Europe PMC Funders Group Author Manuscript Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2021 August ; 51: 55–64. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.002. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Global patterns of adaptation to climate change by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. A systematic review Anna Schlingmann1, Sonia Graham2, Petra Benyei1, Esteve Corbera1,3,4, Irene Martinez Sanesteban5, Andrea Marelle1, Ramin Soleymani-Fard1, Victoria Reyes-García1,3,6 1Institutde Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 2School of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia 3Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain 4Dept. of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 5Dept. of Political Science and Public Administration, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 6Dept. of Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain Abstract Indigenous Peoples and local communities have implemented myriad responses to deal with and mitigate climate change impacts. However, little effort has been invested in compiling, Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts aggregating, and systematizing such responses to assess global patterns in local adaptation. Drawing on a systematic review of 119 peer-reviewed publications with 1851 reported local responses to climate change impacts, we show that Indigenous Peoples and local communities across the world apply a diverse portfolio of activities to address climate change impacts. While many responses involve changes to natural resource based livelihoods, about one-third of responses involve other activities (e.g. networking, off-farm work). Globally, local responses to climate change impacts are more likely to be shaped by people’s livelihood than by the climate zone where they live. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Correspondence to: Anna Schlingmann. Corresponding author: Schlingmann, Anna (anna.schlingmann@uab.cat). Edited by Diana Reckien, Cathy Vaughan and Rachael Shwom Author contribution AS and VRG conceptualized the research questions and design. AS conducted the online literature search and the data analysis and was mainly responsible for developing the classification system. AS, VRG and SG were the main contributors to the writing of the manuscript. AM, IMS, PB and AS were responsible for the final selection, coding and quality check of the included and analysed publications. EC contributed conceptually to the manuscript, commented on several drafts and provided advice on the conceptual framework of climate change adaptation. RS contributed the online visualization of the developed classification system, namely the collapsing tree. All co-authors commented on and contributed to several versions of the manuscript and the classification system, thereby considerably improving the final version. Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared. Schlingmann et al. Page 2 Introduction There is a ‘strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing and that the changes are in large part caused by human activities’, mainly by fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes [1,2]. The ongoing manifestation of global warming results in local impacts such as an increase in the Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts frequency of coastal flooding, droughts, wildfires, and a continuous decline in sea ice [2]. Social scientists have shown that communities are differentially affected by climate change; not only because climate change impacts are highly place-specific, but also because climate change affects communities through specific pathways, largely mediated by local economic systems and culture. Specifically, climate change threatens the livelihoods and well-being of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) — groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a region and maintain a deep connection to place and nature over generations [3,4]—who urgently need to minimize associated present and future harms [5]. Throughout history, IPLC have experienced and responded to environmental changes and climate variability based on intricate and complex systems of knowledge about the world around them [6•• ], broadly referred to as Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) [7]. Despite two decades of research on climate adaptation, we know little of the diversity of responses led by IPLC, and of the extent to which ILK-based measures may be transferable and beneficial across regions, cultures and environmental conditions [8,9]. Research on IPLC climate adaptation has focused on understanding local, so-called ‘autonomous’ [10], responses through case studies [11,12• ], with a few reviews focusing on specific livelihoods (e.g. Ref. [13•• ]), regions (e.g. Refs. [14• ,15,16], or ethnic groups (e.g. Ref. [17]). Only a recently published scoping review [18•• ] represents a first step to reduce the degree of Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts fragmentation of this literature [19]. Systematic literature reviews are a powerful tool for evidence-based decision-making due to their high level of transparency, objectivity and reproducibility compared to traditional reviews [20], and increasingly applied in adaptation studies [19,21]. Departing from previous