Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS


BASE Report Summary

Project ID: 308337
Funded under: FP7-ENVIRONMENT
Country: Denmark

Final Report Summary - BASE (Bottom-up Climate Adaptation Strategies towards a Sustainable Europe)

Executive Summary:
The BASE project started in October 2012 to enlarge the knowledge base on the social and economic benefits of adaptation measures for sectors of great economic importance in Europe, as well as addressing the policy-making. The approach BASE took was to focus on bridging the gap between top-down adaptation assessments and planning, and bottom-up local and contextual expert knowledge. The project team did this by conducting 23 comparable case studies across Europe, and five additional ones across the world, with a focus on the economic assessments behind the adaptation measures, as well as the participatory efforts made. These all had a common methodological framework allowing for thematic and sectorial comparison, as well as the development of hypothesis and theory, which had previously been lacking in the area. In addition, the systematic generation of empirical data allowed the combination, revision and development of sectorial and integrated economic assessment models with real world data in place of default model assumptions, thus improving the predictability of these. BASE has developed and applied frameworks for the systematic analysis of adaptation policies and for examining the significance of policies at case level. The frameworks have been used to characterize different policy areas and to identify challenges in the relationship between and within EU and national policies, as well as opportunities and barriers in relation to the implementation of policies at local level. The analysis elucidates why and how adaptation evolves differently across Europe. BASE has demonstrated that the strength of the EU Adaptation Strategy lies in its effort to mainstream adaptation into all relevant policy areas. The theoretically informed analytical framework that BASE developed on policy integration has helped gain practical insights into the barriers to, as well as, enablers of, the integration of climate adaptation into sectoral policy-making. BASE has e.g. provided new information on conflicts and synergies of adaptation policies at different levels of policy making with other policies (including climate change mitigation) within and between sectors. BASE has confirmed that a consistent framework for the analysis of costs and benefit helps to identify efficient solutions at local level, but also that it is crucial to support local decision making through the use of other tools, such as multi-criteria analysis and cost efficiency analysis, combined with a high level of local stakeholder’s participation. Integrated economic modelling in BASE has shown that uncertainty in future socioeconomic scenarios could significantly affect adaptation cost estimates, which in Europe could vary between 30 and 50 billion € in 2050 (mitigation efforts not included). We have shown that adaptation in certain sectors across EU consistently has a positive benefit to cost ratio in relation to GDP, regardless of societal and CO2 emission scenarios. The case study experiences indicate that participatory approaches are important for citizen support and legitimizing policies that can change local ways of living over a medium and long-term period; encouraging knowledge exchange between local experts, citizens and policy makers; and creating interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning contexts that support the design of strategies and policies, able to address local context-specific needs. Some of the most important footprints and legacies of BASE lay in the case study work, which contributed actively and directly to the local adaptation initiatives. BASE established a network of stakeholders, which still exists. BASE has moreover created spin-off national and local adaptation projects in e.g. Portugal and the Czech Republic, where BASE methods have been directly applied in the development of municipal adaptation efforts. Moreover, the project team contributed to the Climate-ADAPT portal through summaries of all the case studies. Partners have been widely invited to present BASE results to e.g. the World Bank and others. BASE lead the 2nd European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference in 2015 with 760 participants from 46 different countries in Copenhagen, as well as an international adaptation summer course in Lisbon, and a policy workshop in Brussels. The BASE website was presented in an easy-to-understand language and served as a central point of access for information. The accompanying twitter handle @EUAdaptation has more than 1000 followers. The website has links to two short BASE movies, which combined have had more than 2000 views. Circa 70 BASE peer-reviewed articles have been submitted to journals or books. In addition, we have published a BASE Adaptation Inspiration Book with all the European cases of climate change adaptation described in detail to practitioners. In 2017, Elsevier will publish a peer-reviewed book on European adaptation based on the BASE research and findings for a global audience. Further research is needed with regards to local stake-holders decision criteria. . Moreover, there is a need to increase the focus on the private sectors decision making processes with regards to their adaptation options and pathways.

Project Context and Objectives:
The impacts of a changing climate are likely to disrupt ecological, social and economic systems, with some regions and sectors in Europe likely to suffer greater adverse effects than others. New opportunities will also emerge for some. The European Commission (EC) outlined possible options and priorities for adapting to the impacts of a changing climate at EU level in 2007. The EC proposal for a European Framework for Action (2009) outlined a comprehensive adaptation strategy, which was ratified in 2013 - to be reviewed in 2017. It encourages member states to develop national and regional adaptation strategies by 2012, and it stresses the need for building a knowledge base on climate change impacts and vulnerability, and for promoting the sharing of existing data and information (among stakeholders) through platforms such as Climate-ADAPT. EC policy developments and the scientific literature conceptualize adaptation as a multi-sector and multi-scale decision making problem, characterized by substantial uncertainty on the impacts of climate change. This uncertainty and ambiguity present a critical challenge for the development of robust adaptation strategies. When designing adaptation policies, decision makers are therefore faced with particular and still unresolved difficulties, in addition to the complexities common to all climate policies. Understanding efficiency is a critical issue; indeed the fact that knowledge of the benefits and costs of adaptation is insufficient, not systematic and is unevenly distributed across sectors and countries, makes it more difficult to assess the efficiency of adaptation options at a strategic level. Moreover, there are difficulties in determining how to address the equity of impacts and adaptation policies - proactive adaptation necessitates accepting costs today to avoid greater future costs. One of the most difficult issues in designing adaptation options, for instance, is to evaluate uncertainty related to the underlying impacts, as well as to those impacts associated with the proposed preventive interventions. The complexity of climate change adaptation calls for a multi-level, multi-sectoral and multi-actor governance approach. Adaptation is a process whose characteristics are sector-, scale-, society-, and ultimately time-specific. The policies necessary to promote successful adaptation need to consider both the impacts and the related adaptive responses from a bottom-up perspective – e.g. there is a considerable gap between the research effort on Integrated Assessment Models for guiding adaptation, and context specific local adaptation. Therefore, at the heart of the BASE project was the need to understand how interactions between top-down and bottom-up approaches adds another layer of complexity to adaptation processes. It is far from clear how different solutions to dealing with uncertainty, and challenges arising from the “bottom-up” nature of adaptation should be dealt with. Conversely, models are based on aggregate and often unsatisfactory data coverage, and the reliability of the analyses can greatly benefit from refining the data input and through critical assessment of the appropriate scale of analysis. Equally, there is a need to improve the design of bottom-up analyses to strengthen the lessons learned from individual case studies and to ensure comparability between them. Policy makers have been struggling to engage citizens and stakeholders while at the same time the latter do not feel heard or included in the decision making process. New tools and approaches that can promote the engagement and involvement of citizens and stakeholders should therefore continue to be explored. Improving the articulation between bottom-up and top-down analysis should allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the critical choices that have to be made and for pin-pointing the appropriate point of intervention to achieve robust, cost-effective climate change adaptation policies. We found that adaptation strategies need to integrate sectors, which may have different needs, constituencies and vulnerabilities. But moving into “real” world implementation is difficult due to conflicts over existing sector policies, time and resource constraints, as well as competing priorities among implementers. Policy strategies balancing human well-being, ecosystem services and economic growth present further challenges. Top-down strategies may lead to a mismatch between national and regional adaptation policy needs, and the more context-specific adaptation measures needs required at local scales. Top-down adaptation strategies are typically based on aggregate costs and benefits across sectors to reach nation-wide economic figures. The challenge is thus to avoid “one size fits all” policies that are not sufficiently sensitive to actual environmental, social and economic characteristics and climate change impacts, in specific localities and sectors (the bottom-up perspective). Top-down strategies frequently fail to embrace and/or foster bottom-up processes. Bottom-up processes usually require trust, raised through community building, and include knowledge sharing, co-design of local decisions between citizens, policy makers and other stakeholders. Moreover, they require more integral adaptation measures and implementation with consequent feedback and participatory actions.
BASE focused on the key problems of adaptation strategies by examining simultaneously the general policy at EU and national levels and actual activities at local and regional levels. This combination provided new insights and knowledge support for adaptation strategy development processes. BASE also provided baseline estimates of costs that can be avoided through adaptation, as well as analyses of low-regret measures costs for adaptation at the sectorial, national and EU level. Case studies were clustered and made as comparable as possible across countries in order to provide new empirical data that can be used and re-analysed in integrated assessment modelling. The aim was to test and analyse ways of bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up approaches in evaluating adaptation policies and measures. We find that promoting bottom-up processes is essential to ensure sustainable adaptation. BASE explored the nature of these processes in order to understand how awareness raising and transparency of governmental plans and actions can contribute to making climate change adaptation strategies truly adaptive to changing conditions. BASE also analysed the conditions for facilitating the adoption of comprehensive top-down strategies by stakeholders. BASE sought to evaluate the environmental, social and economic impacts, costs and benefits, policy coherence and stakeholder perceptions of different climate adaptation pathways from an interdisciplinary perspective. The findings were fed into the Climate-ADAPT portal and provided adaptation support tools for policy development at national and EU levels. The overall objective of BASE was to both 1) enhance and analyse an interdisciplinary knowledge base to support the development of climate adaptation strategies and 2) to support decision-making on both adaptation strategies and pathways to improve the design of action plans across Europe. BASE explored the synergies and inconsistencies within and between top-down and bottom-up methodologies as well as the goals of climate adaptation. Through the achievement of the seven specific project objectives, BASE:

1. Compiled and analysed data and information on adaptation measures and their effectiveness. This included analysis of social and economic benefits, the costs of adaptation for sectors and the resulting implications for policy making, taking into account the most significant and likely impacts. In this way a strong and comprehensive knowledge base integrating the socio-economic and political responses (autonomous and planned) to climate change, vulnerability, mitigation and adaptation was built. This knowledge and data was made publicly available through dissemination tools such as the Climate-ADAPT portal.
2. Improved current, developed new and integrated methods and tools to assess climate impacts, vulnerability, risks and adaptation policies to stock take and enrich past and current EU research project outputs.
3. Identified conflicts and synergies of adaptation policies at different levels of policy-making with other policies (including climate mitigation) within and between sectors. This entailed analyses of environmental, social and economic effects of adaptation responses at the local level and the identification of strategies that improve policy coherence and effectiveness (high environmental and social benefits and low costs).
4. Assessed the effectiveness and full costs and benefits of adaptation strategies to be undertaken at local, regional and national scales using innovative approaches (mainly by integrating bottom-up knowledge/assessment and top-down dynamics/processes) with particular attention being placed on sectors of high social and economic importance.
5. BASE bridged the gap between specific assessments of adaptation measures and top-down implementation of comprehensive and integrated strategies.
6. Used and developed novel participatory and deliberative tools to enhance the effective use of local contextualized knowledge in adaptation strategies to assess perceptions of adaptation pathways and their co-design by citizens and stakeholders.
7. Disseminated findings by sharing the results of the project with policy-makers, practitioners and other stakeholders. It thus increased awareness of the impacts, costs and benefits of climate adaptation to support the effective implementation of sustainable European and national adaptation strategies.

