https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4601-7783
Figures
Abstract
Adaptation options are being implemented globally to reduce the impacts of current and projected climate change. However, there is still limited information on assessments of the options available, especially related to adaptation research and practice in the Global South. Therefore, we present the local feasibility assessment of climate adaptation options as a methodological advancement, using Puerto Morazán’s (Nicaragua) agriculture and livestock sectors as proof of concept. For this case study, we complement current frameworks with participatory approaches and local expert knowledge to contextualize global narratives on adaptation feasibility and overcome information availability challenges. As a result, we assess sixteen options across the agriculture and livestock sectors. We demonstrate that, depending on the context, not all dimensions and criteria are equally relevant. In Puerto Morazán, the environmental and economic dimensions were the most important. We also confirm that the assessment of the options varies when local priorities are considered. Our results highlight the importance of the local context when identifying adaptation options. Our expanded assessment framework helps assess and generate evidence from the local level, where information is usually limited. The advanced assessment can guide local and subnational adaptation processes and inform other policy or scientific assessments by identifying the dimensions where there might be barriers to implementing adaptation.
Citation: Guillén Bolaños T, Scheffran J, García A, López H, Castillo Lorío MA, Máñez Costa M, et al. (2025) Assessing the feasibility of climate adaptation options using local expertise and participatory approaches: The case of Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua. PLOS Clim 4(10): e0000510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510
Editor: Ferdous Ahmed, IUBAT: International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, MALAYSIA
Received: April 5, 2024; Accepted: September 30, 2025; Published: October 23, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Guillén Bolaños et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: We developed an assessment tool based on the methodologies and steps presented in the manuscript and supplementary information to allow local experts, practitioners, or researchers to adapt or replicate the assessment. The tool is Excel-based and contains the indicators and calculations related to the feasibility assessment. We have made available the tools’ templates as part of our work’s supplementary information (S1 and S2 Files).
Funding: This research was funded by the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon is a part of T.G.B’s doctorate (GERICS/Hereon to T.G.B, M.M.C., and D.J.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Climate change is impacting ecosystems and societies worldwide, creating an urgent need to implement and evaluate the success or failure of climate adaptation options [1]. Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects [2]. While the body of evidence on adaptation is growing, it remains heavily focused on national-level policy progress (e.g., [3–6]), in which general information about the Global South’s vulnerable regions is underrepresented [7–9]. This creates a significant gap, as adaptation is primarily implemented at the local level [8,10,11]. Moreover, adaptation implementation depends not only on institutions but also on the active and sustained participation of local stakeholders [12], as well as the use of the best available science and, as appropriate, complemented by traditional and local knowledge systems [13], to ensure effectiveness, ownership, and informed decision-making.
Robust assessments of adaptation are also essential to inform global processes, such as the Global Stocktake (GST) and Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), which are country-driven approaches established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. The GST aims to recognize adaptation efforts, enhance implementation, review their adequacy and effectiveness, and support provided. On the other hand, the GGA seeks to improve adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change [14]. However, assessing adaptation remains a complex endeavor, due to the diversity of adaptation options, context, timeframes, perspective-specific aspects, comparability, and limited data availability across scales [15–17]. This complexity underscores the need for practical, context-sensitive tools that can assist decision-makers and technical staff in evaluating adaptation options and their outcomes.
Among the available approaches and methods to assess progress on adaptation policies and implementation, the feasibility assessment has gained attention for its clarity and accessibility [17]. Rooted in the “barriers” perspective, it assesses the “degree to which climate goals and response options are considered possible and/or desirable [18].” Since its inclusion in the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 °C [19], the framework has been applied primarily at global and sectoral scales (e.g., [20–23]). However, despite the common understanding of the importance of the local or subnational levels or the different contexts and perspectives to guide adaptation decision-making processes [24], local-scale applications remain limited [15,25,26]. Moreover, local adaptation assessments could foster coordination across scales [16], as well as improve resource efficiency and avoid maladaptive practices [15,27].
To address this gap, we present an improvement of the IPCC feasibility framework, originally proposed by de Coninck et al. [19], and later expanded by Singh et al. [17] and Ley et al. [21]). While the original framework was applied at the global level through literature-based assessments, our proposal enables its use at the local level by incorporating context-specific factors, local priorities, and participatory processes grounded in local knowledge and expertise. We apply two complementary approaches: generic integrative modeling [28] and elicitation to integrate expert local knowledge and improve local-scale adaptation assessments [29], to combine scientific analysis with stakeholder insights. To demonstrate its applicability, we use Puerto Morazán in Nicaragua’s Central American Dry Corridor (CADC), as a proof of concept.
Methods
This section includes the Ethics Statement and outlines the proposed methodological advancements to the IPCC’s feasibility framework, enabling its practical application at the local level through context-specific and participatory approaches.
