See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344193733

A richness index for baselining climate change adaptations in small island

developing states

Article in Environmental and Sustainability Indicators · September 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.indic.2020.100065

CITATIONS READS

12 388

1 author:

Stacy-Ann Robinson
Colby College
48 PUBLICATIONS 1,030 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stacy-Ann Robinson on 19 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental and Sustainability Indicators

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-and-sustainability-indicators/

A richness index for baselining climate change adaptations in small island

developing states
Stacy-ann Robinson
Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Mayflower Hill Drive, Waterville, ME, 04901, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Small island developing states (SIDS) are a uniquely vulnerable suite of countries. Climate change is already
Adaptation having disproportionate impacts on their biophysical and socio-economic processes. The status of national-level
Climate change climate change adaptation across multiple SIDS is, however, under-explored in the academic literature. A pivotal
Decision
study by Lesnikowski et al. (2015) (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9491-x), which assessed adaptation
Policy
Metric
outcomes in 117 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), only
Progress included 13 SIDS, a number insufficient to establish a baseline of action in these countries. This paper builds on
Small island developing states (SIDS) Lesnikowski et al. (2015) and more recent SIDS-specific work by Robinson (2017) (https://doi.org/10.1007/s110
Success 27-015-9693-5) by coding 441 national adaptation actions reported in the National Communications of 35 SIDS
Typology between 1997 and 2014. It develops a richness index that baselines adaptations in these countries, which are
located across three main geographic regions – the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, Caribbean, and Pacific. It further
identifies more advanced adaptors and less advanced adaptors among the group, and finds that, while progress
was made in the observation and assessment of climate variables (29.7% of reported actions) and planning
(25.2%), less tangible actions were implemented (19.0%) with even less monitoring and evaluation (8.2%) and
stakeholder engagement and knowledge management (17.9%). This paper concludes that greater investments in
ongoing capacity-building in SIDS are required for countries to better plan, implement and evaluate adaptation
actions, and to better advocate for more optimal levels of international financing for helping to underwrite the
cost of adaptation.

1. Introduction literature, though much work has been done on developed and non-SIDS
developing countries (e.g. Preston et al., 2011; Ford et al., 2011, 2015). A
There is now global consensus that climate change is real and will pivotal study by Lesnikowski et al. (2015), which assessed adaptation
intensify in the coming years. Small island developing states (SIDS) are a outcomes in 117 Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework
uniquely vulnerable suite of 58 countries that have been and will Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (also called the ‘Convention’),
continue to be disproportionately impacted by climatic changes such as only included 13 SIDS, a sample insufficient to establish a baseline of
increased intensity storms and sea-level rise (Robinson, 2018a, 2019a, adaptation action in these countries. Using a sample of 35 SIDS from
2020; Nurse et al., 2014). They are, however, constrained in their ability across the Atlantic and Indian Oceans (AIMS) region, Caribbean, and
to effectively adapt because of their ‘special’ economic, environmental, Pacific, this paper is a secondary inquiry into how SIDS are adapting to
social and political vulnerabilities. These include but are not limited to climate change at the national level. By modifying the Lesnikowski et al.
physical remoteness from world markets, sensitivity to external and (2015) methods and building on more recent SIDS-specific work by
global shocks, small size, fragile ecosystems that are susceptible to nat- Robinson (2017), it develops a modified adaptation initiatives index
ural hazards, rapidly increasing populations, and weak governance (MAII). The MAII is a richness index. It is based on the identification and
structures (Nurse et al., 2014; Robinson, 2019b; Petzold and Magnan, weighting of five adaptation typologies, identified as actions in countries’
2019; Gheuens et al., 2019; Connell, 2018; Lincoln Lenderking et al., National Communications submitted to the UNFCCC (also called ‘Re-
2020; Nguyen and Robinson, 2019). ports’) between 1997 and 2014 as well as in other policy documents
The status of national climate change adaptation planning and published up to December 31, 2014, thereby using historical data and
implementation across multiple SIDS is under-explored in the academic establishing a 2014 baseline. This baseline refers to the period during

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100065
Received 2 December 2019; Received in revised form 30 August 2020; Accepted 2 September 2020
Available online 10 September 2020
2665-9727/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

which SIDS began submitting their Reports of adaptation action through With the publication of the Small Islands Chapter as part of Working
their National Communications to the UNFCCC. The five typologies are Group II’s contribution to AR5 in 2014, the short- and long-term impacts
aligned with those identified by Robinson (2017): (1) observation and of climate change on SIDS are increasingly being understood. However,
assessment, (2) planning, (3) implementation, (4) monitoring and eval- the science at fine scales is inexact—there is great difficulty in “gener-
uation, and (5) stakeholder engagement and knowledge management. By ating formal climate scenarios at the scale of small islands” (Nurse et al.,
doing this, this paper makes a preliminary contribution to the develop- 2014, p. 1626). In the absence of long-range, quality-controlled climate
ment of methodological steps for establishing a quantitative baseline of data and the application of dynamical downscaling techniques in SIDS,
climate change adaptation action in SIDS using historical data. robust adaptation decision-making is hindered (following Wilby and
Dessai, 2010; Kates et al., 2012). So too is the willingness of governments
1.1. Adapting to climate change in SIDS to embark on transformational adaptation programs as future conditions
are uncertain. Identifying and implementing effective adaptation re-
Climate change adaptation, according to the Fifth Assessment Report sponses, therefore, becomes a complex issue and no single adaptation
(AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is “[t]he response will be a panacea for all the climate-related challenges faced by
process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects” (IPCC, SIDS. As such, an effective adaptation response will require
2014, p. 1758). Adaptation, which can take place in natural or human multi-typology, multi-sectoral and multi-scale interventions (Robinson,
systems, is conceptualised as being either incremental or trans- 2018a). National governments will, therefore, be required to develop,
formational. Incremental adaptation, according to AR5, aims “to main- implement and evaluate the effectiveness of “carefully-designed pack-
tain the essence and integrity of a system or process at a given scale” ages” of science-based, fit-for-purpose, SIDS-appropriate adaptation ac-
(IPCC, 2014, p. 1758). It is an extension of actions and behaviours that tions (Biermann et al., 2012, p. 54) in order to facilitate adaptation
already exist in order to avoid the disruption of a system (Berrang-Ford decision-making that is robust to climate uncertainties (Wilby and Des-
et al., 2011). It is more emphasised in the human system. Trans- sai, 2010).
formational adaptation, according to AR5, aims to “change the funda-
mental attributes of a system in response to climate and its effects” (IPCC, 1.2. Preparing and submitting National Communications to the UNFCCC
2014, p. 1758). It is more radical, involving significant changes in, for
example, how countries organise, develop and manage their assets and Apart from the National Communications submitted to the UNFCCC,
resources. Though an increasing amount of academic work is being done there is hardly any standardised nationally-collected data/inventory for
on transformational adaptation (e.g. see Carr, 2019; Saxena et al., 2018; adaptation actions that allows for comparative analyses across multiple
Panda, 2018; Ellis and Tschakert, 2019), and it is thought of being more countries (Lesnikowski et al., 2015; Robinson, 2017; Berrang-Ford et al.,
needed in the natural system, this paper is more concerned with incre- 2014). Decision 17/CP.8 reached at the Eighth Conference of the Parties
mental adaptation – the changes within human systems in SIDS that are to the UNFCCC (COP8) in New Delhi in 2002 contains the guidelines for
similar to the changes that have already been occurring (as per AR5’s the preparation of National Communications from Parties not included in
definition). Annex I to the Convention (i.e. non-Annex I countries such as SIDS). Part
SIDS differ from other developing countries in “population, area, in- IV (a) of the Decision establishes that each Party shall, in accordance with
ternational power position, economic performance, and the extent of Paragraph 1 (b) and (c) of Article 12 of the Convention, provide the COP
governmental involvement” (Anckar and Baldwin, 2013, p. 13). They are with “information on the general descriptions of steps taken or envisaged
not homogenous (e.g. Nurse et al., 2014; UN-OHRLLS, 2011; Common- towards formulating, implementing, publishing and regularly updating
wealth Secretariat, 1997; Connell, 2013; Briguglio, 1995; Briguglio et al., national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing mea-
2010). There is significant diversity across these countries in terms of sures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change, and any other
size, human and economic development, adaptive capacities, and other information they consider to be relevant to the achievement of the
indicators (e.g. see Ratter, 2018; UNEP, 2014). Using surface area as an objective of the Convention and suitable for inclusion in their commu-
example, Nauru in the Pacific is the smallest with 20 km2 and Papua New nications” (UNFCCC Secretariat, 2002, online). In doing so, non-Annex I
Guinea, also in the Pacific, the largest with 462,840 km2 (World Bank, Parties “should provide information on their vulnerability to the adverse
2019). Considering per capita gross domestic product, as another effects of climate change, and on adaptation measures being taken to
example, Guinea-Bissau in the AIMS region has the lowest with US$724 meet their specific needs and concerns arising from these adverse effects”
while Singapore, also in the AIMS region, has the highest with US$57, (UNFCCC Secretariat, 2002, online). Reporting countries include the 38
714, placing it in the top 10 richest worldwide (World Bank, 2019). SIDS that are UN Member States plus the Cook Islands and Niue.
Given this significant diversity, there is no consensus on which countries Many SIDS are in the process of finalising their Second, Third or
should be classified as SIDS (Robinson, 2018a). The UN does not main- Fourth National Communication, making the publication of this paper
tain an official list, though an unofficial list used by its Department of not only relevant but timely. In 2018 and up to November 30, 2019, 10
Economic and Social Affairs includes 51 countries – 37 UN Member SIDS submitted new or updated Reports. Guinea-Bissau and Tuvalu, and
States, two non-UN Member States and 12 non-independent States Barbados and Cabo Verde1 submitted their Second National Communi-
(Bruckner, 2013). Its Office of the High Representative for the Least cation in March and October 2018, respectively—Maldives submitted a
Developed, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island revised Second National Communication in August 2018. Palau and
Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) informally recognises 58 countries Grenada also submitted their Second National Communication, but in
(UN-OHRLLS, 2011). In the strictest sense, however, some SIDS included August and November 2019, respectively. Jamaica and S~ ao Tome and
on either list are neither small, islands nor developing (Petzold and Príncipe submitted their Third National Communication in January and
Magnan, 2019; Mysiak et al., 2015), a point of consistent controversy in October 2019, respectively. Singapore submitted its Fourth National
the literature (Robinson, 2020). For the purposes of this paper, however, Communication in December 2018. In view of the recent upswing in
SIDS are taken to mean any country appearing on the UN-OHRLLS submissions, the establishment of a quantitative baseline of action in
58-country informal list, which includes several low-lying coastal coun- SIDS using historical data will provide a basis for not only measuring
tries such as Guinea-Bissau in the AIMS region, and Guyana in the adaptation progress in these countries but also for determining whether
Caribbean. Particular emphasis is placed on the 40 SIDS required to
submit National Communications as part of their reporting obligations
under the UNFCCC (i.e. the 38 SIDS that are UN Member States plus the 1
Cape Verde changed its legal name to Cabo Verde on October 25, 2013. At
Cook Islands and Niue, which are non-UN Member States but which have the time of submitting its Initial National Communication, its legal name was
their own international legal personality). still Cape Verde.