In meeting the overall project objectives, BASE provided novel interdisciplinary insights into EU adaptation policy. On a broader level, one of its major achievements was to help bridge the gap between bottom-up knowledge on adaptation and strategic planning based on top-down assessments, including the consistent integration of sparse sector evidence and scale specific knowledge. The synergies and conflicts between the two approaches were investigated through combined economic assessment methodologies (such as cost-benefit analysis and integrated assessment modelling) with policy analysis and case specific knowledge. Moreover, BASE examined top-down evaluations of adaptation, with insights from autonomous and planned adaptation measures to assess the full costs and benefits. BASE also interacted with bottom-up adaptation initiatives at local, municipal, national, sector and urban scale, analysed actions of relevant stakeholders and calculated the costs and benefits of the actions. In addition, BASE addressed the challenges and opportunities presented by adaptation in key European sectors (such as water, agriculture, nature and biodiversity, health and the in urban setting) to support policy development. More specifically, BASE advancements with respect to the state-of-the-art in 2012 when the project began, can be observed in correspondence to the seven aforementioned specific project objectives by:

• Knowledge availability, integration and utilization
BASE reviewed and systematically integrated available, but dispersed knowledge related to adaptation with regards to environmental, social, economic and political aspects in existing public data-base platforms/tools (e.g. background products released within EU national adaptation strategies, systematic data gathering conducted at Member State level and the Climate-ADAPT portal). Deeper understanding of knowledge use by decision-makers at different levels, stakeholders in different sectors and general public was assessed to identify strategies to enhance the evidence-base of adaptation decisions. As a part of the extended dissemination activities, integrated information, methods and tools were actively shared and their applicability was tested in different settings and contexts with key stakeholders at local to international levels. BASE also developed methods and tools to evaluate adaptation processes from strategy definition to implementation actions at different levels and sectors.
• Policy coherence and multi-level and sector integration
New insights were gained in the processes of adaptation through systematic analyses of past experience as well as actual case studies (cross-sectoral and multi-level) that not only examined adaptation strategies, but also explicitly analysed conflicts and synergies with other policies and constraints caused by path dependence and general context related inertia. This analysis highlighted issues of multilevel, cross sectorial and inter-temporal governance. Against this background, the project offered new perspectives on the prospects of developing synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures through policy coherence between e.g. the common agricultural policy (CAP), water policies and regional development. BASE also assessed top-down processes that promoted bottom-up initiatives to help design more integrated EU adaptation strategies. BASE identified the most important driving forces expected to change the landscape for adaptation strategy options in Europe in the medium-long–term via the case studies. By using rigorous analysis BASE systematically explored scenarios and descriptions on how framework conditions are expected to evolve, underlining the implications for adaptation.
• Adaptation effectiveness, benefits and costs and policy recommendations
Starting from the most recent assessments of the cost of climate change, BASE applied and developed novel methods and tools to estimate the effectiveness, benefits and costs of adaptation. This integrated and multidisciplinary process first lead to a more solid, extended and systematic quantitative knowledge-base on adaptation processes. Secondly, it provided a better understanding/description of probable adaptive responses of social and economic systems. In particular, BASE further developed AD-WHICH, the Integrated Assessment Modelling tool for adaptation, and extended regional input-output modelling tools. The models were used to derive improved medium to long-term policy insights on cost-efficient and effective optimal adaptation strategies. Important research advancements occurred through a thorough analysis of uncertainty and its potential impact in the adaptation implementation process. The IPCC has developed extensive guidance for dealing with uncertainties. These were used as a starting point and developed in the context of economic analyses of adaptation. Incomplete knowledge, asymmetrical information, market imperfections and aggregation bias were addressed. This was particularly useful in order to identify uncertainty-robust and low-regret adaptation measures.
• Bridging the gap between integrated assessment modelling and bottom-up analyses of adaptation costs and benefits
By bridging the gap between the generalised assessment of costs and benefits of adaptation measures in integrated assessment models and the specific on-the-ground findings from case studies, research in BASE improved top-down assessments such that they are more context sensitive, deal explicitly with uncertainty in the estimates and thereby provide more reliable policy advice. This was supported by a set of strategically selected case studies and bottom-up modelling exercises from across sectors, geographies (climate exposure), and socio-demographic contexts. The case studies followed common guidelines and criteria developed in close cooperation with top-down modelling experts in BASE. The case studies addressed adaptation in key vulnerable domains such as agriculture, water, nature and biodiversity, health, and the urban context. BASE integrated the available data into an enriched AD-WHICH and regional input-output models. These cases provided the basis for a systematic assessment of the acceptance and the degree of implementation of adaptation in key sectors, thus providing the necessary ‘ground-truthing’ of data and information for fully integrated and aggregated economic modelling of costs and benefits.
• Promotion of bottom-up process: Societal participation
The efficiency and effectiveness of new strategies depend on ways to engage both local stakeholders and citizens as strategy designers and implementers. BASE explored new ways of involving stakeholders and citizens in the decision-making process through participatory and co-design techniques. This was facilitated by studying successful bottom-up initiatives, testing and developing the use of knowledge, two-way learning and awareness raising methods and tools in the context of adaptation. Through case studies of on-going and past adaptation strategies and initiatives, BASE drew on lessons learned about best practice on inclusion of different actors in climate change adaptation planning and action. Special attention was given to younger people following the EU strategy for Youth. The case studies included in BASE provide real-life examples of adaptation where individual societal groups actively developed and implemented autonomous or were involved in planned adaptation measures.

Overall, BASE has contributed significantly to the change in discourse on adaptation that is now manifested in a greater recognition of the need to be explicit about co-benefits and the awareness that cost-benefit calculations are an essential, but only partial, element of adaptation planning and decision making. Empirical studies utilizing cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis of climate change adaptation measures are increasingly common. At local level, some evidence was found that nature-based solutions are better in some cases from a sustainability point of view. On a large scale, it was found that adaptation pays off and contributes positively to GDP (even without accounting for co-benefits). BASE has also made the discourse on participation more concrete by demonstrating how participatory approaches can be fruitfully used to co-create adaptation plans that are based on a pathways thinking, which BASE has brought where it has not been previously considered. This pathways approach has strengthened the ability to identify and conceptualize robust and low-regret solutions, including creative use of nature-based solutions. BASE has confirmed the local and contextual nature of adaptation to climate change, but has, in addition, demonstrated that adaptation to climate change has strong international dimensions. The success of adaptation has to be gauged against possible general societal developments rather than against the current situation. BASE has furthered the science on economic modelling of adaption by developing new approaches, combining sectorial models in new modules and by revising existing integrated models with empirical evidence. Lastly, at the sectorial level, BASE has demonstrated the importance of recognizing sector links, such agriculture-urban and flood-protection-agriculture-water quality. In response to the revised EU adaptation Strategy after the review in 2017, further research is needed with regards to elucidate and grasp different local stake-holders decision criteria as adaptation is implemented locally via participatory methods. Moreover, there is a need to increase the focus on the private sectors decision making processes with regards to their adaptation options and pathways.

Project Results:
2. Description of the main S&T results/foregrounds
In what follows, the main results of the project are described in relation to the key objectives of the project:

2.1. Compile and analyse data and information on adaptation measures, and their effectiveness. This includes analysis of social and economic benefits, the costs of adaptation for sectors, and the resulting implications for policy making taking into account the most significant and likely impacts:
BASE research has progressed beyond the state of the art on climate change adaptation strategies. It has established an insightful knowledge base on adaptation planning and measures that are taking place around the world (D4.2, Experiences in bottom-up adaptation approaches in Europe and beyond). Knowledge has been gained on the types of adaptation measures (i.e. green, grey, soft) applied in different sectors across a wide global geographic spread (e.g. Europe, North America, South America, Singapore), including the types of stakeholder groups, geographic scale and extent (local, sub-regional, national, transnational, European/Global), corresponding sector(s), decision support tools employed (participatory and economic) and funding sources for implementation. A general comparison was also carried out to understand similarities and differences between European and non-European adaptation experiences which provided useful pointers for enhancing adaptation in Europe, and vice versa. For instance, national public funding sources were identified as the dominant funding sources for both European (62%) and non-European (67%) cases, with non-European cases receiving a larger share of private funding than European cases. In many cases, a mix of different types of measures is implemented and seems to be advantageous. This observation is in agreement with the findings from BASE in-depth case study research. BASE research was equally concerned with improving adaptation processes, and the analytical and research frameworks developed aimed at addressing this focus. In particular, the application of new approaches to planning adaptation that integrate methods for public participation, the analysis of policy-making processes and the development of BASE Evaluation Criteria for Climate Adaptation (BECCA) (D2.3, BASE evaluation criteria for climate adaptation (BECCA)) have contributed to improving adaptation knowledge availability, integration and utilization, as well as supporting coherent, multi-level, and multi-sector integrated adaptation policies. BECCA provides a list of evaluation criteria and supporting guidance notes on how and when to use them. As climate adaptation is highly context-specific, users can use BECCA to tailor-make their own set of evaluation criteria relevant to their concrete context-bound adaptation cases ( Existing case study knowledge of costs and benefits of adaptation is non-systematic, not easily accessible and is unevenly distributed across sectors and countries. Information on decision-making process, assessment tools such as economic methods and their applications have also been found to be limited. BASE contributed to advancing this area by conducting 23 in-depth case studies spanning across European regions, different and multiple sectors, geographic scale, administrative levels, territorial zones and CC impacts and adaptation challenges.

To bridge the knowledge gap between top-down and bottom-up adaptation processes, some case studies focused on either or both top-down strategies and bottom-up initiatives. Economic assessments, participatory approaches and implementation analysis were key methods employed (described in detail in the D5.2, Scientific report: Economic evaluation of adaptation options; D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation; D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies, respectively). Existing tools developed by partners were shared among team members, while new tools or new applications of existing tools have also been developed as a result of BASE. A meta-analysis and comparison of case studies has been carried out to synthesize and categorize methods and findings according to European regions and meta-sector groups: four main European regions (Northern, Western, Central-Eastern and Southern) and three meta-sector groups (1) Agriculture & Forestry/Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services; 2) Water Resources & Health; and 3) Coastal Zones/Human Settlements & Infrastructure). Key messages were distilled from these case studies and grouped under their respective European region and meta-sector group to feed into upscaling modeling (WP6) and policy analysis (WP7). Case study experiences and processes were documented in their respective Case Study Living Document, which have been made available on BASE website. These case studies were all published on Climate-ADAPT platform, seventeen of them are already featured. A BASE Inspiration Book ( featuring all these case studies has also been developed to share adaptation experiences with European policy-makers, practitioners and citizens. The resulting implications of the case study findings for regional, national and local policies are well synthesized in a set of final policy recommendations for climate change adaptation (see D7.3 Guidelines for EU and Member State policy makers).

