theory and practice. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 1845–
alleviation: A review of the empirical links. Ecosyst. Serv., 12, 137–147, 1857, doi:10.1002/ldr.2946.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005. Tengberg, A., F. Radstake, K. Zhang, and B. Dunn, 2016: Scaling up of
Sumiya, B., 2016: Energy poverty in context of climate change: What are sustainable land management in the western People’s Republic of
the possible impacts of improved modern energy access on adaptation China: Evaluation of a 10-Year partnership. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 134–144,
capacity of communities? Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev., 7, 7, doi:10.7763/ doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.
IJESD.2016.V7.744. Tengö, M., E.S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg,
2014: Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem 7

795
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43, 579–591, Tjaden, N.B. et al., 2017: Modelling the effects of global climate change
doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3. on Chikungunya transmission in the 21st century. Sci. Rep., 7, 3813,
Tennigkeit, T., and W. Andreas, 2008: Working Paper: An Assessment of the doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03566-3.
Potential for Carbon Finance in Rangelands. ICRAF Working Paper No.68, Tompkins, E.L., and W.N. Adger, 2004: Does adaptive management of natural
World Agroforestry Centre, Beijing, China, 31 pp. resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc., 9, 10.
Termeer, C.J.A.M., A. Dewulf, and G.R. Biesbroek, 2017: Transformational Torvanger, A., 2019a: Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and
change: Governance interventions for climate change adaptation from storage (BECCS): Accounting, rewarding, and the Paris Agreement. Clim.
a continuous change perspective. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 60, 558–576, Policy, 19, 329–341, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1509044.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288. Tóth, G., T. Hermann, M.R. da Silva, and L. Montanarella, 2018: Monitoring
Terrazas, W.C.M. et al., 2015: Deforestation, drainage network, indigenous soil for sustainable development and land degradation neutrality. Environ.
status, and geographical differences of malaria in the state of Amazonas. Monit. Assess., 57, 190, doi:10.1007/s10661-017-6415-3.
Malar. J., 14, 379, doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0859-0. Totin, E. et al., 2018: Institutional perspectives of climate-smart agriculture:
Tessler, Z.D. et al., 2015: Profiling risk and sustainability in coastal deltas of A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 10, 1990, doi:10.3390/
the world. Science, 349, 638–643, doi:10.1126/science.aab3574. su10061990.
Thaker, M, Zambre, A. Bhosale, H., 2018: Wind farms have cascading impacts Toulmin, C., and J. Quan, 2000: Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in
on ecosystems across trophic levels. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 1854–1858, Africa. IIED and Natural Resources Institute, London, UK, 324 pp.
doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0707-z. Travis, W.R., 2013: Design of a severe climate change early warning system.
Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein (eds.), 2008: Nudge: Improving decisions about Weather Clim. Extrem., 2, 31–38, doi:10.1016/j.wace.2013.10.006.
health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin, New York, USA, 1–293 pp. Tribbia, J., and S.C. Moser, 2008: More than information: What coastal
Thamo, T., and D.J. Pannell, 2016: Challenges in developing effective policy managers need to plan for climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 11, 315–
for soil carbon sequestration: Perspectives on additionality, leakage, 328, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2008.01.003.
and permanence. Clim. Policy, 16, 973–992, doi:10.1080/14693062.201 Trieb, F., H. Müller-Steinhagen, and J. Kern, 2011: Financing concentrating
5.1075372. solar power in the Middle East and North Africa – Subsidy or investment?
Theisen, O.M., H. Holtermann, and H. Buhaug, 2011: Climate wars? Assessing Energy Policy, 39, 307–317, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.045.
the claim that drought breeds conflict. Int. Secur., 36, 79–106, doi:10.1162/ Tschakert, P., 2007: Views from the vulnerable: Understanding climatic
isec_a_00065. and other stressors in the Sahel. Glob. Environ. Chang., 17, 381–396,
Theriault, V., M. Smale, and H. Haider, 2017a: How does gender affect doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.008.
sustainable intensification of cereal production in the West African Sahel? Tucker Lima, J.M., A. Vittor, S. Rifai, and D. Valle, 2017: Does deforestation
Evidence from Burkina Faso. World Dev., 92, 177–191, doi:10.1016/J. promote or inhibit malaria transmission in the Amazon? A systematic
WORLDDEV.2016.12.003. literature review and critical appraisal of current evidence. Philos. Trans.
