Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
Open Access
Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation to climate change
Robert Munroe1*, Dilys Roe2, Nathalie Doswald3, Tom Spencer4, Iris Möller4, Bhaskar Vira5, Hannah Reid2,
Andreas Kontoleon6, Alessandra Giuliani2, Ivan Castelli3 and Jen Stephens7
Abstract
Background: Ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation (EbA) integrate the use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services into an overall strategy for helping people adapt to climate change. To date, insight into these approaches
has often been based on reports from isolated anecdotal case studies. Although these are informative, and provide
evidence that people are using ecosystems to adapt, they provide rather limited insight in terms of measuring and
evaluating the effectiveness of EbA, especially when compared with technical or structural adaptation interventions.
The body of scientific evidence indicating how effective such approaches are is lacking in some aspects. Where
evidence does exist it is often dispersed across a range of related fields, such as natural resource management,
disaster risk reduction and agroecology. To date, there has been little attempt to systematically assemble and
analyse this evidence. Therefore, the current state of evidence regarding the merits or otherwise of EbA is unknown
and it has not been possible to identify prevailing knowledge gaps to inform research and analysis, which will
enable policymakers to compare EbA with other adaptation options.
Methods: This protocol details the methodology to be used to conduct a systematic map of peer-reviewed
published journal papers and a limited selection of grey literature, to give a methodical overview of the state of the
evidence base for EbA effectiveness, and to identify the current knowledge gaps. It addresses the following
question: What is the state of the evidence base regarding the ability of ecosystem-based approaches for
adaptation to help people adapt to the impacts of climate change?
Keywords: Climate change, Adaptation, Ecosystem management, Conservation, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services,
Systematic map, Ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation, Ecosystem-based adaptation
Background
Adaptation to climate change may be achieved in many
different ways. One way is through ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation (EbA) – defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2nd Ad Hoc Technical
Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change [1] as
‘the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services to help
people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change’. This
definition was elaborated by the CBD 10th Conference of
the Parties (CoP) in October 2010, as including ‘sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, as part of an overall adaptation strategy that takes
into account the multiple social, economic and cultural
co-benefits for local communities’ [2].
* Correspondence: robert.munroe@birdlife.org
1
BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
EbA is being enthusiastically promoted by conservation and development organisations that recognise the
integral relationship between ecosystems and livelihoods
and the threat that climate change poses to these. As a
result there are numerous anecdotal case studies of its
apparent success describing how local communities are
already practicing EbA [3-6]. However, such case studies
largely lack a scientific assessment that provides reliable
and robust evidence indicating how effective these
approaches are [7]. In particular, there are very few
quantitative assessments of EbA effectiveness which use
controls to examine the impact of the intervention, and
few which provide plausible counterfactual arguments
about likely causal mechanisms involved. There are also
few case studies on either the cost-effectiveness of EbA
or on the assessment of its social value. Importantly, the
UNFCCC Secretariat [8] notes that, ‘Besides financial
© 2012 Munroe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
and economic assessments, social appraisal is crucial in
any assessment of costs and benefits of adaptation
options, because the impacts of climate change often
disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities and groups.’
In other cases, empirical material that is relevant to EbA
is dispersed across a range of related fields such as natural
resource management, disaster risk reduction and agroecology. Evidence and lessons learnt from these disciplines
have not previously been collated to inform EbA, nor have
they been consolidated so that policymakers can compare
EbA with other possible adaptation options.
Beyond the gaps in the evidence base, a further difficulty has been the lack of general consensus on what successful or effective adaptation actually means – although
assessment frameworks are now emerging [9-12].
This protocol details the methodology to be used to
conduct a systematic map of peer-reviewed published
journal papers and a limited selection of grey literature
(i.e. published and unpublished documents that do not
pass through the scientific peer-review system), to give a
methodical overview of the state of the evidence base for
EbA effectiveness, and to identify the current knowledge
gaps.
Objective of the review
This review seeks to address the primary question: What
is the state of the evidence base regarding the ability of
ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to help
people adapt to the impacts of climate change? (See
‘Table 1 – Elements of the systematic map question’).
The secondary question is: What are the critical knowledge gaps in the evidence?
Page 2 of 11
Emilia Pramova, see ‘Table 2 – CIFOR study search
terms’) were built upon to meet project needs.
Concern about climate change – and how to adapt to
it – has only received widespread international political
attention in the last two decades. However, people have
been adapting to, and managing their environment and
natural resource use in response to, climatic variability,
climatic shocks and change for centuries. Many of the
impacts we can expect to see because of climate change
will be the same as those associated with climate variability and shocks [13], so this wider literature presents
a large relevant knowledge base to draw upon. Our selection of search terms to be used also covered those
associated with climatic variability, extremes or other
natural hazards that can provide analogues to events
linked to climate change.