works, this review does not focus on institutional and governmental-driven adaptation [22,23•• ,24] or on participatory processes, such as community-based and co­ produced adaptation strategies [22,23•• ,24] that do not primarily target community-driven responses [25]. Rather, we focus on community-driven responses to climate change as such an approach directly addresses the need to integrate ILK into adaptation strategies [2,26•• ], by strengthening bottom-up approaches [27] and contributing to the identification of the best adaptation practices and their potential transferability [8,9]. Specifically, with this review we aim at answering the following questions: What is the geographical extent of research on local responses to climate change impacts? What are frequently reported local response strategies? How do responses differ across climates, livelihoods and regions? Beyond reviewing case studies, our work also aims to develop a detailed and comprehensive classification sys-tem of local adaptation strategies that overcomes chal-lenges of previous classifications which are either too broad for in-depth analysis [2,28,29] or not exhaustive Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 3 (e.g. Refs. [13•• ,29,30]). Classifying the documented local responses allows assessment of global response patterns and sheds light on the diversity, commonalities and particularities of IPLC climate adaptation strategies. Specifically, here we i) review recent research on IPLC responses to climate change impacts, ii) propose a new and comprehensive classification of such responses, and iii) describe the Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts global range, variability and commonalities of such local responses across different climatic zones, livelihood activities and world regions. We adopt an inclusive definition of local responses to climate change as the adaptation of IPLC ‘to actual and expected impacts of climate change in the context of interacting non-climatic changes, […] [which] can range from short-term coping to longer-term, deeper transformations, aim to meet more than climate change goals alone, and may or may not succeed in moderating harm or exploiting beneficial opportunities’ ([31], p. 22026). We use the term ‘local response’, instead of ‘adaptation’, when referring to both direct actions to address climate change impacts and indirect measures in the form of adaptive capacity building to increase the ability of IPLC to implement direct actions [19,32]. Methods We examined peer-reviewed publications that appeared after the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report [2], from January 2015 to December 2019, including case studies documenting IPLC responses to climate change impacts. Our search encompassed, but was not limited to, responses derived from Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and covered a recent period of time to identify ongoing responses, that is, responses shaped by current assets, productive systems and institutions, from which we could draw lessons about how to support or mainstream local adaptations in the years to come. Detailed information on the review process, including search terms, article Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts selection, data coding, and spatial and statistical analysis can be found in the Appendix A. Supplementary Materials 1 (SM1). Drawing on previous classifications of ‘adaptation’ (e.g. Refs. [13•• ,22,33]) and through an iterative process that involved analyzing similarities and differences among documented responses, we developed a 3-level classification system defining response sectors, domains, and types (see Table SM9). The response sector encompasses the main natural resource dependent livelihood activities, for example, cultivation, livestock and fishing, as well as responses in other activities, such as housing, community life, and wage labor. The response domain captures whether changes relate to activities’ timing, location, livelihood products, productive resource input, social and human capacity building, or the whole livelihood system. Finally, the response type identifies whether the response domain refers to quantitative changes, measurable in physical units (e.g. kg, ha, money) or to qualitative changes, such as changes in crop or livestock composition or in the cultivation methods applied. Each response strategy is further described by a direction (e.g. increase, decrease). Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 4 Results Geographical distribution of case studies The 119 articles reviewed reported 1851 local responses to climate change impacts. Results correspond to 181 case studies in 260 locations in 44 countries (Figure 1 and Table SM8). 70% (n = 126) of the case studies refer to locations in Asia (n = 68) and Africa (n = 58), Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts and another 15% to locations in Latin America (n = 27). There were more case studies in the equatorial (n = 54), temperate (n = 53) and arid (n = 30) regions, than in the snow (n = 23) and polar regions (n = 21). About one-third of the studies were located along the coast (n = 67), in the low-lands and mid-lands (n = 62), and at altitudes above 1500 masl (n = 52), respectively. Classifying local responses to climate change impacts We classified the 1851 reported responses into 187 categories, of which 57 belong to cultivation, 33 to livestock, and 22 to fishery sectors. 