Thomas, A., and L. Benjamin, 2017: Policies and mechanisms to address R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 372, 20160125, doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0125.
climate-induced migration and displacement in Pacific and Caribbean Tularam, G., and M. Krishna, 2009: Long-term consequences of groundwater
small island developing states. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 10, pumping in Australia: A review of impacts around the globe. J. Appl. Sci.
86–104, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2017-0055. Environ. Sanit., 4, 151–166.
Thomas, D.H.L., 1996: Fisheries tenure in an African floodplain village and Turkelboom, F. et al., 2018: When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services
the implications for management. Hum. Ecol., 24, 287–313, doi:10.1007/ trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 566–578,
BF02169392. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011.
Thompson-Hall, M., E.R. Carr, and U. Pascual, 2016: Enhancing and expanding Turnhout, E., K. Neves, and E. de Lijster, 2014: ‘Measurementality’in biodiversity
intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings. governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-
Ambio, 45, 373–382, doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0. Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ.
Thompson, I., B. Mackey, S. McNulty, and A. Mosseler, 2009: Forest Resilience, Plan. A, 46, 581–597, doi:10.1068/a4629.
Biodiversity, and Climate Change: A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/ von Uexkull, N., M. Croicu, H. Fjelde, and H. Buhaug, 2016: Civil conflict
Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. Secretariat of the sensitivity to growing-season drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 12391–
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, 67 pp. 12396, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607542113.
Thorén, H., and L. Olsson, 2017: Is resilience a normative concept? Resilience, Ulrich-Schad, J.D., S. Garcia de Jalon, N. Babin, A. Pape, L.S. Prokopy, 2017:
6, 112–128, doi:10.1080/21693293.2017.1406842. Measuring and understanding agricultural producers’ adoption of
Tidwell, J.H., and G.L. Allan, 2001: Fish as food: Aquaculture’s contribution: nutrient best management practices. J. Soil Water Conserv., 72, 506–518,
Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and doi:10.2489/jswc.72.5.506.
capture fisheries. EMBO Rep., 2, 958–963, doi:10.1093/embo-reports/ Umukoro, N., 2013: Poverty and social protection in Nigeria. J. Dev. Soc., 29,
kve236. 305–322, doi:10.1177/0169796X13494281.
Tierney, J.E., C.C. Ummenhofer, and P.B. DeMenocal, 2015: Past and future Cowie, A.L., 2016: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework
rainfall in the Horn of Africa. Sci. Adv., 1, e1500682, doi:10.1126/ for land degradation neutrality. Sci. Br., 79, 25–35, doi:10.1016/j.
sciadv.1500682. envsci.2017.10.011.
Tigchelaar, M., D. Battisti, R.. Naylor, and D.. Ray, 2018: Future warming UNCCD, 2015: Land Degradation Neutrality: The Target Setting Programme.
increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 22 pp.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 115, 6644–6649, doi:10.1073/pnas.1718031115. UNDP, 2014: Governance for Sustainable Human Development. United
Timberlake, T.J., and C.A. Schultz, 2017: Policy, practice, and partnerships for Nations Development Programme, New York, USA, pp. 2–3.
climate change adaptation on US national forests. Clim. Change, 144, UNEP, 2009: Statement by Ahmed Djoghlaf Executive Secretary at the
257–269, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2031-z. Meeting of Steering Committee Global Form on Oceans, Coasts and
Tittonell, P., 2014: Livelihood strategies, resilience and transformability Islands. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United
in African agroecosystems. Agric. Syst., 126, 3–14, doi:10.1016/j. Nations, Montreal, Canada, 3 pp.
7 agsy.2013.10.010. UNEP, 2016: The Adaptation Finance Gap Report 2016. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 84 pp.

796
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

UNFCCC, 2007: Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Verchot, L.V. et al., 2007: Climate change: Linking adaptation and mitigation
in Developing Countries. Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), Bonn, through agroforestry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 12, 901–918,
Germany, 64 pp. doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6.