Trial literature searches were conducted through the
ISI Web of Knowledge (WoK: http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/)
to hone search terms by testing whether a short list of
papers known by experts to contain information relevant
to this review appeared in the outputs of the search.
The resulting final search terms (see ‘Table 3 – Search
term scoping and evolution and search string’) have been
selected to provide broad, but manageable coverage
related to the review questions (see ‘Objective of the review’ above). Four sets of search terms will be used with
individual terms (and Wildcard symbols (*) where appropriate) separated by Boolean “OR” operators and sets
combined using “AND”. A fifth set will be used and combined with “AND NOT” (to exclude solely ecosystembased approaches for climate change mitigation, and other
mitigation studies that refer to land use emissions or mitigation approach (e.g. renewable energy) impacts on the
environment). Searches will be conducted in English only.
Methods
Publication database searches
Searches
Search terms
Two databases will be searched: WoK and Scopus. This
follows the recommendation of the Centre for Evidencebased Conservation [14] who suggest using more than
one database of peer-reviewed papers. Both these databases cover science (including life science, chemistry,
physics, mathematics, biology, and environmental science) and social sciences (although WoK does so regarding the latter to a greater degree) [15]. In each database
the search will be refined by selecting key subject areas.
For WoK these will be: “environmental sciences and
ecology”, “agriculture”, “water resources”, “forestry”,
Experts were invited to a workshop in Cambridge from
organisations working on EbA or related activities that
BirdLife International have had exposure to, or worked
with, on ecosystems and adaptation during the UNFCCC
negotiations. Focus groups were held during this expert
workshop to guide the identification of key terms to be
used for literature searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature. As a starting point, search terms used in a recent study by CIFOR (personal communication with
Table 1 Elements of the systematic map question
Subject
Human individuals, groups,
communities and economic
sectors (e.g. agriculture, water,
forestry, transport)
Intervention
Comparators
Outcomes
Ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation
– the use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services to help people adapt to the
adverse effects of climate change
No adaptation intervention, or an
alternative adaptation intervention
to ecosystem-based approaches
for adaptation
Human adaptation to climate
change, variability, extremes or
other natural hazards that could
be linked to climate
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 3 of 11
Table 2 CIFOR study search terms
Original search
terms
adaptation OR adaptive OR vulnerable OR vulnerability OR coping OR resilience OR resilient OR adapt OR cope
OR "disaster risk reduction"
AND
"climate change" OR "climate variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR "natural hazard"
OR disaster OR flood OR drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR "sea level rise" OR "irregular
rainfall" OR "intense rainfall"
AND
ecosystem OR wetland OR forest OR woodland OR dryland OR grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coastal
OR mangrove OR tree OR agro forestry
AND
people OR society OR community OR city OR settlement OR social OR population OR livelihood OR household
OR village OR farmer OR poverty OR rural
Search terms
refined
"climate change" OR "climate variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR "natural hazard" OR disaster
OR flood OR drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR "sea level rise" OR "irregular rainfall" OR "intense rainfall"
AND
"ecosystem-based adaptation" OR "ecosystem services" OR "green infrastructure" OR "ecological infrastructure"
OR "soft infrastructure" OR "natural infrastructure"
AND
people OR society OR community OR city OR settlement OR social OR population OR livelihood OR city
“engineering”, “biodiversity conservation”, “science technology other topics”, and “social science other topics”;
and for Scopus: “environmental science”, “earth and
planetary sciences”, “agricultural and biological
sciences”, “social sciences”, “engineering”, “energy”, “economics, econometrics and finance”, and “multidisciplinary”. The Field Code a ‘Topic’ does not exist on Scopus,
so the nearest equivalent, ‘abstract’ (returns searches
where the search terms are found in the abstract of the
papers), will be used as a replacement (see ‘Table 3 –
Search term scoping and evolution and search string’).
The results from the Scopus search will be combined
with the WoK search in Reference Manager and overlaps
will be excluded.
Internet searches
In addition, to WoK and Scopus, Google Scholar will be
searched using a more limited range of terms from the
four sets of search terms. The first 50 ‘hits’ will be compared with the WoK and Scopus search returns to test
their comprehensiveness. References returned by the
Google Scholar search, but not found in the WoK and
Scopus searches, will be added to the reference list.
