Vizinho, A., Avelar, D., Branquinho, C., Capela Lourenço, T., Carvalho, S., Nunes, A., Sucena-Paiva, L., Oliveira, H., Fonseca. A.L., Santos, F.D., Roxo, M.J. & Penha-Lopes, G. (2021) Framework for climate change adaptation of agriculture and forestry in mediterranean climate regions.Land, 10(2), 161. DOI:10.3390/land10020161 (IF2021 3,905; Q2 Environmental Studies)
Planning the adaptation of agriculture and forestry landscapes to climate change remains challenging due to the need for integrating substantial amounts of information. This information ranges from climate scenarios, geographical site information, socio-economic data and several possible adaptation measures. Thus, there is an urgent need to have a framework that is capable of organizing adaptation strategies and measures in the agriculture and forestry sectors in Mediterranean climatic regions. Additionally, this framework should provide a cause effect relation with climate vulnerability to adequately support the development of adaptation planning at municipal and local (farm) level. In this context, we propose to test and evaluate a framework for climate adaptation of the agriculture and forestry sectors, based on the local causal-effect relation between adaptation strategies and measures and the level of vulnerability reduction achieved for Mediterranean areas. The framework was developed based on the combination of the DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) and Vulnerability frameworks and reviewed 162 practical adaptation measures, further organized into strategies, complemented by a set of efficacy indicators. The framework was tested with 70 stakeholders in six stakeholder workshops for the planning of two farms and one municipal climate adaptation study, that are now in actual implementation and monitoring. The framework is composed by a set of eight adaptation strategies in which adaptation measures are clustered and assessed using efficacy indicators. In the evaluation of the adaptation framework, 96% of stakeholders considered its content as good or very good and 89% considered the final outcomes as good or very good. Finally, the framework was also used to assess and compare the adaptation strategies and measures presented in the climate adaptation plans of the three case studies. On average, 52.2% of the adaptation measures selected by the three case studies are dedicated to Ecosystem Resilience, 30.9% to Adaptive Capacity, 9.1% to Microclimates, 7.4% to Protection, and 0.3% to Mitigation strategies. This framework was considered effective in supporting adaptation planning at farm and municipal levels and useful to assess and compare adaptation plans in the frame of vulnerability reduction. Future studies can further contribute to support adaptation planning in these sectors by using, developing and streamlining this framework to additional and different socio-ecological contexts.