Operationalizing and measuring climate change adaptation success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a context of rapid global change, understanding whether and how adaptation to climate change can be considered successful has become an important research gap within the climate change adaptation literature. Although definitions of adaptation success have been formulated, it remains unclear how they can be operationalized and tested empirically. To address this gap, we operationalized one of the most prominent definitions of successful adaptation within the academic literature, which describes success as adaptations that support reductions in risk and vulnerability without compromising sustainability. Specifically, drawing on data collected from 209 coral reef tourism operators across 28 locations and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, we explored how the risk, vulnerability, and sustainability outcomes that operators experienced one year after experiencing a severe climate disturbance (either coral bleaching or a cyclone) related to the types of adaptation they adopted in response to the disturbance. We used chi-squared tests and multivariate regression to explore the relationships between adaptive responses, adaptation outcomes, and contextual conditions. Compared to a control group with non-affected operators, operators affected by a climate disturbance were significantly more likely to have experienced an increase in perceived climate risk and reduced economic and environmental sustainability. However, our findings indicate that at least some adaptation responses were effective in promoting desirable outcomes, such as reductions in risk and vulnerability. Spatial diversification of reef site use supported economic outcomes despite environmental impacts, while reef restoration measures reduced perceived climate risks for some operators. Moreover, seeking support from others reduced vulnerability to coral bleaching, while also having positive economic outcomes. Our findings suggest scientific needs for further research on the causal relationships between adaptation measures and their outcomes, experimentation with different statistical methods, and empirical tests of the generalizability of our findings in different contexts over space and time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".