Specialist searches – searches for grey literature
A limited selection of ‘grey’ literature (i.e. published
and unpublished documents that do not pass through
the scientific peer-review system) will be identified by
going directly to relevant organisation websites
informed by the list of relevant sources determined by
expert input:
Action Aid
Adaptation Learning Mechanism
CARE International
Conservation International
Ecosystems and Livelihoods Adaptation Network
Global Environment Facility – Project Database
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Mercy Corps
Overseas Development Institute
ProAct Network
The Nature Conservancy
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change – Nairobi Work Programme Database on
Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reducation
weAdapt
Wetlands International
World Bank
World Bank – Project Database
World Conservation Society
World Resources Institute
World Resources Institute – World Resources Report
World Wildlife Fund
Finally, participants in the expert workshop will be
asked to review the list of references generated by the
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 4 of 11
Table 3 Search term scoping and evolution and search string
Search String
Number of hits
(Web of Knowledge23rd August 2011)
Change to syntax
1. Topic=(climat* change OR "global warming" OR climat* variability OR
"climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR "natural hazard" OR disaster
OR flood OR tsunami OR drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR
"sea level rise" OR rain* OR erosion OR mudslides OR landslides OR
precipitation OR temperature) AND Topic=("ecosystem services"
OR "green infrastructure" OR "ecological infrastructure" OR "soft
infrastructure" OR "natural capital" OR "natural resources" OR "natural
infrastructure" OR "ecosystem approach" OR "ecosystem goods" OR
ecosystem OR vegetation OR wetland OR forest OR woodland OR dryland
OR grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coast* OR mangrove OR
"sea grass" OR watershed) AND Topic=(people OR society OR community
OR city OR settlement OR social OR population OR livelihood* OR sector
OR forestry OR water OR fishing OR dryland OR agricultur* OR poverty OR
village OR rural OR household OR farmer) AND Topic=(adapt* OR vulnerab*
OR cop* OR disaster risk reduction OR "risk mitigation" OR "risk management"
OR resilie* OR manag* OR "ecosystem-based adaptation" OR "natural resource
management" OR "ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation" OR
"ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation")
a) 33223
b) Refined by: Subject Areas=
(ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ECOLOGY
OR AGRICULTURE OR WATER RESOURCES
OR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION OR
FORESTRY OR ENGINEERING OR
SOCIAL SCIENCES OTHER TOPICS)
2. Topic=("climat* change" OR "global warming" OR "climat*
variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR
"natural hazard" OR disaster OR tsunami OR flood* OR
drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR "sea level
rise" OR erosion OR mudslides OR landslides OR precipitation
OR temperature OR “rainfall variability”) AND Topic=("natural
capital" OR "ecosystem services" OR "green infrastructure" OR
"ecological infrastructure" OR "soft infrastructure" OR
vegetation OR "natural infrastructure" OR "ecosystem goods"
OR ecosystem OR wetland OR "natural resources" OR forest
OR woodland OR dryland OR grassland OR "coral reef" OR
biodiversity OR coast* OR mangrove OR tree OR "sea grass"
OR watershed) AND Topic=(people OR society OR
community OR city OR population OR livelihood OR sector
OR forestry OR “water sector” OR "water management" OR
"rainwater harvesting" OR fishing OR agricultur* OR village
OR rural OR farmer) AND Topic=(adapt* OR vulnerab* OR
cop* OR "sustainable management" OR protect* OR "disaster
risk reduction" OR mitigation OR "risk management" OR
resilie* OR "ecosystem-based adaptation" OR "ecosystem
approach" OR "natural resource management" OR
"ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation" OR
"ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation")
a) 14928
b) Took out rain* - replaced with
“rainfall variability”
b) 10630
Took out water – replaced with
“water sector” OR "water management"
OR "rainwater harvesting"
4. Topic=("climat* change" OR "global warming" OR "climat*
variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR
"natural hazard" OR disaster OR tsunami OR flood OR
drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR "sea level
rise" OR erosion OR mudslides OR landslides OR precipitation
OR temperature) AND Topic=("natural capital" OR "ecosystem
services" OR "green infrastructure" OR "ecological
infrastructure" OR "soft infrastructure" OR vegetation OR "natural
infrastructure" OR "ecosystem goods" OR ecosystem OR wetland
OR "natural resources" OR forest OR woodland OR dryland OR
grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coast* OR mangrove
OR tree OR "sea grass" OR watershed) AND Topic=(people OR society
OR community OR city OR population OR livelihood OR sector
OR forestry OR "water sector" OR "water management" OR "rainwater
harvesting" OR agroforestry OR fisheries OR agricultur* OR village OR rural
OR farmer) AND Topic=(adapt* OR vulnerab* OR cop* OR "sustainable
management" OR protect* OR "disaster risk reduction" OR mitigation
OR "risk management" OR resilie* OR "ecosystem-based adaptation"
OR "ecosystem approach" OR "natural resource management" OR
"ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation" OR "ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation")
a) 14048
b) Added AND NOT Topic=(biofuel OR
"carbon stock*" OR (stock AND carbon)
OR "renewable energy" OR bioenergy OR
"alternative fuel" OR emissions)
AND NOT Topic=(biofuel OR "carbon stock*" OR (stock AND
carbon) OR "renewable energy" OR bioenergy OR
"alternative fuel" OR emissions)
b) 9952
b) 24331
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 5 of 11
Table 3 Search term scoping and evolution and search string (Continued)
5. Topic=("climat* change" OR "global warming" OR "climat*
variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR
"natural hazard" OR disaster OR tsunami OR flood* OR
drought OR hurricane OR storm OR cyclone OR "sea level
rise" OR (climate AND fire) OR mudslides OR landslides OR
precipitation OR temperature OR "rainfall variability") AND
Topic=("natural capital" OR "ecosystem services" OR "green
infrastructure" OR "ecological infrastructure" OR "soft
infrastructure" OR vegetation OR "natural infrastructure" OR
(river AND flood* OR drought) OR ecosystem OR wetland OR
"natural resources" OR forest OR woodland OR dryland OR
grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coast* OR
mangrove OR tree OR "sea grass" OR watershed OR
mountain) AND Topic=(people OR society OR community
OR city OR population OR livelihood OR sector OR forestry
OR "water sector" OR "water management" OR "rainwater
harvesting" OR agroforestry OR fisheries OR agricultur* OR
village OR rural OR farmer) AND Topic=(adapt* OR vulnerab*
OR cop* OR "sustainable management" OR protect* OR
"disaster risk reduction" OR mitigation OR "risk
management" OR resilie* OR "ecosystem-based
adaptation" OR "ecosystem approach" OR "natural
resource management" OR "ecosystem-based
approaches to adaptation" OR "ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation") NOT Topic=
(biofuel OR "carbon stock*" OR (stock AND
carbon) OR "renewable energy" OR bioenergy
OR "alternative fuel" OR
emissions)
6. Topic=("climat* change" OR "global warming" OR "climat*
variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR
"natural hazard" OR disaster OR (climate AND fire) OR
tsunami OR flood* OR drought OR hurricane OR storm OR
cyclone OR "sea level rise" OR mudslides OR landslides OR
precipitation OR temperature OR "rainfall variability") AND
Topic=("natural capital" OR "ecosystem services" OR "green
infrastructure" OR "ecological infrastructure" OR "soft
infrastructure" OR vegetation OR "natural infrastructure" OR
ecosystem OR wetland OR (river AND flood* OR drought) OR
"natural resource*" OR forest OR woodland OR dryland OR
grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coast* OR
mangrove OR tree OR "sea grass" OR watershed OR
mountain) AND Topic=(people OR "human population" OR
livelihood OR sector OR forestry OR "water sector" OR "water
management" OR "rainwater harvesting" OR agroforestry OR
agricultur* OR village OR rural OR urban OR farmer) AND
Topic=(adapt* OR vulnerab* OR cop* OR resilie* OR
"sustainable management" OR "environment* management"
OR "ecosystem-based management" OR "ecosystem based
management" OR (disaster AND reduction) OR (climate OR
risk AND mitigation) OR "risk management" OR "ecosystembased adaptation" OR "ecosystem approach" OR "natural
resource management" OR "ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation" OR "ecosystem-based approaches for
adaptation") NOT Topic=(biofuel OR "carbon stock*"
OR (stock AND carbon) OR "renewable energy"
OR bioenergy OR "alternative fuel"
OR emissions)
7. ABS("climat* change" OR "global warming" OR "climat*
variability" OR "climate hazard" OR "extreme weather" OR
"natural hazard" OR disaster OR (climate AND fire) OR
tsunami OR flood* OR drought OR hurricane OR storm OR
cyclone OR "sea level rise" OR mudslides OR landslides OR
precipitation OR temperature OR "rainfall variability")
a) 16206
b) Took out ‘erosion’ – too broad,
hopefully captured by ‘mudslides’ and
‘landslides’ search terms.
b) 11110
Added fire term (fire AND climate) as a
climate term otherwise wildfires related
to increasing temperatures and
decreasing precipitation may not be
included in search results.
Took out “ecosystem goods” as this
term refers to the outcomes of the
management of ecosystem services
rather than the object of management
and disparate compared with the list.