46 categories refer to other activities. Two-thirds (63%) of reported local responses occur in natural resource dependent livelihood sectors, and particularly in the cultivation sector (40%) (Figure 2, sectors). This is consistent with agriculture being practiced in 80% of the case studies. In contrast, although 45% of the communities keep livestock and 38% practice fishing or aquaculture (Table SM8), proportionately fewer responses were documented in these sectors, that is, 13% and 5%, respectively. As much as 37% of the responses documented do not refer to a specific livelihood, but rather to changes in other household assets, such as social capital (e.g. sharing food and other resources), or infrastructure (e.g. building dykes). With respect to domains, as much as one-quarter (24%) of local responses involved changes in practices (e.g. methods applied, weather forecast, biodiversity conservation), and almost one-quarter (22%) involved changes in productive resource inputs (e.g. water, fertilizer). Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Changes in location and time management corresponded to less than 10% of reported responses each (Figure 2, domains). Finally, 68% of the responses represented qualitative changes, while only 32% accounted for quantifiable changes (Figure 2, types). Some of the responses reported draw from ILK, such as indigenous seasonal climate forecasts and farming practices [35,36]. Other responses, such as the use of GPS devices [37] or switching to early maturing hybrid varieties [38], draw from scientific knowledge (see Table SM10). The five most frequent response categories describe 33% of all reported local responses. These include ‘changes in the composition of cultivated crops and trees’ (CU. PRODU.COMPS = 10%), ‘changes in applied methods and techniques in cultivation’ (CU.PRACT. METHD = 7%), ‘changes in general social relationships & networks among community members’ (OA.CAPAC. NETWK = 6%), ‘changes in finances and incomes not derived from natural resource-dependent livelihoods’ (OA.SYST.INCOM = 6%), and ‘changes in the protection of natural ecosystems (incl. biodiversity conservation)’ (OA.PRACT.NATUR = 4%). Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 5 Comparing adaptation strategies across climates—Documented responses are similar across climate zones, with larger diversity within each climate zone than across zones (Figure 3). With the exception of snow regions, the most reported sector-based responses in all climate regions relate to cultivation (30–50%) and other activities (23– 42%). In the snow regions, most responses refer to changes in livestock rearing (42%) and other activities (24%). The few responses reported for the fishery sector are limited to the Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts equatorial, arid and polar regions (Figure 3b). Changes in practices are the most frequently identified local response domain (21–27%) (Figure 3c), except in the polar regions, where a shift in the main livelihood system and income sources is more frequently reported (19%) than changes in practices (18%). In the snow region, changes in location are the second most common response domain (20%), probably due to common livestock rearing in higher mountain regions, such as the Andes and the Himalayas. In the other climate regions, responses related to changes in productive resource inputs (13–20%), such as water and food, were more often reported than changes in locations (7–17%). Nuanced differences exist regarding livelihood products, including changes in crop composition, which are more frequent in the temperate zones (20%), and changes in income generation activities, which are more frequent in the arid (13%) and polar regions (14%) (Figure 3d). Comparing local adaptation strategies across sectors—Local responses to climate change impacts largely vary across sectors (Figure 4). The largest number of local responses was documented within the cultivation sector (n = 736) (Figure 4a). The most common local responses in the cultivation sector involve changes in the livelihood products (30%) — mainly changes in crop composition — followed by changes in cultivation practices (21%), for example, soil conservation methods, and changes in the application of productive resources, such as irrigation (13%) and fertilizer use (8%) (Figure 4b). Responses in the Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts livestock sector were dominated by changes in grazing location (21%) and changes in animal species and herd size (21%). Adjustments in feeding practices accounted for 13% of the responses in the livestock sector. In the fishing sector, the most common responses correspond to the adoption of new fishing techniques (31%), especially the use of improved methods and gear (20%), followed by changes in the location of fishing spots (19%) and the duration and timing of fishing activities (14%) (Figure 4b, c). Responses in ‘other activities’ focus on intensifying social relationships and networks (16%), income generation through wage labor or small businesses (16%), and biodiversity conservation (10%) (Figure 4c). Comparing local adaptation strategies across world regions—To understand macro-regional patterns, we compared the local responses documented in regions with more data, namely Sub-Saharan Africa (AFR, n = 776), South Asia (SAS, n = 448), Latin America (LAM, n = 223) and the Asia-Pacific region (PAS, n = 203) (Figure 5a). Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia show similarities regarding the frequency of responses for the cultivation sector, 48% and 40%, and other activities, 33% and 38%, respectively (Figure 5b). Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region show different patterns. For example, in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region, the share of local responses directly related to Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 6 the fishing sector are higher than in other regions, 9% and 11% respectively. No responses related to livestock keeping are reported for the Asia-Pacific region. Although Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia show similar response pattern regarding the cultivation sector, differences exist with respect to the response domain and type (Figure 5c, d). For example, while the demand for productive resource input, including water, fertilizer, Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts pesticides and medicine is higher in South Asia (29%), more responses relate to relocation, including mobility, (12%) and income generation (9%) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Income generation is also a common response strategy in Latin America, while in the Asia-Pacific region a more common response is to strengthen social networks (19%) and rely on food storage (11%). Discussion IPLC across the world rely on a diverse portfolio of responses to face climate change impacts. While many responses involve changing natural-resources-based livelihood practices, about one-third of responses involve other activities (e.g. networking, off-farm labor, or biodiversity conservation). Globally, IPLC responses to climate change are more often shaped by livelihood activities than by the climate zone in which respondents live. We identified a geographic bias in the selected cases, which may be due to the uneven global distribution of research — also reported in other reviews on related topics [18•• ,26•• ,39,40] —the exclusion of grey literature [41] and non-English publications [42], and research investment patterns [43• ]. Consistent with previous work [13•• ,14• ], we found a large number and diversity of local responses to climate change impacts. In absolute terms, we have identified more responses than any previous systematic review and described a larger number of response categories [13•• ,14• ,44]. Our 3-level approach is more comprehensive and detailed than previous Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts classification systems [18•• ,45,46], thereby contributing to an improved understanding of local response strategies. Our classification system also allows manifold analysis by disentangling local responses into elementary units, that is, sector, domain and type. We found that IPLC generally respond to climate change impacts by changing aspects of their natural resource dependent livelihood system (63%), with cultivation being the most represented sector in the sample. While this predominance can be partially explained by the relative global importance of small-scale agriculture [47–49], the share of responses in other livelihood sectors is disproportionately low compared to the number of communities that engage in other livelihoods in our sample. The apparent predominance of responses in the cultivation sector may also be due to the direct and strong impacts of changing rainfall patterns on cultivation and the resulting urgent need to adapt [23•• ]. Similar to previous work [18•• ,28,50], our findings show a high proportion of local responses related to behavioral changes, especially in the methods and techniques applied. However, contrary to previous work (e.g. Ref. [28]), we did not find that management, planning and knowledge transfer are important local adaptation strategies, probably because our review captures more spontaneous and reactive activities such as coping, adjusting or securing [51• ]. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 7 As much as 36% of the documented responses do not directly relate to natural resource dependent livelihoods but to other household and community assets, for example, social networks, spirituality or biodiversity conservation [6•• ,25,52]. A strong link between ILK and social capital and biodiversity conservation has also been reported in other studies [53,54]. The importance of social relations in adaptation derives largely from its interaction and cascading benefits with other forms of capital (e.g. Refs. [55•• ,56]). For example, social Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts institutions such as customary laws support coastal forest protection as adaptation measures to climate change impacts [52]. Although our search specifically targeted responses to climate change impacts by IPLC, not all reported responses could be unequivocally described as Indigenous or local [7], indeed some were externally driven and/or scientifically based. For example, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the adoption of hybrid varieties or the shift towards off-farm work [57,58] were common responses. This finding shows that IPLC respond to