Ethics statement
Due to the research design, involving minimal risk to participants, and the setting of the institutions to which the authors are affiliated, no prior ethical approval was obtained. Nevertheless, this research is framed under the DFG’s policy for ensuring good scientific practice. In the case of the workshop developed in the case study area, co-organized by the local municipality, all participants were informed about the research’s underlying context, methodology, and objectives. Formal consent procedures were not pursued, as the gathered data cannot be traced back to individual participants and poses no harm, being solely utilized for delineating the case study area. Confidentiality measures ensure anonymity, preventing the identification of workshop participants or their specific contributions. Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).
Local feasibility assessment of climate adaptation options: A methodological advancement
For this work, we define a local feasibility assessment as the analysis of factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of adaptation options in a specific geographic area or community. The term “local” implies that the assessment is focused on the particular conditions, resources, and dynamics of a specific region or locality. Additionally, the assessment fosters the participation of local experts, practitioners, and the inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge.
As already noted, the existing information on the evaluation of adaptation measures is mainly focused on global scales and based on academic literature reviews. However, different scales of governance need to be considered when reporting adaptation efforts. To enhance reporting and evaluation of adaptation efforts, subnational and local climate adaptation assessments must be considered:
- (1) The Indigenous and local knowledge systems, which are recognized as enablers for success and risk management, enrich adaptation policy and practice [8,15,30].
- (2) Participatory support risk management that can help decision-makers understand their decisions, the larger consequences of those decisions, community expectations, perceptions, and how these can be integrated into responses [8,29,31]. Participatory approaches enhance the involvement and cooperation of local stakeholders in decision-making processes and support the co-production of knowledge [15,32–34], and are crucial to producing usable science to find solutions resulting from the interaction between science and society [32,35].
Therefore, we propose a methodological advancement of the IPCC’s feasibility assessment [17,19] based on local knowledge and expertise, including the prioritization among the dimensions and indicators included in the original methodology [19]. The prioritization helps to avoid oversimplification of local realities and misleading conclusions. It recognizes that specific dimensions can be bottlenecks for adaptation implementation.
In our proposal, we intend to overcome limitations on literature available at subnational and local levels by using three main methods: literature review and desktop analysis, a participatory integrative modeling technique [28], and expert knowledge elicitation. Therefore, our framework for conducting local feasibility assessments consists of three phases (Fig 1): characterization of the socio-ecological system (Phase I), identification of adaptation options (Phase II), and assessment of feasibility (Phase III). The involvement of local researchers and stakeholders supporting all phases is highlighted. The following sections describe the proposed phases, methods, and steps. More detailed information is provided in the electronic supplementary material (S1 and S2 Texts).
Phase I: Socio-ecological system’s characterization.
To characterize a socio-ecological system, we propose to develop a conceptual model based on the participatory integrative modeling technique proposed by Máñez et al. [28]. This participatory technique allows interdisciplinary knowledge integration, including non-formal knowledge and different disciplines. The technique includes developing individual interviews (and constructing individual qualitative models) before creating a group model. However, a group model-building exercise could also be helpful to avoid overloading the stakeholders or when individual interviews are not possible. The integrative modeling technique has been used with different objectives related to climate adaptation. For example, von der Forst [36] implemented it to identify the vulnerability of socio-ecological systems in Mexico and South Africa to climate change. Gómez and Máñez [37] used the framework for participatory integrated planning. In Williams et al. [33], the technique supported the identification of leverage points for enhancing adaptive capacity.
Máñez et al. [28] propose four factors, presented as the syntax of the model, for developing a conceptual model: environmental-related (natural capital), socioeconomic-related, activities or actions on the systems, and threats and/or risks. To include the climate component in the conceptual model, we propose grouping socioeconomic factors and activities and adding adaptation options and limits as factors. As a result, we recommend six factors (identified as dimensions in our framework) to help develop the conceptual model: (1) environmental, (2) socioeconomic, (3) institutional, (4) threats and vulnerabilities, (5) adaptation limits, and (6) adaptation options. Adapting the categories provides a more comprehensive and focused representative climate-related conceptual model. During the exercise, the stakeholders can be asked to prioritize the sectors and climate risks for which adaptation options should be assessed later.
A key step of this phase is the selection of the stakeholders. Due to their ability to provide knowledge regarding the natural and socioeconomic systems they are involved in, stakeholders are considered systems experts [38]. For this, researchers need to consider the local context, the power dynamics, and the sector under study, among other aspects [15]. After identifying the stakeholders, the researchers can execute the participatory workshop, during which the conceptual model will be developed.
Researchers must identify and select local experts to perform the assessments in this phase. These experts, preferably, have excellent and comprehensive knowledge about climate change adaptation in the area under study and topics related to risks, vulnerabilities, and responses implemented. Novel approaches to identify stakeholders and experts, such as those suggested by Celliers et al. [39], can be used in this phase.
Phase II: Identification of adaptation options.
