This session invites contributions that advance understanding and practice in measuring and evaluating progress in climate adaptation across scales, hazards and sectors. We welcome research that develops or applies frameworks, methods, and tools for adaptation monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), as well as critical reflections on their usability, comparability, and policy relevance.
Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
Development and application of process, output, outcome, and impact indicators for adaptation, with a focus on outcomes and impacts.
Approaches to integrating multiple indicator types for holistic assessment.
Use of novel data sources and methods (Earth observation, citizen science, AI, participatory surveys) for MEL.
Cross-scale measurement: from local initiatives to national reporting and global stocktake.
Addressing uncertainty, attribution, and time horizons in adaptation measurement within the MEL process.
Considerations of equity, justice, and governance in defining and applying adaptation metrics.
Case studies showcasing practical experiences of tracking adaptation progress across geographies and contexts.
By bringing together conceptual, methodological, and applied perspectives, this session seeks to identify pathways towards robust, inclusive, and actionable adaptation metrics that can guide decision-making and enhance accountability under the EU Mission on Adaptation, the Paris Agreement, and other global frameworks.
Climate Risk Assessments (CRAs) have become indispensable tools for understanding and responding to the escalating threats posed by climate change creating the evidence base for environmental policy making by systematically identifying vulnerabilities, hazards, and exposure across sectors and regions to develop targeted measures and efficiently allocate resources to high-priority regions. However, whilst considerable effort has been invested in developing and applying CRA methodologies, comparatively little attention has been paid to monitoring their effectiveness, usability and real-world impacts, especially concerning the effects on environmental policy making. Understanding how CRAs translate into meaningful adaptation outcomes is essential for improving methodological approaches, ensuring accountability, and maximising the return on investment in climate risk science.
This paper proposes a novel climate risk assessment monitoring framework designed to evaluate the effectiveness of CRA applications and their downstream impacts. The framework is both conceptualised and empirically applied to the CLIMAAX methodological framework and toolbox – a European initiative that builds upon existing risk assessment frameworks, methods, and tools to deliver a robust, coordinated, and comparable approach to CRA across the European Union. The project supports 69 regional and local authorities and communities in highly climate-vulnerable areas throughout the project duration, providing a substantial empirical basis for monitoring and evaluation.
The monitoring framework is applied across the participating regions using mixed methods, including quantitative online surveys and semi-structured interviews. With this the study establishes a systematic monitoring framework for CRA applications across a wide range of different socio-demographic regions, climatic and environmental conditions as well as institutional capabilities to respond. Results are expected to inform ongoing experience with the CLIMAAX framework, guide future CRA assessments, and support the long-term sustainability of European climate risk initiatives.
How to cite: Wilkens, M. and Apergi, M.: Standardized Climate Risk Assessment in Europe - developing a monitoring system for evaluating inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact using key performance indicators , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-10936, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-10936, 2026.
Climate adaptation increasingly relies on transferring proven solutions between regions, yet measuring progress from implementation activities to actual resilience outcomes remains methodologically challenging. This contribution presents a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework developed within the EU Horizon project RESIST, designed to track the transfer of adaptation solutions and innovations across twelve climate-vulnerable European regions.
The framework employs a Theory of Change (ToC) approach structured across four hierarchical levels: Activities, Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts. This structure enables systematic tracking from process indicators (e.g., stakeholder workshops conducted, training sessions delivered) through output indicators (e.g., green infrastructure projects implemented, decision-support tools adopted) to outcome and impact indicators (e.g., reduction in flood-prone areas, enhanced institutional adaptive capacity). Each indicator follows SMART criteria—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—ensuring both scientific rigour and practical applicability for regional authorities.
A key innovation lies in the framework's explicit consideration of solution customisation during transfer. As adaptation solutions move between providing and receiving regions, indicators must capture both implementation progress and context-specific adaptations that influence effectiveness. The methodology addresses this through collaborative baseline setting and iterative indicator.
The framework also prioritises accessibility. Recognising that many regional actors lack prior monitoring and evaluation experience, the system is designed to be straightforward and easy to implement from the very start of a project. By keeping the approach simple yet robust, it lowers entry barriers and enables diverse project teams to establish effective M&E practices without specialised expertise.
The framework offers transferable insights for practitioners and policymakers designing monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems for adaptation programmes, particularly those involving inter-regional knowledge and solutions transfer. We conclude with recommendations for linking project-level monitoring to broader adaptation tracking initiatives.
How to cite: Gettueva, D.: From Activities to Impacts: Accessible M&E Framework for Climate Adaptation Across Regions, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19289, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19289, 2026.