Some recommendations are explicitly targeted at EU policy makers, while others are more relevant to national and local level policy-makers and practitioners. Economic assessments showed that innovative adaptation solutions that offer co-benefits are mainly developed at the local level, and should be facilitated and supported by EU and national policy frameworks and financial mechanisms. This implies that economic assessments and participatory processes are integrated as planning procedures, and not merely presented as a recommendation, or a good practice. Participatory processes aid economic assessments by providing forums for dialogue and knowledge exchange, which are key to develop innovative solutions that offer co-benefits. Moreover, they allow for learning more about, and value, non-quantifiable environment and social benefits that can be highly motivating for local actors. Research showed it is equally important to use economic analysis to learn how combinations of measures (i.e. grey, green and soft measures) can provide co-benefits that lead to more cost-effective and sustainable adaptation responses, while also identifying low regret measures (i.e. measures with low cost and high benefits, that would be beneficial to the community). Notwithstanding the importance of economic assessments, results further showed that case studies are difficult to compare due to different site-specific context conditions (e.g. diverse risks, different baseline protection, and different governance frameworks). Even when measures are similar, results were different for BASE case studies, for instance green roof assessment in Jena (Germany), Cascais (Portugal) and Madrid (Spain) case studies showed substantial cost differences, which may be explained by the different levels of development of local market for specific adaptation technologies. Often economic assessments were conducted for bundles of measures (e.g. green roofs + awareness raising), which also makes comparability between measures difficult. A simple transfer of results to other case studies would only be scientifically sound if the same methods were applied and the case-specific conditions (risks, geography, socio-political and economic context) were comparable. Generally, however, the cost-benefit ratio of bundles of green measures in agricultural adaptation was found to be positive (e.g. retention of water in the landscape), while grey measures (e.g. artificial lakes) were found negative, due to its high costs. Overall, there is a strong argument for continuing the development of economic assessments for climate change adaptation and bringing to the foreground a clear understanding of costs and benefits of measures.

2.2 Improve current, develop new and integrated methods and tools to assess climate impacts, vulnerability, risks and adaptation policies. And to stock take and enrich past and current EU research project outputs:

EU level modeling framework:
BASE has advanced various methods and tools generated by previous projects. BASE has elaborated on a framework of tools to better simulate and understand the costs and consequences of adaptation to climate change in Europe. These tools are described in deliverable 3.3 (Report documenting the selected integrated assessment models for top-down analysis used in BASE) and 6.3 (EU wide economic evaluation of adaptation to climate change). Compared to previous studies on riverine flood risks, agricultural damage and health, European and global scale sectorial analysis were expanded and innovated. Crop patterns, land use, hydrological and agricultural production models were combined to obtain new insights for effective adaptation strategies in agriculture. Especially, the estimated changes in future crop patterns, based on regression, present realistic future boundary conditions for agricultural production, allowing for net gains at Northern latitudes. Particular adaptation strategies, such as flood protection, adapted buildings, water management, and irrigation and heat early warning systems, were integrated with improved evidence-based estimates for effectiveness in terms of damage reduction and costs. New cost estimates on flood protection and adapted buildings were applied to the European scale riverine flood model. These more detailed sectorial studies were used to recalibrate and parameterize AD-WITCH assessments on damage, adaptation cost, and adaptation effectiveness, allowing for better estimates of costs and benefits of adaptation and mitigation in terms of GDP changes in Europe. This is a major step forward in integrated economic assessment modeling.

Analysis at the case study level:
Tools for a more local scale analysis have equally been improved throughout the BASE project. The adaptation pathway method and economic and multi-criteria assessment methods have been applied in a number of BASE cases within different participatory settings. This has generated valuable new research results on how to make a more effective use of the tools, and integrate them in participatory processes. It can be concluded that diversity in stakeholders and objectives is the best guarantee for a well-balanced set up and evaluation of adaptation pathways (i.e. figure 1). Moreover, the facilitator of participatory processes has an important role in structuring available knowledge.
BASE also made a considerable effort to categorize different economic evaluation methods and write guidance on how to apply them. Deliverable 5.2 (Economic evaluation of adaptation options) provides a good overview. Specific methodological innovations were made, for example, in the economic evaluation of pathways, in which transfer costs are introduced as a measure of flexibility of adaptation. These transfer costs may include sunk costs when adaptation measures start underperforming before their expected life time. Additionally, a framework was introduced to assess implementation barriers to adaptation pathways showing that institutions and budgets need to be flexible for the implementation of flexible pathways over a long time period. BASE introduced weights into standard cost-benefit analysis for flooding to account for risk aversion, income distribution and social welfare, to stress that damage can have different impacts to different social groups.
BASE has also advanced Input-Output models to gain a better insight concerning the indirect damages caused by cascading effects through supply chains, transportation networks etc. The method has been applied to three city regions in Europe and, for example, shows that local flood damage affects a much larger area and that the indirect damages occurring can be as large as the direct damages, depending on the economic interconnectedness of the flooded area.

2.3 Identify conflicts and synergies of adaptation policies at different levels of policy making with other policies (including climate mitigation) within and between sectors. This entails analysis of environmental, social and economic effects of adaptation responses at the local level and the identification of strategies that improve policy coherence and effectiveness (high environmental and social benefits and low costs):
BASE has developed and applied frameworks for the systematic analysis of adaptation policies (D2.1, Policy integration and knowledge use in the EU adaptation strategy; D2.2, Knowledge use, knowledge needs and policy integration in Member States; D7.1, Strategies for enhancing policy coherence: mainstreaming adaptation into key sectoral and development policies; D7.2, Synthesis of integrated climate policy perspectives) and for examining the significance of policies at the case level (D5.4, Implementation of climate change adaptation: Barriers and Opportunities to adaptation in case studies; D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). The frameworks have been used to characterize different policy areas and to identify challenges in the relationship between and within EU and national policies, as well as opportunities and barriers in the implementation of policies at the local level.

Analysing policies and the EU Adaptation Strategy:
Using novel analysis frameworks BASE has provided new information on conflicts and synergies of adaptation policies at different levels of policy making with other policies (including climate mitigation) within and between sectors. This analysis of EU level policies has shown that in agricultural and cohesion policies - that have been identified by the Adaptation Strategy a “rational inclusion” of climate change - adaptation is particularly important, and has not encountered major conflicts. Some tension may, however, arise in the specification of concrete targets, when additional issues related to the sustainability of alternative solutions may be raised. The implications are that sector and policy specific governance of the integration is essential. BASE has demonstrated through a systematic policy analysis that the strength of the EU Strategy lies in its effort to mainstream adaptation into all relevant policy areas. Policies leading up the Adaptation Strategy (e.g. the Adaptation Green Paper) have contributed to a general awareness and the strategy contributed further to this process. The analysis has shown that the power of the EU Adaptation Strategy to steer policy processes is limited by its framework character and its focus on the early (agenda setting) stages. Policies are being formulated throughout the policy cycle, especially as they are implemented on the ground. It is vital that the Strategy is able to influence policies at this stage in order to be successful. This can be achieved by strengthening coordination and/or by further strengthening the uptake of mainstreaming and climate proofing in the sectors. These findings have been reflected in the BASE policy briefs that were widely disseminated within the Commission Services. BASE researchers have also contributed to EEA reports on climate change and vulnerabilities, urban adaptation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of national adaptation actions and the analysis of EU coastal policies. BASE has identified some sectors and policies as frontrunners in developing tools and processes that help to recognize presumed effects of adaptive capacity at the policy level. These are essential for ensuring consistency and coherence in policies, and required a systematic knowledge production. BASE specifically examined the Climate-ADAPT portal, due to its importance for the Adaptation Strategy. BASE has communicated directly with the EEA in providing suggestions for future development. BASE has also concluded that additional tools for knowledge production and knowledge use are likely to be needed at the EU-policy level. A portal is not sufficient for the mainstreaming of climate change at the EU level, where, as the BASE analyses demonstrated, sectors are affected by a great number of partly interlocking policies that view adaptation from quite different angles. BASE has highlighted the importance of commitments to maximize synergies and minimize contradictions between adaptation objectives and sectoral objectives. Especially in policies based on economic incentives explicit weighing of objectives and the allocation of resources for adaptation may help to identify novel ways of integrating adaptation into sector activities. In other cases the Strategy can function like glue between or a catalyst across sectors. The BASE work has shown that developing an active exchange of experiences is essential. Knowledge production in the form of reporting is likely to be sufficient for identifying outputs in the examined sectors. For determining changes in adaptive capacity more sophisticated analyses are required. These cannot be achieved through routine reporting, but requires dedicated analyses within and across sectors, including at the level of EU policies. These findings have direct relevance for developing the EU adaptation scoreboard and subsequent monitoring.

Understanding policy integration:
Policy integration has been one of the focal areas of the BASE policy-oriented analyses. The theoretically informed analytical framework that BASE developed has helped to gain practical insights into the barriers to and enablers of the integration of climate adaptation into sectoral policy making. BASE has shown that one needs to understand the specific context of a policy area in order to assess and develop the integration of adaptation into the policy. For example, coherent integration of climate change adaptation in agricultural policies is supported by the strength of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), whereas Coastal management lacks a single dominant policy that could ensure coherent adaptation. In coastal areas several strong policies and interests clash, raising strong demands on the processes. The framework directive on marine spatial planning and integrated coastal management may support greater consistency and systematic weighting of different issues, but it ability to actually change practices in favour of integration may be limited as its emphasis is on reporting and developing the knowledge base rather than substantive change, i.e. it can support but not dictate integration. These general findings have been provided to the Commission services in policy briefs and workshops. One of the findings of BASE is that there are signs of integration of climate change adaptation into EU sectoral policies, but it is patchy and in many cases feels fairly symbolic. Climate adaptation may be included in key policy documents but is not reinforced by strong policy requirements or monetary resources. Overall, climate change adaptation seems to be still a fairly new type of policy task in sectors such as coastal areas and marine ecosystems and health. Nevertheless, there are some examples where climate change adaptation does seem to be explicitly integrated into sectoral policies. An example of an institutional commitment/reinforcement of integration is the latest reform of the European Agricultural Rural Development Fund, which is encouraging the use of 30 percent of the national rural development programmes for activities that benefit climate change adaptation and environmental objectives. BASE analyses suggest that sector differences can be understood as differences in awareness at the strategic level about the sector’s vulnerability to climate change. For example, in the water sector, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) does not explicitly address climate change, but provides a framework that has been easy to adapt by sectoral actors to also cover climate change adaptation issues. The Flood Directive has a focus on integration into sectors but, similarly to the WFD, calls for integration are more concerned with the integration of water policy issues into other sectors. Overall, BASE findings suggest that those sectors with greater exposure to climate risks started to integrate climate adaptation into decision-making before the EU started formally engaging in this area to develop a cross-commission approach. In contrast, those sectors (such as health and coasts and marine) where risks are higher in the medium to longer term are only just beginning to engage with climate change adaptation in a manner more in sync with the development of the EU’s Adaptation Strategy.
BASE has examined barriers to integration, finding that they tend to be operating strongly at the macro-level (wider society and sector stakeholder) and at the meso-level (institutional dynamics in the commission). At the macro-level, we observe a lack of support and demand from member states and the various sectors, leading to weak demand for the integration of climate adaptation and to monitor the process (i.e. lack of constituency). At the meso-level, we see a combination of departmentalism and a tendency to multi-dimensional integration of policies, which can crowd out less salient issues like climate change adaptation. With the help of analyses at many different levels of governance, BASE has been able to show that good or bad practice at one level will not determine the success or failure of integration. It is more a matter of how factors operating at different levels interact in terms of supporting or contradicting each other. For instance, it is possible to have strong support for climate change adaptation at the micro and meso-levels, but this will not necessarily lead to more integrated policy making in the sectors, if macro level processes and policy making traditions are not receptive. One conclusion of the BASE work is that adaptation needs more advocates inside and outside of the Commission for consistent integration to occur. Without such advocates, adaptation can all too easily move to the periphery of policy attention as competing policy objectives come to the foreground, despite formal decision rules at the meso-level that could promote the inclusion of adaptation. However, enforcing rules on climate integration may not be in line with the reported EU’s deregulation agenda that some in the Commission have seemingly been promoting. The BASE policy findings have not only focused on the EU level, but also more in the countries of the BASE partners such as Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic and Finland. BASE results have influenced the development and implementation of national adaptation policies and their evaluation.