To perform the local feasibility assessment, information on planned and/or implemented adaptation options needs to be collected and analyzed. To collect that information, we identified three sources of information: (1) the options identified during the characterization of the SES (based on participatory processes); (2) desktop analysis (including scientific and grey literature related to the area); (3) review of policy instruments such as local, subnational, and national climate change plans and strategies; and (4), when available, scientific literature.
Experts can indicate whether the listed options have been implemented in the case area or not, allowing for a comparison of planned versus implemented actions. Developing previous individual analyses helps to avoid biases during the expert consensus panel [40,41]. The local experts can verify or revise the list of options individually and later jointly finalize it during the facilitated group discussion (Phase III).
Phase III: Feasibility assessment.
de Coninck et al. [19] present a framework to assess the feasibility of adaptation and mitigation options, considering multiple dimensions: economic, technological, institutional, sociocultural, environmental, and geophysical. For each dimension, a set of indicators is identified. Each option is assessed at the indicator level, where it is analyzed whether that indicator blocks the implementation of an adaptation option. Sing et al. [17] extended the framework for assessing climate adaptation options. The assessment of 23 options is similar to that of de Coninck et al. [19]. It follows a global perspective based on available scientific literature and applies it to the current feasibility of each option. When performing the analysis, each indicator can be classified as follows: (A) the indicator could block the feasibility of the option; (B) the indicator does not have a positive or a negative effect on the feasibility of the option (i.e., no measurable effect); or, (C) the indicator does not pose any barrier to the feasibility of this option. In addition, when appropriate, one could indicate whether the indicator is not relevant (NA), there is no evidence (NE), or there is limited evidence (LE) (Tables A - C in S1 Text).
de Coninck et al. [19] and Singh et al. [17] base their assessments on nineteen indicators within six feasibility dimensions. In its last assessment, the IPCC added an indicator of the benefits of gender equity [21]. In the IPCC work, all dimensions and indicators have the same importance regarding the feasibility of adaptation options. No contextual differences are considered. Therefore, we propose using the indicators used in IPCC’s assessments because (1) they are already well established as part of the adaptation-related literature [17,19,21], which has been adopted in the IPCC’s Six Assessment cycle, already guiding research efforts (i.e., [20–22]); (2) adopting the indicators allows generating information at the local level, that can support bottom-up planning, evaluation and reporting efforts (e.g., national adaptation plans, adaptation communications); and (3), the results of feasibility assessments could be somehow comparable, allowing to identify general or specific enablers or barriers for the implementation of adaptation efforts at different scales and regions. This, in turn, would guide climate policy.
Considering the above, Phase III comprises the key steps of the feasibility assessment once the scope and indicators have been defined, as suggested by Singh et al. [17]. Fig 2 outlines the steps to perform the assessments using local expert knowledge. We propose five specific steps as part of Phase III: (1) prepare and share the assessment tools; (2) conduct a facilitated group discussion; (3) conduct individual assessments; (4) collect and combine individual assessments; and (5) report and visualization of the results.
[17]).
As a methodological advancement, we propose to include the definition of the local priorities among the feasibility dimensions and criteria, as opposed to the IPCC framework, where all indicators are equally weighted. We perform the prioritization using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [42], which is a multicriteria decision approach that allows the definition of priorities considering a specific objective. The AHP follows a hierarchy structure based on pairwise comparison and assigns numeric values to the judgments. Among its advantages is that the AHP allows local expertise integration and transparency and helps to avoid biases. The method has been used for environmental-related analysis. Guillén Bolaños et al. [43] outline the prioritization process using the AHP. S1 Text presents the guidance and legends to perform the analysis.
We propose to conduct the prioritization of dimensions and indicators using the AHP during a facilitated group discussion with the local experts, where guidance on the methodology and tool for the individual feasibility assessment must be provided. The tool should include the adaptation options and the selected indicators to be assessed against (in S1 and S2 Files) we provide the feasibility assessment tool templates to facilitate the replication of the assessment). After collecting and combining the individual assessments, the results can then be classified, using a traffic light system, as “insignificant barriers – high feasibility” (2.5 – 3), “mixed or moderated but still existent barriers – medium feasibility” (1.5 – 2.5), or “significant barriers – low feasibility” (below 1.5) [19].
Case study: Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua
To test the application of the proposed framework, we selected Puerto Morazán, a community located in Nicaragua’s Central American Dry Corridor (CADC). This area was chosen due to its high vulnerability to climate impacts and the presence of existing adaptation policies, making it a representative setting for assessing adaptation feasibility at the local level.
The socio-ecological system.
Puerto Morazán is a municipality located northwest of Nicaragua. Part of Puerto Morazán territories are located within the “Estero Real” natural protected area in the lower basin of the Estero Real River (Fig 3). This section describes Puerto Morazán’s socio-ecological system (SES) resulting from the participatory workshop (more information is available in S2 Text).
This figure is created using QGIS 3.34.9 version. (Sources: Base map layer from OpenStreetMap (OSM), licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and international and municipal boundaries from https://public.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/world-administrative-boundaries/export/, licensed under CC BY 4: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/).