Measuring progress in climate adaptation remains a critical challenge, particularly in the Global South, where ecological degradation, climate risks, and governance complexities are high. While existing adaptation metrics often focus either on governance processes or implemented actions, fewer approaches provide spatially explicit, outcome-oriented tools capable of informing targeted urban policies. This research proposes an integrated framework that translates biophysical indicators of urban nature into operational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for adaptation monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), using a GIS-based spatial analysis. The study develops a structured indicator system encompassing ecological, environmental, and socio-governance dimensions of urban nature, grounded in urban resilience, ecosystem services, and socio-ecological systems literature. Indicators are prioritised through an interdisciplinary expert elicitation process, generating weighted KPIs that reflect their relative contribution to adaptation-relevant outcomes such as heat mitigation, flood regulation, ecological connectivity, and environmental quality. The framework further aligns the indicators with a MEL logic by distinguishing between process-oriented KPIs (e.g., governance mechanisms, land-use controls), output-oriented KPIs (e.g., green–blue infrastructure coverage), and outcome-oriented KPIs (e.g., reduced exposure to urban heat and flooding, improved ecological functioning). By integrating prioritised biophysical indicators, spatial analytics, and MEL-oriented KPIs, the proposed approach advances a practical and scalable method for adaptation measurement. It contributes toward more robust, transparent, and policy-relevant urban adaptation metrics, with applicability across diverse socio-ecological and institutional contexts.
Keywords: KPI framework, Biophysical indicators, Climate adaptation, Measurable KPIs, MEL, Urban resilience
How to cite: Bhattacharya, A. and Paul, S.: Bridging Adaptation Theory and Measurement: A Multi-Scalar KPI Framework for Urban Resilience, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-15772, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-15772, 2026.
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised as key instruments for addressing interconnected urban challenges related to climate change, biodiversity loss, and social well-being. However, their monitoring potential is still difficult to assess due to a lack of comparable monitoring approaches. This paper presents the Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) framework developed within Task 4.4 (T4.4) of the Horizon Europe project Commit2Green (C2G; Project n.101139598), designed to assess the performance, impacts, and transformative potential of urban NbS. It responds to the need for robust and comparable evidence on how NbS contribute to short-term outputs and mid-term outcomes, while providing cities with a structured and scalable tool to support long-term socio-ecological transformations.
The M&E framework proposed here is grounded on the internationally recognised United Nations Environment Assembly’s (UNEA) definition of NbS and it builds on the European Commission’s Handbook for Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions. The adopted Theory of Change (ToC) approach helps structuring causal pathways, linking societal challenges, NbS interventions, available resources, outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts. This approach enables cities to articulate assumptions, identify leverage points for change, and systematically assess whether the implemented NbS are leading to the desired transformations in urban ecosystems and contributing to path-shifting, persistent, and system-wide change.
The framework integrates multiple spatial (pilot, district, city) and temporal (output, outcome, impact) dimensions within a standardised matrix. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are designed to capture environmental, human-related, and biodiversity dimensions. While output and outcome indicators capture delivery quality, transformation KPIs are specifically designed to assess deeper changes in governance arrangements, planning practices, institutional learning, stakeholder engagement, and socio-ecological relationships. KPIs were identified and selected through a mixed-methods approach that combines evidence-based indicator sets from the NbS CataTool, a decision-support system for NbS design and impact monitoring developed by the Italian National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), Grant Agreement requirements, and city-specific priorities. The co-design and participatory processes strengthen ownership, contextual relevance, and feasibility, while maintaining a shared reference base for monitoring across different urban contexts.
By embedding feedback loops between monitoring results and decision-making processes, the M&E framework supports an adaptive management strategy. The systematic comparison of baseline, mid-term, and post-intervention data enables the detection of unintended effects, trade-offs, and emerging opportunities. By means of iterative adjustments to NbS design, the cities can therefore use the framework as a driver of learning and institutional change. In doing so, the framework fosters long-term resilience, learning-by-doing, and the gradual reconfiguration of urban governance systems.
The M&E framework developed represents a transferable and scalable model for assessing NbS as drivers of systemic urban transformation. It generates robust and comparable evidence on long-term impacts and transformative change, supports NbS upscaling and replication, and fosters institutionalisation within urban planning. In conclusion, the M&E framework demonstrates how NbS can act as catalysts for transformative change towards climate neutrality, biodiversity conservation and enhancement, and socially equitable futures. In this way, the M&E framework becomes an enabling mechanism for systemic change, supporting cities in navigating sustainability transitions.
