Assessing climate change risks to the natural environment to facilitate cross-sectoral adaptation policy

Abstract

Climate change policy requires prioritization of adaptation actions across many diverse issues. The policy agenda for the natural environment includes not only biodiversity, soils and water, but also associated human benefits through agriculture, forestry, water resources, hazard alleviation, climate regulation and amenity value. To address this broad agenda, the use of comparative risk assessment is investigated with reference to statutory requirements of the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. Risk prioritization was defined by current adaptation progress relative to risk magnitude and implementation lead times. Use of an ecosystem approach provided insights into risk interactions, but challenges remain in quantifying ecosystem services. For all risks, indirect effects and potential systemic risks were identified from land-use change, responding to both climate and socio-economic drivers, and causing increased competition for land and water resources. Adaptation strategies enhancing natural ecosystem resilience can buffer risks and sustain ecosystem services but require improved cross-sectoral coordination and recognition of dynamic change. To facilitate this, risk assessments need to be reflexive and explicitly assess decision outcomes contingent on their riskiness and adaptability, including required levels of human intervention, influence of uncertainty and ethical dimensions. More national-scale information is also required on adaptation occurring in practice and its efficacy in moderating risks.This article is part of the theme issue 'Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy'.

Large-scale risk screening of raw water quality in the context of drinking water catchments and integrated response strategies

“…Risk screening results can help further promote the key role of raw water quality in indicating ecosystem health and resilience. Good management practice linking land use and water sectors is likely to become increasingly important as climate change brings further shifts in extreme rainfall events that transfer pollutants to water bodies and low flow episodes that increase pollutant concentrations beyond safe limits (Brown, 2018).…”

Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy

“…Climate risks associated with land use, for example, are dramatically different when agricultural policy incentives prioritize food production over environmental protection, as evidenced in land management in the UK contributing significantly to lowland flood risk [53]. These trade-offs may lead to maladaptation as uncoordinated responses to climate change exacerbate risk, as Brown [36] identified for different types of ecosystem services. Barnett et al [54], for example, highlight how individuals are averse to irreversible loss, and these are often articulated through attachment to places, to iconic artefacts or other representations of culture.…”

“…Therefore, methodological advances to characterize adaptive capacity across different sectors as well as improved data collection and data sharing exercises are essential. Brown [36] also argues that for the natural environment we need a better characterization of natural adaptive capacity, and hence how climate resilience can be enhanced through linking human adaptation with natural adaptation processes.…”

“…However, they all also conclude that further interdisciplinary advances in integrated assessment approaches that link dynamic biophysical and socio-economic components of risk exposure and vulnerability are required (see also [44]). Similarly, Brown [36] suggests a key step towards a better understanding of these interactions is to use system thinking and sensitivity testing to identify key linkages and the potential for critical transitions, including the role of humans as modifying agents for terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems. By engaging with practitioners, risk assessment can not only include their valuable specialist knowledge, but also map out the transmission of risk across sectors and scales, recognizing also that complete avoidance of risk is probably unviable and impracticable.…”

“…Brown [36] describes how an ecosystem-based approach was used to assess risks for the natural environment and its multiple societal benefits. The challenge here is related not only to establishing consistency and hence priorities across diverse systems and receptors but also to understanding the nature of risk related to objectives and hence the rationale for adaptation policy.…”