The workshop participants identified the protected area as the main asset in their territories. However, they prioritized and identified agricultural and livestock sectors as the most vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, the identification of adaptation options focused on these prioritized sectors. Droughts and –on a minor scale- floods were identified as the main climate-related hazards.
Agriculture (mainly for subsistence) is, according to the local stakeholders, affected by climate change due to increased temperature, reduced precipitation, and higher frequency of droughts. Variations in minimum and maximum temperatures and relative humidity are also issues of concern. Droughts impact the yield productivity of different crops and agricultural systems, especially subsistence agriculture (i.e., corn, beans, and sorghum), sesame, and plantain plantations. Droughts can also affect water resources (including natural reservoirs) and monoculture activities (i.e., sugar cane and peanuts). However, it was indicated that, when needed, groundwater is extracted for monoculture activities (an option not available to smallholder farmers). Another negative impact of monoculture is the extensive use of agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) for sugar cane plantations, which generates chemical pollution and affects water quality. At the same time, significant quantities of groundwater and surface water (i.e., from the Amayo River) are extracted for sugar cane plantations, which reduces water availability for smallholder farmers and rural communities in general. Reduced water availability indirectly affects the health and productivity of people involved in agriculture and livestock farming. Adaptation options identified for this sector are land-cover management, use of organic fertilizers and pesticides, diversification of crops and productive systems, and local climate monitoring.
The stakeholders also identified the impacts of climate change on livestock. Similar to agriculture, drought is recognized as the main hazard. Drought generates water and heat stress on the cattle. At the same time, livestock activities are perceived as negatively impacting water availability, especially for agriculture (due to water extraction). The sector is also affected by the pollution generated by the agricultural industry (related to monoculture plantations) on the local water resources. Additionally, the stakeholders identified water availability as an adaptation limit. The adaptation measures identified for this sector are controlled burning, technology, improved (climate-resilient) seeds, and cattle feed purchasing.
Adaptation options identified to reduce the risks posed by droughts to both prioritized sectors are watershed reforestation, change of crops, water harvesting, and irrigation systems.
Identification of local stakeholders and experts.
Stakeholders identification: We coordinated with representatives of the municipal authority (environmental and risk disaster management departments) and Centro Humboldt, a non-governmental organization that supported the coordination process. Together, the community representatives and stakeholders were identified. As a result, twelve local stakeholders (one woman and eleven men) participated in the participatory integrative modeling technique workshop: four representing small-scale farmers, three fishermen, one shrimp farms representative, one local water committee representative, two municipality representatives, and one Ministry of Education representative.
Local experts identification: We identified three local experts: one representative of the municipal government and two independent consultants with broad expertise in climate, disaster risk reduction, conservation areas, and environmental management. Both independent experts have supported adaptation-related projects in the case study area.
Planned and implemented adaptation options.
There is limited information about planned or implemented adaptation options in Puerto Morazán. Policy and planning instruments consider only a limited number of options. Initially, those practices were not implemented to respond to climate change but to other environmental challenges (i.e., soil, water, and ecosystem degradation). Additionally, most options have been implemented in isolated and short-term initiatives or as autonomous strategies from smallholder farmers or livelihoods, not part of long-term strategic programs.
As a result of the participatory workshop complemented by desktop analysis, we identified sixteen adaptation options for Puerto Morazán’s agricultural and livestock sectors (Table 1). Seven options relate to both sectors, five to agriculture and three to livestock. One is an overarching option, which applies to both prioritized sectors. Section b of the supplementary material (S2 Text) includes the option’s description based on reports of adaptation efforts in Nicaragua [44,45].
Results
This section presents the results of applying the proposed feasibility assessment framework in the context of Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua. The case study served as a proof of concept to test the implementation of the proposed framework. Detailed information about the implementation of the framework can be found in S2 Text.
Defined priorities among dimensions and indicators
The application of the AHP pairwise comparison method resulted in the identification of the economic and environmental dimensions as the most important feasibility dimensions for climate adaptation-related options of Puerto Morazán. The feasibility dimensions with less priority are the institutional and technological ones. As a result of the prioritization, the indicators ranked as the most important for the assessment are ecological capacity, micro-economic viability, social co-benefits, and land-use change enhancement (Figs 4 and 5).
Overall feasibility of adaptation options
Table 2 shows the overall feasibility of the identified adaptation options in Puerto Morazán. We present two results: one following the process laid out by de Coninck et al. [19] and Singh et al. [17], where no local priorities are considered, and one in which the priorities obtained using the AHP are considered. In the first assessment, all options resulted in “medium feasibility.” However, when considering the local priorities, the results of reforestation, soil and water conservation practices, and agroforestry changed from “medium” to “high” feasibility.
No options resulted in low feasibility in either assessment. This finding indicates that the potential to implement the identified options can be enhanced if policymakers and practitioners utilize the results to create more suitable enabling conditions. However, the results can also indicate that most options are well-known, and technical resources and capacities might already be available but must be adequately allocated.
