Handling Interdependencies in Climate Change Risk Assessment

Abstract

Typically, a climate change risk assessment focuses on individual sectors or hazards. However, interdependencies between climate risks manifest themselves via functional, physical, geographical, economic, policy and social mechanisms. These can occur over a range of spatial or temporal scales and with different strengths of coupling. Three case studies are used to demonstrate how interdependencies can significantly alter the nature and magnitude of risk, and, consequently, investment priorities for adaptation. The three examples explore interdependencies that arise from (1) climate loading dependence; (2) mediation of two climate impacts by physical processes operating over large spatial extents; and, (3) multiple risks that are influenced by shared climatic and socio-economic drivers. Drawing upon learning from these case studies, and other work, a framework for the analysis and consideration of interdependencies in climate change risk assessment has been developed. This is an iterative learning loop that involves defining the system, scoping interaction mechanisms, applying appropriate modelling tools, identifying vulnerabilities and opportunities, and assessing the performance of adaptation interventions.

Multi-risk assessment in mountain regions: A review of modelling approaches for climate change adaptation

“…Natural hazards, socio-economic systems and climate change are characterised by non-linear interactions and feedback loops within and across them (European Environmental Agency, 2017; Dawson, 2015).…”

Interdependencies and Risk to People and Critical Food, Energy, and Water Systems: 2013 Flood, Boulder, Colorado, USA

“…Tools to map interdependencies and cascading effects include input-output models combined with network models (Dawson, 2015;Fu et al, 2014;Khoury et al, 2015), some of which examine their influence on the failure of the overall infrastructural system. It is also common to use matrices, wheels, fuzzy mental models, and tables to represent dependencies and interdependencies as they influence the direct or indirect path of events involved in cascading effects (C40_AECOM, 2018;Pescaroli & Alexander, 2015;Rinaldi et al, 2001).…”

“…The first applies modeling approaches, such as resource network analysis, to simulate the cascading effects triggered by extreme events (Berardy & Chester, 2017;Dawson, 2015;Fu et al, 2014;Khoury et al, 2015). Various disciplinary domains have examined the role of the infrastructural and social-institutional elements in mitigating or amplifying the cascading effects from extreme events.…”

“…Governance or socio-institutional regimes prioritize the influence of government, private and civil society actor-networks, property rights, and the dynamics of political engagement in planning and risk management actions (Shi et al, 2016). Infrastructures, the material and physical elements of these plans, include capitalintensive, reinforcing, or retrofitting power plants, buildings, open space, and other physical means to protect people from extremes while pursuing other development goals (Dawson, 2015). Both governance and infrastructure create the conditions for vulnerability and capacity or the potential of populations or decision makers to modify their behavior so as to better mitigate or adapt to extremes, that is, to be resilient.…”

“…Various disciplinary domains have examined the role of the infrastructural and social-institutional elements in mitigating or amplifying the cascading effects from extreme events. The first applies modeling approaches, such as resource network analysis, to simulate the cascading effects triggered by extreme events (Berardy & Chester, 2017;Dawson, 2015;Fu et al, 2014;Khoury et al, 2015). The goal is to evaluate the performance during this event of the broader network of delivery and storage of food, energy, and other resources and services (Rinaldi et al, 2001).…”