Search

Climate-related risks are a major threat to humanity, affecting the lives and livelihoods of communities globally. Even with adaptation, climate change is projected to increase the severity of risks, leading to impacts and residual risks, also termed losses and damages. Frameworks and approaches using Climate Risk Management (CRM), an integration of Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, and sustainable development, are being devised to support the comprehensive management of increasing climate-related risks. Here we discuss to what extent comprehensive CRM has been implemented in three specific cases – in Peru, India and Austria. The approach is conceptually represented and evaluated using a CRM framework. The cases deal with risks associated with glacial lake outburst floods, sea level rise, tropical cyclones, salinization, riverine floods and agricultural droughts. Ultimately, we synthesise policy and research recommendations to help understand what is feasible for CRM approaches applied in practice. We find that successful CRM implementation in practice benefits from being flexible, and participatory from beginning to end, whilst considering compounding risks, and the spectrum of (just and equitable) incremental to transformational adaptation measures necessary for attending to current and projected future increases in climate-related risks.

Recent research has shown that adverse risks associated with climate and global change are becoming increasingly systemic with mounting interdependencies that will likely lead to cascading impacts. These impacts are projected to become so intolerable that standard risk management approaches alone will no longer be sufficient. Calls to consider transformational approaches to risk management and adaptation to facilitate a change towards more resilient futures are growing steadily louder. There is, however, a clear gap in terms of translating ambitions for transformational change into interventions and measures that can be directly applied in practice. To bridge this gap and help move forward with operationalising transformation in this context, we suggest harnessing ideas and insights from systemic risk research. Understanding systemic risk usually requires a careful examination of a system's components, leading to a better appreciation of how they and their interactions within a system contribute to systemic risks. Restructuring the connectivity of system elements based on this information represents a transformational change of the system and can lead to a reduction in systemic risk. From this perspective, systemic risk research and transformative risk management are closely connected disciplines, as methodological insights from the field of systemic risk research can benefit the objective of shifting climate risk management interventions towards transformative approaches that facilitate a radical and fundamental change towards more resilient futures The pluralistic views of decision-makers regarding system boundaries and responsibilities can, however, result in forced transformation. An applied systems view can avoid this and guide deliberate transformation coupled with iterative approaches that are able to track the status of such changes and steer developments in the desired direction.

Physical tipping points have gained a lot of attention in global and climate change research to understand the conditions for system transition conditions when it comes to the atmosphere and the biosphere. Social tipping points have been framed as mechanisms in socio-ecological systems, where a small change in the underlying elements or behaviour of actors triggers a large non-linear response in the social system. With climate change becoming more acute, it is important to know whether and how societies can adapt. While social tipping points related to climate change have been associated with positive or negative outcomes, overstepping adaptation limits has been linked to adverse outcomes where actors' values and objectives are strongly compromised. Currently, the evidence base is limited, and most of the discussion on social tipping points in climate change adaptation and risk research is conceptual or anecdotal. This paper brings together three strands of literature - social tipping points, climate adaptation limits and systemic risks, which so far have been separate. Furthermore, we discuss methods and models used to illustrate the dynamics of social and adaptation tipping points in the context of cascading risks at different scales beyond adaptation limits. We end with suggesting further evidence is needed to identify tipping points in social systems, which is crucial for developing appropriate governance approaches.

The global health system (GHS) is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing number of transnational challenges. The GHS needs reform to enhance global resilience to future risks to health. In this article we argue that the starting point for any reform must be conceptualizing and studying the GHS as a complex adaptive system (CAS) with a large and escalating number of interconnected global health actors that learn and adapt their behaviours in response to each other and changes in their environment. The GHS can be viewed as a multi-scalar, nested health system comprising all national health systems together with the global health architecture, in which behaviours are influenced by cross-scale interactions. However, current methods cannot adequately capture the dynamism or complexity of the GHS or quantify the effects of challenges or potential reform options. We provide an overview of a selection of systems thinking and complexity science methods available to researchers and highlight the numerous policy insights their application could yield. We also discuss the challenges for researchers of applying these methods and for policy makers of digesting and acting upon them. We encourage application of a CAS approach to GHS research and policy making to help bolster resilience to future risks that transcend national boundaries and system scales

