Maximising Adaptation: Highlights from the NAP4 event at King’s College London

This is a summary of key discussions. A detailed technical report with full findings and outputs will be published separately.

The MACC Hub and King’s Climate & Sustainability (KCS) team co-hosted an event at King’s College London on Wednesday 26 February, focused on helping shape the UK’s Fourth National Adaptation Programme (NAP4). Bringing together academics, policymakers, civil society practitioners and local experts, the event provided a platform to explore transformational approaches to climate adaptation that are both ambitious and fair. 

The workshop aimed to inject a diversity of ideas early into the NAP4 process, raising ambition. The workshop created opportunities for co-learning between those generating climate research and doing action and policymakers. Participants were encouraged to share practical insights, case studies and research to help inform NAP4’s development. 

Read is a summary of the day, key highlights and valuable insights gained from participants.

Stay up to the date on all future MACC Hub events by following us on LinkedIn and subscribing to our newsletter. You can also online community by adding your institution to the MACC Hub portal. You can upload examples, case studies, reports and learning to our UK Adapt map.

What is NAP4 and why does it matter? 

The Fourth National Adaptation Programme (NAP4) will set out the UK government’s strategy for managing climate risks and building resilience across society, due to be published in 2028. National Adaptation Programmes are part of a statutory process under the Climate Change Act 2008 and outline the government’s priorities, objectives and actions for addressing current and future climate impacts, guiding how climate risks are identified, assessed and managed across sectors and regions. 

Opening remarks  

The event opened with a welcome from Frans Berkhout, Assistant Principal for King’s Climate and Sustainability, who highlighted the urgency of the adaptation agenda. Frans framed the context by noting the rapidly accelerating social and economic costs of climate change. He stressed that achieving climate resilience should be transformational, impacting food systems, urban environments, biodiversity and cultural heritage alike, setting the tone for a day focused on bold, systemic change. 

“There’s a signal that we need much, much greater investments in adaptation to respond to the changes already built into the climate system.” 

– Frans Berkhout

Following Frans, Dr Helen Adams, MACC Hub lead, took participants through the purpose of the day and the Hub’s vision. She explained that the MACC Hub is a UK-wide initiative aiming to develop a knowledge and action ecosystem, responsive to the needs of communities, regions and sectors. As Helen said, the Hub seeks to help “shift the dial on adaptation action, by learning and sharing what works,” while centering equity and justice in all adaptation approaches.

“You can’t do adaptation in silos. We need to understand how power, vulnerability and policy bottlenecks shape what’s possible on the ground.” 

– Dr Helen Adams

She also highlighted the Hub’s focus on accessible tools and data, stressing that “we’re not about producing more models; we’re about making the models that we use more effective, so local communities and policymakers can actually engage with climate risk.” Helen emphasised that cross-sectoral and systems thinking are essential for transformational adaptation. 

“How do we stop seeing adaptation as an extra thing we have to do on top, but something that is fundamental to achieving any of our goals?” 

-Dr Helen Adams

Poster Session: Showcasing research and practice 

A key feature of the event was a poster session showcasing King’s research projects in climate adaptation and resilience. Posters highlighted both local and international projects, giving participants concrete examples of practical and applied adaptation work:

• CLARITY-Africa: Strengthening climate resilience in African cities, presented by Dr Shona Macleod 

• Effects of temperature on mental health: Examining vulnerability in urban communities, presented by Professor Ioannis Bakolis 

• Empowering resilience in Jakarta: Focusing on urban floods, presented by Dr Zara Shabrina and Dr Jin Rui 

• Hopeful Futures: Co-creating visions for a well-adapted London, presented by Dr Kirstie Hewlett and Dr George Adamson 

• Improving adaptation communication for the elderly: In partnership with Age UK Lambeth, presented by Dr Fatima Wang 

• Wildfire adaptation and resilience: Led by Abdullah Rehman, Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society 

• REVIVE: Exploring emancipatory futures under climate risk, presented by Dr Helen Adams 

The session allowed participants to engage directly with researchers, discuss findings and explore ways to translate research into actionable adaptation strategies. 

Panel discussion: From climate scenarios to delivery – enabling a more ambitious NAP4 

Building on the energy of the poster session, a panel discussion then explored the question: ‘From climate scenarios to delivery, what would enable a more ambitious NAP4?’ Panellists brought diverse perspectives from government, academia and community organisations, sharing insights on bridging the gap between high-level climate planning and on-the-ground adaptation. 

Making adaptation actionable at national and local levels 

Dr Caitlin Douglas from the Climate Change Committee, talked about the new Well Adapted UK report (to be released in May 2026), designed to make adaptation guidance more usable and solution-focused for national governments. The report combines research evidence, stakeholder input and citizen perspectives, structured around principles and systems to guide concrete actions, with a focus on what governments should deliver for NAP4. The emphasis was on clarity, accessibility and actionable steps that move from long-term ambitions to immediate delivery.

Learning from Wales and devolved approaches 

Clive Walmsley from Natural Resources Wales reflected on Wales’ adaptation strategy, emphasising the value of public service boards, locally informed climate risk assessments and social justice frameworks. These structures demonstrate how governance, community engagement and cross-department collaboration can bridge the gap between policy and local action, providing lessons for ambitious adaptation planning in England. 