2.4 Assess the effectiveness and full costs and benefits of adaptation strategies to be undertaken at local, regional, and national scales using innovative approaches (mainly by integrating bottom-up knowledge/assessment and top-down dynamics/processes) with particular attention on sectors of high social and economic importance:
BASE applied methods and tools at both the local case study scales and the European scale to assess costs and benefits of adaptation to climate change. BASE integrated the outcomes of both levels of analyses into three storylines for different combinations of climate and socio-economic changes for North, West, South and Central-East Europe (see D6.4 - Process tool for testing and evaluating future plans for adaptation – using storylines and pathways for adaptation to CC across Europe). The methodology used was triangulation, which refers to the combination of qualitative information, such as the generic descriptions of the SSP storylines and the specific outcomes of BASE cases, and different types of quantitative information, such as that available from the IIASA data base on Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) and the findings of the BASE modeling exercises, (see D6.3). Additional information on specific sectors such as energy development has been obtained from several sources in order to get an overview of the likely changes. The base of the triangulation is established by choosing specific combinations of RCPs and SSPs that offer an overall frame for the analysis. The following combinations were chosen: ‘Fossil fuelled or market driven development’ (SSP5) and high end emission (RCP8.5); ‘Middle of the road’ (SSP2) and moderate emissions (RCP 4.5); ‘Regional rivalry or fragmentation’ (SSP3) and high end emissions (RCP8.5). The resulting rich storylines show how climate change and different economic circumstances confront the different regions with various challenges for sectors of high social and economic importance. These challenges can be summarized as having more or less adaptation needs and economic means to adapt. For example, it is shown that in Southern Europe there are persistent indications for an increase in water shortages and a decrease in run off leading to an augmented risk of agricultural damage. This damage can be mitigated, depending on adaptive capacity (depending on socio-economic development), by local improvements at farm level in terms of water efficiency, crop changes etc. rather than by implementing large scale irrigation schemes. Agriculture in Northern Europe is shown to profit from climate change and related land and crop use changes. Whereas Europe-wide analyses show that adaptation measures generally have positive benefit-cost ratios and adaptation contributes positively to GDP development in Europe, this does not mean that the local business case is always as positive. As an example of such a mismatch, on a national scale, BASE has shown that threshold values of a doubling in flood damages are not expected in most countries before the middle of the century. Local flooding events at the same time trigger the need for action on a local scale already to date. The systematic storyline approach of BASE as an attempt to upscale the local knowledge, has revealed the impossibility of generalizing conclusions, since the diversity of results is as high as the number of cases. Direct upscaling of case-level information can therefore be misleading. Instead the major role of case studies is to provide illustrations that support the analysis at national and EU scale and to show why specific local circumstances may create a need for flexibility in implementation.

2.5 Bridge the gap between specific assessments of adaptation measures and top-down implementation of comprehensive and integrated strategies:

The relationship between local and general adaptation issues:
BASE was designed to explore how specific adaptation measures emerge and evolve at a local level and how they relate to the implementation of comprehensive and integrated nation and EU-wide strategies and policies. A recurring finding in BASE is that costs, and in particular benefits, of (local) adaptation options are highly context-specific. They depend greatly on specific risks and exposures to climate-related threats as well as the baseline scenario assumptions, e.g. pre-existing protection. The timeframe of the evaluation, which is reflected in, for example, the discount rate, and the assumed intensity and frequency of hazards also affect the evaluation of costs and benefits (D5.2, Scientific report: Economic evaluation of adaptation options). BASE demonstrated that a consistent framework for the analysis of costs and benefit (CBA) helps in identifying efficient solutions at the local level, but that it is advisable to support local decision making using also other tools such as multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and cost efficiency analysis (CEA), combined with active participatory approaches (P). BASE has shown how the strong logical and methodological links between MCA, PBCA and then CEA/CBA can be used to filter down many variables to a top 3 or 5 priorities, with PBCA helping to zoom in on those pre-selected variables, by naming the most relevant impacts, and CEA/CBA helping to quantify those impacts. BASE findings underline that the transferability of the conclusions for specific types of adaptation measure is limited. This means that detailed analyses of adaptation costs and benefits for regions needs to be based on the aggregation of specific local information. As the aggregation of local information is a highly work intensive task, there is also a need for top-down approaches that can provide a helicopter view of the challenges. BASE demonstrated that most models could to some extent be developed and validated with results from the cases although, as noted above, costs and benefits are difficult to compare between the different scales. One way of aggregating local measures is to embed the local activities in wider regional strategies such as water management. In aiming for further aggregation detailed sectorial studies on Floods, Agriculture and Health were used to recalibrate and parameterize AD-WITCH model dealing with damage, adaptation cost, and adaptation effectiveness. This is a major step forward in integrated economic assessment modeling (D6.3, EU- wide economic evaluation of adaptation to Climate change).

Bridging the gap between the bottom-up and top-down:
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and the Representative Concentration Pathways provide an overall framework for thinking about adaptation (and mitigation) challenges. BASE has demonstrated how this framework can be used to explore European wide, regional and partly even local adaptation pathways. By systematically examining how different combinations of SSPs and RCPs affect the possibilities for adaptation in particular sectors, BASE was able to provide a reasoned view of where the greatest challenges are likely to emerge on a regional scale in Europe (D6.4, Process tool for testing and evaluating future plans for adaptation – using storylines and pathways for adaptation to CC across Europe). These findings have fed into the 2016 report by the EEA on climate change, vulnerability and adaptation. The findings were further critically reviewed at the case level. Through this analysis, BASE could demonstrate a general consistency and coherence in the findings while also reflecting on some differences between the general patterns and the case specific conditions. These findings emphasize the importance of case-based analyses in efforts to understand the diversity of adaptation needs within regions. The key feature of the BASE approach is a systematic disentangling of the different factors that influence the adaptation challenges. BASE has demonstrated that the RCP/SSP frame is a valid starting point, but it needs to be supplemented with more specific information in order to convey the richness of the ’real’ local situation. To provide this BASE developed the Scenario Workshop Adaptation Pathways (SWAP), integrating two existing known methodologies, that provided one possible framework to come up, through a strong participatory process, with a new and consensual scenario that the local community (including also regional and national stakeholders) agrees upon and work with during the creation of their adaptation strategy and/or action plans (see D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies and Campos et al., 2016).

Dealing with uncertainty:
BASE has demonstrated the need to deal systematically with uncertainties in adapting to climate change (D 6.3, EU- wide economic evaluation of adaptation to Climate change). Two main types of uncertainty were analysed: the influence of scenario uncertainty and sensitivity to particular model assumptions. These analyses demonstrated that:

1. Uncertainty in future socioeconomic scenarios could significantly affect adaptation cost estimates, which in Europe could vary between 32 and 56 USD (2005) billion in 2050. Mitigation efforts were not included;
2. The calibration results for European regions are relatively insensitive to different cost and damage inputs from the sectoral models, as other factors (regions, Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP)) dominate;
3. For the flood risk analysis uncertainties stemming from input data for the reference climate and especially those in the cost estimates (a factor 3 difference in applied methods) dominate over differences arising from the greenhouse gas development and SSPs;
4. For impact results it is possible to identify key drivers of uncertainty, for example for irrigated agriculture to assumptions on projected crop yield and surface water.

These findings support BASE starting point that the use of information and evidence from local cases can provide evidence in support of critical assumptions of aggregated models. BASE has shown that this requires a systematic approach to the setting up and analysis of cases.

2.6 Use and develop novel participatory and deliberative tools to enhance the effective use of local contextualised knowledge in adaptation strategies to assess perceptions of adaptation pathways and their co-design by citizens and stakeholders:
BASE case study research showed participation is imperative in climate change adaptation. The development and use of participatory approaches promoted shared visions for the future of a territory and triggered new adaptation processes. Participation also facilitated the integration of the particular social, economic, political and ecological characteristics of a region in adaptation strategies, plans and actions.

Key findings from participatory experiences:
The case study experiences indicate that participatory approaches are central to: engage citizens in supporting and legitimizing policies that can change local ways of living over the medium and long-term; allow for a knowledge exchange with local experts; and set up interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning contexts that support the design of strategies and policies, and able to address local context-specific needs (see D4.2, Experiences in bottom-up adaptation approaches in Europe and beyond; D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation and D.5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). The process of adaptation seems to benefit greatly from integrating different knowledge systems (lay, traditional, local experts) in developing strategies, plans or measures (D4.2, Experiences in bottom-up adaptation approaches in Europe and beyond; D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). The benefits of participation are mainly noted in the process of adaptation, for instance: data and information regarding measures is more complete and readily available (e.g. case study Alentejo), multi-stakeholder participation in decision-making increases the importance of the adaptation topic in policy agendas (e.g. Cascais, Kalundborg case studies), and facilitates a knowledge exchange which feeds into robust and effective strategies (e.g. Rotterdam, Ílhavo and Vagos case studies) (see D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation). These benefits are not easily measurable by specific indicators. It is also difficult to reproduce participatory research, as each process is influenced by local socio-economic, cultural and governance contexts, and by those individuals and groups who participate. It is, however, possible to say that reproducing the same participatory methodology in different case study contexts will provide similar benefits of involving stakeholders in decision-making. For instance, the Scenario Workshop was used in three BASE case studies (Ílhavo and Vagos, Kalundborg and Prague), and although each case was a different experiment, in every case study the objective of the methodology was achieved: to co-develop with local stakeholders a shared vision for the territory and an action-plan for the future (see D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation).
A core conclusion from the case studies is that the choice and use of participatory methods should receive the same attention as the choice and use of economic models. The practice of participation has also shown that decision-making in the context of climate change adaptation is not confined to technical matters, but is mainly a political issue. Case studies indicate that raising the adaptation topic in local political agendas is key to implementation (e.g. Cascais, Kalundborg, and Rotterdam). The political nature of adaptation will also influence decisions concerning different technical options (e.g. building a dike, versus beach sand nourishment). Therefore, although the technical dimension is fundamental, it is important to make use of robust and well-designed participatory approaches that raise awareness, ensure the integration of adaptation in local and national policies and promote inclusive and effective adaptation plans (see D5.2, Scientific report: Economic evaluation of adaptation options and D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation). To aid policy-making, the Adaptation Pathways and Tipping-Points method (Hassnoot et al., 2013) was applied and further developed in BASE (see D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies and Campos et al., 2016). The adaptation pathways and tipping-points is a systematic approach that overcomes lock-ins in planning processes and is able to integrate uncertainty as a variable that guides studies, plans and the implementation of measures. The method offers a tool to design adaptive policies for long-term climate adaptation. It was tested in four case studies in the Czech Republic, Portugal, and The Netherlands (Ílhavo and Vagos, Rotterdam, IJsselmeer and Prague). In some instances, the method was applied in a participatory context (e.g. Ílhavo and Vagos, Prague). The different experiences show that the tool can be integrated in different planning cultures (i.e. from managerial and technocratic approaches to more deliberative modes of planning), and is flexible enough to be successfully adjusted to diverse adaptation challenges (e.g. cities, coastal regions). The tool relies also on developing adaptation plans that are contingent on future climate uncertainty, and on a variety of other factors of uncertainty (i.e. efficacy of measures, costs and benefits of measures). When applying the Adaptation Pathways tool, the more information is collected through auxiliary methods (e.g. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Multi-Criteria Analysis), the more robust are the pathways, which will not only account for the possibility of a number of policies being implemented depending on the external conditions (i.e. thresholds), but also on the information gained about the costs and benefits of each option, the efficacy of measures and secondary effects. The tool is particularly suited for local level adaptation and is well complemented by participatory methods which promote consensus (i.e. Scenario Workshops) regarding the adaptation problem, as well as discussions on future thresholds and uncertainty.