The global health system (GHS) is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing number of transnational challenges. The GHS needs reform to enhance global resilience to future risks to health. In this article we argue that the starting point for any reform must be conceptualizing and studying the GHS as a complex adaptive system (CAS) with a large and escalating number of interconnected global health actors that learn and adapt their behaviours in response to each other and changes in their environment. The GHS can be viewed as a multi-scalar, nested health system comprising all national health systems together with the global health architecture, in which behaviours are influenced by cross-scale interactions. However, current methods cannot adequately capture the dynamism or complexity of the GHS or quantify the effects of challenges or potential reform options. We provide an overview of a selection of systems thinking and complexity science methods available to researchers and highlight the numerous policy insights their application could yield. We also discuss the challenges for researchers of applying these methods and for policy makers of digesting and acting upon them. We encourage application of a CAS approach to GHS research and policy making to help bolster resilience to future risks that transcend national boundaries and system scales

Systemic risk is associated with cascading impacts that spread within and across systems and sectors (e.g. ecosystems, health, infrastructure and the food sector) via the movements of people, goods, capital and information within and across boundaries (e.g. regions, countries and continents). The spread of these impacts can lead to potentially existential consequences and system collapse across a range of time horizons. This Briefing Note represents an integrated perspective of climate, environmental and disaster risk science and practice regarding systemic risk. It provides an overview of the concepts of systemic risk that have evolved over time and identifies commonalities across terminologies and perspectives associated with systemic risk used in different contexts. Key attributes of systemic risk are outlined without prescribing a single definition, and information and data requirements that are essential for a better and more actionable understanding of the systemic nature of risk are discussed. Finally, the opportunities to connect research and policy for addressing systemic risk are highlighted, followed by recommendations for future work in science, policy and practice on systemic risk.

So far, studies of Loss and Damage from climate change have focused primarily on human systems and tended to overlook the mediating role of ecosystems and the services ecosystems provide to society. This is a significant knowledge gap because losses and damages to human systems often result from permanent or temporary disturbances to ecosystems services caused by climatic stressors. This chapter tries to advance understanding of the impacts of climatic stressors on ecosystems and implications for losses and damages to people and society. It introduces a conceptual framework for studying these complex relations and applies this framework to a case study of multi-annual drought in the West-African Sahel. The case study shows that causal links between climate change and a specific event, with subsequent losses and damages, are often complicated. Oversimplification must be avoided and the role of various factors, such as governance or management of natural resources, should be at the centre of future research.

The Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance (ZFRA) has identified the measurement of resilience as a valuable ingredient in building community flood resilience. Measuring resilience is particularly challenging because it is an invisible or latent characteristic of a community until a flood occurs. The Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework measures “sources of resilience” before a flood happens and looks at the post-flood impacts afterwards. The FRMC is built around the notion of five types of capital (the 5Cs: human, social, physical, natural, and financial capital) and the 4Rs of a resilient system (robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity). The sources of resilience are graded based on Zurich’s Risk Engineering Technical Grading Standard. Results are displayed according to the 5Cs and 4Rs, the disaster risk management (DRM) cycle, themes and context level, to give the approach further flexibility and accessibility. In the first application phase (2013-2018), we measured flood resilience in 118 communities across nine countries, building on responses at household and community levels. Continuing this endeavor in Phase II (2018 – 2023) will allow us to enrich the understanding of community flood resilience and to extend this unique data set. We find that at the community level, the FRMC enables users to track community progress on resilience over time in a standardized way. It thus provides vital information for the decision-making process in terms of prioritizing the resilience-building measures most needed by the community. At community and higher decision-making levels, measuring resilience also provides a basis for improving the design of innovative investment programs to strengthen disaster resilience. By exploring data across multiple communities (facing different flood types and with very different socioeconomic and political contexts), we can generate evidence with respect to which characteristics contribute most to community disaster resilience before an event strikes. This contributes to meeting the challenge of demonstrating that the work we do has the desired impact – that it actually builds resilience. No general measurement framework for disaster resilience has been empirically verified yet , but the FRMC framework has been developed to eventually generate the data needed to demonstrate empirically which ex-ante measures are most effective for communities. Our findings suggest that stronger interactions between community functions induce co-benefits among the five capitals, thus providing evidence for a virtuous cycle type effect where higher resilient capacity in one capital fosters the community’s capacity for resilience in other capitals.

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation.

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation.

Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (L&D). In this highly-politicised context, attribution is often associated with responsibility and blame; and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation.

Damages caused by climate and weather extremes, such as floods and droughts, have increased over the last few decades and will likely broaden with the progression of climate change and socioeconomic development. Such climate-related risks are already being governed within the framework of natural disaster risk management, as well as climate change adaptation. However, to manage these climate risks more effectively it is necessary to link these two domains under the umbrella of Climate Risk Management (CRM).