Added other habitat types that were
otherwise missing but made more
specific ‘mountain’ OR (river AND
flood* OR drought)
a) 8275
Took out fisheries – too broad,
communities undertaking ecosystembased approaches for adaptation that
improve the resilience of their
fishing stocks should be captured by
other search terms such as ‘wetland’, ‘
coral reef’, ‘ecosystem services’, and
‘natural resource’, otherwise returning
search results that include papers on
specific fisheries important species,
and climatic impacts on fisheries.
b) 5682
Replaced city with urban because the
term ‘city’ was picking up specific places
(ending up with more spurious entries)
ather than the urban
environment.
Took out community as it was causing
confusion with the likes of ‘communities
of species’.
Replaced population with “human
population” as it was causing confusion
with the likes of ‘genetic populations’
and ‘populations of species’
3565
Scopus search
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 6 of 11
Table 3 Search term scoping and evolution and search string (Continued)
AND ABS("natural capital" OR "ecosystem services" OR
"green infrastructure" OR "ecological infrastructure" OR "soft
infrastructure" OR vegetation OR "natural infrastructure" OR
ecosystem OR wetland OR (river AND flood* OR drought) OR
"natural resource*" OR forest OR woodland OR dryland OR
grassland OR "coral reef" OR biodiversity OR coast* OR
mangrove OR tree OR "sea grass" OR watershed OR
mountain)
AND ABS(people OR "human population" OR livelihood OR
sector OR forestry OR "water sector" OR "water
management" OR "rainwater harvesting" OR agroforestry OR
agricultur* OR village OR rural OR urban OR farmer)AND
ABS(adapt* OR vulnerab* OR cop* OR resilie* OR
"sustainable management" OR "environment* management"
OR "ecosystem-based management" OR "ecosystem based
management" OR (disaster AND reduction) OR (climate OR
risk AND mitigation) OR "risk management" OR "ecosystembased adaptation" OR "ecosystem approach" OR "natural
resource management" OR "ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation" OR "ecosystem-based approaches for
adaptation")
AND NOT ABS(biofuel OR "carbon stock*" OR (stock AND
carbon) OR "renewable energy" OR bioenergy OR
"alternative fuel" OR emissions)
AND (LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"ENVI" ) OR LIMIT-TO
(SUBJAREA,"EART" ) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"AGRI" ) OR LIMITTO(SUBJAREA,"SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"ENGI" ) OR
LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"ENER" ) OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"ECON" )
OR LIMIT-TO(SUBJAREA,"MULT" ))
peer-reviewed and grey literature searches to identify
additional key references.
Estimating the comprehensiveness of the search
We consider that the search will be comprehensive as a
result of combining objective database searches and subjective expert advice (including trial searches as
described in the ‘Search terms’ section above, as well as
a test Google Scholar search as described in the ‘Internet
searches’ section above), and taking into account both
peer-reviewed and grey literature.
Limitations of the review’s comprehensiveness include
that literature/topic review papers will be excluded (see
‘Study inclusion/exclusion criteria’ section below for reasoning) despite their possible use as a source of additional
references. The comprehensiveness of the search could
have been furthered by searching for relevant literature
within the bibliographies of the captured literature.
The search will not include a body of relevant biophysical science literature (e.g. on intertidal vegetation controls
on wave energy dissipation, erosion and sedimentation) as
this does not make explicit links to human adaptation despite being relevant to such adaptation. This literature
could provide significant information on biophysical
thresholds or ‘tipping points’ that control the degree to
which an ecosystem (and the services it provides to the
community) can continue to act in that capacity under an
increase in physical stress (e.g. climate change), and on
boundary conditions (minimum size or the state of ecosystem necessary to provide adaptation benefits).
The comprehensiveness of the grey literature search
will be negatively affected by the lack of a single comprehensive database/portal housing relevant grey literature documents. Moreover, our search will not include
(because of time constraints) unpublished project documentation that is not available online.
Study inclusion/exclusion criteria
After combing search outputs from WoK and Scopus and
removing duplicates, the inclusion/exclusion process will
be undertaken through a stepwise process, by applying the
primary inclusion and exclusion criteria (see ‘Table 4 –
Primary inclusion and exclusion criteria’) to: a) the article
title, b) the abstract and c) the full text, of each of the articles (‘articles’ used hereafter to cover peer-reviewed published journal papers, grey literature and any papers/
literature which includes multiple studies/pieces of evidence which will be recorded separately – see ‘Data extraction strategy’ below for more information on multiple
studies within the same source). Exclusion will be conservative during phase a) and b) if there is any doubt that the
criteria for inclusion or exclusion are being met. Step a)
will be undertaken by a single reviewer, while step b) and
c) will involve more than one reviewer.
Reviewer bias will be tested for at the start of the selection process of step b) with a Kappa analysis [14]. Two
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 7 of 11
Table 4 Primary inclusion and exclusion criteria
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
reviewers will review a common, random 10 per cent sample of the abstracts. Level of agreement between the number of articles rejected or accepted by the reviewers will be
calculated using the Kappa statistic [16]. Values can range
from +1 (perfect agreement) to −1 (strong disagreement).