How to cite: La Monica, L., Rugani, B., Calfapietra, C., and Baldacchini, C.: Monitoring Nature-based Solutions: A Framework for Assessing the Transformative Potential of Urban Nature-based Solutions, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21828, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21828, 2026.
InnoAdapt: A Harmonised Metadata Repository and Innovation Platform for Climate Change Adaptation Solutions in Europe
Assessing climate change adaptation (CCA) progress throughout Europe remains challenging due to fragmented documentation, inconsistent metadata practices, and restricted interoperability among regional data systems. These gaps hinder the ability to evaluate adaptation results, compare measures across contexts, and understand which interventions provide significant resilience benefits. Current European platforms such as Climate‑ADAPT and the Copernicus Climate Data Store offer useful resources but often lack structured, comparable information on adaptation solutions, their implementation status, and their links to underlying datasets and tools.
This contribution introduces InnoAdapt, a harmonised metadata repository and interactive innovation platform developed within the Horizon Europe RESIST project to facilitate systematic documentation, comparison, and evaluation of CCA solutions across European regions. InnoAdapt presents an adaptation‑focused metadata schema that records solution types, goals, targeted hazards, implementation maturity, ecosystem services, and spatial extent, while establishing explicit linkages to supporting datasets, models, and decision-support tools. The schema builds on established European frameworks - such as INSPIRE, CICES, and Climate‑ADAPT taxonomies - while remaining practical and interoperable for regional planners.
Implemented using open web technologies, InnoAdapt enables dynamic multi‑criteria filtering, interactive mapping, and cross‑regional comparison of adaptation measures, with a strong focus on Nature‑based Solutions (NbS). These functionalities directly contribute to emerging approaches for evaluating adaptation processes, outputs, and outcomes by offering organized, machine‑readable information that can be linked to monitoring frameworks, Digital Twins, and simulation‑based decision-support systems.
InnoAdapt provides a scalable digital infrastructure that enhances the EU Adaptation Strategy and Green Deal Data Space objectives by integrating harmonised metadata with user-friendly spatial exploration. It provides a basis for more consistent assessment of adaptation effectiveness and cross‑regional learning, ultimately supporting more resilient CCA planning across Europe.
Keywords: Climate Change Adaptation (CCA); Metadata harmonisation; Decision-support platforms; Nature-based Solutions (NbS); Cross-regional learning
How to cite: Farhadibansouleh, V., Vandenbroucke, D., Thiru, N., Young, S., Boletsis, C., Hölscher, L., Balionyte-Merlec, V., and Van Orshoven, J.: InnoAdapt: A Harmonised Metadata Repository and Innovation Platform for Climate Change Adaptation Solutions in Europe, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-11117, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-11117, 2026.
Monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) are increasingly recognized as essential components of effective climate change adaptation governance. In the Austrian context, systematic approaches to assess adaptation progress and outcomes remain at an early stage. This study investigates how adaptation targets and related indicators are currently documented across three governance levels—regional, federal state, and national—by analysing publicly available adaptation plans and strategies.
Using a systematic coding framework and qualitative policy document analysis, we examine the level of detail in stated adaptation goals, ranging from broad strategic visions to concrete, measurable targets. The coding process further captures whether plans specify corresponding indicators or metrics that enable monitoring and verification of progress toward these goals. Indicators identified in the documents are subsequently classified along six dimensions— human capital, institutional adaptive capacity, economic, social, environmental and political improvements—to assess the comprehensiveness and balance of the indicator landscape. The assessment also differentiates between the 14 sectors addressed by the Austrian Adaptation Strategy, such as agriculture, health, and infrastructure, allowing cross-sectoral comparisons in the formulation and operationalization of adaptation objectives. Preliminary results indicate that while most documents articulate clear sectoral priorities and qualitative objectives, measurable targets and systematically defined indicators remain limited and unevenly distributed across governance levels and sectors. The analysis reveals a stronger emphasis on environmental and technical dimensions, whereas social and institutional aspects are addressed less consistently.
This research provides an empirical overview of current adaptation planning and monitoring practices in Austria. By identifying existing strengths and gaps, it contributes to ongoing efforts to design a coherent and integrated MEL system tailored to national and subnational governance contexts. The findings also offer insights into how existing adaptation policies can evolve toward more outcome-oriented and learning-driven frameworks, supporting continuous improvement in climate resilience planning and reporting.
How to cite: Knittel, N., Leitner, L., Stephens, L., and Seebauer, S.: Assessing adaptation targets and indicators in Austria: A multi-level policy document analysis , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21814, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21814, 2026.