Innovative participatory approaches and methods:
Participation also creates a space for innovation. The project had a strong focus on using and testing new participatory approaches, which had the effect of unlocking the innovation potential of groups and individuals (with diverse needs, knowledges, interests and aspirations) involved in adaptation processes (e.g. Cascais, Copenhagen case studies). As a result, new methodological designs were developed and applied, and have proven useful in accelerating climate change adaptation at the local level (see D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). As an example, Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis (PBCA) is a new method developed and tested during the project, which we consider to be an efficient methodology for promoting long-term adaptation plans at the local level. As a variation of traditional economic project appraisal methods, the new method was applied and tested in Cascais and Alentejo case studies. PBCA can be considered as a hybrid methodology in economic project appraisal, a current growing trend. The method comprises the integration of local, traditional, lay and expert knowledge in determining the costs and benefits of a particular measure; with a focus on the benefits as potential opportunities. PBCA aims to combine the advantages and strengths of multi-criteria analysis with the rationality of cost-benefit analysis, thereby, evolving from the simplicity of the Simplified Participatory Cost-Benefit Analysis (SPCBA) as proposed by the Climate Resilience Framework – Training Kit (3rd series) – to deliver an all-in-one tool for action-researchers working in climate adaptation. The PBCA is conceptually and in practice distinct from the SPCBA proposed by the Climate Resilience Framework, namely through the introduction of time differentiation (at least 2 periods, such as 2020 and 2050, for example) and discounting (scored by the stakeholders), as well as in its the complexity by integrating different criteria (ecological, social and economic), different scales for measuring impact, and incorporating more relevant impacts raised by participants. Through, combining heterogeneous sources and diverse elements that are interwoven by interpersonal deliberation and quantitative methodologies, PBCA produces both depth and breadth in the economic valuation and appraisal processes as well as is a tool that promotes information, experience and data sharing, while also supporting community building. Other new methods and tools, or novel applications of existent methods, applied by the project are: Participatory State-of-the-Art (invited experts and stakeholders discuss and elaborate on the state of the art of adaptation in the region); Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (a participatory semi-quantitative interview and analysis method); participatory add-ons to Multi-Criteria Analysis and to Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Systematization of Experiences (a method for participatory retrospective evaluations of projects, see Campos et al. 2015). Some of the methods and tools applied were specifically concerned with involving a wider number of stakeholders (e.g. citizen summit; world café; participatory state-of-the-art). However, more than the right participatory research tools, it is important to design a coherent stakeholder involvement approach, including making use of action-research (e.g. Cascais, Ílhavo and Vagos case studies). Participatory research approaches to climate change adaptation should carefully plan who will be involved (i.e. which stakeholder groups and individuals), how to involve (i.e. what methods and tools to use, and the level of stakeholder engagement), and at what stage of the adaptation process is participation integrated. To analyze the participatory approaches from this broader perspective, BASE developed the ‘Participation Matrix’, which is a model that can be used for both planning and assessing participatory experiences (see D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation). The matrix analyses the involvement of key stakeholder groups (identified based on the data collected from case studies), throughout different adaptation stages (i.e. initiative to act, development of adaptation options, decision-making and implementation) and taking into account the level of engagement (i.e. from consultation to self-mobilization). The matrix shows the project broke new ground in applying its participatory approaches. The comparative analysis of case studies, informed by this matrix shows action-research and partnerships between local practitioners and scientists, can work as an accelerator of adaptation processes, by promoting collective action, empowering communities, and leading to a wider stakeholder involvement at every stage of the adaptation process (e.g. Cascais, Copenhagen; Ílhavo and Vagos, IJsselmeer case studies). Lastly, the topic of ‘returns on investments’ emerged at the intersection of the participatory and economic analyses developed by BASE. Two major disruptions are happening in climate change adaptation financing: participatory discussions show that adaptation is increasingly recognized as an investment rather than a cost or a loss; while interests in the private sector, as well as available tools are growing consistently. Capital markets are now offering Green Bonds, International Development Banks are opening credit lines specific for climate adaptation actions and public-private partnerships are on the rise to finance major grey infrastructure investments. None of this is new, yet it is happening at a wider scale and expanding in the form og a diversity of new possibilities developed by the market, which are increasingly accepted by farmers, NGOs, start-ups and even governments. The integration of frameworks that include participation and economic analyses will be central to understanding what the drivers for private investment are. Specifically, it is important to question if this is a market rationality moving from risky assets and volatile goods to more resilient and less risky projects, if it's purely being driven by needs and bottom-up demands, or if it is only a temporary capital markets move, while interest rates are low and the world’s economy is still coming out of a long recession. Whatever the cause, without a robust stakeholder engagement strategy, it may be difficult to uncover the rationalities that shape investment decisions in climate change adaptation.

2.7 Disseminate findings by sharing the results of the project with policy-makers, practitioners and other stakeholders. It will thus seek to increase awareness of the impacts, costs and benefits of climate adaptation to support the effective implementation of sustainable European and national adaptation strategies:
BASE was strongly focused on disseminating findings and sharing the projects’ results with key stakeholders, namely policymakers (at the regional, national and local levels), private actors and adaptation practitioners, in order to inspire, motivate and support climate change adaptation policies and action. Awareness raising is an adaptation measure in its own right that requires a two-way communication strategy, and a skilful involvement of multi-stakeholder groups. It is central to draw attention to key socio-economic and environmental issues correlated to climate change (and thus help establishing a connection with climate change), and to share scientific data and knowledge on good practices and pilot experiences in an accessible language. Therefore, dissemination in BASE was treated as a centrepiece in promoting the successful implementation of plans and measures at all governance levels. BASE research confirms the importance of dissemination, of awareness raising and genuine stakeholder engagement for progressing adaptation processes. In fact, these factors were continuously stated by case study owners as crucial for adaptation. The project’s dissemination activities provided information on the projects’ methodologies and results in a coherent and consistent manner across all case studies, and ensured that climate adaptation practitioners gained a broader view of the adaptation processes and tools used across Europe, including details about each case study (i.e. Case Study Living Documents, or CSLDs, are available at the BASE site). One of the project’s core objectives was to foster sustainable adaptation in Europe by improving a knowledge base on adaptation, making this information easier to access, understand and act upon for decision-makers at all levels. Therefore, every BASE deliverable is available for downloads at the BASE website. Deliverable reports are for the most part written in an easy-to-read accessible language and together offer the key results of the project.

Contribution to Climate-ADAPT:
More than 20 BASE Case Studies are currently being integrated into Climate-ADAPT - a well-established and public clearing house mechanism featuring practical examples and best practice adaptation cases, and serving as a one-stop shop for climate change adaptation within the EU. The Case Studies put great emphasis on economic evaluation and assessment of participatory methodologies; they analyzed responses and adaptation strategies to climate change, impacting different geographical regions (i.e.: coastal zones, urban areas) and sectors (i.e.: agriculture, forestry and water resource management). By integrating these Case Studies into the Climate-ADAPT platform, BASE makes knowledge on climate change adaptation available and usable to all target groups. This is valuable information to stakeholders and policy makers operating in similar contexts, which provide comparable data on the effectiveness and cost-benefit impact of different responses. In this way, BASE facilitates the move from adaptation strategies and plans, at various governance levels, towards implementation and action by stakeholders, thus enhancing climate resilience across Europe. The case studies are available for consultation on the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT) and the BASE website.

Cross-border dissemination:
The importance of dissemination is not a new finding. However, BASE research has shown that the dissemination/engagement process needs to be multidirectional, not only within the scale of the case study and its diverse stakeholder groups, but also in a larger scale, promoting to the ‘rest of the world’ what a particular locality, region or country is doing, and consequently empowering such action. To address this need, which was a direct result of BASE case study findings (see D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies), the dissemination strategy included: the organization of international workshops and meetings with the participation of case study stakeholders; the publication and presentation of results from case studies in various formats (e.g. peer-reviewed publications; deliverable reports; policy briefs; conferences); and the making of video clips on local adaptation activities (e.g. the “Adapting to Climate Change: An Investigative Report from the BASE Broadcast Studio” video and the “Keyline” video). Concerning the organization of international workshops, there were a number of instances when different stakeholder groups from diverse case studies across Europe were gathered. Four examples stand out: The European Local Stakeholder Workshop on Climate Change Adaptation, organized in the Bella Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11th of May 2015 (The workshop provided a platform for stakeholders and researchers to exchange experiences on adaptation and to review the research carried out in each of the case studies); the 2nd European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference 2015, which took place on 12-14 May in Copenhagen); the Transnational BASE Training Course, held on 28 – 31 October 2015; and the policy workshop in Brussels (see below).

Presentation and development of policy options:
On the 9th of June 2016, close to the end of the project, the BASE Final Policy Workshop brought together BASE partners and representatives working on climate adaptation policy at EU and Member State level, as well as local practitioners to discuss and produce a set of policy recommendations aimed at supporting the review and future format of the EU Adaptation Strategy. The recommendations were co-developed during a 1 day co-creative workshop focused on the impacts and risks of climate change, the sectoral costs and socioeconomic benefits of adaptation and the implications for policy making. The policy recommendations developed during the workshop were presented in the "Key Policy Issues in implementing and evaluating the EU Adaptation Strategy" policy brief, the final of a series of 4 briefs produced by the BASE project. The recommendations are structured according to the three main objectives of the EU Adaptation Strategy (promoting member states actions; informed decision making; promoting sectoral actions); they inform and support the development of European adaptation policy at different levels. The recommendations are meant to provide a constructive contribution to the topics or specific issues that are essential for the practical implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy and to be considered by the European Commission in the review of the Strategy.