2
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

historical actions have led to more effective and/or sustainable which adaptation leaders and laggards were identified. Countries scoring
outcomes. 0 demonstrated no evidence of adaptation response. Countries scoring 19
demonstrated evidence of adaptation response in all 12 types of action.
2. Materials and methods This approach does not sufficiently consider the nuances of national-level
adaptation responses across SIDS, given their unique and special cir-
2.1. Analysing climate change adaptation as actions cumstances, which this paper attempts to address.
Instead of categorising adaptation actions according to the ground-
The scholarship on analysing climate change adaptation as actions is work/adaptation dichotomy, this study realigns the adaptation typol-
well-developed, though Kl€ ock and Nunn (2019) and Robinson (2017) are ogies in Lesnikowski et al. (2015) with the five typologies of adaptation
among the few scholars taking a comprehensive, transregional approach (observation and assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and
to documenting adaptation actions and progress in SIDS. Berrang-Ford evaluation, and stakeholder engagement and knowledge management)
et al. (2014, p. 443) developed a codebook “to extract data related to identified by Robinson (2017). Twenty-two sub-types of these typologies
adaptation action” from National Communications. The authors followed are identified (see Table 1). Actions classified as ‘observation and
a sociological tradition of treating “text as a window into human expe- assessment’ include scenario modelling and impact and vulnerability
rience” (Bernard and Ryan, 1998, p. 595). Its template approach is a assessments, up to a maximum of four types. ‘Planning’ actions include
“structured technique for analysing qualitative data” (Cassell et al., 2008, the development of adaptation policies and the creation of national
p. 221) and is thought to be “more focussed and time efficient” than other climate change committees, up to seven types. Actions classified as
approaches to organising text for analysis (Crabtree et al., 1999, p. 164). ‘implementation’ include infrastructure/technology/innovation and
Some of the challenges of the template approach, however, include its resource (human, technical and financial) transfers, up to a maximum of
application to new or emerging disciplines, and the potential tensions four types. ‘Monitoring and evaluation’ includes the continual surveil-
between positivist and interpretivist paradigms (Waring and Wain- lance of climate-related variables, up to three types. Actions classified as
wright, 2008, p. 92), the difficulty for two or more coders to arrive at ‘stakeholder engagement and knowledge management’ include the
consensus (Wegerif and Mercer, 1997, p. 273) and increasing intercoder participation of national officials in regional and international climate
reliability wherein multiple coders produce different codes (Hruschka conferences and workshops, up to a maximum of four types. In order to
et al., 2004, p. 307), and the difficulty in discovering “new, unanticipated have successfully applied the Lesnikowski et al. (2015) groundwork/a-
insights” (Crabtree et al., 1999, p. 164). A rapid application of the daptation categorisation, the preliminary or preparatory nature of the
Berrang-Ford et al. (2014) template confirmed the Bernard and Ryan action had to be distinguishable from the tangible improvements in a
(1998, p. 601) assertion that people in different cultures produce nar- country’s adaptive capacity or resilience, which is not necessarily easy to
ratives in different ways. Based on the narrative, multiple codes could be do. In that model, for example, regulation and public awareness are
derived from a single action, depending on the level of detail provided in classified as tangible adaptation actions. While having the potential to do
the Report and the experiential frame of the researcher, supporting the so, these actions do not seamlessly result in tangible improvements in
claim that all human research is “inherently subjective” (Neuendorf, adaptive capacity without an intermediary such as a functioning
2002, p. 11). A general example is a reference to the development of a enforcement mechanism, for which there may be little or no evidence to
national adaptation policy without a reference to the policy actors support. The absence of this mechanism could render the action prepa-
involved and responsible for its implementation. National policies are ratory i.e. groundwork. Realigning the adaptation typologies, as done in
developed, implemented and reviewed by national governments, though this study, emphasises process steps rather than content and outcomes,
they are not the drivers of policy in all instances (Mayntz, 2003). Further, and offers an alternative approach to understanding how countries are
national governments are not the only policy actors, as “[c]rucial in all adapting to climate change. It also allows for understanding the spread of
policy practice is framing, specifically who and what is actually included, adaptation actions across the process continuum, and for the isolation
and who and what is ignored and excluded” (Cornwall and Brock, 2005, and investigation of the status of planning actions aimed at increasing
p. 1047). While this signals the need for Reports to be formatted in a way stakeholder engagement and knowledge management.
that is “most useful to both national and international stakeholders” (Ellis This study, therefore, simplifies the Lesnikowski et al. (2015) code-
et al., 2011, p. 11), it also signals the need for attention to be paid to the book and focusses on colour coding the types of actions undertaken by,
reliability of the codebook, which may be increased through revision and through, or in collaboration with a specific actor – national governments
recoding (Hruschka et al., 2004). (see Table 1). Simplifying the codebook for application to SIDS was
necessary because the National Communications of SIDS are more
2.2. Coding adaptation actions reported in National Communications descriptive than prescriptive. Adaptation actions identified in various
chapters (see Appendix 1) were not systematically or verifiably linked to
The methods used in this paper and described below are modified the vulnerabilities being addressed or to the vulnerable populations
from Lesnikowski et al. (2015), which classifies adaptation actions being served. Instead, multiple Reports detail the natural and anthro-
identified from National Communications into two categories – pogenic vulnerabilities of the country without demonstrating how a
groundwork and adaptation – across which there are 12 types of action. particular action addresses each vulnerability or a combination thereof,
Groundwork actions are preparatory and necessary for “preparing for though many were written through sectoral lens. Some Reports are mere
adaptation” (Berrang-Ford et al., 2014, p. 443). There are five types of to-do lists of adaptation actions that would ideally be undertaken should
groundwork action: (1) climate change scenario modelling, (2) sufficient funding be forthcoming, thereby including ‘shopping lists’ of
impact/vulnerability assessments, (3) adaptation research, (4) concep- adaptation projects and programs packaged for international support
tual tools (including strategy and policy documents), and (5) stakeholder (e.g. see Government of Cabo Verde, 2010, pp. 127–144; Government of
networking. Adaptation actions “are implemented to tangibly improve Timor-Leste, 2014, pp. 51–96). From this, SIDS0 motivations for under-
the adaptive capacity/resiliency of human and natural systems” taking adaptations are unclear, however, Robinson (2020) and Gilfillan
(emphasis added) (Berrang-Ford et al., 2014, p. 443). Such actions et al. (2020), for example, acknowledge that motivations vary across
constitute seven types: (1) organisational development, (2) regulation, countries and regions but that reducing vulnerability to climate and
(3) public awareness and outreach, (4) surveillance and monitoring, (5) climate-related impacts remains a top priority for most if not all SIDS.
infrastructure, technology and innovation, (6) resource transfer and Additionally, while National Communications are intended to be the
financial mechanisms, and (7) review. The authors weighted ground- primary platform for “sharing information, assessing implementation
work actions 1 and adaptation actions 2 in order to calculate an Adap- and monitoring progress” (Ellis et al., 2011 p. 10; Breidenich, 2011, p. 5),
tation Initiatives Index. Total scores ranged between 0 and 19, from it is widely held that the reporting requirements for non-Annex I (i.e.

