Goal

The purpose of the risk identification stage is to identify all hazards and significant consequences  to be further investigated in the Risk Analysis stage. This combination is also called an Impact Chain¹⁾EC (2010). Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 21.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1626 final..

Preconditions

The identified climate threats can be used as a starting point for this step.

Outcomes

The outcome of the risk identification stage is a work plan for the Risk Assessment and a listing of the different identified risks (or: Impact Chains) that can be analysed in more detail in the risk analysis. This listing will include a brief description for each identified risk ²⁾EC (2010). Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 21.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1626 final..

Guidelines

Preparation

Preparation of the Risk Assessment consists of finding a common agreement with the participants and relevant stakeholders of the Assessment process about the overall objectives, scope, roles and responsibilities, scenario settings and the target audience and to develop a work plan for the assessment.

Impact Chains

An Impact Chain describes a cause-effect relationship among elements that contribute to the consequences of a given combination of hazard and exposed object. As a prerequisite to develop Impact Chains, you must identify the hazards and exposed objects of interest. The key question is “which sensitivities and coping capacities might influence the nature and extent of impacts?” You develop Impact Chains by means of Impact Chain diagrams, which make these relationships visible. This development takes place usually in joint workshops with experts and stakeholders. Be aware that impact chains are not exhaustive, but describe the common understanding of the stakeholders present at the workshop.

The following risk components can be further examined when developing Impact Chain Diagrams together with relevant experts and stakeholders:

1. Determine exposure and hazard combinations
2. Identify potential impacts
3. Determine sensitivity
4. Determine coping capacity
5. Identify drivers and stressors

Finally, the resulting set of Impact Chain diagrams for each relevant hazard can be analysed to determine a risk level (none, low, moderate, high) for each of them.

Impact Chains can be seen as a qualitative risk assessment and are a good foundation for a quantitative risk analysis.

Risk identification should be based as much as possible on quantitative (historical, statistical) data. However, it is appropriate to extensively use also qualitative methods, such as expert opinions, intelligence information, check-lists, systematic team approaches, inductive reasoning techniques, or other. Techniques to improve the completeness of the risk identification process may also include brainstorming and Delphi methodology (interactive forecasting method relying on a panel of experts)³⁾EC (2010). Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER. Brussels, 21.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1626 final..

Experiences

Greater Manchester

Critical infrastructure is central to Greater Manchester’s (GM) future. The achievement of the city’s growth and public sector reform ambitions, as set out in the Greater Manchester Strategy⁴⁾https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/ourpeopleourplace, requires an effective critical infrastructure network. Climate change and extreme weather events such as flooding and heat waves pose risks to critical infrastructure assets and the provision of related services. As a result, the EcoCities project identified adapting and building the resilience of critical infrastructure to climate change as a key task for GM⁵⁾http://www.adaptingmanchester.co.uk/ten-minute-read.

Risk assessments are central to adapting and building resilience to climate change and using this process to identify and evaluate risk to GM’s critical infrastructure is seen as essential to supporting resilient and sustainable growth within the City Region. As a result of the RESIN project, GM therefore committed to producing its first climate change risk assessment of critical infrastructure which aimed to:

• Improve understanding of the potential implications of climate change for critical infrastructure.
• Prioritise themes for adaptation and resilience strategy and action, and the investment of related capacity and resources.

This was developed further from the climate threat tasks reported under section 1.1., scoping. The next stage of the risk assessment required the likelihood of climate hazards that influence the occurrence of related impacts to critical infrastructure to be assessed.

More about likelihood

In order to determine likelihood, GM data was analysed on the occurrence of hazard events over recent decades and on future climate change projections. Data on the occurrence of extreme weather and climate change hazard events drew principally on research outputs from the EcoCities project (Carter and Lawson 2011), which identified events that impacted on GM between 1945 and 2008. Additional research was undertaken within the RESIN project to bring this study up to date (through to 2017) and also to build a picture of geohazard occurrence in GM. This work concluded that:

• Flooding is the principal hazard event occurring in GM, accounting for over half of events to have impacted on human health/well-being, infrastructure and services since 1994. Also, pluvial flooding now dominates, accounting for 50% of all floods since 1994.
• Storms account for over 20% of all events.
• Cold/snow related events have been steadily decreasing in frequency.
• Heat events seem to be on the increase since 1994.
• Drought and water shortages still appear to be rare events in GM. Whilst their frequency shows an increase since 1994, their occurrence relative to other hazards remains low.

The next stage of the risk assessment involved evaluating, in a GM context, the consequences of extreme weather and climate change impacts to critical infrastructure. A stakeholder-led evaluation of consequences was undertaken which involved the completion of a questionnaire.

More about consequences

A pilot questionnaire was developed and tested with stakeholder input in order to refine the approach. Representatives from the following groups completed the questionnaire:

• Adaptation/resilience officers/experts
• Infrastructure owners/operators
• Academics working in the adaptation/resilience field
• GM planners/policy makers
• Consultants

Initially the questionnaire respondents were asked to rate six infrastructure sectors based on their relative importance to GM’s people and economy should there be widespread disruption within that infrastructure sector arising from a hazard event. Respondents ranked the relative importance of the six infrastructure types for GM on a scale of 1 to 10. The severity of the consequences of impacts will depend on the nature of the hazard event. Then, following the ‘reasonable worst case’ approach (Cabinet Office 2017), this questionnaire assessment focused on the consequences of impacts associated with extreme events. These are events that are rare both in terms of their frequency and severity, and would have a serious negative effect on GM, its people and the environment in which they live.

