1 Introduction
Climate change is affecting the world at an unprecedented pace and intensity. Climate-related hazards, such as extreme heat, flooding, and drought, are occurring with increasing frequency and posing severe threats to human settlements
[1]. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formally introduced adaptation strategies in 1990
[2], the international community has increasingly recognized the urgency of adapting to climate change.
In recent years, substantial progress has been made globally in climate adaptation policy formulation and theoretical studies. At the policy level, from the Cancun Agreements to the Paris Agreement, climate adaptation has gained increasing priority and become progressively institutionalized. Governments worldwide have accelerated the development of climate adaptation policies to address a wide range of sectors, including urban infrastructure, water resource management, ecosystem conservation, agricultural security, and public health. Specifically, China issued a series of climate adaptation policy documents, such as the
National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2035, explicitly emphasizing the need to strengthen the climate adaptability of the built environment
[3]. Simultaneously, extensive research advances have been achieved in fields of cities and built environments, climate risk and disaster management, etc.
[4], providing robust theoretical and methodological support for policy formulation and practical action. However, existing studies tend to focus on specific domains, such as spatial planning
[5], urban water management
[6], and summaries of global policy instruments
[7], while relatively few studies have systematically examined the degree of alignment between climate adaptation policies and studies.
To some extent, academic studies are shaped by policy agendas, and both ultimately aim to serve societal needs
[8–
9]. Scientific studies play a crucial role in informing governmental decision-making; however, research agendas do not always align with the most urgent policy demands, particularly in complex domains, including environmental governance
[10]. Consequently, understanding the potential misalignment between climate adaptation studies and policy concerns is essential for narrowing the gap between knowledge production and policy action and enhancing the effectiveness of climate adaptation initiatives for built environments. This study focused on the core question of whether the key concerns of climate adaptation policies and studies are aligned. This study developed an analytical framework to assess the degree of policy–research among the core concerns, thereby identifying opportunities for optimizing both research contents and policy-making. Specifically, this study aimed to 1) trace the evolutionary trajectories and core concerns of global climate adaptation policies and studies across different stages, 2) construct a framework to evaluate the degree of policy–research alignment within core concerns, and 3) propose strategies and recommendations for academia and governments to advance future climate adaptation efforts. Moreover, due to China’s large population and its geographical vulnerability to climate change impacts, this study also examines the similarities and differences between Chinese- and English-language climate adaptation policies and studies, seeking to offer a practical reference for climate adaptation actions in Global South countries like China.
2 Research Framework and Methods
2.1 Climate Adaptation: Definition and Characteristics
In its climate assessment reports, IPCC defines climate adaptation as “in human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effects”
[11]. This definition emphasizes proactive adjustments in response to both existing and anticipated climate change and extreme weather events. This study conducted sample selection and textual analysis based on this conceptualization and the key characteristics of climate adaptation.
2.2 Sample Collection
For policy samples, this study focused on whether climate adaptation-related content in policy documents conforms to the comprehensive definition of a policy framework, that is, whether it includes clearly articulated objectives, guiding principles, action plans, and policy instruments
[12]. Using 1990 as the starting point, a screening process was conducted, resulting in the selection of 45 policy documents by national governments, including China, the United Kingdom, and Japan, and international organizations such as the IPCC (Table 1), with the issued year spanning from 2007 to 2024. This study also identified the years of key milestone events—namely the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
[13] and the Bali Road Map
[14] in 2007, the Cancun Agreements in 2010
[15], and the Paris Agreement in 2015
[16]—as the years for dividing the three evolution stages of climate adaptation policies.