3
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Table 1
Simplified code template (colour-coded).
NO. ADAPTATION SUB ACTION SUB TYPE DESCRIPTION COLOUR MAX
TYPOLOGY/ NO . CODE SCORE
COMPONENT

1 Observation and 1 Observation or climate change scenario Observation of climatic and non-climatic, socio-economic and Yellow 4
Assessment modelling environmental variables that assist in the identification and
attribution of climate change impacts; modelling and
prediction of the climate system and climate change impacts
2 Impact or vulnerability assessments Assessment of the impacts of climate change, vulnerabilities
and/or response capacities within national, local or sectoral
contexts, often associated with the preparation of Initial
National Communications
3 Adaptation research Organised, deliberate research into climate change indicators
and response options based on a country’s determined
vulnerability, conducted to inform climate change adaptation
at the national level; research projects will typically have a
defined aim, selected methodologies and a write up of results;
includes research and development; does not include research
not initiated by, conducted in partnership or to be used by the
Government
4 Other but similar Technology needs and capacity self-assessments are captured
here; any other action directly related to observation and
assessment for climate change adaptation
2 Planning 1 Work programmes, strategic plans or Development of work programmes or action plans, including Green 7
action plans National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), that
complement an existing instrument or that precede a legally
binding or non-binding instrument being developed to reduce
a country’s vulnerability
2 Draft policy or bill Development or drafting of a climate change adaptation-
related policy or bill that has not yet been passed by the
Government
3 Framework or policy instrument Development of a legally non-binding framework policy that
directly addresses climate change adaptation or a standalone
climate change adaptation policy
4 Regulations, laws, statutes Development of new, legally-binding regulations, laws,
statutes related to climate change adaptation; amendments to
existing legally-binding regulations, laws, statues related to
climate change adaptation
5 National committees, organisational Establishment of a national climate change committee or
changes working group; establishment of a Government ministry,
agency, department or unit (MADU) responsible for climate
change adaptation; an existing MADU mandated to be
responsible for climate change adaptation
6 Financing mechanism Establishment of a national climate change/adaptation fund
or similar mechanism to fund national climate change
adaptation initiatives; identification of local source(s) to fund
recurrent expenditure related to climate change adaptation
e.g. a line item in the national budget
7 Other but similar Includes policy mainstreaming activities, classified as such;
any other action directly related to planning for climate
change adaptation
3 Implementation 1 Enforcement or follow-up of planning Evidence that: work programmes or action plans related to Blue 4
actions, and of recommendations climate change adaptation are being implemented; policies,
emerging from performance reviews regulations, laws and statues related to climate change
adaptation are being enforced; national climate change
working groups or committees are active; implementation of
any national programme or project aimed at climate change
adaptation
2 Infrastructure/technology/innovation Construction of hard infrastructure, spanning sectors such as
transportation, energy and communication for the purpose of
adapting to climate change; includes maintenance of such
infrastructures for the purpose of reducing a country’s
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change; application of
any new or modified hard or soft forms of technology/
innovation for the purpose of adapting to climate change in
sectors such as agriculture, water and health etc.; examples of
hard forms of technology/innovation include new irrigation
systems or drought-resistant seeds; soft forms examples
include insurance schemes and crop rotation patterns
3 Resource transfer Evidence that: MADUs and other stakeholder organisations
with climate change oversight are staffed and operating;
national finance mechanisms are resourced and operating,
and being accessed/disbursed; donor funding/aid and
capacity-building initiatives related to climate change
adaptation are being accessed or transferred; also includes
training initiatives
(continued on next page)

4
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Table 1 (continued )
NO. ADAPTATION SUB ACTION SUB TYPE DESCRIPTION COLOUR MAX
TYPOLOGY/ NO . CODE SCORE
COMPONENT

4 Other but similar Any other action directly related to implementation for
climate change adaptation
4 Monitoring and 1 Surveillance or monitoring Ongoing programmes related to the surveillance and Purple 3
Evaluation monitoring of climatic and non-climatic, socio-economic and
environmental variables for the purpose of designing and
implementing interventions that will reduce a country’s
vulnerability to climate change and its impacts
2 Performance reviews/recommendations Organised and deliberate evaluation of the extent to which
climate change adaptation initiatives are fit-for-purpose and
achieving desired outcomes; includes development of a
document or other materials that make recommendations for
improvements in adaptation initiatives being implemented
3 Other but similar Any other action directly related to monitoring and evaluation
for climate change adaptation
5 Stakeholder Engagement 1 Public and other stakeholder awareness Organised and deliberate effort aimed at increasing the Red 4
and Knowledge and outreach awareness of the public and other stakeholder groups about
Management the impacts of climate change, sources of community
vulnerability and response options; examples include radio or
TV ads, and presentations to and meetings with climate
change stakeholders where information is shared
horizontally; also includes stakeholder analysis and
assessment
2 Participation in regional and international Participation of senior Government officials and technocrats
conferences and workshops etc. in MADUs and other stakeholder organisations in regional and
international technical meetings and workshops related to
climate change adaptation; participation in other
opportunities for stakeholder networking at the regional and
international levels; information flows in a vertical way
3 Knowledge management platform or Development of and regular contribution to a knowledge
network management platform or network such as a data portal that
impacts decision-making at the national level with respect to
climate change adaptation; includes platforms and networks
that provide tools for organising and accessing intellectual
capital, enabling and supporting collaboration across
jurisdictions, building capabilities for collaboration, and
encouraging knowledge sharing across jurisdictions
4 Other but similar Any other action directly related to stakeholder engagement
and knowledge management for climate change adaptation

TOTAL SCORE 22

(Source: Author; Modified from Lesnikowski et al. (2015))

developing country) Parties to the Convention, including SIDS, are adaptation action in SIDS. It also allows 22 countries to be added to the
weaker than those for Annex I (i.e. developed country) Parties. This has, Lesnikowski et al. (2015) sample of 13. Expanding the sample frame to
in part, been attributed to the lower capacity of developing countries to include those submissions made before 2015 was important because,
report in a “regular, timely and detailed fashion”, which impacts the between 2008 and 2012, only 13 SIDS had submitted a National
quality of the Reports (see Breidenich, 2011, p. 7) and their usefulness, in Communication in English, hence the Lesnikowski et al. (2015)sample
general. size. As a result, Lesnikowski et al. (2015) only covers 33.0% of the 40
SIDS that are required to submit National Communications to the
UNFCCC. Expanding the frame to 35 SIDS resulted in an 88.0% coverage
2.3. Identifying case studies and additional data sources
of the 40 SIDS, which constitutes a representative sample.
In addition to the adaptation actions identified in National Commu-
Of the 40 SIDS required to submit National Communications to the
nications, this study codes national adaptation actions identified in
UNFCCC, 35 of them made submissions in English up to the end of 2014
policy-relevant documents such as academic journal articles, official
(see Appendix 2): Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados,
government publications, and technical reports, thus expanding the
Belize, Cape Verde, Cook Islands, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-
number of data sources. Here, adaptation is seen as a multi-stage, itera-
Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands,
tive process as in Robinson (2017). Using specialised search protocols in
Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua
ProQuest® and Scopus®, two of the largest multidisciplinary databases,
New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts
and ensuring consistency in the use of Boolean operators, an additional
and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Timor-
23,011 and 39 documents were retrieved, respectively (see Appendix 3
Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Micronesia
and 4). The ProQuest® results were further filtered by subject, classifi-
(Federated States of) made the first SIDS submission in 1997. This
cation, location, and relevance of title for a final number of 5,394 results
coincided with the UNFCCC COP3, which adopted the Kyoto Protocol.
(see Appendix 4). The full texts of all database results were merged into
Singapore submitted its Third National Communication in December
one document and further keyword searches performed in order to
2014, which was one year prior to the adoption of the 2015 Paris
identify national adaptation actions (see Appendix 5). There was a small
Agreement. The Small Islands Chapter of Working Group II’s contribu-
risk of double counting here, which was mitigated by recoding the
tion to AR5 was also released in 2014. As submissions from SIDS are
adaptation actions identified in the National Communications.
uneven, this 17-year timeframe is used to establish a baseline of

5
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Fig. 1. Equation used to calculate the Modified Adaptation Initiatives Index.

(Source: Author)

2.4. Calculating the MAII and understanding its limitations further extended and built upon. Second, as the MAII is primarily based on
National Communications, it should be considered as being impacted by
After coding the data collected from the National Communications reporting intensity, that is, under- and over-reporting by countries (see
and policy-relevant documents, this study then calculates a weighted discussions in Robinson, 2017). Relevant adaptation sections in the Re-
MAII using the equation shown in Fig. 1. The MAII is ultimately a process- ports also vary in length. Third, the MAII does not control for
focussed count of the sub-types of national-level adaptation actions un- country-specific need for different adaptation sub-types; it also does not
dertaken by national governments, as reported in countries’ National match reported adaptation actions with locally-encountered adaptation
Communications and other policy-relevant documents (see Appendix 6). problems or needs. Despite these limitations, future versions of the MAII
It identifies 22 sub-types of adaptation across the five typologies. It as- could seek to account for (1) reporting intensity across countries, (2)
signs one point when a sub-type of action is reported in an adaptation- varying vulnerabilities across SIDS, and (3) specific sources of vulnera-
related chapter in a National Communication or in a document bility within and across countries.
retrieved from the database search, and zero points in the contrary. If an
action is reported in a National Communication as well as in a database 3. Results
document, only one point is assigned. The total points for each of the five
adaptation typologies are divided by the maximum number of sub-types A total of 1,497 adaptation actions were recorded for the 35 countries
for that typology. Equal weights (0.2) are then applied to the five ty- sampled (see Appendix 6). Only 11.4% of the total actions reported were
pologies, an approach which is appropriate for establishing a baseline of not captured in National Communications, though a greater number of
action, as opposed to establishing a progression from one type of action actions was recorded in other sources for three countries – Barbados,
to another. Scores range between 0 and 1 for the reporting countries Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu (see Appendix 6). Of the 1,497 adaptation
sampled. A final score of 1 or close to 1 represents countries that reported actions recorded, only 441 were coded. Appendix 7 contains the master
being engaged in the most sub-types of adaptation action, and hence the scorecard.
most advanced adaptors. Here, ‘adaptor’ refers to the country (i.e. per-
sons appropriately tasked at the national and sub-national/local levels) 3.1. Ranking all SIDS on the MAII
adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects or in which ad-
justments are occurring. A final score of 0 or close to 0 represents Applying the MAII equation to the 35 SIDS, final scores range be-
countries that reported being engaged in the least number of sub-types of tween a high of 0.748 (Cook Islands), though roughly only three-quarters
adaptation action across the spectrum, and hence the least advanced of the way to a perfect score of 1.0, and a low of 0.150 (Marshall Islands).
adaptors. The median score is 0.486 (Dominica) and is used as a marker to separate
The MAII is part of an “evolving research programme” (Arnell, 2010, p. the ‘more advanced adaptors’ from the ‘less advanced adaptors’ (see
107). It can be considered a richness index,2 expressing the total number of Table 2 below).
sub-types of adaptation actions undertaken in a country, as reported in its Countries scoring between 0.514 and 0.748 are considered more
National Communication and other policy-relevant documents at a spe- advanced adaptors at the national level and should be incentivised to-
cific point in time. Over an evenness index, for example, it better ac- ward greater adaptation action. These more advanced adaptors are
knowledges that each typology is as important as another, especially in the constituted by five AIMS SIDS (29.4% of the more advanced adaptors),
early stages of national-level adaptation action. The MAII, therefore, four Caribbean SIDS (23.5%), and eight Pacific SIDS (47.1%): Barbados,
compares reported adaptation actions across 35 SIDS, a methodology that Cape Verde, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives,
can also be applied to other developing countries not considered SIDS. Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, St. Lucia,
Despite its utility and suitability to SIDS, however, the MAII has some Timor-Leste, Tonga, and Vanuatu (in alphabetical order; see Section 3.2
limitations. First, it does not assess the intent (i.e. whether the action is for rank order) (see Part A in Fig. 2). Countries scoring between 0.150
autonomous or planned), content, timing (i.e. whether the action is and 0.474 are considered less advanced adaptors and should be priori-
anticipatory, concurrent or reactive), outcome or effectiveness of the ac- tised for funding in an effort to bolster their capacity to adapt, and to
tion (see Biagini et al., 2014, p. 98), areas in which this analysis could be accelerate the implementation of tangible adaptation actions. These less
advanced adaptors are constituted by two AIMS SIDS (11.8% of the less
advanced adaptors), eight Caribbean SIDS (47.1%), and seven Pacific
2
In ecology, a variety of indices have been developed to empirically measure SIDS (41.2%): Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Grenada,
biodiversity. One such measure is a species richness index. It expresses the total Guinea-Bissau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
number of species in a community. Another measure is an evenness index, Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
which expresses how evenly the individuals in a community are distributed Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu (in alphabetical
among different species. order; see Section 3.2 for rank order) (see Part B in Fig. 2).