With global greenhouse gas emissions still rising and global mean surface temperatures continuing to reach record highs, climate change adaptation (CCA) progress is more important than ever. Cities and urban areas in particular, are both major contributors to climate change and important sites for innovation and frontrunners of adaptation action. The commitment set out in the Paris Agreement to “review the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptation” (Article 7, para. 14c) has catalyzed a focus on tools measuring and evaluating adaptation progress. However, quantitative metrics for measuring success have been criticized for lacking a common understanding of adaptation effectiveness, failing to consider local contexts, inadequately capturing the complex, multifaceted nature of adaptation, and lacking a reflection on whose values and views guides these assessments. For example, existing global stocktaking of human adaptation-related responses to climate change, including the United Nations Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement and the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative’s Global Stocktake, provides an overview of documented adaptation but does not capture the underlying societal dynamics. To address this gap, we propose a novel qualitative approach based on a comprehensive analysis of the drivers and enabling conditions for sustainable CCA in cities reported in the scientific literature: the Sustainable Adaptation Plausibility Framework. By explicitly focusing on the breadth of societal processes and actors, our novel approach attempts to do justice to the complexity of adaptation. To “measure” adaptation progress and success we explicitly link adaptation with the sustainability concept. Recognizing that adaptation is not just an “outcome”, our differentiated analysis of processes and their interaction does not center on what is reported in articles, but rather on what cities (including urban society) actually do, integrating a diversity of scientific and non-scientific sources.
Our novel framework draws on an in-depth analysis of social processes that act as drivers toward or away from a given sustainable urban CCA scenario. Based on the literature and our own expert elicitation, we have identified a set of drivers that represent relevant existing and emergent social processes that drive sustainable CCA in cities. As a proof of concept, we assess sustainable CCA by 2050 as one politically relevant scenario using the city of Hamburg, Germany, as a case study. Delving into rich empirical data provided by the case study, we analysed the past, present, and emerging dynamics of these societal processes, as well as their social, political, economic and environmental context conditions that could enable or constrain them in the future. Six of these drivers have been analysed in depth for Hamburg: CCA-related regulation, Local CCA governance, Shifts in mindsets, Urban CCA activism, CCA litigation. The results will be shown in the presentation.
Through an interdisciplinary approach, we aim to build a better understanding of the social, psychological, cultural, and political dimensions of sustainable CCA in cities. This study demonstrates our framework’s potential as a novel evidence-based knowledge synthesis method for tracking (un)sustainable pathways of urban adaptation analyzing societal processes, in addition to merely reporting adaptation measures.
How to cite: Hanf, F. S. and the Team of Co-Authors: Assessing progress in sustainable climate change adaptation in cities using a novel evidence-based knowledge synthesis method: Case study Hamburg, Germany, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-12318, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-12318, 2026.
Monitoring progress on climate resilience and/or climate adaptation action is not straightforward. Targets and related indicators are typically not set in quantitative terms. In this presentation, examples are provided on the quantification of climate adaptation targets and impact assessment at local scale in urban and rural setting. Examples from Belgium and Uganda are presented. For the Flanders region, Belgium, an adaptation scoreboard tool is developed which allows to assess the impact of implementations at local level (e.g. the implementation of a nature-based solution). Also, as part of the water-land-scape coalitions, which aim at climate resilient landscapes, quantitative targets have been set in co-creation on how to achieve climate resilience. Finally, an example is presented on how to measure climate resilience in a refugee camp in Uganda, based on a household survey. The Uganda examples focuses on the access to water and land as indicators for climate resilience.
How to cite: Cools, J., Mukasa, J., Fabri, C., Van Schoubroeck, S., and Van Passel, S.: Measuring climate resilience: examples from Belgium & Uganda, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-17047, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-17047, 2026.
As climate change accelerates, ocean acidification and rising sea temperatures are among the most critical drivers of ecological degradation, disrupting marine habitats and accelerating biodiversity loss across coastal and marine ecosystems. In this context, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) represents a key governance instrument for addressing cumulative environmental pressures and guiding climate adaptation in marine spaces. However, the effectiveness of MSP depends not only on the integration of scientific data and sectoral priorities but also on the meaningful inclusion of diverse knowledge systems and stakeholder perspectives within a broader ocean citizenship framework.
This contribution examines the Scenario Workshop and Adaptation Pathways (SWAP) methodology as a participatory methodology for operationalising climate adaptation within MSP, with participatory cartography embedded as a core component. Within this framework, SWAP aligns indicators derived from scientific knowledge with stakeholders’ insights and expectations in order to translate climate data into actionable strategies. Its core objective is to embed climate adaptation and mitigation measures into MSP by engaging public institutions, maritime sectors, and local communities in the co-production of knowledge and the joint development of adaptation pathways. Through structured dialogue, collaborative mapping, and scenario-building exercises, the process addresses regional marine climate risks, such as ocean warming and acidification, that drive biodiversity loss and threaten both ecological integrity and key economic activities, including aquaculture, fisheries, maritime transport, and tourism.