English-language studies were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, while Chinese-language studies were collected from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), including journals indexed by the database of Core Journal of China, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), and the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). The search keywords included “climate adaptation” (气候适应), “climate adaptability”/“climate adaptiveness” (气候适应性), and “climate adaptive”/“climate-adaptive”(气候适应型). The disciplinary scope was limited to Area Studies, Regional and Urban Planning, Urban Studies, and Environmental Sciences. Preliminary searches and relevance screening indicated that studies closely related with the urban, regional, and environmental topics began to emerge primarily after 2004. Accordingly, the search period was defined as January 1, 2004, to July 1, 2024. Subsequently, a manual screening process was conducted to retain studies on planning and design, engineering technologies, territorial and landscape conservation, ecological restoration, and historical and heritage conservation. It is worth noting that during manual screening, the term “适应” (response) used in early Chinese studies (in 2004 and 2005) was found to differ conceptually from “adaptation” as defined in this study, thus excluding such literature. After deduplication and final verification, 1,967 publications were retained, including 1,589 English articles and 378 Chinese articles.
For the literature content analysis, CiteSpace (version 6.3. R3) was used to quantify publications and keyword frequencies. Keyword clustering and timeline analyses were conducted using the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) algorithm to delineate developmental stages and identify core concern domains. Subsequently, the top 5% of the most cited publications in each cluster were manually reviewed in depth, with particular attention given to influential seminal studies and recent research advances. The results indicate that the clustering quality was robust for both English and Chinese studies. Specifically, the modularity value (Q) for English studies was 0.768, with an average silhouette score (S) of 0.891, while the corresponding values for Chinese studies were 0.930 (Q) and 0.978 (S), respectively, suggesting statistically significant and well-structured clustering outcomes.
2.3 Alignment: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Assessment Indicators
“Alignment” is defined as the degree to which the missions, objectives, and plans of two related elements or systems mutually support each other
[17], that is, the extent to which they correspond in terms of objectives and action arrangements. Based on this definition, alignment in this study refers to the degree to which academic studies correspond with core policy concern domains in terms of overall attention, adaptation targets, adaptation actions, and adaptation scales. To ensure the objectivity and rigor of the alignment assessment, this study follows the “key questions–sub-questions–assessment parameters” evaluation logic proposed by Elisabeth Conrad et al.
[18]. Accordingly, an alignment assessment framework was constructed (Table 2), which consists of three components—primary dimensions, sub-dimensions, and assessment indicators—and includes four main dimensions: level of attention, adaptation target, adaptation action, and adaptation scale, with specific sub-dimensions accordingly. Alignment was assessed through a procedure from sub-dimensions to primary dimensions, and finally to overall alignment degree. To balance coverage and comparability, the number and proportion of studies corresponding to each sub-dimension were used as assessment indicators and were classified into low, medium, and high levels using the natural breaks method. The average degree of every sub-dimension was calculated to determine the alignment of the corresponding primary dimension and subsequently aggregated to derive overall alignment degree.
3 Climate Adaptation Policies and Studies: Evolution and Core Concern Domains
3.1 Climate Adaptation Policies: Evolution and Core Concern Domains
3.1.1 Policy Evolution
The characteristics of climate adaptation policy development across the different stages were examined. In total, contemporary climate adaptation policies are characterized by multi-sectoral coverage, multi-level collaboration, regular monitoring, dynamic adjustment, and international cooperation. In terms of core concern domains, based on high-frequency themes identified in policy documents and classification schemes commonly adopted in academia
[19], 11 major domains were identified: water resource management, ecosystems and biodiversity, coastal areas, agriculture, forestry, health and well-being, fisheries, infrastructure, cities and built environments, climate risk and disaster management, and energy. Together, these domains constitute a diverse and coexisting policy concern landscape. In terms of institutional arrangements, climate adaptation policies increasingly emphasize implementation through legal instruments and regulatory frameworks to ensure effectiveness and accountability
[20]. In terms of governance and cooperation, policy actions span multiple levels, ranging from global, regional, city to community scales as well as individual actors. Compared with the overall characteristics in developed countries, adaptation policy systems in Global South countries, including China, remain relatively weak in planning enforceability and legal support, and in institutionalizing or translating supporting mechanisms into operational pathways.
3.1.2 Core Concern Domains
Among the 11 core concern domains, six were selected for in-depth analysis based on their relevance to spatial form, natural ecosystems, and human needs. Domains of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, infrastructure, and energy were not included in the detailed analysis, as related policy measures are largely concentrated on engineering and technical aspects, such as transportation, communication, and breeding technologies.
Analyses revealed that the adaptation targets and actions across different domains shared several common characteristics (Table 3). First, an increasingly pronounced ecological orientation is observed. A growing number of organizations recognize that adaptation is not merely a short-term response but also a long-term process, for which no-regret measures centered on NbS are particularly effective in addressing sustained adaptation needs
[21]. Second, climate adaptation and risk assessment are being progressively integrated into spatial planning systems
[22], reflecting a shift toward a proactive and preventive approach
[23]. For example, Germany has incorporated climate risk maps into spatial and territorial planning, restricting development in high-risk areas and adjusting population distribution away from vulnerable regions
[22]. In addition, a stronger human-centered orientation has emerged among the policies, with increasing attention paid to the impact of climate risks (e.g., heatwaves) on human health
[24]. Countries, such as Canada, have proposed targeted measures to enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and integrated indigenous and local knowledge through public participation mechanisms, thereby improving social equity and inclusiveness of adaptation policies
[25].
3.2 Climate Adaptation Studies: Evolution and Hotspots
3.2.1 Research Evolution
English-language literature on climate adaptation have begun to diversify research themes since 2010 (Fig. 1-1). Then by 2016, the extent of research topics and volume of publications increased significantly. Accordingly, the evolution of English studies can be divided into three distinct stages. Similarly, the developmental trajectory of Chinese studies during the past two decades can be broadly classified into three stages: from around 2010 onwards, research topics gradually diversified (Fig. 1-2), and after 2018, research themes expanded further, accompanied by a substantial increase in publication output (Fig. 2).
3.2.2 Research Hotspots
Based on the analysis of high-frequency keywords and clustering results generated by CiteSpace (Fig. 3), global climate adaptation studies exhibited a high degree of consistency in their core themes. Studies have largely focused on the optimization of policy and governance systems, as reflected in clusters, such as “adaptive policies” and “政策机制” (policy mechanism), as well as on spatial planning and design strategies, including clusters related to “green infrastructure” and “国土空间规划” (territorial spatial planning). Current research hotspots can be summarized into four main areas: 1) optimization of climate adaptation governance systems; 2) adaptive strategies for extreme weather events; 3) urban climate adaptation governance aimed at enhancing resilience; and 4) outdoor thermal comfort. Although emerging topics, such as climate justice (e.g., de-climate gentrification) and climate risks to cultural heritage (e.g., conservation of historic buildings), have gained increasing attention in recent years, their overall study volume remains relatively limited.
Overall, climate adaptation studies have continued to expand and deepen by engaging with policy and governance mechanisms, incorporating ecological measures, embedding adaptation considerations in spatial planning and design, responding to human-centered needs, and increasingly addressing multisystem coupled adaptation. These developments have contributed to advancements in climate adaptation actions. In comparison, English studies have expanded extensively into areas of social equity, public health, ecosystem services, etc., demonstrating a greater diversity of perspectives and stronger interdisciplinary integration. In contrast, Chinese studies still require further strengthening of adaptation studies related to natural ecosystems and human well-being, particularly regarding the development of localized climate adaptation strategies grounded in local environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
4 Alignment Analysis of Core Concern Domains Between Policies and Studies
4.1 Temporal Analysis of Core Concern Domains in Policies and Studies
A comparative analysis of the historical trajectories of climate adaptation policies and studies identified key temporal milestones, clarified thematic similarities and differences, and examined evolving interaction patterns, thereby revealing the dynamic relationship between them. Furthermore, the temporal comparison indicates that the development of policies and studies are characterized by synchronized turning points, increasing thematic convergence, and evolving interaction patterns. Although policies and studies have adopted different criteria for stage division, both identified 2010 as their critical year. In addition, the enactment of the Paris Agreement in 2016 coincided with a major growth observed in English studies since the same year. This temporal correspondence confirms an underlying linkage between the policy evolution and academic studies. Accordingly, 2010 and 2016 can be regarded as milestone years of the development of climate adaptation policies and studies.
In the early stages, academic studies led policy development, providing conceptual foundations and signaling emerging adaptation needs. As policy frameworks matured, their guiding influence on research strengthened, resulting in increasingly evident positive interactions and enhanced alignment. The policy–research alignment was particularly evident in urban adaptation planning, where policies prioritized cities and infrastructure, while studies addressed specific issues, such as land-use optimization. However, a comparative analysis revealed that the efficiency and depth of coordination and feedback remain limited. For instance, discussions on maladaptation and climate justice often face difficulties in effectively translating into policy practices across different political contexts. Since 2016, predominantly positive interaction and bidirectional feedback between policies and studies further increased their alignment. Studies proactively aligned with policy demands, using policy agendas as drivers for study topics and impact objectives, contributing to continuous policy improvement by evaluating policy quality, verifying implementation outcomes, and identifying policy barriers. Policies, in turn, have increasingly incorporated scientific findings, translating frontier theories into practical operational tools.
4.2 Alignment Analysis
4.2.1 Overall Overview
To assess the alignment across the six core concern domains, this study applied the alignment assessment framework and used R 4.4.2 to extract keywords from article abstracts for literature classification, followed by the calculation of multi-dimensional assessment indicators (Table 3). The results showed that 85.7% of the global studies address one or more policy core concern domains. In total, notable differences existed in the comprehensive alignment across the domains. Alignment is relatively high in the domains of cities and built environments, climate risk and disaster management, and water resource management; moderate in coastal areas and health and well-being; and comparatively low in ecosystems and biodiversity. Specifically, the alignment, in regard to adaptation targets, is generally strong across domains, and is relatively high in adaptation actions. In terms of spatial scale, most studies have focused on the city scale, followed by community and regional scales, whereas global and national scales are the least represented. In regard to the temporal scale, relatively few studies have incorporated future scenario simulations, indicating a limited capacity to address uncertainties associated with future climate change.
4.2.2 High-alignment Domains
(1) Cities and built environments
Climate adaptation policies in this domain have increasingly adopted an ecological orientation, advocating the development of interconnected, eco-based infrastructures and the enhancement of urban adaptive capacity through no-regret measures. Academic efforts have responded actively to these policy directions, generating substantial findings. For example, some studies have elucidated the interaction mechanisms between climate and urban systems, exploring the relationships between urban spatial structure, land use, and climatic processes
[26]. Other studies have applied frameworks, such as the IPCC adaptation indicator system, Pressure-State-Response model
[27], and Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index
[28] to comprehensively assess urban adaptive capacity. In addition, urban spatial zoning and management frameworks have been proposed to reshape land-use structures and promote the development of blue–green infrastructure
[29]. Overall, alignment regarding adaptation targets and actions in this domain is moderate, with study efforts largely concentrated on governance and institutional aspects, whereas empirical spatial practice cases remain relatively limited. Alignment in terms of adaptation scale was also insufficient, indicating the need for further studies at the regional scale, such as urban agglomerations and metropolitans, as well as for enhanced simulation and early warning of future climate risks.
(2) Climate risk and disaster management
Climate adaptation policies in this domain generally emphasize the establishment of end-to-end frameworks covering the entire process, from early warning to response. Correspondingly, studies have developed systematic climate risk adaptation processes encompassing three monitoring and evaluation stages: risk and vulnerability assessment, selection of adaptation measures, and assessment of adaptation actions. Among the various risk types, water-related risks have received the most attention, particularly extreme precipitation-induced flooding and sea-level rise. Related studies have employed multitemporal and multi-scenario simulations to reveal potential risks arising from climate uncertainty
[30]. Extreme heatwaves constitute another major study focus, with proposed adaptation measures, including the establishment of heat warning and response systems
[31] and adjustments to the urban spatial structure
[32]. At the microscale, studies have increasingly examined outdoor thermal comfort and recommended measures such as using linear green spaces aligned with prevailing wind directions
[33], deploying appropriate vegetation types and water bodies
[34], and regulating building orientation and layout
[35]. Although the comprehensive and dimension-specific alignments in this domain were relatively strong, further studies are required to address compound disaster risks and to improve the evaluation and monitoring of adaptation measures.
(3) Water resource management
Climate adaptation policies in this domain emphasize the integrated consideration of natural and social water systems to ensure the safety, quality, and sustainable supply of water resources. Studies have contributed to the development of innovative approaches and technologies, including low-impact development (LID) practices
[36], green infrastructure, and sustainable drainage systems
[37]. These advances have also supported institutional transitions toward decentralized management and stakeholder participation in decision-making processes
[38–
39], responding to governance challenges associated with droughts, floods, and other water-related risks in major river basins, such as Mekong River and Yellow River
[40–
41]. Generally, the comprehensive alignment of this domain was strong. Future studies could further enhance the alignment with respect to adaptation targets in water supply systems by strengthening the integration of disciplines (e.g., landscape planning and water supply and drainage engineering) and applying NbS to ensure water quality and security of water supply under extreme weather conditions.
4.2.3 Medium-alignment Domains
(1) Coastal areas
Climate adaptation policies in coastal areas emphasize responses to sea-level rise and other coastal hazards through measures, such as coastal protection infrastructure and ecosystem restoration, with the objective of ensuring the ecological, social, and economic sustainability of coastal regions. Compared with water resource management, this domain places a greater emphasis on the adaptive capacity of coastal populations and socioeconomic systems. Existing studies have largely focused on managed retreat planning
[42]. Commonly adopted approaches include dynamic adaptive policy pathways
[43], backcasting
[44], multi-criteria analysis
[45], and contextualized analyses that integrate future climate simulations and public participation
[46]. However, with respect to the alignment of adaptation targets and actions, ecosystem-related issues remain relatively underrepresented. Future studies should strengthen the exploration of coastal ecosystems and promote the development of integrated grey–blue–green protection systems. In terms of spatial scale, studies in this domain are predominantly concentrated at the city scale, particularly in economically developed coastal cities. Vulnerable villages and community-level contexts have received limited attention, requiring further efforts.
(2) Health and well-being
Policies in the domain of health and well-being emphasize strengthening the adaptation capacity of healthcare systems, vulnerable regions, and population groups to the health impacts of climate change, including air pollution, vector-borne diseases, and mental health risks. However, existing studies have predominantly focused on heat stress
[47], whereas other areas remain comparatively underdeveloped, particularly studies on vector-borne disease transmission
[48] and spatial configuration of healthcare facilities. Notably, in terms of the level of attention, the alignment in this domain is relatively weak, as reflected by the limited volume of relevant literature. Regarding the adaptation actions, further exploration is needed for the application of scientific data in disease surveillance, prevention, and early warning systems. In terms of adaptation scale, a greater emphasis on fine-grained, small-scale analyses is required to ensure that adaptation measures effectively benefit individuals.
4.2.4 Low-alignment Domain
This study identified ecosystems and biodiversity as the only domains characterized by low alignment. Although the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) has explicitly stated that “solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises are intertwined,”
[49] alignment in this domain remains the weakest. Climate adaptation policies generally emphasize expanding the ecosystem extent and enhancing ecosystem resilience
[3,
50], as well as conserving species habitats to maintain biodiversity. In contrast, existing studies have largely concentrated on urban ecosystems, focusing on enhancing adaptive capacity through NbS, such as rain gardens, green roofs, and urban parks
[51]. Studies addressing natural ecosystems are relatively limited, particularly those focusing on biodiversity. Existing studies have approached biodiversity adaptation from various perspectives, including ecosystem restoration, ecological network development, the establishment of protected areas, adaptive capacity analysis of focal species
[52], and improvements in habitat quality. Emerging concepts, such as “climate connectivity,” have also provided new analytical tools for biodiversity adaptation studies
[53]. However, the number of such studies remains insufficient to form a robust scientific basis and provide actionable guidance for policy implementation. In terms of adaptation scale, predictive and simulation-based studies on the future trajectories of natural ecosystems are also limited, constraining the ability of existing studies to effectively support policy demands for sustainable adaptation.
5 Implications
In total, the alignment analysis revealed that the current research landscape is characterized by imbalances in research focus and weak coverage of spatio-temporal scales, limiting its capacity to meet policy demands for full-chain implementation, long-term planning, and sustainable actions. Accordingly, the high-, medium-, and low-alignment domains are discussed, with the aim of providing critical reflections and insights for future climate adaptation efforts.
5.1 High-alignment Domains
Benefiting from ample financial support and lower disciplinary barriers, the domains of cities and built environments, climate risk and disaster management, and water resource management exhibit relatively high levels of alignment, achieving mature technical approaches and a substantial body of studies. However, the high overall alignment between policies and studies should not be regarded as the sole or unequivocally ideal objective
[54]. On the one hand, policy agendas may lag behind rapidly evolving climate realities, such that research narrowly responding to existing policies risks losing forward-looking capacity and academic value. On the other hand, high alignment may result from uneven resource allocation of academic investment, coming at the expense of ignoring other critical issues. For example, within the domain of cities and built environments, 59.1% of the studies focus on governance frameworks, whereas the development and application of smart technologies account for only 1.4%. Moreover, most such studies rely on case-based approaches and exhibit homogeneity in research topics, methods, and outcomes, which may lead to path dependence in the long term
[55]. Therefore, future efforts should promote a shift from “general alignment” toward “quality alignment.” This entails reallocating research resources to address key challenges; developing practical decision-support models, indicators, and policy tools; and strengthening knowledge translation by validating their feasibility in economic and engineering practice contexts.
5.2 Medium- and Low-alignment Domains
Owing to the combined effects of multiple factors, medium- and low-alignment domains (i.e., coastal areas, health and well-being, ecosystems and biodiversity) exhibited both generally weak alignment and imbalanced development across sub-topics. First, the highly interdisciplinary nature and strong multisystem coupling of these domains substantially increase the research thresholds and integration complexity
[56]. For example, studies on health and well-being require the integration of disciplines such as spatial planning, psychology, and medicine, resulting in disciplinary barriers that enlarge the delays and fragmentation in knowledge production. Second, limitations in methodological operability and data availability are critical bottlenecks. For instance, studies on ecosystem services that rely on relatively straightforward methods account for 48.4% of the total, whereas biodiversity-focused research that requires advanced interdisciplinary knowledge and technical capacity accounts for only 17.0%. Specifically, research progress in coastal areas is constrained by the complexity of sea-level rise modeling; health-related studies are often limited by ethical considerations that restrict data access
[57]; and biodiversity studies face persistent data scarcity owing to the high costs of long-term monitoring
[58]. Finally, limited academic resources tend to be prioritized for domains with immediate visible risks
[59], whereas medium- and low-alignment domains often involve long-term and latent risks, such as ecosystem degradation and potential health threats. This dynamic contributes to insufficient attention and uneven investments. The
Fourth Review of the Adaptation Fund reports that disaster risk-related sectors receive the highest levels of funding, whereas the forestry sector receives the least, with an approximate thirtyfold difference between the two
[60]. Nevertheless, these challenges also have substantial potential, as cross-sectoral and cross-system approaches can generate synergistic benefits. For example, coastal protection strategies can integrate grey–blue–green infrastructure to jointly address ecological and social adaptation needs; for ecosystems, the development of climate-adaptive ecological networks can provide a foundation for species persistence and water and coastal protection.
5.3 From Outcome Alignment to Mechanism Alignment
The analysis indicates that the policy–research misalignment is not merely in content, but rather the result of the combined influence of internal and external mechanisms. This implies that the effectiveness of future climate adaptation efforts depends on fundamental improvements at the mechanism level. Knowledge co-production systems that emphasize dynamic interaction and iterative optimization have been widely validated as effective
[61–
62] and can serve as a core strategy for bridging the policy–research gap in the field of climate adaptation.