UNFCCC, 2018a: Paris Rulebook: Proposal by the President, Informal Verdegem, M.C.J., and R.H. Bosma, 2009: Water withdrawal for brackish
Compilation of L-documents. UNFCCC, Katowice, Poland, 133 pp. and inland aquaculture, and options to produce more fish in ponds with
UNFCCC, 2016: Paris Agreement. Paris Agreement– Pre 2020 Action. Paris, present water use. Water Policy, 11, 52–68, doi:10.2166/wp.2009.003.
France, 25 pp. Vergara-Asenjo, G., and C. Potvin, 2014: Forest protection and tenure status:
United Nations Environment Programme, 2017: The Emissions Gap Report The key role of indigenous peoples and protected areas in Panama. Glob.
2017: A UN Environment Synthesis Report. The Emissions Gap Report Environ. Chang., 28, 205–215, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2014.07.002.
2017, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, Verma, S., D.A. Kampman, P. van der Zaag, and A.Y. Hoekstra, 2009: Going
1–86 pp. against the flow: A critical analysis of inter-state virtual water trade in the
Urwin, K., and A. Jordan, 2008: Does public policy support or undermine context of India’s National River Linking Program. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts
climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different A/B/C, 34, 261–269, doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.05.002.
scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Chang., 18, 180–191, doi:10.1016/j. Verschuuren, J., 2017: Towards a regulatory design for reducing emissions
gloenvcha.2007.08.002. from agriculture: Lessons from Australia’s carbon farming initiative. Clim.
Usher, P.J., 2000: Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental Law, 7, 1–51, doi:10.1163/18786561-00701001.
assessment and management. ARCTIC, 53, 183–193 pp. Vervoort, J., and A. Gupta, 2018: Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5°C era:
Uzun, B., and M. Cete, 2004: A Model for Solving Informal Settlement Issues The link between foresight and governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.,
in Developing Countries. Planning, Valuat. Environ. FIG Working Week, 31, 104–111, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.004.
Athens, Greece, 7 pp. Verweij, M. et al., 2006: Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case
Valatin, G., D. Moseley, and N. Dandy, 2016: Insights from behavioural of climate change. Public Adm., 84, 817–843, doi:10.1111/j.1467-
economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential 9299.2006.00614.x.
nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and Vijge, M.J., and A. Gupta, 2014: Framing REDD+ in India: Carbonizing and
adaptation? For. Policy Econ., 72, 27–36, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.012. centralizing Indian forest governance? Environ. Sci. Policy, 38, 17–27,
IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.012.
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre- Villagra, P., and C. Quintana, 2017: Disaster governance for community
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, resilience in coastal towns: Chilean case studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of Health, 14, 1063, doi:10.3390/ijerph14091063.
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty Vincent, K., S. Besson, T. Cull, and C. Menzel, 2018: Sovereign insurance
[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, to incentivize the shift from disaster response to adaptation to climate
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. change – African Risk Capacity’s Extreme Climate Facility. Clim. Dev., 10,
Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, 385–388, doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1442791.
and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Vira, B., B. Adams, C. Agarwal, S. Badiger, R. a Hope, J. Krishnaswamy, and
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 24 pp. C. Kumar, 2012: Negotiating trade-offs: Choices about ecosystem services
Valipour, A., T. Plieninger, Z. Shakeri, H. Ghazanfari, M. Namiranian, and M.J. for poverty alleviation. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 47, 67.
Lexer, 2014: Traditional silvopastoral management and its effects on forest Vörösmarty, C.J. et al., 2010: Global threats to human water security and river
stand structure in Northern Zagros, Iran. For. Ecol. Manage., 327, 221–230, biodiversity. Nature, 467, 555–561, doi:10.1038/nature09440.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.004. Voß, J.-P., and N. Amelung, 2016: Innovating public participation methods:
Vandersypen, K., A.C.T. Keita, Y. Coulibaly, D. Raes, and J.Y. Jamin, 2007: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Soc. Stud. Sci., 46,
Formal and informal decision-making on water management at the village 749–772, doi:10.1177/0306312716641350.
level: A case study from the Office du Niger irrigation scheme (Mali). Water Voß, J.P., and A. Simons, 2018: A novel understanding of experimentation in
Resour. Res., 43, 1–10, doi:10.1029/2006WR005132. governance: Co-producing innovations between ‘lab’ and ‘field’. Policy Sci.,
Vanmaercke, M. et al., 2016a: How fast do gully headcuts retreat? Earth- 51, 213–229, doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9313-9.
