From Risk to Resilience: Integrating Climate Adaptation and Disaster Reduction in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development

Abstract

The growing frequency and severity of climate-induced disasters—such as floods, heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires—pose significant threats to sustainable development worldwide. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) has emerged as a strategy imperative for enhancing societal resilience and protecting developmental gains. This review synthesizes the current knowledge and practice at the intersection of CCA and DRR, drawing on international frameworks, national policies, and local implementation strategies. We assess the role of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), the Paris Agreement, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in promoting policy coherence and multi-level governance. Particular attention is given to the effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EbA), and community-based approaches that address both climate vulnerabilities and disaster risks while delivering co-benefits for ecosystems and livelihoods. Case studies from regions highly exposed to climate-related hazards, including the Global South and Europe, illustrate how integrated approaches are operationalized and what barriers persist, including institutional silos, limited financing, and data gaps. For example, Bangladesh has achieved over a 70% reduction in flood-related mortality, while Kenya’s drought-resilient agriculture has increased food security by 35% in affected regions. The review highlights best practices in risk-informed planning, participatory decision-making, and knowledge co-production, emphasizing the need for inclusive governance and cross-sector collaboration. By critically examining the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and risk reduction, this paper offers a pathway to more resilient, equitable, and sustainable development. It concludes with recommendations for enhancing integration at the policy and practice levels, supporting both immediate risk management and long-term transformation in a changing climate.

1. Introduction

The acceleration of climate change is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century, manifesting in increasingly severe and frequent climate-related disasters such as floods, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate extremes are becoming more intense and frequent globally, directly affecting socioeconomic systems and ecological stability [1]. These compounding risks threaten to reverse decades of developmental progress and disproportionately impact low-income and marginalized populations [2].

Climate-related hazards are escalating in frequency, severity, and complexity—exposing vulnerabilities in both natural and human systems. While a growing body of the literature has acknowledged the intersection of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), much of it remains fragmented across disciplines, scales, and implementation arenas. This paper contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive synthesis that moves beyond previous reviews in three key ways: (1) It examines integration through the lens of real-world case studies from both the Global North and South. (2) It highlights emerging governance innovations and the role of multi-level institutional coherence. (3) It evaluates both the enabling conditions and persistent barriers to integration with a forward-looking view on climate justice and transformative adaptation.

While developed separately, Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) share the common goal of reducing climate risks, building resilient societies capable of absorbing and transforming in response to shocks. CCA aims to adjust systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli, while DRR focuses on identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks of disasters. Although these approaches have developed separately, they share the common goal of reducing vulnerabilities and increasing resilience to climate-related hazards [3].

Despite shared goals, CCA and DRR policies often remain siloed across sectors and institutions. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have called for increased coherence between these fields through integrated policy planning, financing, and risk-informed development [4,5].

Global frameworks provide an essential foundation for such integration. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) emphasizes a shift from disaster response to risk prevention, aligning closely with adaptive measures promoted under the Paris Agreement. Likewise, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes resilience as a cross-cutting priority for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (sustainable cities), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 15 (life on land) [6].

This paper examines key frameworks, policies, and practices for integrating CCA and DRR. Special attention is paid to tools like Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EbA), and community-based strategies, which represent effective, inclusive, and adaptive practices. We also examine how these strategies are being applied in real-world contexts through case studies from both the Global South and Europe, illustrating diverse governance models, financing instruments, and cross-sector collaborations.

By synthesizing lessons from the recent literature and policy practice, this paper seeks to inform decision-makers, researchers, and practitioners on how integration can support sustainable and transformative development under conditions of climate uncertainty.

2. Theoretical and Policy Context

The strategic integration of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is rooted in an evolving international policy landscape that has progressively emphasized risk-informed and climate-resilient development. Key frameworks and instruments not only articulate the need for adaptation and resilience but increasingly promote coherence across sectors, scales, and institutions.

The diagram in Figure 1 visualizes the key tools (e.g., Nature-Based Solutions and Early Warning Systems), actors (e.g., governments, communities, and NGOs), and scales (local, national, and global) that interact across feedback loops and governance channels. It illustrates how coordinated efforts contribute to sustainable development through increased resilience, policy coherence, and cross-sector collaboration.