Feasibility of the options by dimensions
There is a need to identify the feasibility within the feasibility dimensions, which can create more suitable enabling conditions for implementing adaptation options. Therefore, Table 3 shows the assessment results of the adaptation options for each of the six dimensions, considering the original framework and the methodological advancement proposed. Additionally, we briefly describe the main findings of the assessment for each option (more detailed information in S2 Text).
Table 3 shows that no option resulted in low feasibility for any dimension. Among the seven options identified for both sectors, on-farm irrigation and water management, climate-resilient seeds, and elimination or controlled burning of pasture-agricultural land resulted in medium feasibility in all dimensions, even considering local priorities. On the other hand, reforestation and soil and water conservation practices resulted in high feasibility in the geophysical dimensions. The agricultural diversification of productive systems resulted in high technological feasibility in both assessments. Finally, water harvesting obtained high feasibility in the economic dimension in both assessments. However, the sociocultural dimension varied from “medium” to “high” feasibility when considering local priorities.
Among the options identified for the agricultural sector, the adjustment in plantation timing, change-introduction of new varieties, and early warning systems resulted in “medium” feasibility in all dimensions in both assessments. Agroforestry obtained high feasibility in the technological and environmental dimensions in both assessments. Drip irrigation resulted in high economic feasibility in both assessments. However, using organic fertilizers or pesticides obtained “medium” feasibility in all dimensions when local priorities were not considered. When local priorities were considered, the feasibility of this option changed to “high” feasibility in the sociocultural dimension.
Regarding options identified for the livestock sector, pasture rotation obtained “medium” feasibility in all dimensions in both assessments. Implementation of silvopastoral systems resulted in high feasibility in the environmental dimension in both assessments. However, the assessment of the economic dimension changed from medium to high in the economic dimension when considering the local priorities. Improvement of pasture and forage obtained high feasibility in the environmental dimension in both assessments.
Land-use planning obtained medium feasibility in the economic and geophysical dimensions and low feasibility in the institutional dimension in both assessments. However, the feasibility increased from medium to high in the sociocultural dimension when the priorities were considered in the analysis.
Discussion
We propose a framework to conduct local feasibility assessments of adaptation options, advancing the literature-based IPCC’s framework. The proposal is based on participative approaches to integrate local knowledge and expertise, allowing the inclusion of local priorities in adaptation assessments. With this advancement, we aim to foster a process to generate evidence on climate adaptation efforts in regions where this information is scarce. In this way, we aim to help overcome barriers to implementing adaptation actions.
We used Puerto Morazán, in Nicaragua, as the case study area to test the implementation of our proposal. Following the proposed framework, we identified adaptation options, included local priorities, and conducted the feasibility assessment. For this, we used participatory approaches and expert knowledge and expertise. The researchers had limited influence over the participant selection process, which resulted in a gender imbalance. Future applications of the framework should aim for more equitable gender representation to ensure inclusivity and diverse perspectives.
Below, we present general reflections on the findings related to the case study area, linking them to current literature. Additionally, we discuss the methodological advances presented in our work. Finally, we also discuss policy implications and future research.
Climate adaptation in Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua
During our research, we confirmed that despite the high vulnerability of Puerto Morazán to climate-related hazards, there is limited information available regarding observations, impacts, projections, and the implementation of adaptation options. That information is also missing in local climate policy and planning instruments. The lack or limited climate-related information is not unique to Puerto Morazán. It is common in adaptation planning instruments in Central American countries where monitoring and evaluation systems are not in place, the local observation networks are weak, there is no access to observational data, and there is little coordination among the related institutions [46–48].
Moreover, despite the current and projected risks, only a limited number of adaptation options are considered in planning or policy instruments related to the case study area. A mismatch exists between the available climate adaptation-related literature (e.g., [49,50]) and local planning instruments and climate action. The identification of adaptation options presented in planning and policy instruments, as well as literature related to the case study area, is mainly developed with a participatory component, and still relies on past experiences, which aligns with Conway et al. [29]. Moreover, most of the options identified for Puerto Morazán can be categorized as “incremental” adaptation, which is defined as an “extension of actions and behaviors” [1]. The options represent the modification to conservation practices, promoted for decades, and are implemented by single sectors or in small geographic areas. In addition, adaptation planning or implementation happens on a small scale and as isolated actions. These results align with the findings of recent global assessments [8,51,52].
The ranking from the feasibility assessment, where reforestation and sustainable soil management were found to be the preferred options, aligns with recent assessments related to the region [47,53].
Methodological advances
We propose to improve the feasibility assessment framework by incorporating local expert knowledge and priorities to evaluate the adaptation options identified for the prioritized sectors in Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua. Based on scientific literature, the IPCC’s framework was designed for global scientific assessments. This literature does not always represent or is not available for subnational scales or small communities in the Global South. Therefore, our proposed framework allows for transferring concepts, methodologies, and approaches discussed in the latest literature to where that information is crucial. We advanced the methodology by identifying (1) adaptation options, (2) local priorities among the indicators and dimensions proposed in the original framework, and (3) by allowing local experts to perform the assessment.