6
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Table 2 Fiji, and Vanuatu. Their scores range from a high of 0.748 (Cook
Modified Adaptation Initiatives Index Islands) to a low of 0.514 (Vanuatu). Cook Islands and Kiribati top the
RANK COUNTRY SCORE index—they rank first and second across all SIDS. Timor-Leste ties with
Cape Verde (an AIMS SIDS) for 14th place on the MAII with a score of
MORE ADVANCED 1 Cook Islands 0.748
ADAPTORS 2 Kiribati 0.726 0.524. The remaining seven Pacific SIDS account for 41.2% of the less
3 St. Lucia 0.698 advanced adaptors across all regions. In rank order, these countries are:
4 Seychelles 0.669 Tuvalu, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Solomon Islands, Niue,
5 Mauritius 0.660 Palau, and Marshall Islands. Their scores range from a high of 0.464
6 Papua New Guinea 0.652
7 Guyana 0.624
(Tuvalu) to a low of 0.15 (Marshall Islands)—the Marshall Islands has the
8 Singapore 0.607 lowest rank on the MAII (35th).
9 Maldives 0.590
10 Barbados 0.586 3.3. Understanding baseline actions across SIDS
11 Jamaica 0.569
12 Tonga 0.560
13 Samoa 0.548 One hundred and thirty-one actions of the total number coded (or
14 Cape Verde 0.524 29.7%) were classified as ‘observation and assessment’, 111 (25.2%) as
Timor-Leste 0.524 ‘planning’, 84 (19.0%) as ‘implementation’, 36 (8.2%) as ‘monitoring
16 Fiji 0.519 and evaluation’, and 79 (17.9%) as ‘stakeholder engagement and
17 Vanuatu 0.514
knowledge management’.
18 Dominica 0.486 Of the 278 actions coded for the more advanced adaptors (Barbados,
LESS ADVANCED ADAPTORS 19 Antigua and Barbuda 0.474 Cape Verde, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives,
Belize 0.474 Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, St. Lucia,
21 Tuvalu 0.464
Timor-Leste, Tonga, and Vanuatu), 75 (27.0%) were classified as
22 Grenada 0.452
23 Micronesia (Federated States 0.424
‘observation and assessment’, 76 (27.3%) as ‘planning’, 57 (20.5%) as
of) ‘implementation’, 24 (8.6%) as ‘monitoring and evaluation’, and 46
24 Suriname 0.407 (16.6%) as ‘stakeholder engagement and knowledge management’. Of
25 Nauru 0.395 note is that the efforts of the more advanced adaptors are concentrated on
26 Trinidad and Tobago 0.381
‘planning’ (27.3% vs. 22.0% of the less advanced adaptors), ‘imple-
27 Solomon Islands 0.307
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.307 mentation’ (20.5% vs. 16.0% of the less advanced adaptors) and ‘moni-
29 Bahamas 0.295 toring and evaluation’ (8.6% vs. 7.3% of the less advanced adaptors) (see
30 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 0.286 Part A of Fig. 3). The more advanced adaptors reported being engaged in
31 Niue 0.279
observation or climate change scenario modelling, impact or vulnera-
32 Palau 0.274
33 Bahrain 0.229
bility assessments, and public and other stakeholder awareness and
34 Guinea-Bissau 0.179 outreach activities.
35 Marshall Islands 0.150 Of the 150 actions coded for the less advanced adaptors (Antigua and
Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Marshall
3.2. Ranking SIDS by geographic region on the MAII Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niue, Palau, Solomon
Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname,
More than 70% of the AIMS SIDS studied are classified as more Trinidad and Tobago, and Tuvalu), 49 (32.7%) were classified as
advanced adaptors. Five AIMS SIDS accounted for 29.4% of the more ‘observation and assessment’, 33 (22.0%) as ‘planning’, 24 (16.0%) as
advanced adaptors across all regions. In rank order, these countries are: ‘implementation’, 11 (7.3%) as ‘monitoring and evaluation’, and 33
Seychelles, Mauritius, Maldives, Singapore, and Cape Verde. Their scores (22.0%) as ‘stakeholder engagement and knowledge management’ (see
range from a high of 0.669 (Seychelles) to a low of 0.524 (Cape Verde). Part D of Fig. 2). Of note is that the efforts of the less advanced adaptors
Seychelles and Mauritius, ranked 4th and 5th overall, respectively, join are concentrated on ‘observation and assessment’ (32.7% vs. 27.0% of
two Pacific SIDS (Cook Islands and Kiribati) and one Caribbean SIDS (St. the more advanced adaptors) and ‘stakeholder engagement and knowl-
Lucia) in the top five. Cape Verde ties with Timor-Leste (a Pacific SIDS) edge management’ (22.0% vs. 16.6% of the more advanced adaptors)
for 14th place on the MAII. Two AIMS SIDS (11.8% of the less advanced (see Part B of Fig. 3). Additionally, the less advanced adaptors are two
adaptors across all regions) – Bahrain (33rd with 0.229) and Guinea- times more engaged in ‘observation and assessment’ than ‘implementa-
Bissau (34th with 0.179) – are the less advanced adaptors in the region. tion’. As opposed to the more advanced adaptors, the less advanced
Four Caribbean SIDS (23.5% of the more advanced adaptors across all adaptors are less engaged in the ‘planning’ (22.0% vs. 27.3% of the more
regions) are classified as more advanced adaptors. In rank order, these advanced adaptors), ‘implementation’ (16.0% vs. 20.5% of the more
countries are: St. Lucia, Guyana, Barbados, and Jamaica. Their scores advanced adaptors), and ‘monitoring and evaluation’ (7.3% vs. 8.6% of
range from a high of 0.698 (St. Lucia) to a low of 0.569 (Jamaica). St. the more advanced adaptors) typologies. Less advanced adaptors, akin to
Lucia ranks third on the MAII across all SIDS and, together with Guyana 100.0% of the more advanced adaptors, reported being engaged in the
and Barbados, are within the top 10 of all SIDS. Twice as many Caribbean same top three adaptation actions but with varying levels of effort across
SIDS (n ¼ 8) are classified as less advanced adaptors (47.1% of the less the less advanced adaptors: observation or climate change scenario
advanced adaptors across all regions). In rank order, these countries are: modelling (75.5% of the less advanced adaptors), impact or vulnerability
Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, assessments (94.1%), and public and other stakeholder awareness and
St. Kitts and Nevis, Bahamas, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Their outreach activities (76.5%).
scores range from a high of 0.474 (Antigua and Barbuda) to a low of
0.286 (St. Vincent and the Grenadines). Antigua and Barbuda and Belize 3.4. Understanding baseline actions across SIDS by geographic region
tie for 19th place on the MAII.
More than half of the Pacific SIDS studied are classified as more Across the three geographic regions, AIMS SIDS undertook the least
advanced adaptors. Eight Pacific SIDS account for 47.1% of the more number of actions—85 (19.3%) of the total actions coded, though
advanced adaptors across all regions. In rank order, these countries are: Seychelles recorded the largest number of actions across all SIDS (n ¼
Cook Islands, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Samoa, Timor-Leste, 136) (see Appendix 6). One hundred and sixty-two (36.7%) of the total
actions coded were undertaken in the Caribbean—St. Lucia recorded the