2.1. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030)

The Sendai Framework, endorsed by 187 United Nations (UN) member states in 2015, is a cornerstone for international disaster policy. Its four priorities include (1) understanding disaster risk, (2) strengthening disaster risk governance, (3) investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, and (4) enhancing disaster preparedness for effective responses and recovery. Notably, the framework encourages national governments to develop DRR strategies aligned with climate change adaptation efforts, focusing on systemic risks, vulnerable systems, and multi-hazard approaches [7]. Progress monitoring is supported by a set of global targets, including reducing disaster mortality and economic loss [7].

2.2. The Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement, adopted at COP21 in 2015, reinforces the role of adaptation in global climate governance. Through Article 7, it places adaptation on par with mitigation, urging all countries to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce climate vulnerability [8]. It introduces the concept of “global goal on adaptation” and promotes the preparation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which increasingly incorporate disaster risk data, early warning systems, and integrated planning with DRR sectors [8].

2.3. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The 2030 Agenda encompasses 17 interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many of which intersect with climate resilience. SDG 13 (climate action) calls for urgent adaptation measures and emphasizes capacity building. SDG 11 (sustainable cities) includes explicit targets on reducing the adverse impacts of disasters, while SDG 15 (life on land) highlights ecosystem services crucial for adaptation and DRR [6]. This agenda positions resilience as both a prerequisite for and an outcome of sustainable development [6].

2.4. Policy Coherence and Institutional Integration

Although global frameworks call for integration, implementation at the national level is often fragmented due to sectoral mandates, overlapping responsibilities, and unaligned timelines. Key barriers include a lack of harmonized funding mechanisms, inconsistent risk and climate data, and divergent institutional priorities [9,10]. Countries like Fiji and Mexico have piloted integrated national policies that merge DRR and CCA, supported by climate finance mechanisms and cross-sector governance bodies. Such cases offer replicable models for institutional integration [9].

2.5. Emerging Guidance and Assessment Mechanisms

New international tools and assessments are enabling countries to diagnose coherence gaps and improve alignment. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have released joint guidance on national reporting and policy synergies [4,5], while the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed scorecards for resilience planning [11]. These instruments evaluate policy frameworks based on criteria like governance overlap, data interoperability, and participatory processes. Moreover, the Global Commission on Adaptation and initiatives like the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP) advocate for anticipatory action frameworks grounded in both DRR and CCA [11].

3. Methodology

This review adopts a qualitative, integrative literature review methodology to synthesize findings from interdisciplinary scholarship, gray literature, and international policy documents. The primary aim is to assess current knowledge, practices, and institutional mechanisms that support the integration of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the context of sustainable development.

3.1. Literature Selection and Review Process

The literature review followed a structured approach inspired by the PRISMA framework to ensure transparency in the selection process. Sources were retrieved from peer-reviewed journal databases such as Web of Science -(provided by Clarivate) and Scopus (provided by Elsevier), as well as institutional repositories (e.g., UNDRR, IPCC, UNFCCC, and OECD). Search terms included combinations of keywords such as “climate change adaptation”, “disaster risk reduction”, “policy coherence”, “resilience”, “nature-based solutions”, and “sustainable development.”

Inclusion criteria required publications to (a) be in English; (b) be published between 2010 and 2024 to encompass major policy milestones; and (c) address the integration of CCA and DRR conceptually or empirically. Exclusion criteria included works that treated either CCA or DRR in isolation without a reference to integrative practices. A total of 162 documents were screened, with 74 selected for full-text review based on relevance and quality.

3.2. Analytical Framework

The analysis employed thematic coding focused on four dimensions: (1) policy and institutional coherence, (2) implementation strategies (e.g., Nature-Based Solutions and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation), (3) governance mechanisms (including stakeholder participation), and (4) challenges and opportunities for integration. The selected materials were manually coded, and recurring patterns, barriers, and enablers were categorized. Emphasis was placed on extracting cross-context insights that could inform broader policy and planning discussions.

To ensure the reliability of the thematic coding process, two independent researchers initially coded a representative subset (15%) of the selected documents using a predefined coding framework based on policy coherence, governance mechanisms, implementation strategies, and integration barriers. Inter-coder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa, which yielded a coefficient of 0.81, indicating substantial agreement. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus, leading to the refinement of coding definitions and categories. The remaining documents were then coded using the revised framework to maintain consistency and minimize subjective bias.

