The integration of multi-domain adaptation resources, including climate change risk identification maps, adaptation simulators, and demonstration cases, can serve as reference materials for policy planning by central government agencies.
For more information about the “2-6 Framework” framework, please refer to the video below:
Defining the Scope involves identifying relevant authorities, stakeholders, and their locations to establish a spatial unit. This unit underpins climate risk identification, vulnerability analysis, and adaptation planning. The process includes setting assessment targets, reviewing past hazards and thresholds, confirming the temporal and spatial range of current and future hazards, and co-defining the assessment scope with stakeholders.
The assessment of current risk should draw on information from historical climate observations and apply quantitative, qualitative, or integrated impact assessment approaches to evaluate the current levels of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability of the assessment target, as well as to analyze the degree of impact and its spatial distribution.
Use up-to-date reports and recommendations from domestic and international scientific research institutions and governments to set adaptation application scenarios. Apply current risk assessment methods to evaluate future risks under climate change. Integrate results from current risk assessments with comparative information to identify adaptation gaps or designate high-risk areas.
Integrative decision-making should define objectives for reducing adaptation gaps and identify candidate adaptation options. After considering the effectiveness, feasibility, and potential negative impacts of these options, priority adaptation measures and their implementation timelines should be determined.
In promoting or implementing adaptation options, in addition to managing implementation schedules, quantitative evaluation indicators or other appropriate approaches should be established to monitor the performance and effectiveness of adaptation actions.
At this stage, priority should be given to reviewing whether the implementation outcomes of adaptation options have achieved the established adaptation gap objectives. Potential positive and negative impacts following implementation, as well as barriers encountered during the planning and execution processes, should be assessed. Proposed future solutions should then be incorporated into subsequent risk assessments and revisions of adaptation options.