During step c), reasonable effort will be made to secure
the relevant articles, contacting authors if necessary. However, it may not be feasible within the time and budget
constraints to secure all articles (a list of these will be
made available when the results are published).
In order to make the review manageable in the time
available, secondary exclusion criteria have been developed.
One set of articles excluded will be those focussed on ‘maladaptation’. These studies typically give evidence on the
negative impact of other types of adaptation (e.g. sea walls)
on ecosystems and then suggest that using ecosystems
would be a more appropriate form of response, rather than
testing the effectiveness of the identified ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation. The other exclusion criteria
have been based on the types of intervention. Specifically,
articles covering traditional agricultural practices (such as
minimal tillage, cropping date adjustment, water management like the creation of artificial ponds for water storage)
without consideration of the surrounding ecosystem will be
excluded. By contrast, agricultural practices that have the
explicit objective of protecting the surrounding ecosystem
to provide adaptation benefits will not be excluded (e.g.
agroforestry, agrobiodiversity conservation, management of
agricultural lands for watershed management/runoff management). Approaches focussed on urban interventions,
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
such as urban green roofs, green infrastructure and green
and blue space within a city, will be excluded. By contrast,
urban approaches which consider a city’s relationship with
its surrounding ecosystem(s)/wider landscape will be
included. This includes watershed management working towards providing protection to densely populated areas on
floodplains or at the foot of steep hillsides.
These secondary exclusions criteria were based on the
following:
– The role that biodiversity and ecosystems play in the
adaptation approach are not always made clear in
such studies.
Despite these exclusions, basic information such as climatic hazards/impacts addressed, location and ecosystem, will still be extracted from these articles (see
questions outlined in the first section of the Assessment
Framework [17] – see ‘Data extraction strategy’ section
below) to allow the possibility for future assessments of
those studies.
Furthermore, all of the articles identified prior to secondary exclusion will be recorded (and will be included
in the published results) so that future reviewers can
follow-up on these excluded articles if required.
For the grey literature, the primary and secondary exclusion criteria will be merged (because this will only be
a limited selection of the grey literature) to become
Page 8 of 11
general exclusion criteria. Like the peer-reviewed literature, a stepwise process to inclusion/exclusion will be
adopted: a) title and introduction, b) a scan of the full
text and c) a read of the full text.
The number of articles found in the search and
included at each inclusion/exclusion level will be
reported in the published results.
Study quality assessment
The design of each included study will be recorded
based on general categories, see ‘Table 5 – Study quality assessment categories’), and qualitative detail on the
measure of intervention success used. This will allow
an overview to be given of the quality of included
studies.
Data extraction strategy
An Assessment Framework has been developed to extract data from the studies that are reviewed [17] to enable critical appraisal. This consists of a series of 39
questions separated into 4 parts:
1) Basic information (including climate hazard/impact
addressed, location, ecosystem, and adaptation
target);
2) Description of evidence (including type and quality
of evidence, and constituent parts of effectiveness
addressed);
Table 5 Study quality assessment categories
Measure of success
What measure of the ecosystem-based approach to adaptation effectiveness has been used? For
example, livelihood diversification – proof of diversity of income or of yields, cost-benefit analysis,
community perception of effectiveness based on past experience, and erosion level reduction.
Type of evidence
1. Randomised controlled trial
2. Environmental field measurements
3. Laboratory experiment
4. Mathematical model
5. Statistical analysis – descriptive
6. Statistical analysis – analytical
7. Social field surveys
8. Stakeholder consultations
9. Conceptual model
10. Meta analysis
11. Analogues from other contexts
12. Case studies
13. Other
Quality of evidence (on the basis of
susceptibility to bias)
1. Existence of experimental control
2. Comparison between sites
3. Observational / modelling
4. Theoretical evidence
5. Anecdotal evidence
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
3) Detail of evidence (including measure of success
used, result, and costs and benefits); and
4) Project design section for practical projects
(including assessments undertaken, monitoring, and
sustainability).
The questions (or variables) included in the framework
were identified at the expert workshop through discussions on what information is required by policy makers
to make informed decisions about the use of EbA as an
adaptation option in any given context. This expert
opinion was supplemented through a review of the monitoring and evaluation frameworks of a number of major
climate change adaptation funds [12,18] and other adaptation evaluation literature [9,19].