Drawing on recent research in participatory mapping, critical cartography, and conflict-sensitive spatial planning, the contribution argues that participatory cartographies within the SWAP process function as tools that connect adaptation processes, outputs, and emerging outcomes, and that can be mobilised as qualitative and spatial indicators within adaptation monitoring frameworks. By integrating local observations, expert knowledge, and future-oriented scenarios, participatory cartographies make visible spatial vulnerabilities, ecological trade-offs, and contested priorities that are often overlooked in top-down assessments within MSP processes.
The contribution builds on experiences from the INCORE-MED project, with particular attention to the SWAP workshops to be implemented in Northern Sardinia in February 2026. SWAP workshops, which include climate risk perception maps, are discussed as instruments for adaptation monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), capturing local knowledge, risk perceptions and spatial prioritisations, and reflecting governance arrangements. The contribution concludes by synthesising the workshops’ outputs and outlining recommendations for embedding SWAP methodologies into MSP and adaptation assessment frameworks, supporting more inclusive and policy-relevant approaches to measuring climate adaptation.
How to cite: Fudoli, A., Podda, C., M.D. Porporato, E., Carella, F., Soffietti, F., Baroli, M., Santinelli, V., Ridolfi, V., and Musco, F.: Measuring Climate Adaptation in Maritime Spatial Planning: Participatory Cartographies within the SWAP Methodology, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-13337, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-13337, 2026.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report presents incontrovertible evidence of ongoing and accelerating severe adverse impacts of anthropogenic climate change. There is also little dispute that with continued unavoidable climate change there is urgency to implement adaptation measures alongside essential mitigation actions. However, it is also the case that not all impacts of climate change are necessarily adverse; some may be regarded as beneficial.
Of course, interpretation of what constitutes beneficial or adverse impacts and for whom is entirely context-specific and circumstantial. An example is the Arctic, where substantial economic opportunities for some (e.g., mineral exploitation, shipping routes and tourism) intersect incalculable risks for many others (e.g., Indigenous communities, national geopolitical, economic and military security, displaced populations, habitat and species loss, environmental pollution).
In this presentation I will argue that alongside essential studies of risk, it is also important to improve understanding of potentially beneficial impacts of a changing climate. This can inform adaptive responses for realising such opportunities in a sustainable and socially just manner. The example of the exploitation of Arctic sea ice retreat reminds us that, without further scrutiny of often commercially-driven and poorly regulated adaptation measures already being implemented in response to opportunities for some, the emergence of new inequities and risks would seem to be inevitable outcomes for many others (i.e., maladaptation), which may jeopardise progress towards the types of just and sustainable outcomes that might otherwise be achievable.
I will present examples from the few assessments that have addressed potential benefits. These reveal several unique research needs for informing adaptation, including: systematic analysis of the beneficial impacts of climate change; cataloguing of adaptation that has already occurred to realise opportunities; examination of the distributional aspects of potential benefits and possible associated risks when adapting to these; widened consideration of social justice in adaptation policy and practice to account for beneficial impacts; improved understanding of values and norms concerning adaptation effectiveness; investigation of interdependencies and trade offs between opportunities and risks under different scenarios; identification of barriers and enablers for adapting to realise opportunities; and use of consistent and agreed terminology concerning opportunities.
I contend that the IPCC Risk Framework commonly adopted to formulate climate change adaptation policy, focused on adverse impacts and precaution, may inadvertently be constraining important research on adapting to potentially beneficial impacts of climate change. In its place, I propose a more inclusive research framework for informing adaptation science. This integrates the analysis of potential impacts (including risks and opportunities) with two other elements: consideration of social justice and future visioning using hybrid scenarios. It would be important that the research associated with such inclusive framing be initiated urgently, so that results are available to feed into assessment processes such as the IPCC and policy processes serving adaptation planning. The analytical framework itself would also need to be properly articulated in order to feed into updated technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation being prepared as part of the IPCC AR7.
How to cite: Carter, T. R.: Adapting to climate change impacts when opportunity knocks, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21693, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21693, 2026.
Measuring the effectiveness of climate change adaptation is essential for tracking progress toward policy goals, supporting evidence-based decision-making and learning, and meeting accountability and reporting requirements. However, existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks largely rely on process-based indicators, offering limited insight into whether adaptation interventions deliver meaningful resilience outcomes. There is a lack of standardized outcome indicators, defined as medium-term changes resulting from adaptation interventions that contribute to reduced vulnerability, enhanced resilience, or improved adaptive capacity.