Kick starting local adaptation:
BASE had a bottom-up approach to climate change adaptation. The project’s case study experiences confirm communities are affected differently according to local governance frameworks, socio-economic and environmental characteristics. In some cases, risk perceptions are extremely high and local communities are ready to kick start adaptation processes (e.g. Ílhavo and Vagos, Dawlish, Timmendorfen Strand; Alentejo). In such cases, policy maker and wider stakeholder involvement in BASE research was a natural progression and provided important knowledge to support the development of adaptation solutions. Following the case study research, BASE teams were able to disseminate at the local level (and at times national and regional) context-specific knowledge on potential adaptation measures, their costs, benefits and secondary effects. Conversely, in other case studies, climate change adaptation was mainly perceived as another policy for sustainable development and the greening of a city or community (e.g. Cascais, Jena, Rotterdam, Copenhagen). Narratives, framings and storylines that accompany climate change adaptation strategies were found to be important triggers for allocating resources. In most cities analysed, the urban narrative (of climate change integrated in a wider transition towards sustainable, green and smart metropolises) promoted additional studies (such as economic analysis of measures) and pushed the allocation of resources for developing the adaptation process (primarily financial, but also human resources). Therefore, the role of disseminating and communicating science was particularly important in framing climate change as part of a broader sustainability challenge, which could contribute to support the development of long-term action-plans.
A core conclusion of the project is that the dissemination of climate change adaptation processes needs to be context-specific and tailored to local needs, perceptions and contexts, while also accounting for a wider societal interest in learning from a variety of local adaptation experiences.

Participatory workshops:
BASE case study research has resulted in 95 workshops and participatory events. Aside from the international workshops and meetings referred above, more than half of BASE European case studies carried out stakeholder workshops that focused primarily on including local stakeholders' perspectives. There was a wide variety of workshops throughout the project, and various participatory methods and workshop facilitation techniques were applied and developed such as; Participatory methods/Facilitation techniques (see also D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation); World Café; Asset Based Community Assessment; Fishbowl Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis; Participatory Benefits-Cost Analysis. The objective of stakeholder workshops was to bring together researchers and local stakeholders to discuss and plan climate change adaptation. The methodological approaches and findings from workshops were distilled in to a few key results from BASE stakeholder engagement (see also D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation and D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies).Workshops were found to establish new collaborations among stakeholders (with different interests), promoting a shared strategy, facilitating flexible solutions, and a shared commitment. (e.g. Holstebro and Lolland). The use of models (e.g. InVEST; PRIMATE), and of visual tools (such as pathways and maps) helped to improve discussions with stakeholders (e.g. Donana, Cascais). Participation offered a forum for an open dialogue between different groups who were previously disengaged (e.g. Alentejo). The bringing in of new stakeholders into the decision making processes, and the meeting of new knowledge domains, competences and resources provided a new momentum for adaptation and supported political interest and commitment (e.g. Alentejo; Šumava) Lastly, methods such scenario workshops and world cafés are important adaptation tools, especially in terms of encouraging people to ‘think out of the box’, and developing creative and innovative solutions (e.g. Šumava; Kalundborg; Ílhavo and Vagos).

The scientific exchange:
BASE dissemination strategy was strongly intertwined with an ongoing scientific exchange. In 2014, the BASE project teamed up with sister projects RAMSES and TopDad to co-organize the European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference, taking place in May 2015 (760 participants from 46 different countries). The ECCA 2015 covered a range of issues related to climate adaptation under the theme, "Integrating climate adaptation action in science, policy, practice, and business" and welcomed scientists, practitioners, policymakers, businesses and European and international organizations. BASE played a multifold role in relation to this conference. Content wise, as coordinator of the Scientific Program Committee, BASE researchers contributed to the definition of the conference profile, themes and foci. From a broad perspective, BASE maximized synergies between complementary EU projects, thus contributing to the consolidation of the European climate change adaptation community. From a project perspective, BASE outputs were presented and discussed in nine sessions and a workshop, which were shaped and chaired by the Consortium partners, as well as in several presentations and posters. Such intense participation allowed researchers to communicate the project outcomes with a broad, yet still specific audience, thus bringing other perspectives, feedback and input into the project work.The conference was co-sponsored by: Aarhus University, the three projects, the city of Copenhagen, Confederation of Danish Industry, Ramboll, and Realdania, and a number of exhibitors.

Action research, field work and co-creation of observations:
While most BASE case studies had a participatory dimension, some implemented an action-research approach (e.g. Alentejo, Cascais, Ílhavo and Vagos, Kalundborg, Kalajoki). These action-research case studies provided some key lessons learned. By bringing in new stakeholders into the decision making process and encouraging the meeting of new knowledge domains, competences and resources, action-research case studies were able to create a new momentum for adaptation. Involving political actors in the core stakeholder group was central for increasing political interest and commitment. The creation of a common knowledge base and an atmosphere of equality (between diverse social actors with different power relations) was important in terms of facilitating consensus and productive discussions. The interest of local multi-stakeholder groups particularly tended to increase as people were engaged in co-developing adaptation plans with researchers. People were more willing to implement and defend a plan that they perceived as their own (i.e. local ownership), and which was not introduced by an external force (e.g. Ílhavo and Vagos). In economic assessments, stakeholders were involved in discussions of interest rates and discount rates (e.g. Cascais), which were particularly important in order to value (over time) environmental and social co-benefits, and integrate local perceptions and immaterial values (e.g. maintain the natural landscape of region) in the economic analysis. This helped tackle a key problem in cost-benefit analyses of future-oriented actions in relation to identifying the best discount rate (see D5.2, Scientific report: Economic evaluation of adaptation options). Likewise, multi-criteria analysis also benefited greatly from action-research processes, which were able to prioritize adaptation options based on a diversity of stakeholder needs, aspirations and interests. Including these inputs from local communities since the early stages of an adaptation process seems to promote political support and the implementation of measures.

Peer-reviewed publications and books:
Sharing research findings with the academic community was a core activity of BASE partners. Among journals and books featuring articles mentioning or relating to the BASE project are: Global Environmental Change, Climatic Change, Environmental Science and Policy, Urban Studies, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Sustainability Journal, Community Development Journal, Agricultural Water Management and Ecology and Society. Whenever possible, open access journals were selected. A full list of peer-reviewed publications can be found in Annex B of this report. Besides peer-reviewed publications, towards the end of 2014, the BASE Consortium agreed to produce a scientific book aimed at experts on adaptation, including those engaged in developing adaptation strategies and plans at different levels of governance. The book summarizes BASE key research findings and provides a unique combination of perspectives both from broad modelling analysis (top-down) and real world cases, experiences, and success stories (bottom-up). In comparison with the deliverable reports, the book, which will be published by Elsevier in 2017, will reach an even broader target audience, including experts on adaptation in academia, government, private sector and the third sector.

Potential Impact:
The BASE project was funded in response to the FP7 Cooperation Work Programme ENV.2012.6.1-3: Strategies, costs and impacts of adaptation to climate change. Projects funded under this call were expected to have an impact on the following areas of climate adaptation:
• Reduced costs of adaptation;
• Improved understanding and acceptance of adaptation measures;
• More effective integration of adaptation research into decision making and enhanced knowledge-based decision making in climate change related areas;
• Stronger awareness and participation of society in adaptation measures;
• Social and economic benefits of adaptation;
• Databases on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation.

These expected impacts were integrated in the project’s strategic goals, throughout the work program. BASE research has been equally strongly guided by the need for a sustainable direction in climate change adaptation strategies. From this perspective, the process of adapting, and the strategies, plans or measures implemented should be sustainable, and have positive impacts for local communities, countries and regions over the medium and long-term. BASE pursued its sustainability goals by integrating participatory approaches (including action-research), applying robust economic assessments for long-term adaptation, and developing a framework for policy analysis. Accordingly, the main societal impacts of the project (described ahead) derive largely from these interrelated research dimensions.

Impacts of participatory approaches:
BASE broke new ground with participatory approaches (mainly reported in D5.3, Participation in climate change adaptation and D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). The project’s participatory experiences supported a variety of social learning processes and new modes of planning climate change adaptation.

Improved understanding and acceptance of adaptation measures:
By interacting with multi-stakeholder groups in action-research and participatory settings, BASE was able to systematically analyze and document local direct and indirect impacts of climate change and the specification of potential adaptations, which were previously unknown to local communities. Participatory approaches to case studies were able to collect knowledge and information to both inform and promote the design of adaptation strategies and actions, while also identifying and prioritizing effective and cost-efficient adaptation measures.
Participatory economic assessments were made for the short, medium and longer-term by taking stock of methods that are able to integrate uncertainty (such as the Adaptation Pathways). The longer-term perspective provided local stakeholders with a clearer understanding of the scope of adaptation processes, and with effective tools to integrate uncertainty (regarding the efficacy of measures and their secondary impacts) in an ongoing iterative planning process. This improved understanding of what adaptation processes entail over the long-term, and led to a wider acceptance of the need to adapt and of adaptation measures in the case studies. In Germany, for instance, the case of Timmendorfer Strand was presented at different events. It was presented twice for climate scholars from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation on their study tour "Knowledge Transfer for Effective Climate Protection Policies". In June 2015, The German Federal Foreign Office hosted an Informational Visitors Program on Climate Protection and Climate Adaptation, where Timmendorfer Strand was part of the excursion. It included a guided tour through the coastal protection measure by the architect responsible for the construction works. In the Czech Republic, the Prague case study lead to a new spin-off project – UrbanAdapt (Development of urban adaptation strategies using ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation, (, which was developed to support local municipalities in three large Czech cities (Brno, Prague and Pilsen). Recently, LIFE project ‘Integration of climate change adaptation into the work of local authorities’ (LIFE15 CCA/DE/000133) started with the aim to support small to medium-sized municipalities in the Severozápad region to integrate adaptation into local decision-making.

Stronger awareness and participation of society in adaptation measures:
Notwithstanding the technical knowledge produced, the action-research and participatory interactions provided forums for social learning and collective decision-making, empowering local communities towards becoming actively involved in developing adaptation processes, even after the research grant period (e.g. Cascais, Ílhavo and Vagos, Prague, Kalundborg, among other case study experiences). The Scenario Workshop and Adaptation Pathways (SWAP) offer an example of such case study dynamics. SWAP is a new action-research approach developed by BASE (in the case of Ílhavo and Vagos) that continued to be adopted locally and at the country level by other stakeholders. Since its initial application (and published results, see list of publications), SWAP has been applied in Alentejo (Portugal) in the context of a national research project (Adapt4Change), which derived largely from BASE research. Also inspired by the SWAP approach, a new LIFE project for adaptation in rural regions of Portugal (Montado & Climate: a need to adapt) will work with 12 farms and apply the same methodology. The methodology was developed as a result of a BASE participatory training workshop (i.e. the Prague Participatory Workshop), which brought together FFCUL, DBT and Deltares, and led to the development of the action-research approach. Similarly, the participatory experiences in case studies involving municipalities (e.g. Cascais, Copenhagen) inspired a new research project in Portugal (ClimAdaPT.Local), which works at the intersection of research and practice by involving 26 municipalities in the country in designing their local adaptation plans. These BASE ‘spin-off’ research projects came to fill an important gap in the landscape of Portuguese climate change adaptation - from the three municipalities that had a climate strategy in 2012, there are now 29 with a local strategy or plan and a region (Alentejo), with a regional strategy, and with 12 pilot experiences in farms.

