Ecological infrastructure refers to naturally functioning ecosystems that deliver valuable services to people, such as filtered water and disaster risk reduction. With natural resources becoming scarcer, there is a growing interest in reinvesting in naturally functioning ecosystems in the form of ecological infrastructure, with the assumption that ecological infrastructure complements engineered infrastructure. In many low- and middle-income countries, ecological infrastructure interventions are seen as a key strategy to simultaneously alleviate poverty and improve ecosystem functioning. However, the socio-economic outcomes of ecological infrastructure investments remain poorly documented. We address this knowledge gap by synthesizing research (n = 53 cases) that analyses how ecological infrastructure investments affect ten different socio-economic dimensions, such as income and food security in low- and middle-income countries. We find that ecological infrastructure investments primarily lead to positive outcomes for short-term income and natural capital, whereas positive outcomes for other socio-economic dimensions are less frequently observed. Cases with a high degree of participant involvement in the early implementation of ecological infrastructure investments are significantly more likely to capture positive outcomes across a variety of socio-economic dimensions. Analogously, cases spanning multiple methods – rather than adopting either a qualitative or a quantitative approach – report positive outcomes across more dimensions.
Country: Fiji
Fiji
Efforts to ameliorate flooding have historically centred on engineered solutions such as dredging rivers, building levees, and constructing spillways. The potential for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) options is becoming increasingly apparent; however, implementation is often limited by a poor understanding of their costs and benefits. This study compares the costs and benefits of a range of hard infrastructure and ecosystem-based adaptation options to mitigate flooding under climate change using data from two catchments in Fiji. We employ unique survey data to document the costs of flooding under various climate change scenarios. We then use a hydrological model to simulate the potential benefits of a range of hard infrastructure and EbA options and conduct a comprehensive cost–benefit analysis. We find that under reasonable economic assumptions, planting riparian buffers is the most cost-effective option, yielding benefit–cost ratios between 2.8 and 21.6. However, the absolute level of protection provided by this strategy is low. Afforestation provides greater overall benefits, yielding net present values between 12.7 and 101.8 million Fijian dollars, although implementation costs would be substantial. Planting floodplains and reinforcing riverbanks provide some monetary benefits that are lower than riparian and upland planting. Elevating houses is not economically viable under any climate scenario.
Climate change is predicted to have a range of impacts on Pacific Island ecosystems and the services they provide for current and future development. There are a number of characteristics that can make adaptation approaches that utilise the benefits of ecosystems a compelling and viable alternative to other adaptation approaches. The objective of this paper is to determine what level of relative influence technical and planning considerations currently have in guiding the recognition and application of ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) approaches in the Pacific Islands context. The technical feasibility of EbA in relation to the expected impacts of climate change and the compatibility of adaptation planning processes of the Pacific Islands with EbA requirements was considered. The main barrier to fully implementing EbA in the Pacific Islands is not likely to be financial capital, but a combination of stable technical capacity within government departments to advise communities on EbA opportunities and the compatibility of planning frameworks.
Small island developing states (SIDS) are among the countries in the world that are most vulnerable to climate change and required to adapt to its impacts. Yet, there is little information in the academic literature about how SIDS are adapting to climate change, across multiple countries and geographic regions. This paper helps to fill this gap. Using a sample of 16 countries across the Atlantic, Indian Ocean and South China Sea, Caribbean and Pacific regions, this study has two main aims, to identify (1) national-level adaptation trends across climate, climate-induced and non-climate-induced vulnerabilities, sectors and actors, as reported in National Communications (NCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and (2) typologies of national-level adaptation actions in SIDS. It identifies, codes and assesses 977 adaptation actions. These actions were reported as addressing 47 climate and climate-induced vulnerabilities and 50 non-climate-induced vulnerabilities and were undertaken in 37 sectors by 34 actors. The paper proposes five typologies of adaptation actions for SIDS, based on actions reported by SIDS. It specifically explores the implications of its findings for global adaptation strategies. As this work establishes a baseline of adaptation action in SIDS, it can assist national governments to gauge their adaptation progress, identify gaps in their adaptation effort and, thereafter, develop appropriate strategies for filling the gaps. It can also assist donors, whether bilateral or multilateral, to make more ‘climate-smart’ investment decisions by being able to identify the adaptation needs that are not being met in SIDS.