3.3. Quality Assurance and Limitations

Quality assurance was maintained by prioritizing studies published in high-impact journals and reports from established institutions. While efforts were made to include a range of geographical contexts and policy levels, the exclusion of non-English studies likely introduces a degree of linguistic and regional bias. Furthermore, the inherent publication bias favoring successful interventions may have limited the inclusion of neutral or failed case studies. The dynamic nature of climate governance also means that some data may rapidly become outdated. Future research should consider multi-language reviews and participatory field-based methodologies to capture diverse local experiences.

4. Integrated Approaches to Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation

Efforts to bridge Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) have given rise to a range of integrated strategies that address systemic risk and enhance resilience across sectors and scales. These approaches not only respond to immediate climate hazards but also build long-term adaptive capacity, in alignment with sustainable development goals.

4.1. Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are increasingly acknowledged for their dual role in risk mitigation and ecosystem enhancement. Recent studies emphasize the importance of communicating the scope, limits, and co-benefits of NBS in climate adaptation efforts [12]. Evidence from the Philippines shows that mangrove restoration has significantly reduced cyclone damage while sustaining local fisheries [13]. In the Netherlands, multifunctional green corridors combine flood control with recreational and habitat functions [14]. These interventions are supported by the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Green Deal policies promoting systemic NBS adoption [15]. For instance, the Netherlands’ “Room for the River” program has reduced flood damages by over 30% in pilot regions while simultaneously restoring 1600 hectares of riparian zones.

4.2. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EbA)

EbA harnesses ecosystem services for adaptation, particularly benefiting indigenous and rural communities. In the Andes, traditional irrigation and agroforestry systems, such as the waru terraces in Peru, have demonstrated resilience to climate variability [16]. EbA also plays a role in coral reef restoration in the Pacific Islands, supporting fisheries and buffering storm surges. Its success depends on local engagement, ecosystem health, and governance frameworks that integrate conservation and adaptation priorities [17,18].

4.3. Community-Based Adaptation (CBA)

CBA emphasizes participatory methods, knowledge co-production, and locally led planning. In Bangladesh, community-based early warning systems and cyclone shelters have drastically reduced disaster mortality [19]. In Kenya, CBA projects focused on drought-resilient agriculture and microfinance have improved food security and household resilience [20]. However, CBA faces limitations such as underfunding, reliance on NGOs, and challenges in scaling and institutional integration [21].

4.4. Integrated Risk Governance

Integrated governance aligns adaptation and DRR through shared planning, legal instruments, and decentralized risk management. The Urban Climate Resilience Program in Southeast Asia exemplifies the successful mainstreaming of risk into local planning through climate-sensitive land-use zoning [22]. In Germany, the “Resilient City” model includes co-developed climate risk assessments, public–private partnerships, and adaptive infrastructure investment [23]. These approaches depend on vertical coordination, stable financing, and stakeholder participation.

4.5. Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

Collaborative approaches enable integration across water, health, infrastructure, and land use. Tools such as Climate Risk Informed Decision Analysis (CRIDA) and the Adaptation Pathway framework (used in Dutch delta planning) guide decision-making under uncertain conditions [24,25]. Joint monitoring and inter-agency platforms are critical for sustaining dialog between traditionally siloed sectors. Integrated national adaptation frameworks in Fiji and Mexico demonstrate institutional models that facilitate such collaboration [26]. AI-supported decision models [27] show promise in streamlining supply-chain risk analysis and can support CRIDA-style planning by integrating uncertainty modeling with real-time decision frameworks.

These integrated approaches underscore that coherence between CCA and DRR requires not just technical tools but also inclusive governance, policy innovation, and long-term financing mechanisms.

Table 1. Comparative strategy matrix.

Strategy	Regional Context	Success Factors	Barriers	Example Countries
Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)	Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America	Biodiversity co-benefits, multi-level governance, and EU funding	Land tenure conflicts, ecosystem degradation, and funding volatility	The Netherlands, Germany, and Peru
Community-Based Adaptation (CBA)	South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Pacific Islands	Local ownership, traditional knowledge, and NGO facilitation	Scaling issues, reliance on external support, and weak institutional links	Bangladesh, Kenya, and Fiji
Policy Integration (CCA-DRR mainstreaming)	Global, with pilot successes in Latin America, Europe, and the Pacific	Legal mandates, cross-sectoral platforms, and international frameworks	Institutional silos, uneven local capacity, and short political cycles	Mexico and Fiji

provides a comparative overview of three key strategies for integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)—Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), Community-Based Adaptation (CBA), and Policy Integration (CCA-DRR mainstreaming). Each strategy is assessed across five dimensions: the regional context, success factors, barriers, and example countries.

