Adapting, adaptation, adaptedness—all, according to Merriam-Webster’s, mean change to better match present or future circumstances. Adaptation can mean adjusting to environmental conditions to avoid negative impacts or to embrace positive consequences of change. This is what I mean, too, when I think about climate change adaptation and the Adaptation Network. By looking at present and likely future environmental conditions, we can see that climate is changing. As humans we know what it means to have our natural environment change and to be able to prepare for it through changes in our built environment: we know that the seasons will cause us to need a variety of clothes and housing because winter is colder and summer is warmer. Change, then, can and does affect us in both our natural environment and in our built or human environment.

Adaptations we make to climatic change need to be aimed at making systems more resilient and healthy now and in the long run. Resilient, healthy systems can better withstand perturbations of all types than systems that are unbalanced or at the edge of their survival. Making a system more resilient could mean reducing pressures that are already stressing the system. It could mean providing greenways and migration routes for plants and animals that need to move to better match the environment that is best for them. It could mean restoring natural floodways to allow the natural system to better protect the built environment. It could mean investing in long-term projects that reduce vulnerability (of people, infrastructure, or even investments) rather than increasing it. It could mean investing in educating the public to increase their awareness and availability of more environmentally friendly choices and options open to them. In short, adaptation action can vary greatly from on location to another. That is also why adaptation may require a significant level of planning and feedback prior to and following implementation.

When making a decision to adapt to some future climatic condition, it would be unwise to make that decision based on any extremely specific projected value or future date. Rather the answer might be looking at the trends that the models are suggesting along with the trends that are beginning to show themselves. Trends will continue for generations—even if mitigation is extremely successful—so we must plan accordingly. So for decision-making, trends are one important factor. Another is vulnerability. Mapping projected and observed trends with already identified vulnerabilities will give some indications of where one might consider starting to think about developing adaptation options—at any level.

Levels of adaptation decision-making are many. Homeowners may, for example, decide to plant not the traditional horticultural choices but instead choose options that grow more readily in the new/projected environment. They may work with other citizens in a town to develop neighborhood resiliency plans. Cities and towns may look at areas of present vulnerability--for example, where it always floods during heavy rains, and make changes to the drainage of particular locations because they have learned that the problem will likely increase or become more frequent. States or regions may look to changes in laws or regulations that could for example, make developing long-term reservoir plans and systems work differently. National governments may support adaptation by offering grants to develop local models aimed at supporting choices of local decision-makers. So a variety of levels of decision-makers can make adaptation decisions.

There are many approaches to planning or choosing adaptive activities and all have their appropriate place in a planning repertoire. Vulnerability assessments are probably well known and were mentioned above. Others are scenario building, hazard planning, and what ifs/how much (would have to happen to see a particular negative impact or reach a threshold). When deciding to make adaptation to climate changes, we need to be cognizant of not choosing an adaptation just because it is easy now if in fact it could make the problem worse in the long run. It is important to consider consistency in any short-term decisions with the longer-term perspective of adaptation and reducing the vulnerability or building the resilience of society or the natural environment. It would be a waste of money and time to make adaptations to immediate problems that do not translate into long-term solutions. In fact all adaptive actions should probably be in the win-win-win category. By that I mean that it is a benefit now, a benefit in the future, and could still be a benefit whether the climate changes as projected or we are surprised.