Science Rev., 154, 336–355, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.01.009. Waas, T. et al., 2014: Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in
Velthof, G.L. et al., 2014: The impact of the Nitrates Directive on nitrogen a  decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustain., 6,
emissions from agriculture in the EU-27 during 2000–2008. Sci. Total 5512–5534, doi:10.3390/su6095512.
Environ., 468–469, 1225–1233, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.058. Wada, Y. et al., 2010: Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys.
Vent, O., Sabarmatee, and N. Uphoff, 2017: The system of rice intensification Res. Lett., 37, 1–5, doi:10.1029/2010GL044571.
and its impacts on women: Reducing pain, discomfort, and labor in Wada, Y., A.K. Gain, and C. Giupponi, 2016: Measuring global water security
rice farming while enhancing households’ food security. In: Women in towards sustainable development goals. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 2–13,
Agriculture Worldwide: Key issues and practical approaches [Fletcher, A., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124015.
and W. Kubik (eds.)]. Routledge, London, UK and New York, USA, pp. 55–76. Waddock, S., 2013: The wicked problems of global sustainability need wicked
Venton, C.C., 2018: The Economics of Resilience to Drought. USAID Centre (good) leaders and wicked (good) collaborative solutions. J. Manag. Glob.
for Resilience, 130 pp. Sustain., 1, 91–111, doi:10.13185/JM2013.01106.
Venton, C.C.C., C. Fitzgibbon, T. Shitarek, L. Coulter, and O. Dooley, 2012: The Wagenbrenner, N.S., M.J. Germino, B.K. Lamb, P.R. Robichaud, and R.B. Foltz,
Economics of Early Response and Disaster Resilience: Lessons from Kenya 2013: Wind erosion from a sagebrush steppe burned by wildfire:
and Ethiopia. Economics of Resilience Final Report, UK Department of Measurements of PM10 and total horizontal sediment flux. Aeolian Res.,
International Development, UK, 1–84 pp. 10, 25–36, doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.10.003.
Verburg, P.H. et al., 2015: Land system science and sustainable development Wagner, G., 2013: Carbon Cap and Trade. Encycl. Energy, Nat. Resour. Environ.
of the Earth System: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene, 12, Econ., 1–3, 1–5, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00071-1.
29–41, doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2015.09.004. Waite, S.H., 2011: Blood forests: Post Lacey Act, why cohesive global
Verbyla, D., 2011: Browning boreal forests of western North America. Environ. governance is essential to extinguish the market for illegally harvested 7
Res. Lett., 6, 41003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/041003. timber. Seattle J. Environ. Law, 2, 317–342.

797
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Walker, W. et al., 2014: Forest carbon in Amazonia: The unrecognized integrative governance. Glob. Environ. Chang., 45, 165–173, doi:10.1016/j.
contribution of indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Carbon gloenvcha.2017.06.006.
Manag., 5, 479–485, doi:10.1080/17583004.2014.990680. Welcomme, R.L. et al., 2010: Inland capture fisheries. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Walter, A., J.E.A. Seabra, P.G. Machado, B. de Barros Correia, and C.O.F. London B Biol. Sci., 365, 2881–2896, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0168.
de Oliveira, 2018: Sustainability of biomass. In: Biomass and Green Chemistry, Wellesley, L., F. Preston, J. Lehne, and R. Bailey, 2017: Chokepoints in global
Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 191–219. food trade: Assessing the risk. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., 25, 15–28,
Wam, H.K., N. Bunnefeld, N. Clarke, and O. Hofstad, 2016: Conflicting interests doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.07.007.
of ecosystem services: Multi-criteria modelling and indirect evaluation of Wenkel, K.-O. et al., 2013: LandCaRe DSS – An interactive decision support
trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary measures. Ecosyst. Serv., system for climate change impact assessment and the analysis of potential
22, 280–288, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.003. agricultural land use adaptation strategies. J. Environ. Manage., 127,
Wang, C. et al., 2018: Effects of biochar amendment on net greenhouse S168–S183, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2013.02.051.
gas emissions and soil fertility in a double rice cropping system: A 4-year West, T.A.P., 2016: Indigenous community benefits from a de-centralized
field experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 262, 83–96, doi:10.1016/J. approach to REDD+ in Brazil. Clim. Policy, 16, 924–939, doi:10.1080/14
AGEE.2018.04.017. 693062.2015.1058238.
