The urgency of adapting urban areas to the increasing impacts of climate change has prompted the scientific community to seek new approaches in partnership with public entities and civil society organizations. In Malaysia, Penang Island has developed a nature-based urban climate adaptation program (PNBCAP) seeking to increase urban resilience, reduce urban heat and flooding, strengthening social resilience, and build institutional capacity. The project includes a strong knowledge transfer component focused on encouraging other cities in the country to develop and implement adaptation policies, projects, and initiatives. This research develops a model adopting the most efficient processes to accelerate the transfer of knowledge to promote urban adaptation based on the PNBCAP. The methodology is developed based on a review of literature focused on innovation systems and change theories. The integration of success strategies in adaptation contributes to informing the creation of solutions around the alliance of local, state, and national government agencies, scientific institutions, and civil society organizations, in a new framework designated the Malaysian Adaptation Sharing Hub (MASH). MASH is structured in 3-steps and will function as an accelerator for the implementation of urban climate adaptation policies, with the target of creating 2 new adaptation-related policies to be adopted annually by each city member, based on knowledge gathered in the PNBCAP. It is concluded that, to speed up urban adaptation, it is necessary to reinforce and promote the sharing of knowledge resulting from or associated with pilot projects.

Given the eclectic and localized nature of environmental risks, planning for sustainability requires solutions that integrate local knowledge and systems while acknowledging the need for continuous re-evaluation. Social-ecological complexity, increasing climate volatility and uncertainty, and rapid technological innovation underscore the need for flexible and adaptive planning. Thus, rules should not be universally applied but should instead be place-based and adaptive. To demonstrate these key concepts, we present a case study of water planning in Texas, whose rapid growth and extreme weather make it a bellwether example. We review historic use and compare the 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017 and 2022 Texas State Water Plans to examine how planning outcomes evolve across time and space. Though imperfect, water planning in Texas is a concrete example of place-based and adaptive sustainability. Urban regions throughout the state exhibit a diversity of strategies that, through the repeated 5-year cycles, are ever responding to evolving trends and emerging technologies. Regional planning institutions play a crucial role, constituting an important soft infrastructure that links state capacity and processes with local agents. As opposed to “top-down” or “bottom-up”, we frame this governance as “middle-out” and discuss how such a structure might extend beyond the water sector. 

This study scrutinizes the allocation of financial aid for climate change adaptation from OECD/DAC donors, focusing on its effectiveness in supporting developing countries. With growing concerns over climate risks, the emphasis on green development as a means of adaptation is increasing. The research explores whether climate adaptation finance is efficiently allocated and what factors influence OECD/DAC donor decisions. It examines bilateral official development assistance in the climate sector from 2010 to 2021, incorporating climate vulnerability and adaptation indices from the ND-GAIN Country Index and the IMF Climate Risk Index. A panel double hurdle model is used to analyze the factors influencing the financial allocations of 41,400 samples across 115 recipient countries from 30 donors, distinguishing between the decision to select a country and the determination of the aid amount. The study unveils four critical findings. Firstly, donors weigh a more comprehensive range of factors when deciding on aid amounts than when selecting recipient countries. Secondly, climate vulnerability is significantly relevant in the allocation stage, but climate aid distribution does not consistently match countries with high vulnerability. Thirdly, discerning the impact of socio-economic vulnerabilities on resource allocation, apart from climate vulnerability, is challenging. Lastly, donor countries’ economic and diplomatic interests play a significant role in climate development cooperation. As a policy implication, OECD/DAC donor countries should consider establishing differentiated allocation mechanisms in climate-oriented development cooperation to achieve the objectives of climate-resilient development.