Similar impacts can be found in other countries. In The Czech Republic, BASE project helped to bring the topic of climate change impacts and adaptation into decision-making in Czech cities. Similarly, in the Basque Country, BC3 has been granted a local project funded by KLIMATEK (Basque Government) ( to analyze heatwaves in the Basque Country and possible improvements in the heat warning systems in future scenarios under climate change. The project follows the methodologies put in place in the case study developed under BASE, and is under development in collaboration with the local public health, the emergency system and the Basque Environmental Agency. This will be presented as an example of science-based policy by the Basque Environmental Agency in COP22 in Marrakech.

Impacts of economic assessments:

Social and economic benefits of adaptation:
Case study research resulted in a collection of new empirical observations and economic data (on costs, benefits, and efficacy of adaptation measures) that was pivotal in informing local policies and action-plans. In some cases (e.g. Cascais, Jena, Copenhagen, Rotterdam), the local (municipal) climate adaptation strategy had reached a lock-in moment, as new data was needed to prioritize adaptation measures and proceed towards implementation. BASE economic analysis offered a way forward by consistently producing economic assessments of the costs and benefits (economic, but also social and environmental) of different potential measures. This information was central in supporting the implementation of measures and of local plans. In Cascais, for instance, following BASE economic assessments, the municipality’s climate change strategic plan went from being a non-binding strategy at the periphery of the policy agenda, to being included as an annex to the main Land Use Plan. Aside from the cost-benefit analysis of ‘grey measures’ (e.g. dikes); research included multi-criteria and cost-benefit assessments of ‘soft’ measures (e.g. awareness raising) and ‘green’ measures (e.g. green roofs), which were not previously prioritized by case studies, nor had they been assessed in terms of monetary and non-monetary values (i.e. social and environmental benefits). In some instances, green measures, which had not even been considered before BASE, became priorities for implementation in the case study areas (e.g. green corridors were considered a top measure in the Cascais study, following the BASE analysis). One month after closing BASE project, Cascais Municipality just invited FFCUL BASE partner to pursue a follow up climate service (amounting to 20.000€) which intends to develop with Cascais Municipality and local community an Action Plan for the next 20 to 30 years. Being a pioneer Municipality in Climate Change Adaptation, this first Action Plan will for sure be followed by other Municipalities.

Reduced costs of adaptation:
The economic research has not only provided a detailed understanding of the costs and benefits of different measures for local economies, social life and local environments, but also highlighted different aspects of measures, including the potential opportunities that can derive from adaptation. The new knowledge gained supports decision-making, but also encourages and motivates local stakeholders to act, and demystifies a number of assumptions and uncertainties regarding adaptation. Measures became a strategy towards a better future, rather than a solution for an impending problem. Participatory discussions (which were a component of economic analysis in some methodologies applied) show that adaptation is increasingly recognized as an investment in the future (much like education) rather than a cost or a loss. Lastly, new knowledge on the myriad of adaptation options (and their costs and benefits) for different geographies (e.g. coastal zones) and sectors (e.g. agriculture and forests) can inform other communities and regions across Europe, dealing with similar impacts. BASE developed also economic modeling based on its case studies to obtain cost estimates for selected sectors and national economies (through the work of WP3 and WP6). This economic modeling aided learning from other case studies across the world (D4.2, Experiences in bottom-up adaptation approaches in Europe and beyond), and helped pinpoint critical issues, potential cost-effective policies and opportunities for different European regions (D3.1, Model catalogue and data exchange plan; D3.2, Report on model developments in sectoral assessments; D3.3, Selected integrated assessment models for top-down analysis; D.6.1, Protocol for data formats needed for up-scaling and modelling; D.6.3, EU- wide economic evaluation of adaptation to Climate change), which are adapting to a changing climate over the medium and long-term.

Impacts of policy analysis:

More effective integration of adaptation research into decision making and enhanced knowledge-based decision making in climate change related areas :
One of the premises of the project has been that multi-level and multi-scale governance dynamics are crucial for advancing with climate change adaptation. Case study research confirmed this premise, and it was concluded that sustainable climate change adaptation requires a symbiotic relationship between bottom-action and top polices (D5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies). Policy analysis focused on learning how to strengthen these links over the medium and long-term, through increasing the mainstreaming and integration of climate change adaptation in public policies, at multiple sectors, levels and scales of governance. At the empirical level, the project provided new data and knowledge from case studies, which were included in the Climate-ADAPT platform (an important aspect of the European Adaptation Strategy). The project also produced an analytical framework for understanding the intersection of multi-level and multi-scale climate change policies and other sectorial policies across Europe (see D7.1, Strategies for enhancing policy coherence: mainstreaming adaptation into key sectoral and development policies). At the heart of the project, a number of policy oriented studies were developed (in WP2 and WP7), leading to a set of robust policy recommendations (Guidelines for EU and Member State policy makers, D7.3, Guidelines for EU and Member State policy makers) for the European Adaptation Strategy, and for decision-makers at multiple levels and scales of governance. The final recommendations were discussed and developed directly in a Policy Workshop (Brussels, 9th of June of 2016) with case study stakeholders and other actors (i.e. policymakers, representatives of funding sources), with all participants having the opportunity to shape the final set of recommendations. These recommendations have been passed on to the Commission for consideration in their review of the EU Adaptation Strategy. Aside from openly contributing with important outputs to the European Strategy, the project had a direct impact at the national level. In nearly every case study, local or national climate strategies were improved, developed or even initiated as a result of BASE research. For instance, in Finland, the National Strategy was updated and informed by work developed by SYKE. The evaluation of the Finnish Environmental Administration’s Action Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change used concepts and approaches developed in BASE for identifying progress in mainstreaming of climate change adaptation (Hildén & Mäkinen 2013). In Italy CMCC and ISPRA supported the Italian government in developing its national adaptation strategy, which has presently been approved. The Czech Republic’s National Adaptation Strategy was adopted in 2015, as a direct result of the Czech Globe’s interactions with the government throughout the project. In The Netherlands, two case studies (Rotterdam and Ijsselmeer) informed the National Governmental Delta Program. Thus, BASE research was able to tighten the links between bottom and top down policy-making processes, providing a set of lessons learned from case studies (D.5.5, Adapting to Climate Change: Comparison of Case Studies) on how these relations have been and can be further harmonized.

Databases on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation:
The scientific dissemination of case study work went beyond the usual channels (i.e. peer-reviewed publications) to encompass also other types of publications and dissemination activities with the goal of inspiring and motivating case study practitioners and policymakers, as well as a wider audience. These activities provided a fruitful and continued knowledge exchange and social learning process between case studies across Europe, after the empirical research was concluded. The activities include: uploading the results of BASE case studies onto the European Climate-ADAPT platform; producing the Inspiration Book, where every case study is succinctly described and illustrated (through high quality images) in an accessible language; a Summer School for young adaptation co-workers; a number of multi-stakeholder workshops (see summary reports) throughout the project, and video clips about innovative adaptation experiences. Every BASE deliverable and output is available to the wider public and can be downloaded from the project’s website. The knowledge gained provides a robust baseline for future economic assessments, including the methods and tools used (see D5.2, Scientific report: Economic evaluation of adaptation options), and a framework for evaluating measures (BECCA) of adaptation across Europe. These outputs show clear evidence of the outreach capability of the project, and its effort to promote a sustained collective action towards climate change adaptation. BASE research also had an internal impact in the Consortium partners and their research institutions. First, there was a continuous knowledge exchange among partners (e.g. exchanging information on impacts, adaptation measures and methodologies). The BASE interdisciplinary Consortium teams were experts in a diversity of key issues (i.e. public policies, participatory approaches and economic methods) and from a diversity of scientific backgrounds (e.g. climate change modeling, economics, environmental engineering, and sociology). In order to share this knowledge internally, and when necessary provide training, a few opportunities were set up, such as the Prague workshop on participatory approaches; and BASE Summer School. Due to these scientific interactions, a number of methods were developed and fine-tuned taking stock of the multiple competences and expertise of Consortium partners, (e.g. PRIMATE model for sensitivity analysis; Use of the InVEST Model for Ecosystems services; Adaptation Pathways and Tipping-Points tool; Scenario Workshop). These new methods and/or novel applications/combinations of methods were applied even beyond the boundaries of BASE in research and policy contexts. For instance, as a direct outcome of BASE work, the economic modeling expertise of the CMCC was used in a related project to explore the economic effects of indirect or transboundary impacts of climate change on the Finnish economy. These results have been used to direct attention to the nature and level of transboundary impacts, and to the need to consider them in adaptation planning and implementation. In Portugal, a coastal case study informed the report of the Littoral Working Group ( on coastal adaptation commissioned by the Portuguese Minister of Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, in order to plan the allocation of funds for protecting coastal zones. In the Czech Republic, The Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic with the title ‘Czech countryside and agriculture in a changing climate: Adaptation of Czech agriculture and rural areas to climate change’. The publication was prepared by CzechGlobe and is available at the website of the Ministry (

Overview of the dissemination activities conducted within the project:
From the outset it was assumed that in order for the BASE project finding to have this range of impacts, they must be interpreted so as to be understood and taken up by different stakeholders. These include policy makers, the scientific community, the private sector, civil society, the media and the general public. To this end, and in line with its overall aims, BASE conducted both “bottom-up” and “top-down” dissemination activities. Bottom-up communication tools included newsletters, social media, local events and stakeholder participation in the context of BASE’s 23 case studies. From the top-down, partners used European platforms and processes to feed into the BASE project e.g. through the European Topic Centre for Climate Change Adaptation, the development of the Climate-ADAPT portal and the launch and review of the EU Adaptation Strategy. Presentations made at events form the greatest proportion, followed by the elaboration of peer-reviewed articles, the organisation of workshops, online activities (web articles, updates and social media), other publications, PR activities and print/video material.

Dissemination activities highlights:
A number of dissemination activities merit specific mention:
A website was established at the outset of the project on the basis of a professional concept for the project identity including logo. The website was presented in easy-to-understand language and served as a central point of access for information about the project’s aims, consortium partners, research findings and project activities. The 23 Case Studies were featured through an interactive map allowing access to their detailed profiles. A download area provided visitors with open access to project deliverables and presentations. The twitter handle @EUAdaptation was created to coincide with the launch of the EU Adaptation Strategy in April 2013 and through careful management has per 1/11-16 reached 1000+ followers. The twitter account now acts as a powerful springboard to share news on BASE results, climate adaptation news and events to an interested audience that includes environmental media professionals, acclaimed academics and decision makers (e.g. the EEA, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, IOM Environment) who act as influential multipliers. Partners’ social media activities (i.e.: Blog of Roos den Uyl of the University of Exeter) were also featured on the project website.

Project publications:
Some 21 reports have been produced over the course of the project. These include quantitative and qualitative analyses and evaluation of the existing knowledge base as well as the development of new models, tools, scenarios, methods and processes for effective and sustainable climate change adaptation. These outputs were publicised through social media and made available for download from the BASE website. Selected publications from each WP were distributed in print form at various stakeholder events such as the ECCA 2015.