climate challenges by using information from different knowledge systems [25,59], but it also raises questions about the long-term viability of some responses, due to their financial capital requirements [60,61] or potential negative ecological impacts [62• ]. Other responses are more transformative and imply the potential loss of culture, tradition and social bonding [63]. In that sense, it is important to note that responses cannot be considered successful ‘adaptation strategies’ until their long-term viability, effectiveness, sustainability and potential impacts have been examined [64]. Our results on global patterns of local responses to climate change impacts show that ILK is relevant and transferable beyond the local context and scale of communities [9]. While the similarities in response strategies across climates may seem surprising, we argue that the patterns reflect the fact that people use similar strategies, rather than identical responses. For example, in different climates, changes in the cropping patterns and the adoption of Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts irrigation might be a common response to climate change impacts in the cultivation sector. However, the selected species and varieties and the amount of required irrigation likely differ [65]. Thus, applying our findings at the local level requires accounting for local conditions and peculiarities. Our classification system of local responses to climate change impacts provides a new tool for future analyses on the topic. For future work, we have the following recommendations: the consideration of additional literature, including grey literature, could further improve the classification system and our understanding of local responses to climate change. Future research could also apply this classification system to related topics such as assessments of adaptation drivers, adaptation enablers and barriers, evaluations of adaptation feasibility, success, future viability, long-term sustainability and potential socio-cultural impacts of local responses to climate change impacts. Those are relevant topics for which our classification system presents a supportive tool for in-depth understanding. Conclusion Our systematic literature review constitutes a first attempt to consolidate and structure the scattered findings from many case studies on IPLC local responses to climate change Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 8 impacts. The classification framework presented permits manifold analysis and comparisons of local responses within and between communities from different climates, world regions and with different natural resource dependent livelihoods, at local, regional and global levels. Our study shows that IPLC local responses to climate change are diverse, covering social, ecological and economic adjustments. Synthesizing such a wide range of local responses can help researchers, governments and other decision makers to understand the Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts diversity of activities undertaken by IPLC, which could be used as a platform for informing future policies that support bottom-up approaches. Supplementary Material Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material. Acknowledgments Research leading to this work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under grant agreement No 771056-LICCI-ERC-2017-COG. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Laboratory for the Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems in a Globalized world (LASEG), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Generalitat de Catalunya (2017-SGR-775). This work contributes to the “Maria de Maetzu” programme for Units of Excellence funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (CEX2019-000940-M). Special thanks to Isha Thapa, Vanesse Labeyrie, Faustine Ruggieri, Xiaoyue Li, David Garcia del Amo and Miquel Mallo for their contribution to substantially improve this manuscript. Anna Schlingmann thanks the researchers of the Instituto de Ecología Regional in Tucumán, Argentina, for their contribution to the classification of local adaptation in the agricultural system. We also thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions that helped to further improve the manuscript. References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts • of special interest •• of outstanding interest 1. National Research Council. America’s Climate Choices. The National Academies Press; 2011. 2. Core Writing Team. Pachauri, RK. Meyer, LA, editors. IPCC. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis ReportGeneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014. 151 3. Diaz, S, Settele, J, Brondízio, ES, Ngo, HT, Gueze, M, Agard, J, Arneth, A, Balvanera, P, Brauman, KA, Butchart, SHM, Chan, KMA. , et al., editors. IPBES. Globalassessment report of the Intergovernmental Science – Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat; 2019. 56 4. United Nations. Fourth State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York, USA: United Nations; 2019. 84 5. Galloway McLean, K. Advance Guard: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, Mitigation and Indigenous Peoples – A Compendium of Case Studies. Darwin, Australia: United Nations University; 2009. 