The GAR Risk Atlas contributes to unveiling the hidden risk in national economies and their urban centres. Building on a multi-year effort by a consortium of leading scientific institutions coordinated by UNISDR, it provides a global vision of where and how disaster risk can undermine development. It estimates the probability of future disaster losses in the built environment for five major hazards (earthquakes, tsunamis, riverine floods, and tropical cyclones - winds and storm surge) and for every country and territory in the world and represents the results using robust risk metrics such as Average Annual Loss (AAL) and Probable Maximum Loss (PML). The GAR Risk Atlas (special report of the GAR series) presents the fully updated results of the global risk assessment in a visually appealing and innovative manner.

Humankind has never been so populous, technically equipped, and economically and culturally integrated as it is today. In the twenty-first century, societies are confronted with a multitude of challenges in their efforts to manage the Earth system.

The Paris Agreement (2015) under the UNFCCC has anchored loss and damage in a separate article which specifies that understanding and support should be enhanced in areas addressing loss and damage such as early warning, preparedness, insurance and resilience. Irreversible loss is a special category under loss and damage but there is still missing clarity over what irreversible loss actually includes. Many negative impacts of climate change may be handled or mitigated by existing risk management, reduction and absorption approaches. Irreversible loss, however, is thought to be insufficiently addressed by risk management. Therefore, countries potentially or actually affected by irreversible loss are calling for other measures such as compensation, which however is highly contested in international climate policy. In Paris (2015) a decision was adopted that loss and damage as defined in the respective article of the agreement does not involve compensation and liability. Nevertheless, it is likely that some sort of mechanism will eventually need to come into play for irreversible loss due to anthropogenic climate change, which might involve compensation, other forms of non-monetary reparation, or transformation. Furthermore, climate litigation has increasingly been attempted to address negative effects of climate change. In this context, attribution is important to understand the drivers of change, what counts as irreversible loss due to climate change, and, possibly, who or what is responsible. Here we approach this issue by applying a detection and attribution perspective on irreversible loss. We first analyze detected climate change impacts as assessed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. We distinguish between irreversible loss in physical, biological and human systems, and accordingly identify the following candidates of irreversible loss in these systems: loss of glaciers and ice sheets, loss of subsurface ice (permafrost) and related loss of lake systems; loss of land area due to coastal and hillslope erosion and sea level change; loss of plant and animal species, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity; loss of human lives, homelands, and cultural identity. Attribution to anthropogenic climate change is analyzed based on recent progress following from the IPCC AR5. Generally, high confidence in attributing irreversible loss to anthropogenic climate change is found in physical systems and more specifically in cryosphere environments, both in mountain and polar regions. Detected loss in terrestrial ecosystems has typically low confidence in attribution whereas loss in some ocean ecosystems (corals) has high confidence. Impacts in human systems that may be classified as irreversible loss are of low confidence in terms of attribution except for the Arctic where higher confidence for a relation with anthropogenic emissions was found. Our analysis suggests that scientific progress in detection and attribution is now at a level that would likely allow policy, or courts, to define mechanisms, or take decisions, as related to irreversible loss in many cryosphere systems. On the other hand, policy may need to consider that at least in the near future it will be difficult to establish clear tracks between irreversible loss in most human systems and anthropogenic climate change, a domain, which however is at the forefront of discussions. We end our discussion with setting out ideas for further clarification of different categories of irreversible loss, including in human systems, and the role of attribution in any policy or legal mechanism in order to help in the development of just and sensible solutions.

Knowing the increasing trends in natural disasters and losses, it is imperative to take action on disaster risks to improve resilience of European societies to natural hazards. The main goal, therefore, of the ENHANCE project is to develop and analyse innovative ways to manage natural hazard risks. The key is to develop new multi-sectoral partnerships (MSPs) that aim at reducing or redistributing risk, and increase resilience of societies info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Knowing the increasing trends in natural disasters and losses, it is imperative to take action on disaster risks to improve resilience of European societies to natural hazards. The main goal, therefore, of the ENHANCE project is to develop and analyse innovative ways to manage natural hazard risks. Key is to develop new multi-sector partnerships (MSPs) that aim at reducing or redistributing risk, and increase resilience of societies. For several reasons, comprehensive and accurate risk information is important for MSPs and for policy-making in general. First, a better understanding of natural hazard risk is important for preventing excessive socio-eco-nomic stress at levels from local to national to international, and in order to plan for reducing risk from extreme events in the future. For example, measures that reduce risk (e.g. levees to prevent flooding) require a certain design level or elevation, which can be derived from historical water level data or hydrological simulation models. Second, post-disaster information on the losses from a natural hazard event is important, in order to prepare (emergency) aid to the region. In addition, accurate post-event loss information is needed to estimate whether financial support is needed in terms of compensation or new investments to recover the area and develop the economy back to its original state info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Disasters pose a growing threat to sustainable development. Disaster risk management efforts have largely failed to arrest key drivers of uncontrolled urbanization and proliferation of assets in high risk areas. Systems analysis provides a unique interpretation of this failure, and a new pathway for remedy. Increasing “buzz” around the concept of disaster “resilience” (fundamentally a systems concept) has opened the door for the application of systems analysis in the complex arena of the social-ecological foundations of risk and development; yet it has been vaguely conceptualized, not offering a concrete approach to operationalization. We propose a conceptualization of disaster resilience built on system thinking. This conceptualization is centered on wellbeing (healthy system functioning) and explicitly draws attention to system interactions over the long term. We then present a systems analysis conceptual framework for exploring the real-world interconnections between disasters and development. Finally we outline how this framework has been applied with stakeholders in Peru, and present key lessons pertinent for researchers applying systems thinking in complex, socio-ecological governance settings.