This work presents initial results from the UNDERPIN project, which aims to develop an outcome-based framework for assessing adaptation effectiveness and resilience. A literature review, expert interviews, and a participatory workshop informed the framework. The literature review synthesized outcome-based adaptation indicators from peer-reviewed (n=73) and grey literature (n=125). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adaptation indicator experts, EU Adaptation Mission projects, and researchers to explore challenges and best practices related to the design, selection, and application of outcome indicators. Furthermore, interviews with four case studies (Basque Country [Spain], Cluj Metropolitan Area [Romania], Normandy [France], and the City of Košice [Slovakia]) helped to further refine the framework and the outcome indicators. A workshop with practitioners and researchers provided additional insights from other EU projects working on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation actions.
Based on these inputs, we developed a zero-draft MEL framework and a structured set of adaptation outcome indicators designed to be applicable across different geographical scales, sectors, and hazards. It will be tested and validated over the next three years in the aforementioned case studies. By advancing both a coherent monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework and a practical indicator set, this work supports stronger adaptation accountability, informs policy implementation, and enables more robust tracking of progress toward regional, national, and European climate resilience objectives.
How to cite: Zeitfogel, C. and the UNDERPIN team: Towards a Framework for Measuring Adaptation Effectiveness and Resilience Using Outcome Indicators, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6827, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6827, 2026.
Coastal erosion and sea-level rise are accelerating the loss of valued places across the Irish and British Isles, with significant implications for communities living on the frontline of climate change. Coastal adaptation, however, continues to prioritise technical and engineering-based solutions, often overlooking the social, emotional, and wellbeing impacts of both environmental change and adaptation interventions. The RECLAIM: Resilience and wellbeing through adaptation to place loss project addresses this gap by examining how ongoing place loss influences health, wellbeing, identity, and adaptive capacity in coastal communities. Focusing on erosion-prone communities in County Wexford, Ireland, the project adopts a mixed-methods, community-centred research design. Quantitative surveys use validated wellbeing measures to assess the impact that environmental change has on these communities. The project also opens space to consider whether, with adequate institutional support, communities might be enabled to co-create new forms of place and belonging in contexts where loss is unavoidable. These are complemented by qualitative and participatory approaches, including walking interviews, photo elicitation, community-led erosion monitoring, and interactive story maps that link shoreline change with lived experience.
By foregrounding dimensions of place, RECLAIM examines how adaptation actions shape wellbeing outcomes and risk maladaptation. The project aims to identify strategies that strengthen resilience, mitigate impacts, and inform coastal adaptation through collaboration with communities.
How to cite: Moore, R., Murphy, C., and Moeller, I.: RECLAIM: Resilience and wellbeing through adaptation to place loss, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-2605, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-2605, 2026.
This contribution presents the MountResilience Impact Assessment Framework (MoRIA), a transparent and structured methodology designed to assess transformative climate change adaptation in European mountain regions. Developed within the EU Horizon project MountResilience, the framework provides a rigorous yet practical approach that links actions, delivery, and intended change. Grounded in a Social-Technical-Ecological Systems perspective, MoRIA combines a compact index construction strategy with narrative interpretation, allowing evidence to be weighed rather than simplified. This balanced design establishes a shared language for partners working across diverse geographies, governance systems, and disciplines.
MoRIA organises indicators across four Domains (Environmental, Societal, Economic, and Governance & Politics) and four Types (Baseline, Structure, Process, and Outcome), clarifying what constitutes progress towards adaptation. It highlights that enduring results depend not only on technical interventions but also on enabling conditions such as institutional capacity, effective participation, and knowledge infrastructures. These structural elements are understood as core outcomes in themselves rather than secondary inputs.
The evidence base is built on institutional and technical records that ensure continuity beyond the project lifetime, complemented by two survey waves to capture public priorities and acceptance, and concise narrative accounts for complex dynamics and data-poor contexts. By aligning quantitative and qualitative evidence, MoRIA fosters responsible comparison, policy learning, and transdisciplinary collaboration.
Early findings indicate that persistent challenges are more institutional than technical: even well-designed measures struggle without clear mandates, reliable data flows, and established cooperation routines. Within a consortium of 47 partners, co-creation emerges as both a strength and a challenge. Communicating impact across disciplinary and sectoral boundaries requires constant negotiation of methods, meanings, and expectations. At the same time, regional diversity becomes a creative asset that enriches design and interpretation. MoRIA explicitly acknowledges these tensions, treating the iterative process of co-creation not as an obstacle but as a driver of adaptive learning and innovation.