NBS are primarily applied in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, leveraging ecological infrastructure to reduce risks while delivering biodiversity and climate co-benefits. Success is enabled by multi-level governance and access to environmental funding, although land tenure and ecosystem degradation pose challenges.

CBA is most prominent in the Global South, particularly in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Pacific. It emphasizes local participation, traditional knowledge, and community leadership. Its strengths lie in grassroots ownership and context-specific innovation, though it often faces issues with scaling, institutional fragmentation, and dependence on external support.

Policy Integration is an emerging governance-oriented strategy that focuses on embedding CCA and DRR into unified legal, financial, and planning frameworks. Applied globally, its success depends on institutional coherence, legal mandates, and cross-sectoral dialog. Barriers include bureaucratic silos, short political timelines, and uneven implementation capacity.

5. Case Studies

To assess how the integration of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) occurs in practice, this section presents real-world case studies from various global regions, including Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. These case studies illustrate how policy coherence, inclusive governance, and context-specific strategies shape resilience outcomes.

5.1. Bangladesh

Community-Based Flood Adaptation: Bangladesh, one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, has implemented extensive Community-Based Adaptation initiatives that integrate DRR and CCA. Through programs supported by the comprehensive disaster management program (CDMP), communities have developed locally managed flood shelters, early warning systems, and disaster education curricula [28]. These measures have contributed to a 70% reduction in flood-related mortality in high-risk regions [28]. Simultaneously, ecosystem-based measures such as wetland restoration are promoted through partnerships with NGOs and donor agencies [29]. These projects emphasize participatory planning and gender-sensitive risk assessments. Despite significant success in reducing flood-related mortality, limitations persist due to funding volatility and fragmented governance [30].

5.2. Germany

Urban Resilience and Sponge Cities: In response to increasing urban flooding and heatwaves, Germany has adopted nature-based urban adaptation strategies such as the “sponge city” approach. Cities like Hamburg and Berlin integrate green infrastructure into city planning, including bioswales, permeable surfaces, and urban wetlands, to manage stormwater and mitigate heat [31]. In Hamburg, sponge city interventions led to a 40% reduction in surface runoff and measurable cooling during urban heatwaves [31]. These projects are often guided by the German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change and receive support from EU cohesion policies. Monitoring mechanisms and robust municipal leadership contribute to their effectiveness [32].

5.3. Kenya

Drought-Resilient Agricultural Systems: Kenya faces recurrent droughts that affect food security and livelihoods. Programs such as the Kenya Climate-Smart Agriculture Strategy emphasize resilience through drought-resistant crops, early warning systems, and decentralized water management [33]. The adoption of drought-tolerant crops and water harvesting techniques has increased food security by up to 35% in drought-prone counties like Turkana [33]. Community-managed grazing plans and reforestation projects in counties like Turkana and Kitui demonstrate ecosystem-based resilience, while cooperatives promote financial inclusion and livelihood diversification [34].

5.4. Italy

Italy’s wildfire risk governance integrates civil protection mechanisms with regional adaptation strategies and is coordinated by the National Civil Protection Department. The Civil Protection Department coordinates satellite-based fire detection, prescribed burns, and awareness campaigns. Historical zoning policies, such as regional fire-prone area designations, guide land-use planning and prevention efforts, while recent reforms have sought to mainstream climate adaptation into municipal-level development plans. Funding is typically a mix of national resources and EU support, with policy learning increasingly shaped by inter-regional cooperation and participation in EU-wide adaptation networks. LIFE program-funded projects show successful collaboration between forestry, disaster response agencies, and communities [35]. However, institutional fragmentation remains a barrier [36].

5.5. Czech Republic

Integrated Flood Risk Management in Central Europe: The Czech Republic’s approach to flood risk integrates structural and Nature-Based Solutions with climate resilience strategies. Following severe floods in 2002 and 2013, the government established a comprehensive river basin management framework under the EU Floods Directive. Projects in the Morava River Basin include the restoration of floodplains and natural retention areas [37]. Cross-sector collaboration and the integration of spatial planning tools have improved risk mapping and stakeholder engagement.

5.6. Sweden

Climate-Resilient Infrastructure in Northern Europe: Sweden has advanced resilient infrastructure systems that incorporate CCA and DRR principles, especially in stormwater management. Gothenburg and Malmö have implemented green roofs, open stormwater channels, and retention basins that reduce both flood risk and urban heat [38]. Municipal strategies are grounded in national adaptation plans, which are supported by high-quality climate data from the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI). Recent studies using machine learning for disruption forecasting [39] offer parallels for climate-resilient infrastructure planning, particularly in systems that must anticipate compound urban risks and optimize real-time responses.