The results confirm the importance of including local knowledge, expertise, and priorities. When those aspects were considered, the assessment’s results changed. Therefore, we align with the scholarship calling for stronger inclusion of local and expert knowledge and priorities during the different steps of the adaptation policy and implementation cycle (e.g., [13,15,32,34]). Facilitating such methodologies to local stakeholders improves the translation of global narratives into practice in the territories. Additionally, deploying such methods also allows for the exchange and increase of the technical capacities of local experts.
Although we acknowledge that the number of experts participating in our study is relatively limited (three), we believe the results presented in this work demonstrate the framework’s potential. For instance, the potential for usability and transferability was validated, which could support the local capacity-building process. The limited sample size may be attributed to the dearth of work on climate adaptation in the region or other challenges, including socio-political contexts that impede research efforts. It is, therefore, recommended that as many local experts as possible be included in similar future endeavors. In terms of future work, our proposal and the results for the case study area can be employed to generate evidence and identify leverage points for implementing climate adaptation options. This may be achieved, for instance, by examining in depth the results of the feasibility dimensions and indicators. These assessments should be performed periodically, as the context in which adaptation actions are planned and implemented may vary. This is especially important considering that the effectiveness of adaptation measures is reduced at higher levels of global warming [15].
Policy implications
Using Puerto Morazán as a showcase, we present an overview of the feasibility of the identified options, considering the current situation (i.e., local context, global warming of 1.1°C). However, decision-makers and practitioners could use the advanced framework to analyze how the feasibility of the options could change with, for example, further increases in global warming (hard limits), new policy implementation, or higher investment (soft limits). For this, more detailed information will be required, especially climate observations, projections, and evaluation of the options (e.g., information on the productivity of a particular crop under a certain level of global warming).
The challenges related to climate adaptation faced by Puerto Morazán are not unique. So, the proposed framework can be helpful for, but not exclusive to, other rural communities, especially those in the Central American Dry Corridor, a region identified as highly vulnerable to climate change. The framework could help to fill the gap in empirical evidence available regarding the region [47,48,54]. Evidence can support the development of new and more transformative adaptation policies, improve implementation processes and outcomes, and allocate resources to face climate-related challenges, especially in reducing risk from the most vulnerable communities. Additionally, the evidence can showcase success and lessons learned, which can inform assessments related to the different levels of governance.
Our analysis follows the approach presented in the analyzed policy and planning tools, where adaptation options are offered individually. However, we recognize that climate action and research cannot continue using siloed perspectives. This type of perspective challenges the analysis of, for example, potential synergies and trade-offs between the options, as was the case of Puerto Morazán, where no strong connection was identified between the prioritized sectors and the nearby protected area. Therefore, we recognize great potential and need to consider more systemic approaches, such as those proposed by the IPCC [1,18]: i.e., system transitions, adaptation pathways, and climate-resilient development pathways. Those approaches enable a more complete view, including aspects related to stakeholder enabling, participation, and involvement in transition processes needed to face current and expected challenges posed by climate change.
Conclusions
As climate adaptation becomes increasingly urgent, aligning global frameworks with local realities is essential. This research contributes to that alignment by advancing a methodology that bridges top-down assessment tools with bottom-up, locally informed insights. With our work, we confirm that local expert knowledge elicitation can help overcome the problem of the absence of data and information. Our results also corroborate that including local priorities changes the outcomes of the assessments, hence their importance. Finally, we provide evidence of planned and implemented adaptation options for our case study area.
Additionally, our proposed framework could support generating information to help subnational and national processes (e.g., NAPs, NDCs) or scientific efforts (e.g., IPCCs assessment cycles) informing, for example, higher policy levels such as the UNFCCC’s Global Stocktake.
We found that implementing adaptation options in Puerto Morazán, our case study area, is still very limited and small in scale despite having identified a range of options that could be implemented. We presume that feasibility can be increased by allocating more financial and human resources to adaptation action in the region. The identified options are primarily presented in isolation, while their potential could thrive if given as complementary or part of adaptation pathways, considering synergies and trade-offs with development and biodiversity policies.
Future research efforts could focus on taking a deeper look at the feasibility indicators to identify leverage points and propose ways to improve the planning and implementation of adaptation options. For example, Singh et al. [17] suggested that future efforts can consider what different climate and socioeconomic scenarios mean for the feasibility of adaptation options, as there is an urgent need for robust but adaptive plans to avoid lock-ins or maladaptation. Consideration of different scenarios is key, as, for example, the effectiveness of adaptation options is reduced at higher levels of global warming [1].
Supporting information
S1 Text. Feasibility assessment guidance and legends.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Text. Applying the framework: assessing climate adaptation in Puerto Morazán.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510.s002
(DOCX)
S1 File. Template.