How to cite: Gimelli, T. and Kalhorn, A. F.: Finding Common Ground: Building Shared Evidence for Transformative Mountain Adaptation through Co-Creation, from Theoretical Concepts to Practical Implementation. , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-17272, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-17272, 2026.
As urban temperatures rise at an unprecedented pace due to climate change, cities worldwide are experiencing increasing infrastructure damage and heat-related health impacts. In response, many cities are developing heat-specific adaptation plans and broader resilience strategies. While a wide range of heat mitigation and management measures has been proposed, it remains unclear how these measures are translated into concrete planning targets, how much adaptation progress has been achieved to date, and whether cities are following an appropriate adaptation pathway. The lack of a standardized approach for defining and evaluating quantitative heat adaptation targets poses a major barrier to effective urban heat adaptation planning and implementation.
To address this gap, this study proposes a methodology for quantitatively setting urban heat adaptation targets. Using the latest urban structure data, we diagnose the current thermal environment and project future thermal conditions under a sustainability-oriented target pathway (SSP1) and a high-emission reference pathway (SSP5), assuming the urban structure remains unchanged. By comparing the diagnosed current thermal environment with the heat level associated with the SSP1 target pathway, we quantify the heat risk reduction required for the city to reach a sustainable adaptation state.
The proposed framework enables discussion of necessary concrete adaptation measures by linking the quantified adaptation target to required physical and spatial changes in urban form. Through real-world urban application, we demonstrate how this methodology can diagnose a city's current adaptation pathway, define measurable heat adaptation targets, and support iterative updates as urban structure and adaptation interventions evolve.
This approach contributes to effective urban heat adaptation planning by providing a framework for defining and updating quantitative adaptation targets, which can ultimately be linked to more effective evaluation and implementation of urban heat adaptation strategies.
This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry &Technology Institute (KEITI) through "Climate Change R&D Project for New Climate Regime.", funded by Korea Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment. (MCEE) (RS-2022-KE002102)
How to cite: Kim, S., Park, C., and Song, W.: A Pathway-Based Methodology for Setting Quantitative Targets of Urban Heat Adaptation , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-16474, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-16474, 2026.
As climate adaptation initiatives expand globally, learning from implemented solutions is increasingly important. Yet, while adaptation progress is typically tracked by implementing institutions through short-term output indicators during project implementation, critical evidence gaps exist regarding effectiveness and sustainability once formal project support ends. This presentation presents lessons from an evaluation exercise conducted by the University of Geneva and the Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecoregión Andina (CONDESAN) within the framework of the Adaptation at Altitude programme.
Drawing on the perspectives of beneficiary communities and local stakeholders, the evaluation examines the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of five climate adaptation solutions implemented in mountain areas of the Andean region. All analyzed solutions were selected from the Adaptation at Altitude Solutions Portal on the basis of their transformative potential and relevance for replication. The analysis identifies best practices and lessons learned, as well as key enabling and constraining factors influencing both the effectiveness and sustainability of measures, including governance arrangements, local capacities, and social inclusion. Our findings aim to strengthen adaptation efforts in mountain regions, both in the Andes and beyond, providing evidence to inform policy and decision-making on robust, inclusive and actionable adaptation strategies.
How to cite: Aguilera-Rodríguez, J. J., Allen, S., Llambi, L. D., Salas Bourgoin, M. A., and Rodríguez Molano, L. M.: Learning from adaptation in practice: Lessons on effectiveness and sustainability through beneficiary perspectives in the Andes, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19478, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19478, 2026.
Although heatwaves are increasingly framed as an adaptation justice challenge, urban governments still struggle to demonstrate that protective measures reach those most in need. Seoul is a revealing case in point. While district-level exposure to heat waves in 2022 was relatively uniform (9–11 days on average), the average rate of heat-related illnesses from 2022 to 2024 varied by a factor of more than six (from 0.63 to 3.82 cases per 100,000 residents). Furthermore, the linkages between exposure and outcome, as well as between spending and outcome, were weak (heatwave days vs. illness: r≈0.26; district budgets vs. illness: r≈−0.03). This suggests a structural disconnection between hazard, resource allocation, and realized protection.
To move beyond plan-based accounting, we developed an equity-informed governance framework that treats "adaptation gaps" as empirically observable delivery failures and organizes barriers across three dimensions: Effectiveness (access and protective performance); Authority and Resources (discretion, staffing, budget, and analytical support); and Communication and Perception (awareness, information access, feedback, and participation channels). We operationalize these dimensions using mixed instruments: (1) a citywide citizen survey (n = 500; adults aged 20–69) measuring perceived access sufficiency, policy benefits, awareness, and willingness to participate, and (2) a structured survey and semi-structured interviews with frontline district officials (n ≈ 6) to triangulate administrative constraints.