5.7. The Netherlands

Multi-Layered Safety Approach in Western Europe: The Netherlands has pioneered a multi-layered safety approach that integrates flood protection infrastructure, spatial planning, and crisis management. Through the “Room for the River” program, over 30 projects have reconnected rivers to floodplains, reduced urban vulnerability, and restored ecological functions [40]. The Delta program facilitates long-term governance through stakeholder dialogs and adaptation pathways under deep uncertainty.

5.8. Canada

Indigenous-Led Wildfire Resilience in North America: In Canada, Indigenous communities are leading climate-resilient wildfire management strategies, particularly in British Columbia and the Yukon. Combining traditional knowledge with modern practices, these programs include cultural burning, forest fuel management, and collaborative planning with provincial agencies [41]. They highlight the importance of self-determination and Indigenous governance in building resilience.

5.9. Peru

Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in the Andes: Peru implements EbA in mountain regions through programs like “Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on Peru’s Water Resources.” These initiatives restore pre-Incan water management systems (e.g., amunas), reforest alpine wetlands, and engage communities in watershed governance [42]. Co-benefits include water security, biodiversity conservation, and disaster risk mitigation from landslides and glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs).

5.10. Fiji

Planned Relocation in Response to Sea-Level Rise: Fiji is globally recognized for pioneering the managed relocation of communities at risk from sea-level rise. The Fijian Relocation Guidelines, adopted in 2018, support inclusive and rights-based transitions with a focus on climate justice. Managed relocation initiatives have reduced climate-related displacement risks and infrastructure losses by 60% in pilot communities [43]. Relocations such as that of the Vunidogoloa village are supported by hybrid funding from domestic and international sources [43]. These cases show the complexities of balancing cultural heritage with safety imperatives.

5.11. Slovakia

Slovakia’s integration of CCA and DRR faces challenges related to decentralized governance and varying municipal capacities, which affect the consistency of implementation. The country is highly reliant on the EU Cohesion Funds to finance large-scale flood and landscape restoration projects, creating both opportunities and constraints for long-term planning. Coordination between the Ministry of Environment and the Civil Protection system is evolving, with growing efforts to link environmental and emergency response strategies through integrated risk mapping and planning tools. Flood Risk and Landscape Restoration in Central Europe: Slovakia has implemented integrated CCA-DRR measures through a combination of floodplain restoration, green infrastructure, and policy reforms under the EU Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive. The “Revitalization of the Upper Bodrog Basin” project, for example, uses natural water retention measures—such as small dams, afforestation, and wetland creation—to reduce flood peaks while supporting biodiversity and rural development [44]. The national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, updated in 2021, emphasizes multi-level coordination and local implementation. Municipalities are increasingly applying ecosystem-based approaches within land-use plans. However, challenges persist in ensuring stable financing and cross-sectoral coherence at the regional level [45].

5.12. Comparative Insights

This expanded set of case studies illustrates how integrated CCA-DRR strategies manifest across regions and governance levels. Central and Western Europe emphasize engineering, legal, and spatial tools; Northern Europe highlights data-driven and green infrastructure; South and Southeast Asia focus on community-led, ecosystem-based resilience; and North America and the Pacific show the critical role of Indigenous leadership and planned relocation. These examples affirm that locally anchored, context-specific governance and financing mechanisms are crucial for scaling transformative resilience.

There is also a visual summary table of global case studies on CCA and DRR integration (

Table 2. Summary of Global Case Studies on CCA and DRR Integration.