Local feasibility assessment template (compiled).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510.s003
(XLSX)
S2 File. Template.
Local feasibility assessment template (individual).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510.s004
(XLSX)
S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000510.s005
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank and acknowledge the contributions of Puerto Morazán local stakeholders who participated in the workshop and Centro Humboldt’s team for their support in developing this research. Additionally, we thank C. Singh, D. Ley, and E. Gilmore for their input to an early draft of this article. Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org.
References
- 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. 2022.
- 2. IPCC. Glossary. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. 2022. 2897–930.
- 3. Berrang-Ford L, Siders AR, Lesnikowski A, Fischer AP, Callaghan MW, Haddaway NR, et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(11):989–1000.
- 4. Leiter T. Do governments track the implementation of national climate change adaptation plans? An evidence-based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021;125:179–88.
- 5. Lesnikowski A, Ford JD, Biesbroek R, Berrang-Ford L. A policy mixes approach to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy. Climatic Change. 2019;156(4):447–69.
- 6. Berrang-Ford L, Biesbroek R, Ford JD, Lesnikowski A, Tanabe A, Wang FM, et al. Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(6):440–9.
- 7. Nalau J, Verrall B. Mapping the evolution and current trends in climate change adaptation science. Climate Risk Management. 2021;32:100290.
- 8. Ara Begum R, Lempert R, Ali E, Benjaminsen TA, Bernauer T, Cramer W, et al. Point of departure and key concepts. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, et al. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022. 121–196.
- 9. Sietsma AJ, Ford JD, Callaghan MW, Minx JC. Progress in climate change adaptation research. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(5):054038.
- 10.
Abram N, Gattuso JP, Prakash A, Chidichimo MP, Crate S, Enomoto H, et al. Framing and context of the report. Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 2019. 73–129.
- 11.
UNEP. Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too Little, Too Slow - Climate Adaptation Puts World at Risk. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. 2022. http://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2022
- 12. Swanson K. Equity and Justice in Climate Action Planning: The Challenge of Evaluation. CPP-APC. 2023;2023:23–37.
- 13. Swanson K. Centering Equity and Justice in Participatory Climate Action Planning: Guidance for Urban Governance Actors. Planning Theory & Practice. 2023;24(2):207–23.
- 14.
UNFCCC. Decision 1/CP.21 Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Paris, France: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2015. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf#page=2
- 15. New M, Reckien D, Viner D, Adler C, Cheong S-M, Conde C, et al. Decision Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, et al. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022. 2539–2654.
- 16. Guillén Bolaños T, Scheffran J, Máñez Costa M. Climate Adaptation and Successful Adaptation Definitions: Latin American Perspectives Using the Delphi Method. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5350.
- 17. Singh C, Ford J, Ley D, Bazaz A, Revi A. Assessing the feasibility of adaptation options: methodological advancements and directions for climate adaptation research and practice. Climatic Change. 2020;162(2):255–77.
- 18. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5°C. Cambridge University Press. 2022.
- 19. de Coninck H, Revi A, Babiker M, Bertoldi P, Buckeridge M, Cartwright A, et al. Strengthening and implementing the global response. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, et al. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 2018. 313–444.
- 20. Tirado MC, Vivero-Pol JL, Bezner Kerr R, Krishnamurthy K. Feasibility and Effectiveness Assessment of Multi-Sectoral Climate Change Adaptation for Food Security and Nutrition. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2022;8(2):35–52.
- 21. Ley D, Adams H, Araos M, Basu R, Bazaz A, Conte L, et al. Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB: Feasibility Assessment of Adaptation Options: An Update of the SR1.5. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, et al. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press; 2022. 2769–2807.
- 22. Williams PA, Simpson NP, Totin E, North MA, Trisos CH. Feasibility assessment of climate change adaptation options across Africa: an evidence-based review. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(7):073004.
- 23. Singh C, Bazaz A, Ley D, Ford J, Revi A. Assessing the feasibility of climate change adaptation options in the water sector: Examples from rural and urban landscapes. Water Security. 2020;11:100071.
- 24. Nalau J, Preston BL, Maloney MC. Is adaptation a local responsibility?. Environmental Science & Policy. 2015;48:89–98.
- 25. Scott H, Moloney S. Completing the climate change adaptation planning cycle: monitoring and evaluation by local government in Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2021;65(4):650–74.
- 26. Pollo A, Piccini I, Chiara J, Porro E, Chiantore D, Gili F, et al. An Innovative Approach for Subnational Climate Adaptation of Biodiversity and Ecosystems: The Case Study of a Regional Strategy in Italy. Sustainability. 2022;14(10):6115.
- 27. Juhola S, Glaas E, Linnér B-O, Neset T-S. Redefining maladaptation. Environmental Science & Policy. 2016;55:135–40.
- 28.