Data input will be for the most part categorical (i.e. follow a numerical coding). This will allow for the quantitative description of the results. Some qualitative descriptive
elements are also requested by the framework to capture
fuller details where required. Attempts to minimise reviewer subjectivity will be made by using limited free text
answers to questions, by asking reviewers to select from
lists of pre-defined answers, and by holding reviewer
meetings on a regular basis to discuss queries on data extraction to ensure consistency of input.
Data will be recorded in a dedicated Excel spreadsheet
(‘logbook’, see ‘Additional file 1 – Excel blank logbook’).
Each study/source of evidence will be recorded in the
logbook and allocated a unique article ID. Articles that
Page 9 of 11
include multiple studies/pieces of evidence (e.g. two or
more case studies with the evidence presented separately for each) will be recorded by allocating a separate
ID to each study within the article. The logbook columns correspond to the framework questions/evidence
variables and separate worksheets correspond to the
four discrete sections described above. More information on how to use the Assessment Framework and
logbook is available in Munroe et al. [20].
Data synthesis and presentation
Descriptive and basic inferential statistics will be used to
summarise quantitative trends in the information provided by the literature, mapping the quantity and quality
of articles relevant to the question. An overview of the
evidence will be given according to a variety of categories (see ‘Table 6 – Categories of data analysed’), based
on the Assessment Framework, to highlight knowledge
gaps in the evidence base (the secondary question of the
review). Implications of the state of the evidence base
for policy, implementation and research related to EbA,
as captured by the systematic map, will be given in the
published results.
Endnotes
a
Field Codes or “Tags” restrict a search to a particular part (“field”) of a record, such as title, author or
subject;
b
A form of assessing/further populating the paper list
Table 6 Categories of data analysed
Terminology and origin of
evidence
• Terminology (difference between peer-review and grey)
• Type of evidence (i.e. case studies, experiments, modelling) and source (journal) and quality (see ‘study
quality assessment’ section)
• Proportion of articles looking at multiple adaptation options
• Spread of evidence – geographic distribution and concentration of studies and field of study
(journal-type/theme)
Aim of EbA-type activities
undertaken
• Climatic hazards and impacts addressed
Measure of success and discussion
of limits
• Measures of effectiveness
• Adaptation target (e.g. sectors or individuals/groups/communities or both)
• Ecosystems being used /type of EbA interventions
• Result of adaptation intervention
• Time scale of effectiveness
• Biophysical thresholds and boundary conditions to effectiveness
Costs and benefits
• Social, environmental and economic
• Cost-benefit to alternatives
• Temporal and spatial distribution of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits
• Trade-offs and synergies with land use and other ecosystem services
Policy and institutions and
implementation
• Institutional effectiveness of adaptation interventions
• Intervention relationship with policy sphere and success of project in instigating policy change
• Design and implementation of projects
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
would be to extract the references that have provided
the review paper with hard evidence;
c
These categories have been developed drawing upon
the consensus categories used by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to determine level of
scientific understanding of radiative forcing [http://www.
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.
html].
Additional file
Additional file 1: Excel blank logbook.
Page 10 of 11
be supported through a consultancy paid for by the United States Agency
for International Development’s (USAID) Sustainable Conservation
Approaches in Priority Ecosystems (SCAPES) programme.
Author details
1
BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK.
2
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 80-86 Gray’s
Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK. 3UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road,
Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. 4Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Department of
Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN,
UK. 5Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place,
Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK. 6Department of Land Economy, University of
Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK. 7Research support
provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
through a consultancy, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20523, USA.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 3 April 2012 Accepted: 28 September 2012
Published: 5 November 2012
Authors’ contributions
RM jointly conceived the study and co-drafted the manuscript, and will
coordinate and participate in the review. DR jointly conceived the study and
co-drafted the manuscript, and will advise on the review. ND jointly
conceived the study and provided comments on the manuscript, and will
coordinate and participate in the review. TS advised on the study and
provided detailed edits on the manuscript, and will advise on the review. IM
advised on the study, and provided detailed edits on the manuscript, and
will advise on and participate in the review. BV advised on the study and
provided detailed edits on the manuscript, and will advise on the review. HR
jointly conceived the study and provided edits on the manuscript. AK
provided comments and edits on the manuscript. AG provided edits on the
manuscript and will participate in the review. IC provided edits on the
manuscript and will participate in the review. JS provided comments on the
manuscript and will participate in the review. All authors read and approved
this final manuscript.
References
1. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Biodiversity and
Climate-Change Adaptation. In Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert
Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Series,
Volume 41. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity;
2009:41.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity: X/33 Biodiversity and climate change,
Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting; UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/x/33; 29
October 2010. Nagoya, Japan: Secretariat of Convention on Biological
Diversity; 2010:2.
3. Colls A, Ash N, Ikkala N: Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a natural response to
climate change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2009.