7
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Fig. 2. Distribution of A) more and B) less advanced adaptor SIDS according to geographic region
(Source: Author)

second largest number of actions across all SIDS (n ¼ 122). Pacific SIDS Communications and captured in other policy-related documents. It finds
undertook the most number of action actions—194 (44.0%) of the total that 131 actions (29.7% of the total coded) can be categorised as
actions coded, though the Solomon Islands recorded the smallest number ‘observation and assessment’, 111 (25.2%) as ‘planning’, 84 (19.0%) as
of actions across all SIDS (n ¼ 6). Cook Islands and Tonga tied for the ‘implementation’, 36 (8.2%) as ‘monitoring and evaluation’, and 79
third largest number of actions across all SIDS (n ¼ 94). (17.9%) as ‘stakeholder engagement and knowledge management’.
Across all SIDS, AIMS SIDS were strongest in ‘stakeholder engage- Across the three regions, Caribbean SIDS are strongest in ‘observation
ment and knowledge management’ (18.8%). Caribbean SIDS were and assessment’ (35.2% of total actions coded for the region) while Pa-
strongest in ‘observation and assessment’ (35.2% of total actions coded cific SIDS lead on ‘planning’ (29.4%), implementation (20.1%), and
for the region). Pacific SIDS led on ‘planning’ (29.4%), implementation ‘monitoring and evaluation’ (8.8%). AIMS SIDS are strongest in ‘stake-
(20.1%) (but only a 0.1% lead on AIMS SIDS), and ‘monitoring and holder engagement and knowledge management’ (18.8%). Cook Islands,
evaluation’ (8.8%). Of the 22 sub-types of adaptation actions coded, Kiribati, and St. Lucia have the highest MAII scores and are the most
almost all SIDS (97.1%) reported carrying out impact or vulnerability advanced adaptors of the 35 SIDS, based on the historical data used in
assessments. Only 5.7% of SIDS reported being engaged in other moni- this study. Bahrain, Guinea-Bissau, and Marshall Islands have the lowest
toring and evaluation activities (see Table 3). MAII scores and are the least advanced adaptors of the 35 SIDS. While the
MAII can be used by countries to gauge and compare their national-level
4. Discussion adaptation progress against other countries, to pinpoint the adaptation
typologies in which their efforts are leading and/or lagging, and to
Situated within a broad sustainable development context, this study identify future adaptation investment priorities, it is equally important to
codes and analyses 441 adaptation actions reported in National interrogate the MAII’s methodological benefits and challenges.

8
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Fig. 3. Distribution of actions among adaptation process stages in A) more and B) less advanced adaptor SIDS
(Source: Author)

Table 3
Percentage of SIDS reporting engagement in adaptation sub-types.
RANK ADAPTATION SUB-TYPE % OF 35 SIDS RANK ADAPTATION SUB-TYPE % OF 35 SIDS
ENGAGED ENGAGED

1 Impact or vulnerability assessments 97.1% 12 Enforcement or follow-up of planning actions etc. 48.6%
2 Observation or climate change scenario 88.6% 13 Knowledge management platform or network 45.7%
modelling
3 Public and other stakeholder awareness and 85.7% 14 Framework or policy instrument 42.9%
outreach
4 National committees or organisational changes 74.3% 15 Adaptation research 34.3%
5 Resource transfer 68.6% 16 Performance reviews/recommendations 25.7%
6 Work programmes or strategic/action plans 60.0% 17 Draft policy or bill 22.9%
7 Infrastructure/technology/innovation 60.0% 18 Other implementation 22.9%
8 Other observation and assessment 57.1% 19 Other stakeholder enagagement and knowledge 14.3%
management
9 Participation in conferences and workshops etc. 57.1% 20 Regulations, laws, statutes 8.6%
10 Surveillance or monitoring 54.3% 21 Financing mechanism 8.6%
11 Other planning 48.6% 22 Other monitoring and evaluation 5.7%

4.1. Interrogating the methodological benefits and challenges of the MAII this. It expresses the total number of adaptation sub-types undertaken in
a country, as reported in its National Communication to the UNFCCC and
The MAII is a richness index. This first iteration acknowledges the other policy-relevant documents at a specific point in time. Over an
historical adaptation efforts undertaken at the national level in SIDS and evenness index, for example, it better recognises that each typology is as
provides a standardised, easy-to-interpret methodology for achieving important as another, especially in the early stages of national-level

9
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

adaptation action. Compared to Lesnikowski et al.’s (2015) index, it to determine safety or security margins for new investments that are
further recognises that each adaptation typology can be comprised of large enough to cope with any degree of climate change, (4) using
both groundwork action (i.e. preparatory and necessary for “preparing institutional or financial tools, or soft strategies, such as insurance
for adaptation” (Berrang-Ford et al., 2014, p. 443) and adaptation action schemes and the development of early warning systems, but being sure to
(i.e. “implemented to tangibly improve the adaptive capacity/resiliency incorporate a long-range perspective, and (5) reducing decision horizons
of human and natural systems” (emphasis added) (Berrang-Ford et al., in order to reap benefits in the current climate and for greenhouse gas
2014, p. 443). The MAII’s focus on baselining adaptations in SIDS is emissions reduction, if possible. In this way, SIDS will be able to move
unique and its methodological approach acknowledges the dynamism of away from a “traditional predict and provide” modus operandi and into
the actual adjustments themselves. Other indices such as those developed the realm of implementing more concrete adaptation action (Wilby and
by Pandey and Jha (2012), Shah et al. (2013), Wirehn et al. (2015), Van Dessai, 2010, p. 180).
Beynen et al. (2018) and Stennett-Brown et al. (2019)all focus on With respect to the second question, the fact that implementation is
measuring some aspect of vulnerability to climate change, but only with lagging in SIDS is not surprising but is not exclusive to this group of
Shah et al. (2013), Van Beynen et al. (2018) and Stennett-Brown et al. countries. Research undertaken by Ford et al. (2011) and Webb et al.
(2019) zeroing in on vulnerability in Caribbean SIDS. Rey-Valette et al. (2013) found lags between observation and assessment and actual
(2019) is among the few studies that quantify community-level responses adaptation action in 41 Annex I Parties and in Australia, respectively.
to adaptation plans, albeit in France. The MAII has an embedded holism, Climate stressors, when combined with non-climate stressors, “over-
that is a complete suite of 22 sub-types of adaptation action, that enables whelm adaptability” (Ford, 2009, p. 125) whether in developing or
it to be applied to other developing countries not considered a SIDS. developed countries. As a result, the pursuit of an adaptation agenda that
does not address climate stressors can undermine efforts towards the
4.2. Towards explaining the MAII rankings achievement of sustainability (Owusu-Ampomah, 2011). Adaptation
projects and programs approved for SIDS in the 2015–2030 UN Sus-
The MAII, as calculated in this paper, produces scores with a wide tainable Development Goals framework should prioritise support for
variation between more advanced and less advanced adaptors, indicating adaptation typologies already lagging as well as national-level institu-
that there may be endogenous and/or exogenous factors shaping adap- tional capacity strengthening and retention activities in an effort to help
tive capacities. It is also possible that the same constraints (economic, SIDS move from observation and assessment to adaptation implementa-
environmental, social and/or political) that make SIDS vulnerable to tion to climate-resilient development (see Fankhauser and
climate change are those that are responsible for countries’ MAII rank- Schmidt-Traub, 2011;, following Khan et al., 2018).
ings. Additionally, rankings may be influenced by the extent of countries’ Regarding the third question, the literature is largely silent on the
reporting. Seychelles (an AIMS SIDS), for example, recorded the largest ideal spread of adaptation actions across the process continuum. Tomp-
number of actions across all SIDS (n ¼ 136), ranked 4th on the MAII, and kins et al. (2010), in investigating adaptation in the United Kingdom in
is among the more advanced adaptors. Solomon Islands (a Pacific SIDS), 2005 but without concluding on the suitability of the spread of actions,
as another example, recorded the smallest number of actions across all found the following distribution (re-organised for consistency and ease of
SIDS (n ¼ 6), ranked 26th on the MAII, and is among the less advanced understanding): (1) observation and assessment (12.50%), (2) planning
adaptors. Under- and over-reporting of actions by countries would, (43.75%), (3) implementation (12.50%), (4) monitoring and evaluation
therefore, need to be addressed in future iterations of the MAII. (0.00%), and (5) stakeholder engagement and knowledge management
Considering the results of this study, a number of questions emerge: (31.25%). In the absence of appropriate reference points or benchmarks,
further research will be required to determine the combination of
1. Why are observation and assessment and planning actions leading in adaptation actions that will best reduce the unique vulnerabilities of
SIDS? SIDS.
a. Is 29.7% observation and assessment across SIDS too much or is it The factors potentially explaining the MAII rankings are likely to be
too little? many. Besides the considerations outlined above, other factors could
b. Is 25.2% planning too much or is it too little? include how national and international institutions and organisations
2. Why are implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and stake- frame adaptation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in
holder engagement and knowledge management actions lagging in AR5 for example, distinguishes between incremental and trans-
SIDS? formational adaptation where the former emphasises adjustments in the
a. Is 19.0% implementation across SIDS too little or is it sufficient? human system and the latter emphasises adjustments in the natural
b. Is 8.2% monitoring and evaluation too little or is it sufficient? system. Some countries, too, have longer and/or more current reporting
c. Is 17.9% stakeholder engagement and knowledge management too periods due to the time lapse between and across the submission of Na-
little or is it sufficient? tional Communications. Further, the iterative nature of the adaptation
3. What is the ideal spread of adaptation action across typologies? process results in different typologies and sub-types of actions being
repeated and, therefore, counted differently. While this study did not
Regarding the first question, a critical point is that international investigate explanatory variables and, as a result, cannot derive conclu-
financing mechanisms have traditionally supported ‘enabling activities’ sions about the factors that explain the MAII rankings, there is scope for a
such as observation and assessment, over implementation actions future study to do so. Drawing on the literature, the following sub-
(Horstmann, 2011). Despite this, there is added value for SIDS to be sections speculate about the drivers of and barriers to adaptation ac-
heavily engaged in observation and assessment actions. Biagini et al. tion in SIDS by discussing some of the higher-order variables.
(2014, p. 105) explain that a “[s]cientifically sound, theoretical approach
to vulnerability and adaptation assessments can lead to the identification 4.2.1. Identifying potential drivers of national-level adaptation in SIDS
and implementation of actions that specifically respond to identified The funding priorities of international donor agencies such as the
vulnerabilities”. Notwithstanding this, it is still possible for countries to Global Environment Facility, one of the financing mechanisms for the
“make effective adaptation decisions in the absence of accurate and UNFCCC, drive the nature of adaptation actions undertaken at the na-
precise climate predictions” (Dessai et al., 2009, p. 111). Hallegatte tional level in SIDS. Global Environment Facility-supported adaptation
(2009) recommends: (1) choosing ‘no-regret’ strategies that will never- actions, for example, were initially limited to “vulnerability and adap-
theless be beneficial, (2) using multi-criteria decision-making frame- tation assessments and studies, with some focus on capacity building, but
works to identify and implement adaptation actions that are reversible extremely limited focus on implementation of adaptation actions” (Bia-
and flexible, (3) referencing the available climate models and projections gini et al., 2014, p. 99), hence 97.1% of the 35 SIDS reporting carrying