Máñez M, Osorio J, Kovalevsky D. Deliverable D13.1. Generic Integrative Modeling Approach. 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5b5b9cca2&appId=PPGMS
- 29. Conway D, Nicholls RJ, Brown S, Tebboth MGL, Adger WN, Ahmad B, et al. The need for bottom-up assessments of climate risks and adaptation in climate-sensitive regions. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(7):503–11.
- 30. Olazabal M, Chu E, Castán Broto V, Patterson J. Subaltern forms of knowledge are required to boost local adaptation. One Earth. 2021;4(6):828–38.
- 31.
Ley D. Sustainable development, climate change, and renewable energy in rural Central America. In: Uitto J, Puri J, van den Berg R. Evaluating climate change action for sustainable development. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. 2017.
- 32. Cvitanovic C, Howden M, Colvin RM, Norström A, Meadow AM, Addison PFE. Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environmental Science & Policy. 2019;94:20–31.
- 33. Williams DS, Celliers L, Unverzagt K, Videira N, Máñez Costa M, Giordano R. A Method for Enhancing Capacity of Local Governance for Climate Change Adaptation. Earth’s Future. 2020;8(7).
- 34. Lopes HS, Remoaldo PC, Ribeiro V, Martín-Vide J. Pathways for adapting tourism to climate change in an urban destination - Evidences based on thermal conditions for the Porto Metropolitan Area (Portugal). J Environ Manage. 2022;315:115161. pmid:35526395
- 35. Dilling L, Lemos MC. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change. 2011;21(2):680–9.
- 36.
von der Forst E. Climate Change Vulnerability of Socio-Ecological Systems in Coastal Areas of River Basins in Mexico and South Africa – from Assessment to Management. University of Hamburg. 2018. https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/handle/ediss/7695
- 37.
Gómez E, Máñez M. Deliverable 5.5. DEMOs framework prototype for participatory integrated planning. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5c8c05fd2&appId=PPGMS
- 38.
BenDor TK, Scheffran J. Agent-Based Modeling of Environmental Conflict and Cooperation. Boca Raton, Fl.: CRC Press. 2019.
- 39. Celliers L, Rölfer L, Rivers N, Rosendo S, Fernandes M, Snow B, et al. Stratification of stakeholders for participation in the governance of coastal social-ecological systems. Ambio. 2023;52(9):1418–30. pmid:36952095
- 40. Morgan MG. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(20):7176–84. pmid:24821779
- 41. O’Hagan A. Expert Knowledge Elicitation: Subjective but Scientific. The American Statistician. 2019;73(sup1):69–81.
- 42. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. IJSSCI. 2008;1(1):83.
- 43.
Guillén Bolaños T, Mánez CM, Nehren U. Development of a prioritization tool for climate change adaptation measures in the forestry sector. Hamburg, Germany: Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS). 2016. https://www.gerics.de/products_and_publications/publications/detail/064814/index.php.en
- 44.
MARENA. Estudio de tecnologías de adaptación al cambio climático en sectores priorizados. Managua, Nicaragua: Ministerio del Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales (MARENA). 2018. https://cambioclimatico.ineter.gob.ni/bibliografia/Publicaciones%20%20nacionales%20Cambio%20Climatico/Informe%20final%20tecnologia.pdf
- 45.
FAO. Catálogo de medidas de adaptación al cambio climático para el Corredor Seco de Nicaragua. Managua: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). 2021.
- 46.
Moreno JM, Laguna-Defior C, Barros V, Calvo Buendía E, Marengo JA, Oswald Spring U. Adaptación frente a los riesgos del cambio climático en los países iberoamericanos. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. 2020.
- 47. Castellanos E, Lemos MF, Astigarraga L, Chacón N, Cuvi N, Huggel C, et al. Central and South America. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022. 1689–1816.
- 48. Ley D, Guillén Bolaños T, Castaneda A, Hidalgo HG, Girot Pignot PO, Fernández R, et al. Central America urgently needs to reduce the growing adaptation gap to climate change. Front Clim. 2023;5.
- 49. Olsson L, Barbosa H, Bhadwal S, Cowie A, Delusca K, Flores-Renteria D, et al. Land Degradation. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge University Press. 2019. 345–436.
- 50. Bezner Kerr R, Hasegawa T, Lasco R, Bhatt I, Deryng D, Farrell A, et al. Food, Fibre, and ther Ecosystem Products. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 713–906.
- 51. Adger WN, Huq S, Brown K, Conway D, Hulme M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies. 2003;3(3):179–95.
- 52. O’Neill B, van Aalst M, Zaiton Ibrahim Z, Berrang Ford L, Bhadwal S, Buhaug H, et al. Key risks across sectors and regions. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 2411–2538.
- 53. de Sousa K, Casanoves F, Sellare J, Ospina A, Suchini JG, Aguilar A, et al. How climate awareness influences farmers’ adaptation decisions in Central America?. Journal of Rural Studies. 2018;64:11–9.
- 54. Segura LD, van Zeijl‐Rozema A, Martens P. Climate change adaptation in Central America: A review of the national policy efforts. Lat Am Policy. 2022.