Community-led approaches: Zarina Ahmad

Zarina Ahmad from the Women’s Environmental Network highlighted the importance of recognising and supporting communities’ existing capabilities. Adaptation efforts should build on local knowledge, ongoing initiatives, and social networks, rather than assuming communities lack resources or expertise. For example, WEN has been leading a project on food systems transitions in Tower Hamlets that combines technical and social solutions, demonstrating how adaptation initiatives can empower communities instead of imposing top-down approaches.

Community-led approaches: Jedidah Onchere 

Jedidah Onchere from North Brixton Big Local emphasised the importance of locally grounded adaptation projects. Using heatwave interventions in Lambeth as an example, she illustrated how small-scale pilots can identify practical barriers to action (such as accessibility of cooling kits for elderly residents) and how checking and adjusting projects makes sure they really help the people involved. Her insights highlighted that adaptation solutions must be practical, socially sensitive and responsive to local lived experience. 

Key themes from the discussion: 

• Adaptation requires multi-level collaboration, linking national guidance to local implementation 

• Inclusive engagement ensures vulnerable communities are central to planning and initiatives are grounded in reality 

• Adaptation measures must be flexible, iterative and responsive to the social, infrastructural and environmental context 

• Lessons from devolved administrations and local pilots can inform NAP4 ambition, demonstrating pathways to more effective and equitable adaptation delivery 

The panel highlighted that strong, practical adaptation happens when policy, research, and communities work together, bringing together evidence, local experiences and clear decision-making to create solutions that meet national goals while supporting local needs.

Introduction to NAP4

Participants were then invited to hear from Natalie Roberts, Natural Environment Adaptation Policy Team Lead at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who shared the process for preparing NAP4. The next Climate Change Risk Assessment is due in 2027, with NAP4 expected in 2028, and she highlighted changes designed to strengthen the NAP, including system-based objectives and outcome-focused measures.

“We are looking to develop system-level objectives and subsystem-level objectives, both long-term and short-term, so we can measure progress and see stepping stones toward broader adaptation goals”.

-Natalie Roberts

She emphasised that while Defra leads on adaptation coordination, individual government departments own the policies and delivery mechanisms. She encouraged collaboration, saying, “The policy teams are the ones writing the policy and thinking about delivery plans, and that’s where engagement really matters.” 

Natalie also talked about the recent planning assumption from the Climate Change Committee that will guide objectives for NAP4 and stressed the importance of building adaptation into decisions using clear guidance and ways to track progress.

Breakout groups activity 

After a short break, participants split into breakout groups, each assigned one of two questions: 

1. How should adaptation progress and success be measured and demonstrated? 

2. How do we translate climate scenarios into effective on-the-ground delivery? 

The discussions surfaced rich insights and practical recommendations for policy, research and community adaptation initiatives. 

Scenario to action

Participants emphasised the challenge of turning high‑level climate scenarios into tangible, locally relevant actions, noting a persistent gap between national legislation and local implementation under the UK’s centralised system, where adaptation responsibility sits at national level but much delivery (such as land‑use planning) is local. In Scotland, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 places statutory duties on public bodies to support delivery of the national adaptation plan and forthcoming updated statutory guidance is expected to outline corporate adaptation actions all public bodies should take.

In Wales, the Well‑being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 requires Public Service Boards to include climate risk in their local well‑being assessments and plans, embedding climate resilience in statutory local governance. By contrast, in England there is currently no statutory guidance equivalent at the local level, meaning roles and responsibilities for adaptation planning are less clearly defined and coordinated — a barrier for translating adaptation knowledge into practical action.

Key themes included: 

• Bridging the knowledge gap: Academics and researchers produce sophisticated climate predictions, but these are often not accessible to local authorities, community organisations or the general public. There was a call for intermediary organisations that could translate scenarios into actionable, locally relevant guidance. 

• Embedding adaptation into existing systems: Rather than creating entirely new infrastructure, participants stressed using existing spaces and integrating adaptation into everyday operations, such as retrofitting public buildings, embedding heatwave alerts in TV weather forecasts, or leveraging parks and green spaces. 

• Community participation and storytelling: Local successes like King’s Hopeful Futures and UCL’s Normative Future Visioning showed the value of participatory approaches. Using storylines, arts based practices and co-designed scenarios allows communities to understand uncertainty and engage meaningfully with adaptation planning. 

• Bold action: Participants defined “bold” actions as those that are evidence-based, ambitious and account for local needs, while also addressing long-term risks and uncertainties. They noted the importance of clarifying responsibility and accountability within government and across sectors to empower decisive adaptation efforts. 

Measuring success and impact 

Measuring adaptation was seen as complicated, because it is important to measure success beyond financial costs and benefits. Groups stressed that success includes social, environmental and health impacts, as well as costs and benefits. 

Key insights included: 

• System‑wide metrics: Participants suggested looking at adaptation across whole systems, not just single outcomes. Measures should show reduced risks, fairness and wider societal benefits. For example, the King’s study on extreme heat and mental health looked at changes in hospital visits and access to green space, showing both direct and indirect benefits.

