Conventional approaches to indicators and metrics undermine urban climate adaptation.
Marta Olazabal, Andressa V Mansur, Samraj Sahay, Laura Helmke-Long, Massimiliano Granceri Bradaschia, Ane Villaverde, Leire Garmendia, Prince Dacosta Aboagye, Ayyoob Sharifi, Obed Asamoah, Patricia Mwangi, William Lewis, Borja Izaola, Ellie Murtagh, Ira Feldman
Abstract
Open AccessMeasurement is essential for effective adaptation management and operation, and indicators and metrics (I&M) have a pivotal role. Surprisingly, systematic efforts to assess advances in the provision of adaptation I&M are scarce, and those that do exist often lack in-depth analysis of the types, characteristics, and applicability of the collected information. Here, we analyse 137 publications and 901 I&M sourced in the scientific literature (2007-2022) to measure adaptation to climate change in urban areas where governments are increasingly placing efforts to prepare populations and infrastructures. A lack of common terminology, standardisation, and guidelines has resulted in a field that is complex to track and understand. This complexity has led to a fragmented methodological landscape, marked by diverse, context-dependent, and occasionally conflicting approaches to the development of I&M. We argue that conventional approaches to I&M are largely inadequate and must better emphasise quantifiability, long-term assessment, and alignment with policy objectives.