Wang, S., and B. Fu, 2013: Trade-offs between forest ecosystem services. For. Westberg, C.J., and F.X. Johnson, 2013: The Path Not Yet Taken: Bilateral
Policy Econ., 26, 145–146, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.014. Agreements to Promote Sustainable Biofuels under the EU Renewable
Wang, X. et al., 2016: Life-table studies revealed significant effects of Energy Directive Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2013–
deforestation on the development and survivorship of Anopheles minimus 02. SEI Working Paper No. 2013–02, Stockholm Environment Institute,
larvae. Parasit. Vectors, 9, 323, doi:10.1186/s13071-016-1611-5. Stockholm, Sweden, 41 pp.
Ward, F.A., and M. Pulido-Velazquez, 2008: Water conservation in irrigation Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam, 2006: Warming
can increase water use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 18215–18220, and earlier spring increase Western US forest wildfire activity. Science,
doi:10.1073pnas.0805554105. 313, 940–943, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1128834.
Ward, P.S., 2016: Transient poverty, poverty dynamics, and vulnerability to Weyant, C.L. et al., 2019a: Emission measurements from traditional biomass
poverty: An empirical analysis using a balanced panel from rural China. cookstoves in South Asia and Tibet. Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 3306–3314,
World Dev., 78, 541–553, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.022. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b05199.
Warner, K., 2018: Coordinated approaches to large-scale movements of Weyant, C.L. et al., 2019b: Emission measurements from traditional biomass
people: Contributions of the Paris Agreement and the global compacts cookstoves in South Asia and Tibet. Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 3306–3314,
for migration and on refugees. Popul. Environ., 39, 384–401, doi:10.1007/ doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b05199.
s11111-018-0299-1. Wheaton, E., and S. Kulshreshtha, 2017: Environmental sustainability of
Warner, K., and T. Afifi, 2011: Environmentally induced migration in the agriculture stressed by changing extremes of drought and excess moisture:
context of social vulnerability. Int. Migr., 49, 242 pp, doi:10.1111/j.1468- A conceptual review. Sustain., 9, 970, doi:10.3390/su9060970.
2435.2011.00697.x. Wheeler, T., and J. Von Braun, 2013: Climate change impacts on global food
Warner, K., and T. Afifi, 2014: Where the rain falls: Evidence from 8 countries security. Science, 341, 508–513, doi:10.1126/science.1239402.
on how vulnerable households use migration to manage the risk of rainfall Whitaker, J. et al., 2018: Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial
variability and food insecurity. Clim. Dev., 6, 1–17, doi:10.1080/1756552 bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10, 150–164, doi:10.1111/
9.2013.835707. gcbb.12488.
Warner, K. et al., 2012: Evidence from the Frontlines of Climate Change: Loss White, B., S.M. Borras, R. Hall, I. Scoones, and W. Wolford, 2012: The new
and Damage to Communities Despite Coping and Adaptation. UNU-EHS, enclosures: Critical perspectives on corporate land deals. J. Peasant Stud.,
Bonn, Germany, 85 pp. 39, 619–647, doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.691879.
Warner, K. et al., 2018: Characteristics of transformational adaptation in White, J., and J. Morton, 2005: Mitigating impacts of HIV/AIDS on rural
land-society-climate interactions. Sustainability, 11, 356, doi:10.3390/ livelihoods: NGO experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa. Dev. Pract., 15, 186–
su11020356. 199, doi:10.1080/09614520500041757.
Wathore, R., K. Mortimer, and A.P. Grieshop, 2017: In-use emissions and Whitmee, S. et al., 2015: Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene
estimated impacts of traditional, natural- and forced-draft cookstoves epoch: Report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on
in rural Malawi. Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 1929–1938, doi:10.1021/acs. planetary health. Lancet, 386, 1973–2028, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736
est.6b05557. (15)60901-1.
Watts, N. et al., 2015: Health and climate change: Policy responses to Wiebe, K. et al., 2015a: Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under
protect public health. Lancet, 386, 1861–1914, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 a range of plausible socio-economic and emissions scenarios. Environ. Res.
(15)60854-6. Lett., 10, 085010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085010.