121 6. Makondo CC, Thomas DSG. Climate change adaptation: linking indigenous knowledge with western science for effective adaptation. Environ Sci Policy. 2018; 88 :83–91. [•• In this study, the authors provide specific and contextualized evidence of indigenous knowledge linked to climate change adaptation with a focus on African traditional societies. The authors conclude that the Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 9 combination of ‘traditional or indigenous and scientific knowledge is potentially one of the surest ways to successful adaptation’.] 7. Hill R, Adem C, Alangui WV, Molnar Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengo M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, et al. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020; 43 :8–20. 8. Barnett J. Adapting to climate change: three key challenges for research and policy-an editorial Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts essay. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2010; 1 :314–317. 9. Forsyth T. Community-based adaptation: a review of past and future challenges. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2013; 4 :439–446. 10. Forsyth T, Evans N. What is autonomous adaption? Resource scarcity and smallholder agency in Thailand. World Dev. 2013; 43 :56–66. 11. Galappaththi EK, Ford JD, Bennett EM, Berkes F. Climate change and community fisheries in the arctic: a case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. J Environ Manage. 2019; 250 109534 [PubMed: 31526961] 12. Berman M, Baztan J, Kofinas G, Vanderlinden JP, Chouinard O, Huctin JM, Kane A, Maze C, Nikulkina I, Thomson K. Adaptation to climate change in coastal communities: findings from seven sites on four continents. Clim Change. 2020; 159 :1–16. [• This study analyses a set of parallel case studies in different climates and socio-ecological settings. By comparing climate change impacts and adaptation, the study found that informal and formal institutions play ‘a prominent role in achieving positive adaptation outcomes’ (p.13).] 13. Savo V, Morton C, Lepofsky D. Impacts of climate change for coastal fishers and implications for fisheries. Fish Fish. 2017; 18 :877–889. [•• This meta-analysis of 1898 records of climate change impacts observed by coastal subsistence-oriented fisher communities in 64 countries, and 1182 records of implemented adaptation strategies shows that fishers are not passively experiencing climate change. It concludes that adaptation by local communities can differ from those suggested by researchers and policymakers.] 14. Lebel L. Local knowledge and adaptation to climate change in natural resource-based societies of the Asia-Pacific. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2013; 18 :1057–1076. [• This review focusses on local knowledge contributions to climate change adaptation in the Asia-Pacific Region based on 42 studies. It summarizes common adaptation strategies based on indigenous and local knowledge, outlines sources of awareness of climate and climate change, and presents the strengths and Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts limitations of local knowledge for adaptation to climate change.] 15. Shaffril HAM, Ahmad N, Samsuddin SF, Samah AA, Hamdan ME. Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. J Clean Prod. 2020; 258 120595 16. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Bunce A, McKay C, Irwin M, Pearce T. The status of climate change adaptation in Africa and Asia. Reg Environ Change. 2015; 15 :801–814. 17. Jaakkola JJK, Juntunen S, Näkkalajärv¡ K. The holistic effects of climate change on the culture, well-being, and health of the saami, the only indigenous people in the European Union. Curr Environ Heal Rep. 2018; 5 :401–417. 18. Petzold J, Andrews N, Ford JD, Hedemann C, Postigo JC. Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: a global evidence map of academic literature. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 15 113007 [•• This scoping review is the first systematic global evidence map of indigenous knowledge in the climate change adaptation literature. It provides important insights on geographic clusters, the conceptualisation of indigenous knowledge, aspects of adaptation and ways in which indigenous knowledge is combined with scientific knowledge.] 19. Siders AR. Adaptive capacity to climate change: a synthesis of concepts, methods, and findings in a fragmented field. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2019; 10 :1–18. 20. Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J. 2020; 16 :1023–1042. 21. Berrang-Ford L, Pearce T, Ford JD. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg Environ Change. 2015; 15 :755–769. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 10 22. Travis WR. Going to extremes: propositions on the social response to severe climate change. Clim Change. 2010; 98 :1–19. 23. Field, CB, Barros, VR, Dokken, DJ, Mach, KJ, Mastrandrea, MD, Bilir, TE, Chatterjee, M, Ebi, KL, Estrada, YO, Genova, RC, Girma, B. , et al., editors. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014. [•• The Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts contribution of Working Group II to the 5th IPCC report is the most comprehensive compilation of recent research and knowledge on adaptation to climate change. It is a multi-level assessment of global climate change risks, impacts, opportunities, and constraints of adaptation for different sectors and geographic regions.] 