By aligning the conditions of implementers with the experiences of beneficiaries, the study provides a measurement approach for diagnosing where and why equitable delivery of heat adaptation breaks down within standardized administrative routines. The study also highlights leverage points for improving monitoring, feedback, and targeted adjustments in urban heat policy.
How to cite: Kim, S., Lee, D., and Park, C.: Protection Proportional to Need? Measuring Governance Barriers to Equitable Heat Adaptation Delivery in Seoul, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6589, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6589, 2026.
Climate change is projected to increase flood frequency and severity, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations. Adequate preparedness – understood both as being aware of the risks and as taking proactive actions to reduce them – can make the difference between a disruptive event and a catastrophic one, lessening the economic and social impacts, reducing loss of life, and preserving critical infrastructure.
As knowledge has grown regarding the identification of flood zones and the estimation of flood damages, the dissemination of risk information through publicly accessible flood maps, community outreach, and targeted communication strategies has increasingly become a core component of flood risk management in many countries. Governments and agencies aim to make risk information available to the public not only to improve awareness but also to encourage private preparedness and facilitate informed decision-making.
From an economic policy perspective, risk-based preparedness is desirable as it aligns individual behavior with efficient risk allocation. However, if risk perceptions and private adaptation fail to correlate with objective flood risk, this may compromise crucial instruments for managing flood risk, including investment in protection infrastructure and the viability of insurance schemes.
Despite advances in flood mapping and household adaptation research, the relationship between expected damages and adaptation decisions remains poorly understood. Most existing studies examine willingness to adapt in response to perceived flood risk, which is often shaped by psychological factors, personal experience, and socioeconomic characteristics rather than objective risk metrics. Understanding whether adaptation aligns with objective risk is essential but technically challenging, as household-level data on exposure, perceptions, and adaptation actions are rarely observed together.
Here, we provide novel insights into spatial patterns of household flood adaptation by combining: (i) objective household-level flood risk from publicly available street-level flood maps, (ii) household flood damages simulated using a national hydraulic model, and (iii) a large-scale survey (n > 1000) of household adaptation measures and flood risk perceptions, geolocated at the address level. We focus on the South of the Netherlands, a "best case scenario" given its accurate flood risk information and recent flood experiences.
We find a substantial mismatch between private adaptation measures and objective flood risks, as well as significant heterogeneity in risk perceptions. Simulations show that expected damages could be reduced substantially if high-risk households invested more in adaptation relative to low-risk households: Although expected damages vary by orders of magnitude, high-risk households take only slightly more protective measures than those facing little risk. Adaptation is also poorly aligned with households' flood risk perceptions, indicating that perceived danger does not reliably translate into action.
These findings reveal important limits to the effectiveness of private adaptation when left to individual decision-making and underscore the need for policies that enhance the accessibility, relevance, and actionability of flood risk information to support climate resilience.
How to cite: Badini, S., Abatayo, A. L., and Richter, A.: Mismatch between household flood preparedness and objective flood risk in the Netherlands, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-11497, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-11497, 2026.
As climate-related risks intensify, European countries are increasingly integrating climate change adaptation into national climate laws (NCLs), signaling a trend toward the juridification of adaptation governance. This marks a transition from non-binding, soft policies to formal legal frameworks. Yet, the comprehensiveness and specificities of these new mandates remain unassessed. This paper presents a comparative analysis of adaptation provisions in the NCLs of 19 European countries, using a six-element framework to assess the extent and nature of juridification. Our results reveal a procedure-substance paradox. NCLs successfully institutionalize the foundational architecture of adaptation by mandating climate risk assessments, formalizing planning processes, and establishing advisory bodies, thereby solving first-order governance problems like institutional discontinuity. However, they rarely codify enforceable duties to achieve measurable risk reduction or guarantee funding. We argue that this focus on procedure fundamentally fractures the adaptation policy cycle. While this design preserves administrative discretion, it creates a critical disconnect: the laws link evidence to planning, but fail to link monitoring to climate-risk reduction. Consequently, NCLs establish a duty to plan but stop short of a duty to protect, prioritizing procedural compliance over substantive resilience.
How to cite: Johnson, K., Munck af Rosenschöld, J., Lexer, W., Deubelli-Hwang, T., Leitner, M., Tamásová, A., and Nikolova, A.: Legislating climate change adaptation: Exploring provisions in European national climate laws, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21884, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21884, 2026.