Watts, N. et al., 2018: The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health Wiebe, K. et al., 2015b: Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under
and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. a range of plausible socio-economic and emissions scenarios. Environ. Res.
Lancet, 392, 2479–2514, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (18)32594-7. Lett., 10, 085010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085010.
Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman, 2015: Geographies of resilience: Challenges Wiebe, K. et al., 2018: Scenario development and foresight analysis: Exploring
and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 39 (3), options to inform choices. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
249–267, doi:10.1177/0309132513518834. 43, 545-570, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030109.
Weick, K.E., and K.M. Sutcliffe (eds.), 2001: Managing the Unexpected. Wiggering, H., and U. Steinhardt, 2015: A conceptual model for site-
Resilient Performance in a Time of Change. Jossey-Bass, California, specific agricultural land use. Ecol. Modell., 295, 42–46, doi:10.1016/j.
USA, 200 pp. ecolmodel.2014.08.011.
Weitz, N., H. Carlsen, M. Nilsson, and K. Skånberg, 2017a: Towards systemic Wilby, R.L., and S. Dessai, 2010: Robust adaptation to climate change.
and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Weather, 65, 180–185, doi:10.1002/wea.543.
Sustainability Science, 13, 531–548, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0. Wilkes, A., A. Reisinger, E. Wollenberg, and S. Van Dijk, 2017: Measurement,
7 Weitz, N., C. Strambo, E. Kemp-Benedict, and M. Nilsson, 2017b: Closing Reporting and Verification of Livestock GHG Emissions by Developing
the governance gaps in the water–energy–food nexus: Insights from

798
Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development Chapter 7

Countries in the UNFCCC: Current Practices and Opportunities for Woollen, E. et al., 2016: Charcoal production in the Mopane woodlands of
Improvement. CCAFS Rep. No. 17, Wageningen, Netherlands, 114 pp. Mozambique: What are the trade-offs with other ecosystem services? Philos.
Wilkinson, E. et al., 2018: Forecasting Hazards, Averting Disasters – Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 371, 20150315, doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0315.
Implementing Forecast-Based Early Action at Scale. Overseas Development World Bank, 2009a: Environmental crisis or sustainable development
Institute, London, UK, 38 pp. opportunity? World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Willemen, L., B. Burkhard, N. Crossman, E.G. Drakou, and I. Palomo, 2015: World Bank, 2009b: Environmental Crisis or Sustainable Development
Editorial: Best practices for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosystem Opportunity?
Services, 13, 1–5, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.008. World Bank, 2018: The State of Social Safety Nets 2018. Washington, DC,
Willenbockel, D., 2012: Extreme weather events and crop price spikes USA, 165 pp.
in a  changing climate. Illustrative global simulation scenarios. Oxfam World Food Programme, 2018: Food Security Climate Resilience Facility
Research Reports, Oxford, UK, 59 pp. (FoodSECuRE), Rome, Italy, 2 pp.
Williams, A.P., and J.T. Abatzoglou, 2016: Recent advances and remaining World Health Organization, 2014: Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects
uncertainties in resolving past and future climate effects on global fire of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s. World
activity. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 2, 1–14, doi:10.1007/s40641-016- Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 115 pp.
0031-0. Wreford, A., and A. Renwick, 2012: Estimating the costs of climate change
Williams, B.K., 2011: Adaptive management of natural resources-framework adaptation in the agricultural sector. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci.
and issues. J. Environ. Manage., 92, 1346–1353, doi:10.1016/j. Nutr. Nat. Resour., 7, 1–10, doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20127040.
jenvman.2010.10.041. Wreford, A., A. Ignaciuk, and G. Gruère, 2017: Overcoming barriers to the
Williams, D.A., and K.E. Dupuy, 2018: Will REDD+ Safeguards Mitigate adoption of climate-friendly practices in agriculture. OECD Food, Agric.
Corruption? Qualitative evidence from Southeast Asia. J. Dev. Stud., 55, Fish. Pap., 101, 1–40, doi:10.1787/97767de8-en.
2129–2144, doi:10.1080/00220388.2018.1510118. Wu, X., Y. Lu, S. Zhou, L. Chen, and B. Xu, 2016: Impact of climate change
Williams, S.E., E.E. Bolitho, and S. Fox, 2003: Climate change in Australian on human infectious diseases: Empirical evidence and human adaptation.
tropical rainforests: An impending environmental catastrophe. Proc. R. Soc. Environ. Int., 86, 14–23, doi:10.1016/J.ENVINT.2015.09.007.