Global environmental change, growing anthropogenic influence, and increasing globalization of society have made it clear that disaster vulnerability and resilience of communities cannot be understood without knowledge of the broader social-ecological system in which they are embedded. Inspired by iterative multiscale analysis employed by the Resilience Alliance, the related Social-Ecological Systems Framework initially designed by Elinor Ostrom, and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, we developed a multi-tier framework for conceptualizing communities as multiscale social-ecological systems. We use the framework to diagnose and analyze community resilience to disasters, as a form of disturbance to social-ecological systems, with feedbacks from the local to the global scale. We highlight the cross-scale influences and feedback on communities that exist from lower (e.g., household) to higher (e.g., regional, national) scales. The framework is then applied to real-world community resilience assessment in Nepal and China, to illustrate how key components of socio-ecological systems, including natural hazards, natural and man-made environment, and community capacities can be delineated and analyzed.

There is little doubt that the currently observed patterns of climate change are predominantly caused by human activity (Volume 1, Chapter 1). This chapter addresses the challenge of stabilizing climate change at 2 degrees C and particularly focuses on the questions which mitigation and adaptation measures in Austria can contribute to achieve this goal. Additionally, a number of desirable co-benefits pertaining to socio-ecological transformation leading towards limiting climate change are analysed. In the Copenhagen Accord (UNFCC) and in the EU-Ruling, a goal of limiting the rise of global average temperature to +2 degrees C compared to pre-industrial times has been deemed as necessary to limit dangerous anthropogenic climate change impacts, despite calls from scientists to consider a +1.5 degrees C target. It is an internationally accepted target supported by a broad number of supporters, including industrialized and developing countries as well as non-state actors. Without actions towards reducing emissions, significant negative impacts on the socio-economic conditions in Austria can be expected. This derives an important obligation to undertake necessary mitigation measures in Austria. Mitigation and adaptation measures are necessary, but by themselves provide insufficient conditions for sustainable development. Achievement of the 2 degrees C target requires a focus on climate friendly technologies, as well as behavioural - and institutional change. In particular, the activities of energy provision and consumption, industrial processes and agriculture deserve attention: in 2012, the energy sector activities caused 74.6% of GHG emissions (with one third originating from road transport), industrial processes caused 13.6%, and agriculture triggered 9.4% of emissions, (excluding emission effects of forest cover expansion, cf. Anderl et al., 2014). The corresponding figures for 2010 are: energy sector 75.9%, industrial processes: 12.7%, agriculture: 8.8% (Anderl et al., 2014). To stabilize the climate, the climate impact criteria have to be integrated in all decisions regarding investment, production, politics and consumption, in order to reduce the risk of irreversible changes. At the same time, the social- and economic framing conditions must be respected. Measures to address climate change have to be integrated into the broader criteria of sustainability. Discussions of climate protection measures are typically reduced to additional costs and undesirable changes. Thereby the manifold potential co-benefits of such measures, for example with respect to quality of life, health, employment, rural development, environmental protection, security of supply, and international trade balances are mostly ignored. Integrating these criteria and effects into the analysis is required for being able to display the full spectrum of options for addressing climate change.