Country/Region	Region	Main Risk/Challenge	Key Strategy
Bangladesh	South Asia	Flooding	Community-Based Adaptation and DRR
Germany	Western Europe	Urban flooding and heatwaves	Nature-based urban planning
Kenya	East Africa	Drought	Climate-smart agriculture
Italy	Southern Europe	Wildfires	Fire prevention and ecosystem restoration
Czech Republic	Central Europe	Flooding	Floodplain restoration and spatial planning
Sweden	Northern Europe	Urban flooding	Green infrastructure
The Netherlands	Western Europe	Riverine flooding	Room for the river
Canada	North America	Wildfires	Indigenous-led fire management
Peru	South America	Glacial melt and water stress	Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
Fiji	Oceania	Sea-level rise	Planned relocation
Slovakia	Central Europe	Flooding	Natural water retention
Country/Region	Risk Reduction Outcome	Cost-Effectiveness	Data source
Bangladesh	Significant reduction in flood-related mortality (over 70%)	High (community-driven and low-cost solutions)	[27,28,29]
Germany	Mitigated urban flood risk and reduced heatwave impact	Moderate to high (co-funded by the EU and municipalities)	[30,31]
Kenya	Improved food and water security during droughts (35% increase)	“High (locally adapted and low input needs)	[32,33]
Italy	Reduced fire damage in high-risk zones	Moderate (requires ongoing monitoring and coordination)	[34,35]
Czech Republic	Decreased flood peaks and improved preparedness	Moderate (EU-funded and long-term returns)	[36]
Sweden	Lowered urban heat and runoff volumes	High (cost-saving over traditional gray infrastructure)	[37,38]
The Netherlands	Enhanced river capacity and reduced flood damage	High (multi-benefit and flood-preventive)	[39]
Canada	Reduced wildfire impact and cultural co-benefits	Moderate (culturally tailored and low-tech)	[40]
Peru	Improved watershed resilience and reduced landslide risk	Moderate (eco-based but capital-intensive initially)	[41]
Fiji	Increased safety for relocated communities	Moderate to high (requires funding but reduces long-term loss)	[42]
Slovakia	Dampened flood extremes and protected ecosystems	High (nature-based and scalable)	[43,44]

Note: The table includes the country, regional context, major climate risk, and key strategy and now also provides quantified risk reduction outcomes and assessments of cost-effectiveness based on reported performance data and implementation studies.

), showing each country, region, main climate risk, and core strategy used.

Table 2 summarizes global case studies that exemplify diverse approaches to integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) across different regional and hazard contexts. The table highlights how countries are addressing specific climate-related risks—such as flooding, drought, wildfires, and sea-level rise—through tailored strategies grounded in local governance systems, ecological conditions, and socio-political realities. To strengthen the comparative insight, the enhanced version includes two key performance indicators: risk reduction outcomes and cost-effectiveness. These additions clarify the tangible impacts of each strategy, from mortality reduction and improved food security to ecosystem preservation and urban flood control, as well as their relative resource efficiency.

For example, Bangladesh and Kenya emphasize cost-effective, community-based and climate-smart strategies to manage flooding and drought, achieving significant reductions in vulnerability with modest financial inputs. In contrast, countries such as Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands implement nature-based urban planning and river management solutions supported by stable institutional frameworks and co-financing mechanisms, yielding high long-term returns. Nations like Fiji and Canada employ culturally grounded approaches such as Indigenous governance and planned relocation to address complex, often irreversible threats. The diversity of these responses—and their varied outcomes—underscores the importance of context-specific integration pathways that align local needs with national policies and global frameworks. No single model fits all; instead, successful integration is shaped by governance maturity, access to finance, community engagement, and ecological conditions.

Table 2 has been updated to include risk reduction outcomes and cost-effectiveness assessments, demonstrating that both community-based and institutional strategies can yield significant resilience returns with varying financial inputs.

A comparative analysis of integration strategies reveals striking regional contrasts in adaptation and risk reduction approaches. Europe has demonstrated notable success with institutionalized, top-down Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) that are facilitated by mature governance systems, stable regulatory frameworks, and consistent access to EU Cohesion and Green Deal funding. National strategies often mandate the integration of climate and disaster planning, enabling local authorities to implement green infrastructure with technical and financial support. In contrast, South Asia excels in Community-Based Adaptation (CBA), where dense social networks, participatory traditions, and high trust in local institutions have enabled grassroots-led initiatives to thrive—even in contexts of limited formal capacity. These efforts often compensate for state-level gaps through NGO facilitation and donor support, delivering contextually relevant and inclusive resilience outcomes. These regional divergences underscore a fundamental insight: there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the context matters profoundly for strategy selection and effectiveness.

6. Discussion

The review of case studies across diverse geographical and institutional settings reveals clear evidence that integrated approaches to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) are increasingly operationalized through a blend of policy innovation, community engagement, Nature-Based Solutions, and cross-sectoral coordination. The patterns that emerge reflect regional priorities: Central and Western Europe rely heavily on engineering solutions and regulatory frameworks [36,38]. Northern Europe exemplifies leadership in data-driven adaptation and green infrastructure [37]. Regions in the Global South such as South Asia and East Africa prioritize community-based and ecosystem-based approaches [28,33]. Nations in the Pacific and North America are advancing through Indigenous-led governance and managed retreat policies [41,43].

Conceptual linkages between CCA and DRR are shown in Figure 2.

A key insight from these diverse contexts is that while the forms of integration differ, the success of such initiatives consistently hinges on the enabling conditions. These include coherent national policies, multi-level governance mechanisms, stable financing arrangements, legal mandates for integration, and mechanisms for inclusive stakeholder participation. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden demonstrate how top-down coordination can create space for experimentation and resilience at local levels [39,40], while cases from Bangladesh and Peru show how local knowledge and grassroots innovation are critical in settings with less institutional capacity [28,42].

The conceptual framework showing pathways for integrating CCA and DRR through vertical (local to global) and horizontal (sectoral) governance linkages is introduced in Figure 3. It highlights entry points for mainstreaming resilience into planning, policy, finance, and implementation.

However, the integration of CCA and DRR remains far from uniform. Persistent barriers include institutional silos, competition for limited resources, short-term political cycles, and inadequate data infrastructure. In some cases, DRR remains focused on historical hazards, while CCA emphasizes future-oriented climate risks—creating misalignments in planning and budgeting cycles. Additionally, there is often a mismatch between national-level strategies and local implementation capacities [33,45].

Across case studies, several cross-cutting themes have emerged. The growing emphasis on equity, inclusion, and Indigenous rights represents a normative shift in resilience thinking. This is especially evident in Canada and Fiji, where Indigenous governance and climate justice principles are explicitly shaping relocation and risk reduction [41,43]. Likewise, the rise in ecosystem-based and Nature-Based Solutions in Europe, Latin America, and Asia reveals increasing alignment with ecological and regenerative paradigms of adaptation [31,35,42]. These approaches not only mitigate climate and disaster risks but also deliver biodiversity, health, and economic co-benefits.

In terms of policy implications, the case studies underscore the urgency of mainstreaming integrated approaches into long-term development planning and climate finance structures. Notably, there is a growing discourse on climate justice and power asymmetries in adaptation decision-making. Vulnerable communities, particularly Indigenous peoples and marginalized rural populations, often lack representation in national adaptation processes, despite being disproportionately affected by climate risks. Addressing these imbalances requires participatory governance structures, legal empowerment, and targeted financing instruments.

In addition, mechanisms for loss and damage financing have emerged as critical yet underdeveloped areas in global climate policies. Countries like Fiji, which face existential threats from sea-level rise, rely on fragmented international support and voluntary aid. A coherent framework under the UNFCCC, with dedicated funding windows and risk-sharing mechanisms, is essential to support irreversible losses.

Moreover, the growing complexity of climate-related hazards necessitates a deeper understanding of compound and cascading risks—where multiple stressors intersect and amplify systemic vulnerabilities. These include urban heatwaves coupled with power outages or droughts coinciding with food price shocks and migration. Planning tools and risk assessments must evolve to reflect this reality.

Finally, the findings highlight important directions for future research. These include a better understanding of compound and cascading risks, the institutionalization of adaptive governance, metrics for evaluating transformative adaptation, and mechanisms for scaling up local innovations. The integration of CCA and DRR is not a linear or technical process, it is deeply political and shaped by power dynamics, cultural values, and historical trajectories.

These cases highlight the gap between national ambition and local implementation capacity. In Peru, for example, while ecosystem-based adaptation has demonstrated ecological and cultural relevance, its scalability is hampered by limited institutional continuity, funding instability, and uneven community participation across remote mountainous regions [42]. In Fiji, the globally recognized planned relocation framework still struggles with aligning relocation efforts with long-term livelihoods, land tenure rights, and cultural identity, posing challenges in truly just transitions [43]. These experiences reveal the tension between ambitious national strategies and the local realities of resource constraints and governance complexity, highlighting the reality that well-designed national policies often fail to produce equitable or sustainable outcomes without adequate mechanisms for localization and community agency. In both cases, structural challenges, such as ambiguous land tenure, bureaucratic inertia, and external donor dependence, undermine the transformative potential of these otherwise progressive strategies.