10
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

out impact or vulnerability assessments as part of their Initial National “climate change adaptation into the institutional framework and into the
Communication process. Through its National Communications Support core development policy, strategies and plans” in Mauritius (ranked 5th
Programme, SIDS and other non-Annex I countries electing expedited on the MAII) and 19 other beneficiary countries (Government of
funding received up to US$350,000 from the Global Environment Fa- Mauritius, 2010, p. 96; UNDP, 2015, online). Though a regional
cility towards the preparation of their Initial National Communications approach was taken, mainstreaming successes documented in the Pro-
(UNDP et al., n.d.), a key feature of which were impact and vulnerability gramme’s Terminal Report did not speak to actual adaptation main-
assessments. The provision of funding to SIDS and other non-Annex I streaming (see related discussions in Robinson, 2019b). In fact, the 40
countries to fulfil basic obligations under the Convention creates another mainstreaming references addressed the facilitation of deliberation on
vulnerability – reliance on foreign aid to support national adaptation how climate change mainstreaming can be achieved, improvements in
actions (see Robinson and Dornan, 2017). Donner et al. (2016), Nunn the theory and practice of mainstreaming, development of mainstream-
et al. (2014) and Storey and Hunter (2010) acknowledge the reliance of ing strategies/guidelines and toolkits and, at best, the mainstreaming of
Pacific island states on foreign aid in this regard. Klint et al. (2012) climate awareness into environmental education programming (Rector
provides a salient example that illustrates the extent of this reliance. In et al., 2013). Therefore, regionalism should not be viewed as the peni-
conducting interviews with tourism officials in Vanuatu (ranked 17th on cillin for climate change adaptation governance in small islands (Rob-
the MAII), an interviewee noted there is no back-up funding or funding inson, 2020; Kelman, 2016). Instead, like any other intervention, a
from the Government to deal with climate change and so the rest of the regional approach to climate change adaptation needs to be carefully
world will need to “pick up the Pacific” (Klint et al., 2012, p. 268). In designed, fit-for-purpose, and approached gradually (Dornan and
Niue (ranked 31st on the MAII), aid has proven to be the “most critical Newton-Cain, 2014; Robinson and Gilfillan, 2017).
factor in the availability of finance for adaptation to climate change” In countries such as Kiribati (ranked 2nd on the MAII) and Guyana
(Barnett, 2008, p. 45). Post-conflict nations such as Timor-Leste (ranked (ranked 7th on the MAII), the climate change portfolio has been situated
14th on the MAII) also have a very high level of aid dependency (Mercer within the Offices of the President, signalling the high-level attention it is
et al., 2014). The disparaging effects of relying on foreign aid to support a being accorded (see Government of Guyana, 2012, p. 309; Government
necessary set of activities such as climate change adaptation are many, of Kiribati, 2013, p. 33). Eleventh-ranked-Jamaica, as another example,
including constraints on state autonomy and adaptation spending, and created a Climate Change Division in a re-branded Ministry of Water,
the undermining of governance (Barnett, 2008). Though this places SIDS, Land, Environment and Climate Change in 2012 “to coordinate national
whether a more advanced or a less advanced adaptor, in a ‘catch 22’ actions on climate change” (Robinson, 2019b; Government of Jamaica,
position, they have both an opportunity and a responsibility to convert 2013, p. 8) and is one of the few Caribbean SIDS to have secured “direct
the climate knowledge received through the observation and assessment access financing from the Adaptation Fund”, the financing mechanism
activities funded by multilateral aid programs, into tangible adaptation established under the Kyoto Protocol (Adaptation Fund Secretariat,
action. 2012, online). Despite the high-level position of climate change on the
For SIDS with documented capacity constraints, “regional service national agendas of some of the more advanced adaptors, climate change
delivery” can be used to tackle common environmental and sustainability is only now entering the policy arena in many of the less advanced
challenges and to drive climate change adaptation action at the national adaptors and is still not a national focus. Klint et al. (2012) notes this as
level (Dornan and Newton-Cain, 2014, p. 541; Fry, 2019). Regional or- being the case in Vanuatu (ranked 17th on the MAII). Besides the polit-
ganisations such as the Indian Ocean Commission, the Caribbean Com- ical positioning, the establishment of national climate change commit-
munity and its Climate Change Centre, and the Secretariat of the Pacific tees and other organisational changes (reported by 74.3% of the 35
Regional Environment Programme are mandated by their Member SIDS), the development of adaptation work programs and action plans
Governments to promote cooperation as well as technical, financial and (reported by 60.0% of the 35 SIDS), particularly as part of National
institutional resource pooling (Gilfillan et al., 2020; Robinson and Gil- Adaptation Programmes of Action prepared by SIDS that are also least
fillan, 2017). These organisations are key actors in regional observation developed countries, and other undefined planning actions (reported by
and assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, 48.6% of the 35 SIDS), there has been little elaboration of other aspects of
and stakeholder engagement and knowledge management activities, national planning frameworks that are complementary to adaptation
often functioning as executing/implementing agencies (Robinson and efforts. Storey and Hunter (2010) observed that the priorities outlined in
Gilfillan, 2017; Barnett and Campbell, 2010; Nunn, 2009). Since the late the National Environmental Management Strategy in Kiribati were not
1990s, the Caribbean Community, for example, has been implementing a reflected in the [other] policies of the Government. Strategic positioning,
number of regional projects and programs geared towards understanding therefore, needs to be backed by an appropriate, in force, enabling
and reducing the Caribbean’s vulnerability to climate change (Mercer planning/policy framework and vice versa. If not, adaptation in-
et al., 2012; Rosenberg, 2020). These projects have included: “Caribbean terventions may be less sustainable, provided that “sustainable adapta-
Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change (1997–2001); Adaptation to tion” is not merely a figure of speech (Brown, 2011, p. 21).
Climate Change in the Caribbean (2001–2004); Mainstreaming Adapta-
tion to Climate Change (2004–2009); and the Special Program on 4.2.2. Identifying potential barriers to national-level adaptation in SIDS
Adaptation to Climate Change: Implementation of Adaptation Measures Robinson (2018a) and Robinson (2018b) establish that access to in-
in Coastal Zones (2007–2011)” (Mercer et al., 2012, p. 1912; Rosenberg, ternational adaptation finance is among the primary barriers and/or
2020). They have led to, inter alia, the formulation of initial national limits to adaptation action in SIDS, respectively. The mechanisms for
adaptation policies, design and establishment of a Caribbean-wide sea accessing, spending and accounting for international adaptation
level/climate monitoring network, and the establishment of regional financing are complicated and bureaucratic, which affects the ability of
databases and information systems (Government of St. Lucia, 2011, p. SIDS and other non-Annex I countries to take-up funds for adaptation
160). While it is difficult to quantify or qualify the extent of the value implementation (Robinson and Dornan, 2017). The Global Environment
regional efforts have added to national efforts, regionalism among SIDS is Facility, for example, was established in 1991 to “provide new and
strained by economic, environmental, social and political differences additional grant and concessional funding to meet the agreed incre-
among the islands (Dornan and Newton-Cain, 2014; Fry, 2019). Addi- mental costs of measures to achieve agreed global environmental bene-
tionally, poorly conceptualised, designed and implemented projects and fits” (cited in Mace, 2005, p. 227). Today, there is still neither agreement
programs are likely to yield sub-optimal results, whether delivered on the definition of ‘new and additional’ funding nor on what it consti-
regionally or nationally. An example is the 2008–2012 Africa Adaptation tutes (Ayers et al., 2013; Weikmans et al., 2019; Ciplet et al., 2018; Khan
Programme, launched and implemented by the United Nations Devel- et al., 2019). As adaptation actions are typically situated within an
opment Programme, which aimed at integrating and mainstreaming ongoing effort to achieve sustainable development at the national level