4. BirdLife International: Partners with nature: how healthy ecosystems are
helping the world’s most vulnerable adapt to climate change. Cambridge:
BirdLife International; 2009.
5. Reid H, Swiderska K: Biodiversity, climate change and poverty: exploring the
links. London: IIED; 2008.
6. Ecosystems and Livelihoods Adaptation Network (IUCN, WWF, CARE, IIED) case
studies: good practices. www.elanadapt.net/good-practices.
7. Reid H: Improving the evidence for ecosystem-based adaptation. Sustainable
Development Opinion Paper. London: IIED; 2011.
8. UNFCCC Secretariat: Synthesis report on efforts undertaken to assess the costs
and benefits of adaptation options, and views on lessons learned, good
practices, gaps and needs, FCCC/SBSTA/2010/3: 22 March 2010. Bonn: UNFCCC
Secretariat; 2010:5.
9. Brooks N, Anderson S, Ayers J, Burton I, Tellam I: Tracking Adaptation and
Measuring Development. IIED Climate Change Working Paper No.1. London:
IIED; 2011.
10. Spearman M, McGray H: Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for
Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. Eschborn: The
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); 2011.
11. Lamhauge N, Lanzi E, Agrawala S: Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation:
Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies, OECD Environment
Working Papers, No.38. OECD Publishing. 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg20mj6c2bw-en.
12. Adaptation Fund: Project level results framework and baselines guidance.
http://www.adaptation-fund.org/sites/default/files/Results%20Framework%
20and%20Baseline%20Guidance%20final.pdf.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
report. Contributions of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment
report of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2007.
14. Center for Evidence-Based Conservation: Guidelines for systematic review in
the environmental management, Version 4.0. Environmental Evidence. Bangor:
Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation; 2010:37–38.
15. Jasco P: As we may search – Comparison of major features of the Web
of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citationenhanced databases. Current Contents 2005, 89(9):1537–1547.
16. Kappa test online calculator. http://www.chestx-ray.com/Statistics/kappa.
html.
Authors’ informations
RM is Climate Change Officer at BirdLife International.
DR is Senior Researcher (Biodiversity) at the International Institute for
Environment and Development.
ND is Programme Officer, Climate Change and Biodiversity at UNEP-WCMC.
TS is Reader in Coastal Ecology and Geomorphology and Director,
Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Department of Geography, University of
Cambridge.
IM is College Lecturer in Physical Geography, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge,
and Deputy Director, Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, Department of
Geography, University of Cambridge.
BV is University Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of
Cambridge.
HR is a consulting researcher with the International Institute for Environment
and Development.
AK is University Lecturer, Department of Land Economy, University of
Cambridge.
AG is a Researcher (Biodiversity) at the International Institute for Environment
and Development.
IC is a consulting researcher working for UNEP-WCMC during this project.
JS is a consulting researcher paid for by the United States Agency for
International Development’s (USAID) Sustainable Conservation Approaches in
Priority Ecosystems (SCAPES) programme during this project.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to the expert workshop participants for their input to the
development of the methodology and framework, especially Edmund
Barrow (IUCN), Dave Hole (Conservation International), and Emilia Pramova
(CIFOR).
The project ‘Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation:
Critical review of current evidence’ for which this protocol and systematic
map was designed, will be supported by the Collaborative Fund of the
Cambridge Conservation Initiative funded by Arcadia, and the Ecosystem,
Livelihoods and Adaptation Network (ELAN). The grey literature review will
Munroe et al. Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:13
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/1/1/13
Page 11 of 11
17. Munroe R, Doswald N, Roe D, Reid H, Giuliani A, Castelli I: Framework for
Assessing the Evidence for the Effectiveness of Ecosystem-based Approaches to
Adaptation. Cambridge: BirdLife International, UNEP-WCMC, IIED; 2011
http://elanadapt.net/sites/default/files/siteimages/cci_and_elan_framework.
pdf.
18. Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR): Results Framework. PPCR/
SC.7/7: 28 October 2010. Washington DC: Meeting of the PPCR
Sub-Committee, Climate Investment Funds; 2010.
19. Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance: Consultation Document: [Draft]
The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity Framework (LAC). Kampala: Oxfam GB;
2010 http://community.eldis.org/.59d669a7/LACFconsult.pdf.
20. Munroe R, Doswald N, Roe D, Reid H, Giuliani A, Castelli I: Guidance on
Applying the Framework for Assessing the Evidence for the Effectiveness of
Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife
International, UNEP-WCMC, IIED; 2011.
doi:10.1186/2047-2382-1-13
Cite this article as: Munroe et al.: Review of the evidence base for
ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change.
Environmental Evidence 2012 1:13.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit