Climate Policy and Green Economy Journal

Review

Innovation for Climate Change Adaptation: A Meta-Analysis

Downloads

https://doi.org/10.54963/cpgej.v1i1.2424
Woime, A. W., & Dilebo, W. A. (2025). Innovation for Climate Change Adaptation: A Meta-Analysis. Climate Policy and Green Economy Journal, 1(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.54963/cpgej.v1i1.2424
Volume 1 Issue 1 (2025)
Copyright (c) 2025 Ashenafi Woldemichael Woime, Woinshet Ayantu Dilebo
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

License

Climate Policy and Green Economy Journal (CPGEJ)  publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by Climate Policy and Green Economy Journal (CPGEJ) agree to have the CC BY 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for any purpose, including commercial use. As long as the author and original source is properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute, reuse and transform the content.

Authors

  • Ashenafi Woldemichael Woime

    Department of Environmental Health, Hossana College of Health Sciences, Hossana P.O. Box 159, Ethiopia
  • Woinshet Ayantu Dilebo

    Department of Innovation and Technology Management, Adama Science and Technology University, Adama P.O. Box 1888, Ethiopia
    College of Engineering and Technology, Wachemo University, Hossana P.O. Box 667, Ethiopia

Received: 7 June 2025; Revised: 12 August 2025; Accepted: 15 August 2025; Published: 14 September 2025

Addressing climate change requires embedding innovative approaches to overcome the growing “adaptation deficit.” However, evidence on the effectiveness, scalability, and equity of different types of innovation remains fragmented. This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of 418 peer-reviewed studies (2010–2023) conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 protocols. We synthesize global evidence to: (1) assess the comparative effectiveness of technological, institutional, behavioral, and ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) innovations; (2) identify contextual moderators of success; and (3) evaluate equity outcomes using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Random-effects meta-analysis reveals that hybrid approaches combining institutional and behavioral components significantly outperform technological solutions, yielding higher resilience outcomes (Hedges’ g = 1.24, 95% CI [1.07–1.41]), with a 39% improvement (p < 0.001). EbA innovations are the most cost-effective, at $127 per resilience unit compared to $412 for technological interventions, yet remain critically underfunded. Innovation effectiveness is highly context-dependent. Institutional innovations are less likely to succeed in contexts with GDP per capita below $2,500 (OR = 0.24). Equity outcomes improve significantly with ≥40% women’s participation (β = 0.49, p = 0.008) and Indigenous knowledge integration (β = 0.52, p = 0.003). In contrast, 73% of technological implementations exhibit elite capture, and 22% risk maladaptation due to neglected socio-ecological feedback. Publication bias correction reduced the pooled effect size by 18%, revealing a tendency toward overstating success in the literature. These findings underscore the imperative to reorient adaptation finance and governance toward polycentric, justice-driven frameworks. We propose three pathways: establishing innovation broker authorities, adopting equity-weighted financing, and deploying equity-focused adaptation dashboards.

Keywords:

Climate Adaptation Innovation Typologies Meta-Analysis Equity Resilience Hybrid Governance PROGRESS-Plus Maladaptation