London. Ser. B Biol. Sci., 270, 1887–1892, doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2464. Wunder, S., and R. Bodle, 2019: Achieving land degradation neutrality
Williamson, T.B., and H.W. Nelson, 2017: Barriers to enhanced and integrated in Germany: Implementation process and design of a land use
climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management. change based indicator. Environ. Sci. Policy, 92, 46–55, doi:10.1016/J.
Can. J. For. Res., 47, 1567–1576, doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0252. ENVSCI.2018.09.022.
Wilson, G.L., B.J. Dalzell, D.J. Mulla, T. Dogwiler, and P.M. Porter, 2014: Xu, J. et al., 2005: Integrating sacred knowledge for conservation: Cultures
Estimating water quality effects of conservation practices and grazing and landscapes in Southwest China. Ecol. Soc., 10, ART. 7, doi:10.5751/
land use scenarios. J. Soil Water Conserv., 69, 330–342, doi:10.2489/ ES-01413-100207.
jswc.69.4.330. Yamagata, Y., N. Hanasaki, A. Ito, T. Kinoshita, D. Murakami, and Q. Zhou,
Wilson, R.S. et al., 2016: A typology of time-scale mismatches and behavioral 2018: Estimating water-food-ecosystem trade-offs for the global negative
interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems. Conserv. Biol., emission scenario (IPCC-RCP2.6). Sustain. Sci., 13, 301–313, doi:10.1007/
30, 42–49, doi:10.1111/cobi.12632. s11625-017-0522-5.
Win, Z.C. et al., 2018: Differences in consumption rates and patterns Yamana, T.K., A. Bomblies, and E.A.B. Eltahir, 2016: Climate change unlikely to
between firewood and charcoal: A case study in a rural area of Yedashe increase malaria burden in West Africa. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 1009–1013,
Township, Myanmar. Biomass and Bioenergy, 109, 39–46, doi:10.1016/j. doi:10.1038/nclimate3085.
biombioe.2017.12.011. Yami, M., C. Vogl, and M. Hauser, 2009: Comparing the effectiveness
Winemiller, K.O. et al., 2016: DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT. Balancing of informal and formal institutions in sustainable common pool
hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science, resources management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conserv. Soc., 7, 153,
351, 128–129, doi:10.1126/science.aac7082. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.64731.
Winickoff, D.E., and M. Mondou, 2017: The problem of epistemic jurisdiction Yami, M., C. Vogl, and M. Hauser, 2011: Informal institutions as mechanisms
in global governance: The case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Soc. to address challenges in communal grazing land management in Tigray,
Stud. Sci., 47, 7–32, doi:10.1177/0306312716667855. Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol., 18, 78–87, doi:10.1080/135045
Wise, R.M. et al., 2014: Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as 09.2010.530124.
part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Chang., 28, 325– Yang, J. et al., 2014a: Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area
336, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. in response to anthropogenic and environmental factors: Reconstructing
Wise, R.M. et al., 2016: How climate compatible are livelihood adaptation global fire history for the 20th and early 21st centuries. J. Geophys. Res.
strategies and development programs in rural Indonesia? Clim. Risk Biogeosciences, 119, 249–263, doi:10.1002/2013JG002532.
Manag., 12, 100–114, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.11.001. Yang, W., and Q. Lu, 2018: Integrated evaluation of payments for ecosystem
Wittmann, M., S. Chandra, K. Boyd, and C. Jerde, 2016: Implementing services programs in China: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Heal. Sustain.,
invasive species control: A case study of multi-jurisdictional coordination 4, 73–84, doi:10.1080/20964129.2018.1459867.
at Lake Tahoe, USA. Manag. Biol. Invasions, 6, 319–328, doi:10.3391/ Youn, S.-J. et al., 2014: Inland capture fishery contributions to global
mbi.2015.6.4.01. food security and threats to their future. Glob. Food Sec., 3, 142–148,
Wodon, Q., and H. Zaman, 2010: Higher food prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2014.09.005.