Furthermore, a critical distinction arises between transformative and incremental approaches to adaptation and risk reduction. Many interventions, such as retention basins in Sweden or mangrove restoration in Bangladesh, represent incremental improvements that reduce immediate exposure or sensitivity to hazards [28,38]. However, transformative adaptation, such as Indigenous-led governance in Canada or managed retreat in Fiji, implies systemic shifts in values, institutions, and development paradigms [41,43]. This paper suggests that while both are necessary, transformative approaches may offer more robust, long-term resilience, especially in contexts of compound and irreversible climate impacts.

This distinction is especially important when considering adaptation in contexts where existing vulnerabilities intersect with socio-economic marginalization. Incremental changes, while necessary, may be insufficient to address systemic exposure, particularly where governance structures lack the capacity or political will to undertake transformative reforms. Thus, for resilience to be truly durable and equitable, adaptation must evolve from tactical responses to strategic, long-term restructuring of how societies manage risk, build capacity, and share responsibility for future uncertainty.

While this review provides a broad synthesis of integration practices between Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis relies primarily on secondary sources such as the academic literature, institutional reports, and policy documents; it does not incorporate original fieldwork or stakeholder interviews. As a result, the depth and contextual nuance of certain case studies may be limited. Second, data availability was uneven across regions and strategies, with more robust documentation available for Global North examples than for many Global South contexts. Third, this study does not include econometric modeling or longitudinal impact assessments, which limits its ability to quantify the long-term effectiveness of integration strategies.

Future research should prioritize more rigorous comparative performance evaluations across regions, ideally combining qualitative insights with measurable indicators of resilience and cost-effectiveness. There is also a need for longitudinal studies that track how CCA–DRR integration evolves over time, particularly in response to shifting climate hazards and policy environments. Finally, more attention should be directed toward evaluating the role of digital planning and forecasting tools—such as Climate Risk-Informed Decision Analysis (CRIDA)—in supporting anticipatory governance, integrated financing, and real-time decision-making under uncertainty.

7. Conclusions

This review highlights the imperative of integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) to promote sustainable and resilient development pathways in a climate-changed world. Across the global case studies, it is clear that while integration is context-specific, successful outcomes are enabled by coherent policy frameworks, inclusive governance, innovative financing, and Nature-Based Solutions. Countries with strong legal mandates, coordinated institutions, and community engagement strategies are better positioned to manage risks and implement adaptive actions.

The case studies provide tangible evidence of the diverse ways that integration can occur—from the Netherlands’ multi-layered safety strategy to Fiji’s planned relocation and Peru’s Ecosystem-Based Adaptation. These examples underscore that adaptation and risk reduction are most effective when linked to broader development goals and when grounded in local realities and social equity. Process optimization techniques can inform how adaptation pathways evolve over time, supporting more dynamic and iterative planning under deep uncertainty.

Despite progress, significant gaps remain. Many countries still face institutional fragmentation, short-term planning horizons, and a lack of resources for implementation. Moreover, the most vulnerable communities often struggle to access the support and protection needed to cope with climate hazards.

As the climate crisis intensifies, integrating CCA and DRR must be treated not as a technical coordination task but as a foundational principle of policy, planning, and investment. It requires systemic change, both in mindset and in practice, as well as a commitment to climate justice, innovation, and co-produced knowledge.

To operationalize the integration of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), policymakers must adopt concrete, context-sensitive tools that foster alignment across institutions, financing mechanisms, and implementation scales. Key policy recommendations include:

Cross-sector coordination: Establish national- and local-level interministerial task forces to align CCA and DRR mandates and budgeting, ensuring consistency in planning cycles, data sharing, and institutional accountability.

Integrated financing: Blend climate and disaster risk financing through pooled adaptation funds, insurance instruments, or green bonds, enabling flexible, long-term investments in resilience that cut across sectors and time horizons.

Scaling innovations: Develop national platforms to replicate and support community-led resilience hubs and local pilot programs, leveraging lessons from successful grassroots efforts while embedding them in broader policy frameworks.

These measures can help bridge the persistent gap between national policy ambitions and local implementation realities, ultimately accelerating the transition toward more resilient and sustainable development pathways.

While this review consolidates key lessons on integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), significant gaps remain in the long-term monitoring and evaluation of these integrated strategies. In particular, there is limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of digital platforms that can concurrently manage adaptation and disaster risk data across governance levels. Moreover, current models often fall short in capturing cascading hazards and compound risks that span sectors and timelines. Future research should prioritize the development of predictive, cross-sector modeling tools that incorporate real-time data and uncertainty analysis to better inform proactive planning and system-wide resilience.