1) Optimizing policy–research bidirectional feedback mechanisms. Establishing sustained, in-depth dialogue platforms between policymakers and researchers is essential for embedding bidirectional feedback into the process of knowledge production and policy application. Regular policy briefings and study dissemination sessions should be institutionalized, and policymakers should be engaged at the early stages of major study initiatives to jointly clarify policy needs and priorities. At the same time, boundary organizations, such as scientific advisory bodies, should be introduced to act as “translators,” distilling complex research findings into accessible policy-relevant conclusions. For example, uncertainties in climate modeling can be translated into multiple policy options to support flexible decision-making
[62]. The policy-formulation process should similarly incorporate feedback mechanisms, whereby insights from pilot projects, monitoring efforts, and evaluation reports can in turn inform research agendas. This iteration allows for the continuous recalibration of research directions and fosters a virtuous cycle from knowledge generation to real actions.
2) Promoting interdisciplinary collaborative and exchange mechanisms. To address the systemic nature of climate adaptation, it is necessary to break down disciplinary barriers and establish mechanisms for interdisciplinary collaboration, as well as data and technology sharing. Experiences from initiatives, such as the EU’s Climate-KIC and the USA’s NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Climate Data Portal, provide useful references for developing interdisciplinary open-data platforms and shared standards, thereby facilitating collaboration between research institutions, academia, and industry. Also, priority should be given to addressing crosscutting challenges among the domains or developing shared technical approaches
[54,
63]. Examples include integrating machine learning with remote-sensing technologies, standardizing interdisciplinary research paradigms, promoting NbS across multiple spatial scales to achieve synergistic benefits, and developing tools for future climate scenario simulations.
3) Enhancing coordinated support through resource allocation and governance mechanisms. First, funding distribution should address existing imbalances. Priority should be given to domains that face urgent real-world challenges and strong policy demands but exhibit insufficient alignment (e.g., ecosystems and biodiversity), as well as to high-value but underrepresented areas (e.g., climate justice). At the governance level, reforms in research evaluation systems can increase the recognition of policy relevance and societal impact
[62], thereby incentivizing studies that address critical and complex challenges. On the policy side, the establishment of binding regulatory instruments, regular monitoring requirements, and adaptive management tools can strengthen implementation; government performance evaluation systems can be improved by incorporating climate adaptation effectiveness indicators (e.g., economic loss avoidance), to quantify policy outcomes
[62].
6 Conclusions
This study systematically reviewed and comparatively analyzed the evolution of global climate adaptation policies and studies over the past two decades, focusing on their core concern domains. By constructing an alignment assessment framework, this study examined the interaction patterns between policies and studies and evaluated the degree of alignment across different domains. The results indicate that the alignment between the two is relatively strong; however, the alignment with respect to spatio-temporal scales remains generally insufficient. Significant disparities in alignment were observed across domains, and the alignment in adaptation target and action varied by field. Domains, such as cities and infrastructure, climate risk and disaster management, and water resource management, exhibited relatively high alignment, whereas ecosystems and biodiversity lagged behind. Based on these findings, this study reflects on the potential risks associated with high-alignment domains (including diminished forward-looking capacity and path dependence) and analyzes the underlying causes of weak alignment in medium- and low-alignment domains (including high barriers to interdisciplinary integration, limited methodological operability, constraints on data availability, and long-term imbalances in resource allocation). Then, this study proposes three strategies for shifting from outcome alignment to mechanism alignment: 1) optimizing policy–research bidirectional feedback mechanisms, 2) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and exchange mechanisms, and 3) enhancing coordinated support through resource allocation and governance mechanisms. Together, these recommendations offer insights and guidance for the future development of climate adaptation policies and studies.
However, this study has several limitations. First, the analysis focused primarily on international and national-level climate adaptation policies, and the potential influence of variations in regional and community policies on these findings requires further examination. Second, the analysis concentrates on major and frequently discussed domains, whereas underrepresented areas, such as climate justice and cultural heritage, despite their importance in advancing climate adaptation theory, require deeper investigation. Finally, the literature sample was limited to Chinese- and English-language publications, thus future studies could extend to multilingual sources to enhance the applicability and theoretical depth of the findings.
PDF
(2294KB)