Poverty impact and policy responses. World Bank Res. Obs., 25, 157–176, Young, H.S. et al., 2017a: Interacting effects of land use and climate on
doi:10.1093/wbro/lkp018. rodent-borne pathogens in central Kenya. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.,
Woodward, M., Z. Kapelan, and B. Gouldby, 2013: Adaptive flood risk 372, 20160116, doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0116.
management under climate change uncertainty using real options and Young, O.R., 2017a: Governing Complex Systems. Social Capital for the
optimisation. Journ. Risk Anal., 34, 75–92, doi:10.1111/risa.12088. Anthropocene. MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Massachusetts,
Woolf, D., D. Solomon, and J. Lehmann, 2018: Land restoration in food security USA, 296 pp.
programmes: Synergies with climate change mitigation. Clim. Policy, 18, Young, O.R., 2017b: Beyond regulation: Innovative strategies for governing 7
1–11, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1427537. large complex systems. Sustain., 9, 938, doi:10.3390/su9060938.

799
 Chapter 7 Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development

Yousefpour, R., and M. Hanewinkel, 2016: Climate change and decision-

making under uncertainty. Curr. For. Reports, 2, 143–149, doi:10.1007/
s40725-016-0035-y.
Yumkella, K.K., and P.T. Yillia, 2015: Framing the water-energy-nexus for the
Post-2015 Development Agenda. Aquat. Procedia, 5, 8–12, doi:10.1016/j.
aqpro.2015.10.003.
Zahawi, R.A., J.L. Reid, and K.D. Holl, 2014: Hidden costs of passive restoration.
Restor. Ecol., 22, 284–287, doi:10.1111/rec.12098.
Zahran, S., S.D. Brody, W.E. Highfield, and A. Vedlitz, 2010: Non-linear
incentives, plan design, and flood mitigation: The case of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s community rating system. J. Environ.
Plan. Manag., 53, 219–239, doi:10.1080/09640560903529410.
Zanzanaini, C. et al., 2017: Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture,
livelihoods and ecosystem conservation: An assessment of experiences
from South and Southeast Asia. Landsc. Urban Plan., 165, 11–21,
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.010.
Zarfl, C., A.E. Lumsdon, J. Berlekamp, L. Tydecks, and K. Tockner, 2015:
A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci., 77, 161–170,
doi:10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0.
Zeng, Z., J. Liu, P.H. Koeneman, E. Zarate, and A.Y. Hoekstra, 2012: Assessing
water footprint at river basin level: A case study for the Heihe River Basin
in Northwest China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2771–2781, doi:10.5194/
hess-16-2771-2012.
Zhang, J., C. He, L. Chen, and S. Cao, 2018a: Improving food security in China
by taking advantage of marginal and degraded lands. J. Clean. Prod., 171,
1020–1030, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.110.
Zhang, W., T. Zhou, L. Zou, L. Zhang, and X. Chen, 2018b: Reduced exposure
to extreme precipitation from 0.5°C less warming in global land monsoon
regions. Nat. Commun., 9, 3153, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05633-3.
Zhao, C. et al., 2017: Temperature increase reduces global yields of major
crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 9326–
9331, doi:10.1073/pnas.1701762114.
Zhao, L. et al., 2018: Interactions between urban heat islands and heat waves.
Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 1–11, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9f73.
Zheng, H. et al., 2016: Using ecosystem service trade‐offs to inform water
conservation policies and management practices. Front. Ecol. Environ., 14,
527–532, doi:10.1002/fee.1432.
Ziv, G., E. Baran, S. Nam, I. Rodríguez-Iturbe, and S.A. Levin, 2012: Trading-off
fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 5609–5614, doi:10.1073/pnas.1201423109.
Zomer, R.J., A. Trabucco, D.A. Bossio, and L.V. Verchot, 2008: Climate
change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean
development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ., 126, 67–80, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.014.
Zoogah, D.B., M.W. Peng, and H. Woldu, 2015: Institutions, resources, and
organizational effectiveness in Africa. Acad. Manag. Perspect., 29, 7–31,
doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0033.
Zulu, L.C., and R.B. Richardson, 2013a: Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty
reduction: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev., 17,
127–137, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007.
Senyolo, M.P., T.B. Long, V. Blok, O. Omta, 2018: How the characteristics
of innovations impact their adoption: An exploration of climate-smart
agricultural innovations in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production,
172, 3825–3840, doi:1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.019.

800