1. The economic impact on GM’s economy (rather than the cost of repairs needed as a result of the climate impact to critical infrastructure assets and networks).

• No negative impact on GM’s economy
• Limited negative impact on GM’s economy
• Moderate negative impact on GM’s economy
• Severe negative impact on GM’s economy
• I don’t know

Social disruption, concerning loss or lack of access to health and social services, and to essential services such as water supply, food and fuel

• No disruption to daily life
• Some short-term disruption to daily life
• Moderate disruption to daily life
• Serious and sustained disruption to daily life
• I don’t know

The severity of fatalities, illness and injury, both during the event and in its aftermath.

• No illness, injury or fatalities
• Some illness and injuries. No fatalities
• Significant illness and injuries. No fatalities
• Significant illness and injuries, including fatalities
• I don’t know

Once the likelihood and consequence scores for the extreme weather and climate impacts with the potential to affect GM’s critical infrastructure had been determined, a risk score was produced by multiplying these two scores together. Some elements of the critical infrastructure network are perceived to be more ‘critical’ to GM than others, as drawn out in first stages of the questionnaire. In order to build this into the risk assessment process, each risk score was weighted by multiplying it with a ‘criticality score’ for the related infrastructure sector (generated from the respondents themselves). This produced a final risk score for each impact, which represent the output of the risk assessment process.

The final risk scores which were then produced enabled GM to compare extreme weather and climate change risks to GM’s critical infrastructure sectors.

This is now represents GM’s first critical infrastructure climate change risk assessment which has taken a non-spatial approach to risk identification, analysis and evaluation. The assessment has been informed by individuals working in GM, the majority of whom have significant experience (over 5 years) of working in associated fields. The data underpinning the risk assessment and the methodology employed therefore enhances the robustness of the findings. Nevertheless, this remains a current snapshot of risks based on available data and the perceptions of a group of 40 stakeholders regarding the consequences of impacts.

The risk assessment output has identified and helped to prioritise extreme weather and climate change risks to GM’s critical infrastructure. As a result, it can help to target available capacity and resources towards locally significant issues. Key themes emerging from this process include:

• Impacts associated with floods and storms present the highest risks to GM’s critical infrastructure.
• Impacts on energy infrastructure represent the highest risks to GM’s critical infrastructure.
• Five infrastructure sectors are represented in the top 10 risks. This suggests that the extreme weather and climate change poses a wide ranging threat to GM’s critical infrastructure network.

A full write up of GM’s critical infrastructure risk assessment process can be downloaded from HERE.

Supporting tools and methods

IVAVIA  – Preparing the Vulnerability Assessment

The IVAVIA Guideline supports the user in performing a risk-based Vulnerability Assessment by facilitating the understanding of cause-effect relationships of climate change, identify geographical hotspots of vulnerability and risk, and assess what impact on people, economy and built-up area under study can be expected now and for the future due to the changing climate

IVAVIA  – Developing Impact Chains

The IVAVIA method supports the user in performing a risk-based Vulnerability Assessment by facilitating the understanding of cause-effect relationships of climate change, identify geographical hotspots of vulnerability and risk, and assess what impact on people, economy and built-up area under study can be expected now and for the future due to the changing climate

IVAVIA  – Impact Chain Editor Plus

The Impact Chain Editor Plus (ICE+) is a tool to create Impact Chain Diagrams.

CLIMADA Natural catastrophe damage model

CLIMADA is a probabilistic natural catastrophe damage model, that also calculates averted damage (benefit) thanks to adaptation measures of any kind (from grey to green infrastructure, behavioural, etc.). It is based on the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) Methodology, Method is very quantitative and requires a high level of expertise to operate.

Blue Green Dream

Blue green dream is a tool used in a commercial consultancy process  that calculate how adaptation measures influence water, energy, comfort and financial costs/savings. It supports the modelling and calculation of water management situations before and after adaptation measures have been taken.

BBK Method of Risk Analysis for Civil Protection

This method thoroughly describes the steps to take to identify and analyse risks for civil protection.

RESIN European Climate Risk Typology

The RESIN climate risk typology visualises Europe’s climate risk ‘landscape’ and supports climate change adaptation and resilience activity in European countries, regions and cities. It can be used as a quick way to gain insights in the main risks facing your region. It is not a complete replacement of other, more thorough methods.

TAUW urban heat maps

This tool maps the Urban Heat Island based on detailed georeferenced information of urban structures and a parametrisation of the effect on ambient temperature or PET on the afternoon of a hot day.

DIN SPEC 35811

This method describes how scenario planning can be used to identify and evaluate the whole system of external influences and deriving appropriate strategies for adaptation. In particular, the step 1 to 5 of the Integrative scenario process can be used to determine the risks that should be taken into account in the adaptation plan.