Climate Resilient Development Pathways (CRDP) is a promising concept for cities to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation to achieve sustainable development for all. Although CRDP aims to leverage synergies and co-benefits while limiting trade-offs between a city’s many objectives, there is no framework or approach for planning and implementing CRDP. A structured approach is needed to move from theory to practice. In this perspective paper, we outline three functional elements, or building blocks, for a CRDP planning framework. The building blocks are (1) identifying and evaluating interactions between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development, (2) addressing time and uncertainty in planning, and (3) delivering specialized information for CRDP. These building blocks are informed by practice, drawing lessons from literature on recent efforts to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation in European cities, and from our experiences with adaptive pathways planning and climate services development. As cities and scholars are turning their attention to CRDP planning, the building blocks can help focus priority areas for development, informed by practice.

In the process of transitioning into resilient urban areas, cities face a wide variety of challenges in relation to adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. Commonly these challenges are addressed in a merely isolated fashion, or only two out of the three objectives are tackled simultaneously. It is pivotal to take a systemic approach over time in order to maximise synergies and minimise trade-offs between these different policy objectives. Climate Resilient Development Pathways (CRDPs) aim to integrate adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development into flexible pathways over time, while considering (deep) uncertainties regarding climate change, as well as other sources of uncertainty. Climate resilient development pathways seek to support integrated planning and implementation of climate action. Currently no comprehensive framework exists for operationalising CRDPs. There is a need to develop a methodology for the practical pursuit of climate resilient development pathways.

This research presents a novel approach to operationalise climate resilient development pathways, using the well-established method for adaptation pathways, so-called “dynamic adaptation policy pathways (DAPP)”, as a starting point. The CRDP process starts by envisioning multiple desirable futures and understanding the decision context and current policy objectives and actions for adaptation, mitigation and development. Thereafter the synergies and trade-offs are assessed between the different climate actions, as well as tipping points are identified – meaning points in time when new actions will be required. Consequently, alternative actions are co-developed for the future to pursue desirable pathways. The final outcome is a pathways map, as well as an implementation and monitoring plan. An urban case-study to demonstrate the applicability of climate resilient development pathways is presented for the city of Cork in Ireland.

CRDPs can be created for different climate-related impacts such as flood and heat, as well as for a wide variety of development issues. The main target groups of the approach are decision makers and/or (urban) planners, although a wider engagement is recommended for different steps during the co-creation process of the pathways. Climate resilient development pathways support integrated climate action planning, interlacing adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development through designing flexible pathways over time that provide insights into the range of options to achieve resilient urban futures.

This paper presents an analysis of future research and development needs to assess the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate adaptation in watersheds at scale using hydrological models. Two main questions are addressed: To what extent are hydrological model approaches able to support decision making on nature-based solutions and adaptation, and how well is this hydrological analysis embedded in the broader planning process? To support the research, case studies in Bhutan, Zimbabwe and the Netherlands are presented. The Climate Risk Informed Decision Analysis approach is used to structure the planning process. All three case studies demonstrate how the hydrological system and full landscape of land and water use in watersheds can be simulated to better understand hydrometeorological hazards under current and future climate. Also, simulations of nature-based solutions are demonstrated, which need creativity and profound expert knowledge. In contrast to the assessment of grey infrastructure, no rules or guidance exists for the hydrological assessment of nature-based solutions. Physically-based models are better able to support the understanding of the functioning of the ecohydrological system and, therefore, the effectiveness of adaptation using nature-based solutions. There are however trade-offs between the computational complexity, the computation time and the multiple scenarios and sensitivity analyses of adaptation options needed for climate stress testing. Often there is a lack of monitoring data for verification of model outcomes. Several recommendations on how to improve modelling in an adaptation process are given. In addition, it is recommended to develop and rectify a set of nature-based solutions performance indicators, rules and algorithms to be adopted in models in order to quantify the effectiveness of these solutions.