24. Labbe J, Ford JD, Araos M, Flynn M. The government-led climate change adaptation landscape in Nunavut, Canada. Environ Rev. 2017; 25 :12–25. 25. Granderson AA. The role of traditional knowledge in building adaptive capacity for climate change: Perspectives from Vanuatu. Weather Clim Soc. 2017; 9 :545–561. 26. David-Chavez DM, Gavin MC. A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environ Res Lett. 2018; 13 123005 [•• This global systematic review analysis how environmental studies on climate change engage Indigenous communities. This evidence­ based analysis discloses a lack in studies that report on outputs that directly serve or benefit Indigenous communities, provide ethical guidelines for research practices or provide Indigenous communities access to research findings.] 27. McNamara KE, Buggy L. Community-based climate change adaptation: a review of academic literature. Local Environ. 2017; 22 :443–460. 28. Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM. A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob Environ Change. 2014; 25 :97–108. 29. Agrawal, A. The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate changePaper Prepared for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change; Social Development Department. The World Bank; Washington DC: Mar 5-6, 2008 30. Gomez-Baggethun E, Corbera E, Reyes-García V. Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecol Soc. 2013; 18 31. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Acad Sci USA. 2010; 107 :22026–22031. [PubMed: 21135232] 32. Smit B, Wandel J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change. 2006; 16 :282–292. 33. Thornton TF, Manasfi N. Adaptation–genuine and spurious: demystifying adaptation processes in relation to climate change. Environ Soc. 2010; 1 :132–155. 34. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Zeitschrift. 2006; 15 :259–263. 35. Iticha B, Husen A. Adaptation to climate change using indigenous weather forecasting systems in Borana pastoralists of southern Ethiopia. Clim Dev. 2019; 11 :564–573. 36. Tunde AM, Ajadi BS. Indigenous understanding of climate change, impacts and coping strategies in a rural setting of Kwara State, Nigeria. Geogr Environ Sustain. 2018; 11 :85–99. 37. Clark DG, Ford JD, Pearce T, Berrang-Ford L. Vulnerability to unintentional injuries associated with land-use activities and search and rescue in Nunavut, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 169 :18– 26. [PubMed: 27669121] 38. Rahman MH, Alam K. Forest dependent indigenous communities’ perception and adaptation to climate change through local knowledge in the protected area - a Bangladesh case study. Climate. 2016; 4 :12. 39. Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Benyei P, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Gravani K, Junqueira AB, Labeyrie V, Li X, Matias DM, McAlvay A, et al. A collaborative approach to bring insights from local observations of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2019; 39 :1–8. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 11 40. Savo V, Lepofsky D, Benner JP, Kohfeld KE, Bailey J, Lertzman K. Observations of climate change among subsistence-oriented communities around the world. Nat Clim Change. 2016; 6 462473 41. Piggott-McKellar AE, McNamara KE, Nunn PD, Watson JEM. What are the barriers to successful community-based climate change adaptation? A review of grey literature. Local Environ. 2019; 24 :374–390. 42. Forero EL, Hernandez YT, Zafra CA. Percepcion latinoamericana de cambio climatico: Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts metodologías, herramientas y estrategias de adaptatcion en comunidades locales. Una revision. Rev UDCA Actual Divulg Cientđ¡ca. 2014; 17 :73–85. 43. d’Armengol L, Prieto Castillo M, Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E. A systematic review of co-managed small-scale fisheries: social diversity and adaptive management improve outcomes. Global Environ Change. 2018; 52 :212–225. [• This article provides a systematic review of co-managed small­ scale fisheries. It applies an extended version of Ostrom’s framework for the analysis of social­ ecological systems to demonstrate the extent to which co-management has been ecologically effective and socially transformative at the local scale. In doing so, it also identifies potential best practices to enhance the performance of this type of policy regime when applied in small-scale fisheries.] 44. Nyong A, Adesina F, Osman Elasha B. The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2007; 12 :787–797. 45. Paterson B, Charles A. Community-based responses to climate hazards: typology and global analysis. Clim Change. 2019; 152 :327–343. 46. Smit B, Skinner MW. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2002; 7 :85–114. 47. Ricciardi V, Ramankutty N, Mehrabi Z, Jarvis L, Chookolingo B. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Glob Food Sec. 2018; 17 :64–72. 48. Samberg LH, Gerber JS, Ramankutty N, Herrero M, West PC. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ Res Lett. 2016; 11 124010 49. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Power B, Bogard JR, Remans R, Fritz S, Gerber JS, Nelson G, See L, Waha K, et al. Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet Heal. 2017; 1 :e33–e42. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts 50. Klock C, Nunn PD. Adaptation to climate change in small island developing states: a systematic literature review of academic research. J Environ Dev. 2019; 28 :196–218. 51. Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J. Are we adapting to climate change? Glob Environ Change. 2011; 21 :25–33. [• This paper is a meta-analysis of 1741 documents on global adaptation to climate change. By systematically classifying, inter alia, the adaptation stimulus, actor or system, sector, stakeholder involvement, region, type and primary goal, this paper provides a comprehensive picture of who adapts, how and where.] 52. Hiwasaki L, Syamsidik Luna E, Marçal JA. Local and indigenous knowledge on climate-related hazards of coastal and small island communities in Southeast Asia. Clim Change. 2015; 128 :35–56. 53. Ford JD, Smit B, Wandel J, MacDonald J. Vulnerability to climate change in Igloolik, Nunavut: what we can learn from the past and present. Polar Rec. 2006; 42 :127–138. 54. Joa B, Winkel G, Primmer E. The unknown known – a review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy. 2018; 79 :520–530. 55. Adger WN. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr. 2003; 79 :387–404. [•• This work analyses, conceptualizes and discusses the importance and wealth of social capital at the individual and institutional level, and presents the resulting implications for environmental risks and adaptation to climate change. The theoretical discussion is enriched by case studies from South-Asia and the Caribbean.] 56. Petzold J, Ratter BMW. Climate change adaptation under a social capital approach - an analytical framework for small islands. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015; 112 :36–43. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 12 57. Dedeurwaerdere T, Hannachi M. Socio-economic drivers of coexistence of landraces and modern crop varieties in agro-biodiversity rich Yunnan rice fields. Ecol Econ. 2019; 159 :177–188. 58. Emmanuel D, Owusu-Sekyere E, Owusu V, Jordaan H. Impact of agricultural extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: implications for rice productivity and development in Ghana. NJAS - Wageningen J Life Sci. 2016; 79 :41–49. 59. Naess LO. The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2013; 4 :99–106. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts 60. Baloch MA, Thapa GB. The effect of agricultural extension services: Date farmers’ case in Balochistan, Pakistan. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci. 2018; 17 :282–289. 61. Rotz S, Fraser EDG. Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. J Environ Stud Sci. 2015; 5 :459–473. 62. Antwi-Agyei P, Dougill AJ, Stringer LC, Codjoe SNA. Adaptation opportunities and maladaptive outcomes in climate vulnerability hotspots of northern Ghana. Clim Risk Manag. 2018; 19 :83–93. [• Based on a case study in northern Ghana, this study investigates climatic and non-climatic drivers of coping and adaptation and the positive and negative outcomes of these actions. The study shows that many coping and adaptation measures result in maladaptive outcomes with implications for future vulnerability.] 63. Adger WN, Barnett J, Brown K, Marshall N, O’Brien K. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat Clim Change. 2013; 3 :112–117. 64. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change. 2005; 15 :77–86. 65. Seo SN, Mendelsohn R. An analysis of crop choice: adapting to climate change in South American farms. Ecol Econ. 2008; 67 :109–116. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 13 Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Figure 1. Global distribution of case studies found in the literature across different main climates according to the Köppen-Geiger classification [34]. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 14 Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Figure 2. Diagram of the classification and coding system. Note that some strategies of the response type ‘Natural ecosystems (incl. biodiversity conservation)’ are qualitative, and some are quantitative. For the definitions of each response sector, domain and type see Table SM9. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 15 Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Figure 3. Frequency of local climate change responses across climate zones (a), according to the response sector (b), the response domain (c), and the response type (d). Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 16 Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Figure 4. Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Frequency of local climate change responses across different response sectors (a), according to the response domain (b) and the response type (c). Sectors: cultivation (CU), livestock husbandry (LS), fishing (FI), hunting/gathering (HG), aquaculture (AQ) and other activities (OA). Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20. Schlingmann et al. Page 17 Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Figure 5. Frequency of local climate change responses across world regions (a), according to the response sector (b), the response domain (c), and the response type (d). For the definitions of each world region see Table SM7. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 August 20.