Search

Climate change risk assessment involves formal analysis of the consequences, likelihoods and responses to the impacts of climate change and the options for addressing these under societal constraints. Conventional approaches to risk assessment are challenged by the significant temporal and spatial dynamics of climate change; by the amplification of risks through societal preferences and values; and through the interaction of multiple risk factors. This paper introduces the theme issue by reviewing the current practice and frontiers of climate change risk assessment, with specific emphasis on the development of adaptation policy that aims to manage those risks. These frontiers include integrated assessments, dealing with climate risks across borders and scales, addressing systemic risks, and innovative co-production methods to prioritize solutions to climate challenges with decision-makers. By reviewing recent developments in the use of largescale risk assessment for adaptation policy-making, we suggest a forward-looking research agenda to meet ongoing strategic policy requirements in local, national and international contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A wide range of climate vulnerability and risk assessments have been implemented using different approaches at different scales, some with a broad multi-sectoral scope and others focused on single risks or sectors. This paper describes the novel approach to vulnerability and risk assessmentwhich was designed and put into practice in the United Kingdom's Second Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA2) so as to build upon its earlier assessment (CCRA1). First, we summarize and critique the CCRA1 approach, and second describe the steps taken in the CCRA2 approach in detail, providing examples of how each was applied in practice. Novel elements of the approach include assessment of both present day and future vulnerability, a focus on the urgency of adaptation action, and a structure focused around systems of receptors rather than conventional sectors. Both stakeholders and reviewers generally regarded the approach as successful in providing advice on current risks and future opportunities to the UK from climate change, and the fulfilment of statutory duty. The need for a well-supported and open suite of impact indicators going forward is highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Climate Change Act requires the Environment Agency to report the risks it faces from climate change and actions taken to address these. Derived information from projections is critical to understanding likely impacts in water management. In 2019, the UK published an ensemble of high-resolution model simulations. The UKCP Local (2.2 km) projections can resolve smaller scale physical processes that determine rainfall and other variables at subdaily time-scales with the potential to provide new insights into extreme events, storm runoff and drainage management. However, simulations also need to inform adaptation. The challenge ahead is to identify and provide derived products without the need for further analysis by decision-makers. These include a wider evaluation of uncertainty, narratives about rainfall change across the projections and bias-corrected datasets. Future flood maps, peak rainfall estimates, uplift factors and future design storm profiles also need detailed guidance to support their use. Central government support is justified in the provision of up-to-date impacts information to inform flood risk management, given the large risks and exposure of all sectors. The further development of projections would benefit from greater focus and earlier scoping with industry representatives, operational tool developers and end users. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Intensification of short-duration rainfall extremes and implications for flash flood risks'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three different conceptual frameworks of resilience, including engineering, ecological and social–ecological have been presented and framed within the context of flood risk management. Engineering resilience has demonstrated its value in the design and operation of technological systems in general and in flood resilient technologies in particular. Although limited to the technical domain, it has broadened the objectives of flood resilient technologies and provided guidance in improving their effectiveness. Socio-ecological resilience is conceived as a broader system characteristic that involves the interaction between human and natural systems. It acknowledges that these systems change over time and that these interactions are of complex nature and associated with uncertainties. Building (socio-ecological) resilience in flood risk management strategies calls for an adaptive approach with short-term measures and a set of monitoring criteria for keeping track of developments that might require adaptation in the long-term (adaptation pathways) and thus built-in adaptive capacity as opposed to building engineering resilience which involves a static approach with a fixed time horizon a set of robust measures designed for specific future conditions or scenarios. The two case studies, from a developing and a developed country, indicate that the concepts of ecological and socio-ecological resilience provide guidance for building more resilient flood risk management systems resulting in an approach that embraces flood protection, prevention and preparedness. The case studies also reveal that the translation of resilience concepts into practice remains a challenge. One plausible explanation for this is our inability to arrive at a quantification of socio-ecological resilience taking into account the various attributes of the concept. This article is part of the theme issue 'Urban flood resilience'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK is one of the first countries in the world to have set up a statutory system of national climate risk assessments followed by a national adaptation programme. Having this legal framework has been essential for enabling adaptation at the government level in a challenging political environment. However, using this framework to create an improvement in resilience to climate change across the country requires more than publishing a set of documents; it requires careful thought about what interventions work, how they can be enabled and what level of risk acceptability individuals, organizations and the country should be aiming for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]