Peer-reviewed publications:
BASE consortium partners paid particular attention to the sharing of research findings with a broad academic audience. Circa 70 BASE related articles have been submitted to journals or books including: Global Environmental Change, Climatic Change, Environmental Science and Policy, Urban Studies, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Sustainability Journal, Community Development Journal, Agricultural Water Management and Ecology and Society. Open access journals were selected wherever possible. To date 36 have already been published, more than 60 are in progress (Submitted, accepted and near to publication) and at least 8 more papers are being prepared. Below is a selection of peer-reviewed publications, a full list of which can be found in Section A of this report.
• Sanderson, H; Hilden, M; Russel, D; Dessai, S. Database support for adaptation to climate change: An assessment of web-based portals across scales. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Monitoring. Wiley Online Library. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1755
• Van der Brugge, R., Roosjen, R. An institutional and socio-cultural perspective on the adaptation pathways approach. Journal of Water and Climate Change. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2015.001
• Jeuken, Ad, Laurene Bouaziz, Gerald Corzo and Leonardo Alfonzo. Analyzing Needs for Climate Change Adaptation in the Magdalena River Basin in Colombia. Springer Climate Change Adaptation, Resilience and Hazards. ISBN 978-3-319-39879-2
• González-Zeas D, Garrote L, Iglesias A, Granados A, Chávez-Jiménez A. Hydrologic Determinants of Climate Change Impacts on Regulated Water Resources Systems. Water Resources Management. doi 10.1007/s11269-015-0920-3
• Walker, B; Adger, N; Russel, D. Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in decentralised governance structures: Transport planning in England. Urban Studies. doi:10.1177/0042098014544759
• Campos, I; Alves, F.; Dinis, J; Vizinho, A; Trunninger, M; Penha-Lopes G. Climate adaptation, transitions and socially innovative action-research approaches. Ecology and Society.

Adapting Future to Climate Change in Europe Edited Volume:
In 2014, the BASE Consortium decided to produce the Adapting Future to Climate Change in Europe edited volume. The book will provide a scientific but widely accessible synthesis of the work conducted by BASE on adaptation activities in Europe. It will combine scientific assessments and modelling analysis (top-down approach) with real world case examples (bottom-up approach), also featuring specific tools and methods. The target audience includes climate change and adaptation experts in academia, government and specific sectors. The features of the book and the added benefit they offer are outlined below.
Real world case studies - Comparative learning from systematically analyzed cases
Top-down economic models - Novel application and integration of adaptation features in Europe-wide and global models
Participatory approaches - In-depth analysis of participation using new empirical material and approaches
Cost-estimates of adaptation action - Verified examples of costs in different regions of Europe and methods for deriving them

Besides BASE project deliverables and academic publications, Consortium partners produced a range of additional outputs creating added value for the research conducted. These include reports, issues papers, conference proceedings, articles and interviews, theses and dissertations and books. Some examples include:
• The Permaculture and Cimate Change Adaptation book
• The Adaptation Inspiration Book: 22 implemented cases of local climate change adaptation to inspire European citizens
• A second upcoming BASE Adaptation Inspiration Book: 23 European cases of climate change adaptation to inspire European decision- makers, practitioners and citizens
• Impact Science feature article about BASE findings

BASE Newsletters and Policy Briefs:
Six issues of The European Adaptation Newsletter were produced and released over the 4 years of the project. The newsletter targeted a broader audience with a focus on relating the relevance of BASE research to current climate change events and adaptation processes in Europe. Through the inclusion of an ‘Adaptation Dialogue’, readers were given the opportunity to hear about adaptation efforts on the ground. In ‘Latest insights’ the academic outputs of the project were communicated. Each issue had a topical focus e.g. coastal adaptation, agriculture, health and promoted both project-related and external events such as the COP21, ECCA2015, Adaptation Futures 2016 and the BASE Policy Workshop. The four Policy Briefs produced over the course of the project provided a deeper analysis of the policy-relevant aspects of the project’s research e.g. on the development of national adaptation strategies and evaluation criteria for adaptation.

Stakeholder engagement:
A key part of the project’s outreach included the organisation of events to foster dialogue and engage with policy makers, scientists, local stakeholders and industry involved in the implementation of adaptation measures. Particular attention was paid to science-policy interfaces and making scientific and experience-based knowledge accessible to decision makers. BASE events of note included:

1. Midterm review workshop | Sept 2014 and May 2015
The workshop presented the case study clusters and connected them based on similarities. Stakeholders from the case studies (local government representatives, city planners, private sector) came together to exchange with other practitioners and national level decision makers. The events helped to: identify and discuss the outputs; highlight BASE results; find and discuss commonalities in terms of policy planning and governance, meta-adaptation pathways/mainstreaming, methodologies for analysis, etc., as well as to identify key messages for policy support.

2. European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference 2015 | 12–14 May 2015
Together with the RAMSES and TopDad projects, BASE co-organised the Second European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference 2015 (760 participants from 46 different countries). The conference was developed under the theme: "Integrating climate adaptation action in science, policy, practice and business" and welcomed scientists, practitioners, policymakers, businesses and European and international organisations. The BASE project was entrusted with the coordination of the Scientific Programme Committee. In this role, BASE researchers played a major role in the activities at ECCA 2015, contributing to the definition of the conference profile, themes and foci. At a project level, BASE researchers were involved in chairing nine sessions, one workshop as well as presenting BASE results in several presentations and posters (see overview in Section B). At a larger scale, BASE maximized synergies between complementary EU projects with the objective of helping to consolidate the European climate change adaptation community.

3. Transnational BASE Training Course |28 – 31 October 2015. Designed for 16 carefully selected adaptation practitioners working within government, research institutions and the private sector across Europe, the course focused on a selection of key BASE themes, including Economic Evaluation of Adaptation Options; Participatory Aspects in Adaptation Processes and Implementation Analysis. The course provided a curriculum dedicated to the implementation of climate change adaptation projects, and offered illustration through hands-on examples, practical experiences and case studies, heavily based on results obtained from the BASE project (WP4 and WP5).

4. BASE Final Policy Workshop | 09 June 2016
This “co-creation” workshop brought together stakeholders to share their experiences and knowledge to shed light on European adaptation in policy and practice. Participants included representatives of local cases, national policy makers, representatives of DG Clima, DG Research and the OECD as well as researchers. The BASE team identified and assembled the project’s policy relevant conclusions into 11 policy relevant observations, which were elaborated on and turned into ten policy recommendations by participants. The recommendations fed into the “Guidelines for EU and Member State policy makers” project deliverable, which outlines 21 policy-relevant recommendations – and supporting evidence – for policy-makers working at the EU, national and local levels to support adaptation decision-making. The outputs also aim to provide a concrete contribution to the review of the EU Adaptation Strategy which is planned for 2017.

Media outreach:
During the course of the project, media have been regularly targeted in order to promote BASE findings and events. Contacts of EU wide general and special interest media have been included in the distribution lists for newsletters and policy briefs, as well as invitations to events. Interesting media coverage was generated by project partners, especially in the UK (BBC Broadcast) and The Netherlands (e.g.

BASE videos:
Two videos have been produced and broadly distributed/screened under the BASE project:
a) The “About BASE” short animated video (1:59 min; 1,233 views) introduces the BASE project and its key issues to a wider audience and explains how the project benefits sustainable adaptation across Europe.
b) The “Adapting to Climate Change: An Investigative Report from the BASE Broadcast Studio” longer video (6:45 min, 946 views) provides a more thorough explanation of climate change. Four young reporters interview a group of European 'adaptation professionals', including a local policy maker, a practitioner and an EU policy maker, drawing new insights from their work to learn what we can do to better adapt. By featuring existing initiatives to tackle climate change, the video aims to inspire people and invite them to take action.

Interlinkage with Climate-ADAPT and contribution through case studies:
Over the course of the project BASE analysed 23 case studies with a particular emphasis on economic evaluation and assessment of participatory methodologies. These case studies provide an excellent insight into the status-quo of adaptation in Europe as well as providing comparable data on the effectiveness and the cost-benefit impact of different responses. One way in which this knowledge has been made accessible and useable for decision-makers at all levels has been through close cooperation with the EEA to integrate these results in the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT) to provide access and share data and information on climate change in Europe, adaptation strategies and actions, tools and options for adaptation. Seventeen are featured on the portal today.

The project has placed a strong focus on an analysis and development of new tools and methods to examine the social and economic benefits of adaptation. These approaches and findings have been shared with policy-makers, practitioners and other stakeholders in order to increase awareness of the impacts, costs and (co-)benefits of climate adaptation and ultimately reduce the costs of adaptation (see Deliverable 5.2). Furthermore, much work has been done to examine the processes and conditions which enable or create barriers to the creation of adaptation strategies at national level, and the uptake of measures at a local or regional level, leading to an improved understanding and acceptance of adaptation measures (see Deliverables 2.1 and 5.4). Through the highly participatory approach applied in the case studies (see Deliverables 4.2 and 5.3), BASE has contributed to a stronger awareness and participation of society in adaptation measures in 23 specific locations, and has contributed to an increased knowledge of processes and methods to engage stakeholders in adaptation processes that can be applied in other locations (see Deliverables 4.1, 4.2 and 5.3). The application of these approaches and the lessons learnt has been facilitated by feeding the case studies into the Climate-ADAPT portal contributing both to databases on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation as well as a more effective integration of adaptation research into decision making and enhanced knowledge-based decision making in climate change related areas. Dissemination and communication activities have played an important role in reaching these objectives. Internally, the organisation of project meetings and use of the management tool and intranet EMDESK as an online portal for project management and regular telephone conferences have ensured regular and effective communication within the research team. Externally, the organisation of stakeholder events and the use of communication tools such as the project website, Twitter, the two BASE videos, policy briefs and newsletters and the extensive publication of peer-reviewed articles have all contributed to improving the knowledge base on adaptation in Europe.
In many cases, the visibility given to the project findings (i.e.: through presentations, networking, publications) has been followed up with additional activities. For example, Deltares has been invited to present BASE project results to the World Bank, May 11 2015. Partners working on relevant case studies have been asked to contribute to a report for the EEA on Climate Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction and have been invited to facilitate workshops to assist EU accession countries with the development of adaptation policies using Climate-ADAPT as support. New co-operative actions also took shape, for example between Deltares and the JRC. The models further developed within BASE are central part of a co-operation on impact risk studies at European scale. Furthermore, after presenting the economic analysis of adaptation pathways (developed within BASE) at the Adaptation Futures conference, partners were approached by the Dutch government to apply the methodology to some cases from their adaptation program. Other partners (CVGZ) were asked by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic to prepare a publication on adaptation to climate change in Czech agriculture and rural areas, highlighting climate change perceptions among farmers. All relevant project information and communication products are presented, also in downloadable format, on the project website.

List of Websites:
Project website:
Website management: Chiara Mazzetti (
BASE Coordinator: Hans Sanderson (
Base Case Studies:

Related information


Lars Villemoes, (Senior Economist)
Tel.: +45 8715 1341
Fax: +45 8715 5021
Record Number: 194695 / Last updated on: 2017-02-09
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top