• Local and national alignment: Measures should be consistent across the country but still useful for local decision‑making. Westminster City Council uses local climate risk and vulnerability data — including assessments of how extreme heat affects health services, transport infrastructure stress, business operations and community vulnerability — alongside community feedback and lived experience, to understand impacts and guide planning. For instance, the city’s Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment combines quantitative risk data with people’s experiences of heat risk to support decision‑making across sectors.

• Process‑oriented measures: Many groups suggested looking not just at outcomes but also at how adaptation happens, including process measures such as levels of community participation, inclusivity and equity, since adaptation is a continuous journey.

• Different kinds of cost–benefit: While the financial benefits of adaptation are important, participants noted it is also challenging to measure non-economic benefits such as health, fairness, and community well-being. Many agreed that these social and environmental benefits are difficult to quantify, even though evidence suggests that not acting usually leads to higher costs over the long term. Short-term political priorities, however, can make it harder to prioritise these longer-term, less tangible benefits in decision-making.

Inclusion, learning and innovation

Equitable and inclusive adaptation approaches were highlighted as key to reducing vulnerability. Participants noted that involving vulnerable and marginalised communities in planning, and combining qualitative insights from residents and frontline stakeholders with quantitative data, can improve the effectiveness of adaptation measures. This approach helps ensure interventions are grounded in local realities, more likely to be adopted, and capable of addressing diverse risks across communities.

Highlights included: 

• Equity and vulnerability: Adaptation must prioritise those most at risk, integrating factors such as deprivation, social marginalisation and mental health. The Westminster City Council approach, for example, focuses on areas with both high climate risk and high social vulnerability. 

• Learning from failure: Groups emphasised using past crises, such as COVID-19, to understand system weaknesses, innovate and anticipate future adaptation challenges. Participants pointed to slow responses during pandemics as a warning for how we handle climate adaptation. 

• Capacity and resourcing: Limited local authority staffing and expertise were consistently noted as barriers. Participants recommended targeted professional development, funding and training to build resilience capacity across organisations. 

• Knowledge transfer: Sharing lessons from successful projects was highlighted as crucial to avoid duplication and to scale effective solutions. Examples discussed included coastal resilience initiatives in the UK, which demonstrate how nature-based solutions like managed realignment can reduce flood risk while providing habitat benefits; climate-informed hospital planning, which integrates extreme heat and flood risk into healthcare infrastructure design and operations; and community-driven arts projects, such as participatory visual and performance work that engages local residents in imagining climate-resilient futures. Documenting and disseminating insights from these initiatives helps other regions and sectors apply proven approaches.

Collaboration and influence

Working together across different sectors was seen as essential for effective adaptation, with a focus on encouraging bold action and making sure partnerships deliver real results. 

Key points included: 

• Government leadership and accountability: Participants highlighted that central government guidance, for example from the Cabinet Office, can help coordinate adaptation across departments. Flexibility at the local level allows communities to tailor actions to local risks and priorities. Examples included devolved approaches where regional offices provide frameworks and data while local authorities decide implementation methods.

• Partnerships and networks: Collaboration across universities, local councils, NGOs, and community groups was noted as effective for sharing knowledge and learning from successful approaches. Programs such as MACC provide platforms for peer learning, joint workshops, and shared databases of tools and case studies, making it easier to replicate successful interventions elsewhere.

• Scaling local successes: Participants shared examples of local initiatives that can inform broader strategies. Flood retrofitting in Brisbane uses a stepwise approach with standardized metrics and documentation, enabling replication elsewhere. Community heat resilience projects in London combine local monitoring, stakeholder workshops, and simple feedback loops to capture lessons learned. Coordinating through networks or structured forums helps these local insights feed into national guidance.

• Communication and accessibility: Effective adaptation communication is clear, relatable, and actionable. Participants suggested using simple language, visual infographics, and case studies to illustrate both risks and solutions. For example, heatwave guidance that combines maps, personal stories, and step-by-step checklists helped councils engage residents and frontline staff. Practical tools, checklists, and example metrics were noted as ways to make complex adaptation knowledge usable for a wider audience.

The discussions explored practical approaches to advancing climate resilience, from translating national climate scenarios into locally actionable steps, to integrating equity, inclusion, and community knowledge into adaptation planning. Participants shared lessons from projects such as local heatwave responses and coastal resilience initiatives, highlighted tools for measuring adaptation impacts across social, environmental, and health outcomes, and identified ways to coordinate local successes into national strategies. Insights on system-wide metrics, multi-level governance, and effective communication with communities provide concrete guidance for shaping the UK’s Fourth National Adaptation Programme (NAP4).

Stay connected

Thank you very much to everyone who attended, contributed and supported the event.  

Please stay connected and continue to share insights. Join our online community by adding your institution to the MACC Hub portal. You can upload examples, case studies, reports and learning to our UK Adapt map.  

You can also subscribe to our MACC Hub newsletter here to follow ongoing developments in climate adaptation research and policy. 

Find out more about Climate and Sustainability and sign up to their newsletter here.  

Pictures: David Tett