11
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

(Robinson, 2019b), it is difficult to identify and isolate the additional cost the MAII should be seen as an initial step towards the development of a
and contribution of the adaptation project or program (often the case fuller methodology for the identification, monitoring and evaluation of
with infrastructure projects and programs) in order to justify the award of adaptation actions in SIDS. A future attempt at quantitatively explaining
the additional funding, over and above usual development aid (Brown the ranking of the 35 SIDS by determining the most important explana-
and Kaur, 2009). With the Adaptation Fund designed to help developing tory factors, for example, could provide an added value not only for
countries “implement concrete adaptation projects and programmes” but national governments but also for those international funding agencies
being sharply criticised for the lags between project concept identifica- underwriting the cost of adaptation. These factors are likely to include
tion and implementation (Horstmann, 2011, pp. 1088 & 1090), tackling (1) the unique nature of countries’ vulnerabilities to climate change and
the issue of additionality is critical. In recognising the inherent episte- the diversity of impacts across countries, (2) the volume of funds received
mological and methodological complexities in arriving at a consensus for by SIDS and used for adaptation, and (3) governance structures, or
defining ‘new and additional financing’ for climate change adaptation adaptive capacity more broadly. More detailed analyses would, there-
(explored in M€ ohner and Klein, 2007), Stadelmann et al. (2011) un- fore, be required to better understand and establish direct causal re-
derscores the importance of defining a baseline and identifies five criteria lationships. Notwithstanding this, the fact that this first iteration of the
for achieving this: (1) additionality to existing development assistance, MAII creates a baseline of adaptations in SIDS, which will be publicly
(2) novelty to existing flows and pledges, (3) environmental effectiveness available, means that other researchers will be able to use the data to
of the financing, (4) distributional considerations, and (5) institutional measure adaptation progress from the baseline. They will also be able to
feasibility, comprising: (a) political, North-South acceptability, (b) establish whether adaptations in SIDS are, in fact, aligned with climate
feasibility under budget constraints, and (c) transparency. Though projections (as expressed in, for example, the Assessment Reports of the
identifying measurable, universally-agreed indicators for these five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and whether historical
criteria poses a challenge, creating a better balance between the actions have led to more effective and/or sustainable outcomes in these
vulnerability focus of traditional development funding and the impacts geographies.
focus of new and additional funding is necessary (Brown and Kaur, 2009;
McGray et al., 2007). As institutional capacity matters (Berrang-Ford
et al., 2014; Robinson and Dornan, 2017; Przyluski and Hallegatte, Declaration of competing interest
2010), additionality must include considerations for determining, slow-
ing and ultimately eliminating the drivers of vulnerability and for The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
building an adequate and effective response capacity, both more easily interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
associated with traditional development funding. Also for consideration the work reported in this paper.
is the conclusion of Przyluski and Hallegatte (2010, pp. 1 & 18), that
“funding based on the ‘additional cost’ is highly inefficient” and “to Acknowledgements
provide only a small share of total cost [is] insufficient to leverage other
funding source[s]”, which makes “it impossible to implement [the] most This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
needed development-adaptation projects”. This conclusion, though in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
drawn based on an analysis of the European Union Pre-Accession and
Solidarity Funds and against the backdrop of there being comparatively
Appendix A. Supplementary data
higher institutional and adaptive capacities in the Union, could form the
basis of a SIDS position in international negotiations used to better
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
contextualise and qualify the challenges of securing co-financing and
doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100065.
leveraging private funding sources for adaptation (see Schwebel, 2018;
Betzold et al., 2012).
References
5. Conclusion Adaptation Fund Secretariat, 2012 November 29. Adaptation Fund Board Approves $50.7
Million in Grant Funding, Including One Direct Access Project in Jamaica. Adaptation
Going forward, it is important to recall that SIDS are uniquely but not Fund Secretariat [Accessed November 2, 2019]; Available from: https://bit
.ly/2Rf8Dcv.
equally vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and that they have
Anckar, D., 2013. Legislatures in small polities. In: Baldwin, N. (Ed.), Legislatures of Small
differential adaptation responses (Nguyen and Robinson, 2019). The States: A Comparative Study. Routledge, Oxon, pp. 12–20.
adaptation literature, though using individual and small groups of SIDS Arnell, N.W., 2010. Adapting to climate change: an evolving research programme.
as lenses, does not allow for the establishment of a baseline of adaptation Climatic Change 100 (1), 107–111.
Ayers, J.M., Abeysinghe, A.C., 2013. International aid and adaptation to climate change.
action in multiple jurisdictions across the three main geographic regions In: Falkner, R. (Ed.), The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy. John
(AIMS, the Caribbean and the Pacific). This study and the MAII it de- Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, pp. 486–506.
velops not only helps to draw academic attention to some of the world’s Barnett, J., 2008. The effect of aid on capacity to adapt to climate change: insights from
Niue. Polit. Sci. 60 (1), 31–45.
smallest and most vulnerable countries but it also generates historical Barnett, J. and J. Campbell, Climate Change and Small Island States: Power, Knowledge, and
data on adaptation effort that will increase understandings of the South Pacific. 2010, Sterling, Virginia and London: Earthscan.
national-level adaptation in SIDS, which is required for closing the Bernard, H.R., Ryan, G.W., 1998. Text analysis: qualitative and quantitative methods. In:
Bernard, H.R. (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology
’adaptation deficit;. Application of the MAII methodology provides Qualitative Research. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California, pp. 595–646.
probably the first SIDS-focussed, multi-region, global assessment of the Berrang-Ford, L., et al., 2011. Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environ. Change
status of climate change adaptation in SIDS, which constitute approxi- 21 (1), 25–33.
Berrang-Ford, L., et al., 2014. What drives national adaptation? A global assessment.
mately 27% of UN membership. The MAII identifies ‘more advanced Climatic Change 124 (1–2), 441–450.
adaptors’ and ‘less advanced adaptors’ from among a sample of 35 SIDS Betzold, C., 2015. Adapting to climate change in small island developing states. Climatic
as well as the sub-types of adaptation action in which SIDS are leading Change 1–9.
Betzold, C., et al., 2012. AOSIS in the UNFCCC negotiations: from unity to fragmentation?
and lagging. This methodology is also applicable to other non-Annex I
Clim. Pol. 12 (5), 591–613.
Parties to the Convention that are deemed to have less stringent reporting Biagini, B., et al., 2014. A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate
requirements than Annex-I Parties. adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Global Environ.
While this and other papers speculate about the drivers of and bar- Change 25, 97–108.
Biermann, F., et al., 2012. Transforming governance and institutions for global
riers to national-level adaptation (e.g. Robinson, 2019a; Berrang-Ford sustainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Curr. Opin.
et al., 2014; Robinson, 2018b; Betzold, 2015; Lesnikowski et al., 2013), Environ. Sustain. 4 (1), 51–60.