References

  1. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). State of the Global Climate 2022 (WMO-No. 1316); World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  2. Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA). Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience; Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA): The Hague, The Netherlands, 2019.
  3. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). As Climate Impacts Accelerate, Finance Gap for Adaptation Efforts at Least 50% Bigger than Thought; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Nairobi, Kenya, 2023.
  4. Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Dewulf, A.; Biesbroek, G.R. Transformational change: Governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 558–576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288
  5. Chu, E.; Michael, K.; Lin, Y. Equity in transformational adaptation research and practice. Clim. Policy 2023, 23, 235–250.
  6. Berkhout, F.; Verbong, G.; Wieczorek, A.J.; et al. Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010
  7. Fedele, G.; Donatti, C.I.; Harvey, C.A.; et al. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 101, 116–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001
  8. Berrang-Ford, L.; Siders, A.R.; Lesnikowski, A.; et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 989–1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y
  9. Lesnikowski, A.; Ford, J.; Biesbroek, R.; et al. National-level progress on adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 261–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2863
  10. Haddaway, N.R.; Macura, B.; Whaley, P.; et al. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 2018, 7, 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
  11. Olazabal, M.; Castán Broto, V. Institutionalisation of urban climate adaptation: three municipal experiences in Spain. Build. Cities 2022, 3, 570–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.208
  12. Eriksen, S.; Schipper, E.L.F.; Scoville-Simonds, M.; et al. Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev. 2021, 141, 105383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383
  13. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  14. Tschakert, P.; Schlosberg, D.; Celermajer, D.; et al. Multispecies justice: Climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. WIREs Clim. Change 2021, 12, e699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.699
  15. Wise, R.M.; Fazey, I.; Smith, M.S.; et al. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 28, 325–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002
  16. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
  17. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of SESs. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
  18. Pahl-Wostl, C. Water Governance in the Face of Global Change: From Understanding to Transformation. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015.
  19. Barnett, J.; Evans, L.S.; Gross, C.; et al. From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07698-200305
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
  21. Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
  22. Ziervogel, G. Building transformative capacity for adaptation planning and implementation that works for the urban poor: Insights from South Africa. Ambio 2019, 48, 494–506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1141-9
  23. Ullah, A.; Zhang, Q.; Raza, S.A.; et al. Renewable energy: Is it a global challenge or opportunity? Focusing on different income level countries through Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model. Renew. Energy 2021, 177, 689–699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.132
  24. Nagendra, H.; Ostrom, E. Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. Int. J. Commons 2012, 6, 104–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.321
  25. Vij, S.; Biesbroek, R.; Stock, R.; et al. ‘Power-sensitive design principles’ for climate change adaptation policy-making in South Asia. Earth Syst. Gov. 2021, 9, 100109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100109
  26. Vink, M.J.; Dewulf, A.; Termeer, C. The role of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation governance: A systematic literature review. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05897-180446
  27. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
  28. Nilchiani, R.R.; Caddell, J.D.; Basereh Taramsari, H. The Extended Technology Readiness Level (eTRL): From Deployment to Obsolescence. IEEE Open J. Syst. Eng. 2025, 3, 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/OJSE.2025.3527288
  29. O'Neill, J.; Tabish, H.; Welch, V.; et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014, 67, 56–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005
  30. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.; et al. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
  31. Gröndal, G.W. Book Reviews: Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, by Robert Rosenthal. Revised Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991, 155 pp. Evaluation Practice 1993, 14, 203–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409301400218
  32. Boillat, S.; Berkes, F. Perception and interpretation of climate change among Quechua farmers of Bolivia: Indigenous knowledge as a resource for adaptive capacity. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05894-180421
  33. Biagini, B.; Bierbaum, R.; Stults, M.; et al. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.003
  34. Bajracharya, S.R.; Khanal, N.R.; Nepal, P.; et al. Community assessment of flood risks and early warning system in Ratu Watershed, Koshi Basin, Nepal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063577
  35. Teklu, A.; Simane, B.; Bezabih, M. Multiple adoption of climate-smart agriculture innovation for agricultural sustainability: Empirical evidence from the Upper Blue Nile Highlands of Ethiopia. Clim. Risk Manag. 2023, 39, 100477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100477
  36. Chausson, A.; Turner, B.; Seddon, D.; et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 6134–6155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310
  37. Jost, C.; Kyazze, F.; Naab, J.; et al. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. 2016, 8, 133–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978
  38. Pittock, J.; Baumgartner, L.; Finlayson, C.M.; et al. Managing threats to freshwater systems within protected areas. In Freshwater Ecosystems in Protected Areas; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 84–109.
  39. Vedeld, T.; Coly, A.; Ndour, N.M.; et al. Climate Adaptation at What Scale? Multi-Level Governance, Resilience, and Coproduction in Saint Louis, Senegal. Nat. Hazards 2016, 82, 173–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1875-7
  40. Nath, S. Help Them Help Themselves: A toolkit to facilitate transformative community‐based climate change adaptation. Urban Plan. 2025, 10, 9509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/up.9509
  41. Wong-Parodi, G.; Mach, K.J.; Jagannathan, K.; et al. Insights for developing effective decision support tools for environmental sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 2020, 42, 52–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.005
  42. Ely, A.; Van Zwanenberg, P.; Stirling, A. Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, coordination and democratisation. Res. Policy 2013, 43, 505–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.004
  43. Wamsler, C.; Wickenberg, B.; Hanson, H.; et al. Environmental and climate policy integration: Targeted strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154
  44. Crick, F.; Hesse, C.; Orindi, V.; et al. Delivering Climate Finance at Local Level to Support Adaptation: Experiences of County Climate Change Funds in Kenya; Ada Consortium: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019.
  45. Djoudi, H.; Locatelli, B.; Vaast, C.; et al. Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio 2016, 45, 248–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2
  46. Fuerth, L.S. Anticipatory Governance; National Defense University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.