Adaptation Pathways & DAPP

Supporting decision making under uncertainty using Adaptation Tipping Points 
and Adaptation Pathways in policy analysis

Many investment and policy decisions in water management have significant and often long-term consequences. Moreover, long-term objectives often require near-term decisions. Making sound near-term decisions is critical, yet we live in an increasingly unpredictable dynamic world governed by competing and changing beliefs and preferences. When decision makers and analysts face a deeply uncertain future (e.g. due to climate change), they need more than traditional prediction or scenario-based decision methods to help them to evaluate alternatives and make decisions. Different approaches exist for decision-making under deep uncertainty. The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways approach is one of them. 

Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways

The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) approach aims to support the development of an adaptive plan that is capable to deal with conditions of deep uncertainties. The approach is developed by Deltares and TU Delft. It has inspired the Adaptive Delta Management concept of the Dutch Delta Programme, and has been used now for over a decade for adaptation decision making worldwide.

DAPP explicitly addresses decision-making over time, following a stepwise approach. It helps identifying short-term actions to be prepared for the plausible near future(s) or to keep future options open. Furthermore, it helps identify long-term options that can be implemented in more distant future(s) if necessary or useful. As a result, strategies can be identified which can be adapted as the future unfolds. A monitoring system collects information to receive early warning signals for implementation of actions or for reassessment of the plan.

The dynamic adaptive policy pathways (DAPP) approach (simplified from Haasnoot et al. 2013)

Starting with DAPP analysis

The DAPP approach is illustrated in the figure above. DAPP policy analysis begins in Step 1 with the identification of objectives, constraints, and uncertainties that are relevant for decision-making. The uncertainties are then used to generate an ensemble of plausible futures. These futures are compared with the objectives to see if problems arise or if opportunities occur. This will reveal if and when adaptation is needed to reach the objective. The moment or condition that, if surpassed, adaptation is required is referred to as Adaptation Tipping Point and is a key concept in DAPP. In Step 2, near-term actions and long-term options are identified based on vulnerabilities and opportunities. In Step 3, promising options are used as the basic building blocks for the assembly of potential adaptation pathways (a sequence of measures), that can be presented in an adaptation (pathways) map. A scorecard presents the costs and (co)-benefits of each of the pathways. The figure below gives an example of such an adaptation map and scorecard. In Step 4, one or more preferred pathways can be selected as input for an adaptive plan. The aim of this plan is to stay on the preferred pathway as long as possible. For this purpose, contingency actions are specified and a trigger for each contingency action is specified and monitored (Step 5 and 6).

Adaptation Pathways

Adaptation pathways describe a sequence of measures or investments in institutions and infrastructure over time to achieve a set of pre-specified objectives under uncertain changing conditions. Adaptive pathways can be visualized as pathways maps, which can be created in different styles depending on the purpose. One way to do so is through a so-called metro-map (see figure below), which provides insight into policy options, the sequencing of actions over time, potential lock-ins, key-decision nodes and path dependencies. Such metro-maps can be easily generated using the Pathways Generator, available for download on this site.

Adaptation pathways have been developed and applied in several projects, see Projects for an overview. 

An example of an adaptation pathways map and a scorecard for each of the pathways (adapted from Haasnoot et al., 2013). The horizontal coloured and grey lines indicate how long actions are effective to achieve the objective given a low-end and high-end scenario. The colours in the scorecard refer to the actions: A (red), B (orange), C (green), and D (blue). 

An adaptive pathways map shows different possible sequences of decisions to achieve objectives. A scorecard helps to evaluate the pathways and decisions. In this example, starting from the current situation, an adaptation tipping point is reached after four years (vertical black line). Following the grey lines of the current plan, four options with new actions exist (black circles). Actions A and D should be effective for the next 100 years in both the low-end and high-end scenarios. If Action B is chosen, a tipping point is reached within about five more years; a shift to one of the other three actions (A, C, or D) will then be needed to achieve the objective. If Action C is chosen after the first four years, a shift to Action A, B, or D will be needed after approximately 85 years in the high-end scenario and after 100 years in the low-end scenario. The point at which the paths start to diverge can be considered as a decision point. Taking into account a lead time e.g. for implementation of actions, this point lies before an adaptation tipping point.

Adaptation Tipping Points

An Adaptation Tipping Point (ATP) refers to a moment or condition that, if surpassed, a policy action or a portfolio of actions will stop working effectively. An adaptation tipping point is reached when the magnitude of external change is such that the current policy or actions are no longer sufficient to meet the objectives. Once an adaptation tipping point is reached, new actions are needed to continue protecting people, property, and/or the environment. The timing of an adaptation tipping point (the sell-by year of actions) is scenario dependent. Using adaptation tipping points, a plan can be easily adjusted to new information on changing conditions (e.g. new (climate) scenarios), since only the timing of actions needs to be changed.

Example of an adaptation tipping point. If water availability decreases due to e.g. climate change, there may be a point at which there is insufficient amount to supply the demand. The timing (sell-by year of the status quo or policy action) may come earlier in a fast changing climate and later in a slower changing climate.

The concept of Adaptation Tipping Points emerged in response to a desire among Dutch policymakers to make it easier to update plans in light of new climate scenarios. The ATP approach differs from the classical top down approach and contains elements from a vulnerability bottom up approach. In the classical top-down approach to climate adaptation (see figure; left panel), the underlying question is: “What if climate changes or sea level rises according to a particular scenario?” This is followed by analyzing the cause-effect chain from pressures to impact. If the impact is such that policy objectives are not achieved, adaptation measures are defined to overcome this problem. Then the chain is analysed again, answering the question: “What if this particular scenario becomes reality and we implement measure x, are the objectives achieved then?” 

Different pathways designs and visualisations

Design of pathways often is an iterative process, starting from explorative pathways that evolve in more elaborated designs. Here a selection of pathways designs and visualisations is given:

Spatial pathways have been used to illustrate how different pathways in different areas can interact with each other

Nested pathways have been created to address different levels of complexity, including high-level pathways and pathways in more detail

Muti-objective pathways consider multiple objectives systematically to evaluate pathways

Multi-risk management pathways are aimed for settings where multiple or compound hazards occur and multiple actors play a role

Forecasting & backcasting combines forward-exploration of sequences of adaptation measures with backcasting of critical implementation paths from future end-states. Subsequently, synergies and conflicts are assessed between the forward-looking pathways and backcasting paths, and pivotal decisions are identified.  

Climate Resilient Development Pathways refer to pathways in which climate adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development are included. 

Contact