38. Adger, W. N., Brown, I., & Surminski, S. (2018). Advances in Risk Assessment for Climate Change Adaptation Policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A – Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 20180106. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0106
Abstract
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 large-scale 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.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy’.
39. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science, 347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1259855
The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context.
40. Käyhkö, J. (2019). Climate Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Decision-Making at Nordic Farm Scale – A Typology of Risk Responses. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 17, 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/1473590 3.2019.1689062
ABSTRACT
Agriculture in the Nordic countries is a sector, where farmers are facing climatic challenges first-hand with little policy guidance on climate change adaptation or climate risk management. Adaptation practices emerging at the farm scale have potentially harmful outcomes that can erode the agricultural sustainability. So far, farm scale decision-making on adaptation measures is scarcely studied, and a thorough assessment of risk perceptions underlying adaptation decision-making is required in the Nordic context to inform adaptation policy planning. In this qualitative case study, the climate risk perceptions of Nordic farmers and agricultural extension officers are examined. As a result, a typology of risk responses is presented, showing three dominant patterns within highly dynamic and contextual adaptation processes at farm scale: risk aversive, opportunity-seeking and experimental. The typology represents the variation within adaptation processes that further stress the need for participatory adaptation policy development in agriculture.
41. King, D., Schrag, D., Dadi, Z., Ye, Q., & Ghosh, A. (2015). Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge.
Available at: http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/projects/climate- change- riskassessment/.
Accessed 10 May 2021.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT A climate change risk assessment must consider at least three areas: the future pathway of global emissions; the direct risks arising from the climate’s response to those emissions; and the risks arising from the interaction of climate change with complex human systems. Each of these areas contains large uncertainties. From our assessment, we draw the following conclusions about the most significant risks.
42. Shortridge, J., Aven, T., & Guikema, S. (2017). Risk Assessment Under Deep Uncertainty: A Methodological Comparison. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 159, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.017
ABSTRACT: Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has proven to be an invaluable tool for evaluating risks in complex engineered systems. However, there is increasing concern that PRA may not be adequate in situations with little underlying knowledge to support probabilistic representation of uncertainties. As analysts and policy makers turn their attention to deeply uncertain hazards such as climate change, a number of alternatives to traditional PRA have been proposed. This paper systematically compares three diverse approaches for risk analysis under deep uncertainty (qualitative uncertainty factors, probability bounds, and robust decision making) in terms of their representation of uncertain quantities, analytical output, and implications for risk management. A simple example problem is used to highlight differences in the way that each method relates to the traditional risk assessment process and fundamental issues associated with risk assessment and description. We find that the implications for decision making are not necessarily consistent between approaches, and that differences in the representation of uncertain quantities and analytical output suggest contexts in which each method may be most appropriate. Finally, each methodology demonstrates how risk assessment can inform decision making in deeply uncertain contexts, informing more effective responses to risk problems characterized by deep uncertainty.
43. Viner, D., Ekstrom, M., Hulbert, M., Warner, N. K., Wreford, A., & Zommers, Z. (2020). Understanding the Dynamic Nature of Risk in Climate Change Assessments—A New Starting Point for Discussion. Atmospheric Science Letters, 21, e958. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.958
Abstract
This article sets out the current conceptualisation and description of risk used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It identifies limitations in capacity to reflect the dynamic nature of risk components, and the need for standardisation and refinement of methods used to quantify evolving risk patterns. Recent studies highlight the changing nature of hazards, exposure and vulnerability, the three components of risk, and demonstrate the need for coordinated guidance on strategies and methods that better reflect the dynamic nature of the components themselves, and their interaction. Here, we discuss limitations of a static risk framework and call for a way forward that will allow for a better understanding and description of risk. Such advancements in conceptualisation are needed to bring closer the understanding and description of risk in theory with how risk is quantified and communicated in practice. To stimulate discussion, this article proposes a formulation of risk that clearly recognises the temporally evolving nature of risk components.
44. Thomas, K., Hardy, R. D., Lazrus, H., Mendez, M., Orlove, B., Rivera-Collazo, I., et al. (2019). Explaining Differential Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Social Science Review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10, e565–e565. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565
Abstract
The varied effects of recent extreme weather events around the world exemplify the uneven impacts of climate change on populations, even within relatively small geographic regions. Differential human vulnerability to environmental hazards results from a range of social, economic, historical, and political factors, all of which operate at multiple scales. While adaptation to climate change has been the dominant focus of policy and research agendas, it is essential to ask as well why some communities and peoples are disproportionately exposed to and affected by climate threats. The cases and synthesis presented here are organized around four key themes (resource access, governance, culture, and knowledge), which we approach from four social science fields (cultural anthropology, archaeology, human geography, and sociology). Social scientific approaches to human vulnerability draw vital attention to the root causes of climate change threats and the reasons that people are forced to adapt to them. Because vulnerability is a multidimensional process rather than an unchanging state, a dynamic social approach to vulnerability is most likely to improve mitigation and adaptation planning efforts.