12
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Breidenich, C., 2011. Improving Reporting of National Communications and GHG Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Inventories by Non-Annex I Parties under the Climate Convention. Natural Resources Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1757–1776.
Defense Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–25 Kates, R.W., et al., 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to
Briguglio, L., 1995. Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 109 (19),
World Dev. 23 (9), 1615–1632. 7156–7161.
Briguglio, L., et al., 2010. Profiling Vulnerability and Resilience: A Manual for Small Kelman, I., 2016. Governance of climate change adaptation on small island developing
States. Commonwealth Secretariat, London. states (SIDS). In: Knieling, J. (Ed.), Climate Adaptation Governance in Cities and
Brown, K., 2011. Sustainable adaptation: an oxymoron? Clim. Dev. 3 (1), 21–31. Regions: Theoretical Fundamentals and Practical Evidence. Wiley Blackwell,
Brown, J., Kaur, N., 2009. Financing Adaptation: Matching Form with Function. Overseas Hoboken, NJ, pp. 355–369.
Development Institute, London, pp. 1–6. Khan, M., et al., 2018. The Paris Framework for Climate Change Capacity Building.
Bruckner, M., 2013. Effectively Addressing the Vulnerabilities and Development Needs of Routledge, Abingdon.
Small Island Developing States. United Nations, New York. Khan, M., et al., 2019. Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice
Carr, E.R., 2019. Properties and Projects: Reconciling Resilience and Transformation for lens. Climatic Change 1–19.
Adaptation and Development, vol. 122. World Development, pp. 70–84. Klint, L.M., et al., 2012. Climate change adaptation in the Pacific Island tourism sector:
Cassell, C., 2008. Template Analysis. In: Thorpe, R., Holt, R. (Eds.), The SAGE Dictionary analysing the policy environment in Vanuatu. Curr. Issues Tourism 15 (3), 247–274.
of Qualitative Management Research. SAGE Publications, Inc., London, pp. 221–223. Kl€
ock, C., Nunn, P.D., 2019. Adaptation to climate change in small island developing
Ciplet, D., et al., 2018. The transformative capability of transparency in global states: a systematic literature review of academic research. J. Environ. Dev. 28 (2),
environmental governance. Global Environ. Polit. 18 (3), 130–150. 196–218.
Commonwealth Secretariat, A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. 1997, Lesnikowski, A.C., et al., 2013. National-level factors affecting planned, public adaptation
London: Commonwealth Secretariat. to health impacts of climate change. Global Environ. Change 23 (5), 1153–1163.
Connell, J., 2013. Islands at risk? Environmental, Economies and Contemporary Change. Lesnikowski, A.C., et al., 2015. How are we adapting to climate change? A global
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham. assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 20 (2), 277–293.
Connell, J., 2018. Islands: balancing development and sustainability? Environ. Conserv. Lincoln Lenderking, H., et al., 2020. Climate change and food security in Caribbean small
45 (2), 111–124. island developing states: challenges and strategies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.
Cornwall, A., Brock, K., 2005. What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical 1–13.
look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’. Third World Q. 26 Mace, M.J., 2005. Funding for adaptation to climate change: UNFCCC and GEF
(7), 1043–1060. developments since COP-7. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 14 (3), 225–246.
Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L., 1999. Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing Mayntz, R., 2003. New challenges to governance theory. In: Bang, H.P. (Ed.), Governance
style of interpretation. In: Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L. (Eds.), Doing Qualitative as Social and Political Communication. Manchester University Press, Manchester,
Research. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 163–178. pp. 27–40.
Dessai, S., et al., 2009. Do we need better predictions to adapt to a changing climate? Eos, McGray, H., et al., 2007. Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90 (13), 111–112. Development. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C, pp. 1–66.
Donner, S.D., et al., 2016. Measuring and tracking the flow of climate change adaptation Mercer, J., et al., 2012. Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Caribbean small
aid to the developing world. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (5), 1–9. island developing states: integrating local and external knowledge. Sustainability 4
Dornan, M., Newton-Cain, T., 2014. Regional service delivery among Pacific island (12), 1908–1932.
countries: an assessment. Asia & Pacific Pol. Stud. 1 (3), 541–560. Mercer, J., et al., 2014. Nation-building policies in Timor-Leste: disaster risk reduction,
Ellis, J., et al., 2011. Core Elements of National Reports. Organisation for Economic Co- including climate change adaptation. Disasters 38 (4), 690–718.
operation and Development/International Energy Agency, Paris, pp. 1–44. M€ohner, A., Klein, R.J.T., 2007. The global environment facility: funding for adaptation
Ellis, N.R., Tschakert, P., 2019. Triple-wins as pathways to transformation? A critical or adapting to funds?. In: Climate & Energy Programme Working Paper. Stockholm
review. Geoforum 103, 167–170. Environment Institute, Stockholm, pp. 1–26.
Fankhauser, S., Schmidt-Traub, G., 2011. From adaptation to climate-resilient Mysiak, J., et al., 2015. How small is small and how much island is a coast: which
development: the costs of climate-proofing the Millennium Development Goals in countries from among the Small Island Developing States warrant special attention?.
Africa. Clim. Dev. 3 (2), 94–113. In: 16th Annual Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies (SALISES)
Ford, J.D., 2009. Sea ice change in Artic Canada: are there limits to Inuit adaptation? In: Conference. SALISES: Castries/Rodney Bay, St. Lucia, pp. 1–14.
Adger, W.N., et al. (Eds.), Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Neuendorf, K., 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand
Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 114–128. Oaks, California.
Ford, J.D., et al., 2011. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in Nguyen, C., Robinson, S.-a., 2019. Differential climate change impacts and adaptation
developed nations. Climatic Change 106 (2), 327–336. responses in the Caribbean Lesser Antilles. Caribb. Geogr. 24, 1–23.
Ford, J.D., et al., 2015. The status of climate change adaptation in Africa and Asia. Reg. Nunn, P.D., 2009. Responding to the challenges of climate change in the Pacific Islands:
Environ. Change 15 (5), 801–814. management and technological imperatives. Clim. Res. 40 (2–3), 211–231.
Fry, G., 2019. Framing the Islands: Power and Diplomatic Agency in Pacific Regionalism. Nunn, P.D., et al., 2014. Beyond the core: community governance for climate-change
ANU Press, Canberra. adaptation in peripheral parts of Pacific Island Countries. Reg. Environ. Change 14
Gheuens, J., et al., 2019. Disaster-risk, water security challenges and strategies in small (1), 221–235.
island developing states (SIDS). Water 11 (4), 1–28. Nurse, L.A., et al., 2014. Small islands. In: Barros, V.R., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014:
Gilfillan, D., et al., 2020. Action research to enhance inter-organisational coordination of Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of
climate change adaptation in the Pacific. Challenges 11 (8), 1–24. Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Government of Cabo Verde, 2010. In: Second National Communication on Climate Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1613–1654.
Change of Cabo Verde. Ministry of Environment, Rural Development and Marine Owusu-Ampomah, K., 2011. Chasing shadows? Policies and actions that undermine
Resources/National Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Praia, pp. 1–162. efforts towards the millennium development Goals (MDGs). Rev. Hum. Factor Stud.
Government of Guyana, 2012. In: Second National Communication to the United Nations 17 (1), 1–39.
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Agriculture, Georgetown, Panda, A., 2018. Transformational adaptation of agricultural systems to climate change.
pp. 1–437. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev.: Clim. Change 9 (4), e520.
Government of Jamaica, 2013. Green paper - Climate change policy framework and action Pandey, R., Jha, S., 2012. Climate vulnerability index - measure of climate change
plan. In: Ministry of Water, Land, Environment and Climate Change, Kingston, vulnerability to communities: a case of rural Lower Himalaya, India. Mitig. Adapt.
pp. 1–57. Strategies Glob. Change 17 (5), 487–506.
Government of Kiribati, 2013. In: Second Communication under the United Nations Petzold, J., Magnan, A.K., 2019. Climate change: thinking small islands beyond small
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment, Lands and island developing states (SIDS). Climatic Change 152 (1), 145–165.
Agricultural Development, Tarawa, pp. 1–196. Preston, B.L., et al., 2011. Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of
Government of Mauritius, 2010. In: Second National Communication of the Republic of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change
Mauritius under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 16 (4), 407–438.
Meteorological Services, Vacoas, pp. 1–148. Przyluski, V., Hallegatte, S., 2010. Climate Change Adaptation, Development, and
Government of St. Lucia, 2011. In: Second National Communication on Climate Change for International Financial Support: Lessons from EU Pre-accession and Solidarity Funds.
St. Lucia. Ministry of Physical Development and the Environment, Castries, Sustainable Development Series, vol. 137, pp. 1–26 (FEEM Working Paper No.
pp. 1–258. 137.2010).
Government of Timor-Leste, 2014. In: Timor Leste’s Initial National Communication Ratter, B.M.W., 2018. Geography of Small Islands: Outposts of Globalisation. Springer
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. State Nature, Cham.
Secretariat for Environment, Dili, pp. 1–182. Rector, I., et al., 2013. Africa Adaptation Programme: Terminal Report. United Nations
Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environ. Development Programme, New York, pp. 1–123.
Change 19 (2), 240–247. Rey-Valette, H., et al., 2019. Resistance to relocation in flood-vulnerable coastal areas: a
Horstmann, B., 2011. Operationalizing the adaptation fund: challenges in allocating funds proposed composite index. Clim. Pol. 19 (2), 206–218.
to the vulnerable. Clim. Pol. 11 (4), 1086–1096. Robinson, S.-a., 2017. Climate change adaptation trends in small island developing states.
Hruschka, D.J., et al., 2004. Reliability in coding open-ended data: lessons learned from Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 22 (4), 669–691.
HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 16 (3), 307–331. Robinson, S.-a., 2018a. Climate change adaptation in small island developing states:
IPCC, 2014. Annex II: glossary. In: Barros, V.R., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: insights and lessons from a meta-paradigmatic study. Environ. Sci. Pol. 85, 172–181.
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of

13
S.-a. Robinson Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 8 (2020) 100065

Robinson, S.-a., 2018a. Climate change adaptation limits in small island developing UNDP, et al., National communications support programme resource kit, in The National
states. In: Filho, W. Leal, Nalau, J. (Eds.), Limits to Climate Change Adaptation. Communications Process. n.D., United Nations Development Programme: New York. p.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 263–281. 1-36.
Robinson, S.-a., 2019a. A commentary on national adaptation drivers: the case of small UNEP, 2014. GEO Small Island Developing States Outlook. United Nations Environment
island developing states. Climatic Change 154 (3–4), 303–313. Programme, Nairobi.
Robinson, S.-a., 2019b. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in small island UNFCCC Secretariat. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Eighth Session. held at
developing states. Clim. Dev. 11 (1), 47–59. New Delhi from 23 October to 1 November 2002. 2003 November 29, 2019];
Robinson, S.-a., 2020. Climate change adaptation in SIDS: a systematic review of the Available from: https://bit.ly/37QKrTp.
literature pre and post the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev.: UN-OHRLLS, 2011. Small Island Developing States: Small Island, Big(ger) Stakes. United
Clim. Change 11 (4), 1–21. Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Robinson, S.-a., Dornan, M., 2017. International financing for climate change adaptation Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, New York,
in small island developing states. Reg. Environ. Change 17 (4), 1103–1115. pp. 1–32.
Robinson, S.-a., Gilfillan, D., 2017. Regional organisations and climate change adaptation Van Beynen, P., et al., 2018. A sustainability index for small island developing states. Int.
in small island developing states. Reg. Environ. Change 17 (4), 989–1004. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25 (2), 99–116.
Rosenberg, J., 2020. Adaptation, official development assistance, and institution building: Waring, T., Wainwright, D., 2008. Issues and challenges in the use of template Analysis:
the case of the Caribbean community climate change Centre. Sustainability 12 (10), two comparative case studies from the field. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1),
4269. 85–94.
Saxena, A., et al., 2018. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of climate adaptation actors Webb, R.J., et al., 2013. Climate change adaptation in Australia: experience, challenges
towards resilience and transformation in a 1.5 C world. Environ. Sci. Pol. 80, and capability development. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 20 (4), 320–337.
152–159. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., 1997. Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative
Schwebel, M.B., 2018. Gathering at the AOSIS: perceived cooperation among Pacific and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning, language and
small island states. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 18 (2), 215–228. education. Lang. Educ. 11 (4), 271–286.
Shah, K.U., et al., 2013. Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: Weikmans, R., et al., 2019. Transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement and
applying the livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago. Geoforum 47, their (un)likely impact on strengthening the ambition of nationally determined
125–137. contributions (NDCs). Clim. Pol. 1–16.
Stadelmann, M., et al., 2011. New and additional to what? Assessing options for baselines Wilby, R.L., Dessai, S., 2010. Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65 (7),
to assess climate finance pledges. Clim. Dev. 3 (3), 175–192. 180–185.
Stennett-Brown, R.K., et al., 2019. Caribbean climate change vulnerability: lessons from Wirehn, L., et al., 2015. Assessment of composite index methods for agricultural
an aggregate index approach. PLoS One 14 (7), e0219250. vulnerability to climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 156, 70–80.
Storey, D., Hunter, S., 2010. Kiribati: an environmental ‘perfect storm’. Aust. Geogr. 41 World Bank, 2019. Surface Area (sq. Km). World Bank [Accessed May 5, 2019]; Available
(2), 167–181. from: https://bit.ly/2POwY62.
Tompkins, E.L., et al., 2010. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of World Bank, 2019. GDP Per Capita (Current US$). World Bank [Accessed October 21,
transition to a well-adapting society. Global Environ. Change 20 (4), 627–635. 2019]; Available from: https://bit.ly/2xF53Oc.
UNDP, 2015. Africa Adaptation Programme. United Nations Development Programme
[Accessed March 20, 2019]; Available from: https://bit.ly/2DsNpiT.

14

View publication stats