Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Primary inclusion and exclusion criteria

From: Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change

Articles will be included in the review if they meet these criteria 1. Relevant subject(s): Human individuals, groups, communities and economic sectors (e.g. agriculture, water, forestry, transport).
2. Types of intervention: ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation as guided by the following list [1]:
• Sustainable water management where river basins, aquifers, flood plains and their associated vegetation provide water storage and flood regulation;
• Disaster-risk reduction where restoration of coastal habitats such as mangroves can be a particularly effective measure against storm-surges and coastal erosion;
• Sustainable management of grasslands and rangelands, to enhance pastoral livelihoods;
• Forest conservation and sustainable forest management – maintenance of nutrient and water flow and prevention of land slides
• Establishment of diverse agricultural systems, where using indigenous knowledge of specific crop and livestock varieties, maintaining genetic diversity of crops and livestock, and conserving diverse agricultural landscapes secures food provision in changing local climatic conditions;
• Establishing and effectively managing protected-area systems to ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services that increase resilience to climate change.
  3. Types of comparator: No adaptation intervention, or an alternative adaptation intervention to ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation.
Articles will be deliberately excluded if they meet these criteria (primary exclusion criteria) 1. Irrelevant subject(s):
• Evidence not related to climate (e.g. pollution)
• Evidence focussed on climate impacts rather than adaptation
• Evidence focussed on mitigation of climate change rather than adaptation
2. Irrelevant interventions:
• No substantial reference to biodiversity, ecosystem services or ecosystems
• Evidence focussed on ecological adaptation rather than human adaptation
3. Lack of comparator/outcome:
• Where no measure of success of the intervention (the measurement of the direct effectiveness of EbA in reducing vulnerability to climate change, variability, extremes or other natural hazards that could be linked to climate) was presented compared to no adaptation intervention, or an alternative adaptation intervention.
4. Types of study:
• Comparisons of modelling techniques
• Literature/topic review paper (on the assumption that this search should have captured the articles that relevant review papers use, and that depth of evidence in such papers is often not enough to fill in the Assessment Framework)b
  • Articles that were not published in English