Climate change impacts for the Anthroposphere are significant and it is very likely that these impacts are leading to structural damages as well as enhanced threats to human health. Particularly, the poor, elderly and chronically ill will suffer from the higher frequency and magnitude of summer heat waves. A varying potential for the spread of yet non-endemic infectious diseases is very likely, as well as an increased potential for the (further) extension of allergenic plant and animal species. Climate change will very likely trigger increased migration from developing and newly industrialized countries to Europe. To which extent this will lead to more immigration to Austria will depend on policies at the EU- and national levels. The economic impacts of climate change in Austria will very likely produce both winners and losers. However, more precise assessments of the economic impacts are currently only available for certain sectors. The agriculture and electricity production sectors show very moderate GDP-alterations directly in their sectors as well as downstream. The tourism sector is very likely to exhibit stronger changes within the sector and also with other up- and downstream sectors (e.g., energy supply and gastronomy). Within the sector a shift is expected from winter to summer tourism as well as regionally from the west (dominated by winter tourism) to the east with seasonally more diversified tourism. The natural hazard- and weather-related damages observed during the last 30 years depend only to a certain extent on higher frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events. A large share of the damage increase is related to growing wealth and higher assets of the population. The most damaging events have been floods followed by avalanches, while the largest human casualties have been induced by heat waves. Regulations and planning standards (e.g., building-regulation and spatial planning) play a fundamental role in hazard control and disaster risk reduction. Settlement areas in Austria will very likely be most affected by more intense heat waves, while some regions will be further burdened by constraints in drinking water supply. Traffic infrastructures in Austria are very vulnerable to mass movements and flooding, triggered by heavy precipitation events, which are expected to increase in the future. To which extent frequency and magnitude of such events may increase remains uncertain. Instead, the challenge for energy infrastructures in a warmer and during summer potentially dryer Austria is very likely to be substantial. Higher energy demand during heat waves corresponds with supply constraints (due to less effective cooling water supply), while the threat for power distribution networks because of flash-overs will be particularly high especially during thunder storms at the end of summer heat waves and droughts when cooling demand is at peak.

This chapter focuses on the needs and opportunities as well as the constraints and barriers with respect to mitigation and adaptation to climate change. While the chapter concentrates mainly on Austria, information is provided on the global and EU level to the extent they are relevant for Austria. Section 1.1 discusses the targets already specified for mitigation at the global level, as well as technologies that are already available or are emerging with the potential to meet the challenges and associated costs. In particular, the progress achieved by IPCC and UNFCCC bodies, as well as EU policies and national scale policies and measures are reviewed. Section 1.2, on adaptation to climate change, addresses the different concepts developed at the international scale, reviews progress on the EU and Austrian national adaptation strategy, and characterizes the different types of adaptation relevant over short, medium and long term timescales. The costs of inaction are also addressed. Again, progress achieved by IPCC and UNFCCC bodies, as well as EU policies (green and white papers, etc.) and national scale policies and measures (national adaptation strategy) will be reviewed. This includes the progress made on adaptation planning, implementation, and integration in vulnerable sectors. Section 1.3 highlights the synergies and trade-offs that may emerge among adaptation and mitigation and hence explains the importance of a holistic approach. This also includes a discussion of mainstreaming of mitigation and adaptation into other policy areas. Section 1.4 identifies the barriers for mitigation and adaptation, including obstacles at the individual, social, political and economic levels. Moreover, barriers of insufficient knowledge and uncertainties are addressed. Finally, approaches for overcoming these barriers are summarized and needs for future research are highlighted.

Human interference with the climate system is occurring. Climate change poses risks for human and natural systems. The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change and how risks can be reduced through mitigation and adaptation. It recognizes that risks of climate change will vary across regions and populations, through space and time, dependent on myriad factors including the extent of mitigation and adaptation.

This chapter assesses the literature on the economics of climate change adaptation, building on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and the increasing role that economic considerations are playing in adaptation decisionmaking and policy. AR4 provided a limited assessment of the costs and benefits of adaptation, based on narrow and fragmented sectoral and regional literature (Adger et al, 2007). Substantial advances have been made in the economics of climate change adaptation after AR4.

On 22 October 2012 seven members of the Italian Major Risk Commission were found guilty of 29 persons manslaughter and of 4 injuries in relation with the earthquake that hit L'Aquila, a town in Central Italy, in the year 2009. The members were verdict to six years in prison for violating their obligations to adequately analyse seismic risk and to provide clear, correct and complete information, which might have saved many people's life. The case has not been concluded jet and so far the debate focused on the scientific, legal and communicative aspects of the verdict, while the institutional ones, including the co-production of scientific advice and decision making, received less attention. We argue that the presence of deep epistemic uncertainty coupled with responsibility overlaps of scientists-turned-decision-makers, is fundamental to understanding the event and the legal aftermath. Another relevant institutional aspect is the concern of the national and local authorities that the population would over-react to anything other than a reassuring message. We discuss the consequences of this framing of the emergency management problem in terms of public control rather than public safety. As risk science continues to grapple with the challenge of communicating uncertain information to decision-makers and citizens, it becomes more important to understand the co-production processes that shape how scientific advice is used for decisions on the ground.