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 risk2)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.
Risk-adapted Vulnerability Assessment schema – showing constituent elements of risk and how they connect
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:
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.
Example of impact chain diagram
Impact Chains can be seen as a qualitativerisk 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..
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 changerisk assessment of critical infrastructure which aimed to:
Prioritise themes for adaptation and resilience strategy and action, and the investment of related capacity and resources.
This was developed further from the climatethreat 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.
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 changehazard 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 hazardevent 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.
A pilot questionnaire was developed and tested with stakeholder input in order to refine the approach. Representatives from the following groups completed the questionnaire:
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 hazardevent. 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 hazardevent. 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.
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.
This is now represents GM’s first critical infrastructureclimate changerisk 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.
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 Module 1 on ‘Preparing the Vulnerability Assessment’ comprises the following steps for the preparation of the subsequent risk-based Vulnerability Assessment process:
Start the preparation with a kick-off meeting (see Module 0.4)
Continue with Module 1 of IVAVIA and follow the instructions
Record the results in your work space
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
Module 2 of IVAVIA addresses the development of Impact Chains as the foundation for a qualitative Vulnerability Assessment. These Impact Chain Diagrams structure the qualitative information provided by the experts from your city. The structured information already sketches areas for possible adaptation actions, aimed at reducing sensitivity, increasing coping capacity, reducing impacts and stressors etc. At the end of Module 2, you will have a set of preliminary IVAVIA Impact Chain Diagrams for all selected hazard/exposure combinations and as such, have identified the risks for the area or topic of interest.
Guidance
Follow the instructions as provided in Module 2 of the IVAVIA Guidance document
Document the Impact Chains, e.g. take photos of them if you have produced paper versions6)If you would want to use the resulting Impact Chains as input for other RESIN tools, they have to be further digitalised, e.g. by using the Impact Chain Editor plus
Record the digital Impact Chain Diagrams in your workspace
IVAVIA – Impact Chain Editor Plus
The Impact Chain Editor Plus (ICE+) is a tool to create Impact Chain Diagrams.
Nb Please note that the Impact Chain Diagram can also be exported as a graphics format for use in presentations.
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 ClimateAdaptation (ECA) Methodology, Method is very quantitative and requires a high level of expertise to operate.
Using the methodology guide, determine the risk levels for your climate threats and record these in your workspace.
Record the results in your workspace
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.
Download the manual and follow the steps described here
Record the results in your workspace
RESIN European Climate Risk Typology
The RESIN climaterisk typology visualises Europe’s climaterisk ‘landscape’ and supports climate changeadaptation 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.
The indicator data that underpins the RESIN ClimateRisk Typology provides planners and decision makers with a range of useful data that can enhance understanding of future climate change in their area. Indicators are available on a range of projected climate variables linked to temperature and precipitation. Projections are provided for two IPCC scenarios, RCP4.5 (medium greenhouse emissions) and RCP8.5 (high greenhouse emissions), for the future period 2036-2065 with respect to the control period 1981-2010. The typology also includes data on the spatial exposure of people and infrastructure to flooding and future sea level rise.
The indicator data is housed within an online portal that provides data and functionality to describe, compare and analyse climate threats in European cities and regions. The climaterisk typology portal enables users to assess the indicator data for their location, and to consider this relative to the other 1342 NUTS3 regions, giving a sense of the relative significance of the issue in a European context. By doing so, this can help to improve understanding of the potential threat posed by the climate projections or the degree to which people and infrastructure are exposed to current fluvial flooding and future sea level rise. Through the use of data such as this, the typology indicators enable planners and decision makers to assess the future climate characteristics of the relevant NUTS 3 area(s) of interest. It is important to note that the typology indicators are developed at the NUTS 3 scale. NUTS3 regions are a population-based classification system, and contain between 150,000 – 800,000 people. There are 1342 NUTS3 regions in Europe. The typology indicator is therefore most relevant for strategic climate changeadaptation, and to highlight the need for finer local scale studies where climate threats are present at the NUTS 3 scale.
Guidance
To acquire insights in the climate threats that might affect your region, the following steps can be taken:
Select the NUTS3 region that you want information for
Click the button ‘Get Indicators’
You will now be redirected to the Decision Support Center where the ClimateRisk typology indicators related to climate threats are shown.
Analyse the values of the indicators using the explanatory text shown below per climatethreat.
Record the results of and basis for your analysis in your work space.
Fluvial flooding is perhaps Europe’s most a high profile climate changehazard due to the visible and damaging impacts that it creates. Fluvial flooding occurs when watercourses (rivers, streams) overflow and inundate the surrounding area. Fluvial flooding can occur as a result of drivers including heavy rainfall and also spring snow melt. Indicators are provided by the European ClimateRisk Typology that related to projected future rainfall volume and intensity accounting for climate change, and also exposure to current fluvial flooding. Here, exposure refers to the extent to which receptors (e.g. people, infrastructure, assets) are located in areas that could be affected by fluvial flooding.
Reviewing these indicators can inform decisions as to whether fluvial flooding should be addressed within the adaptation planning process. A Z-Score is provided for each indicator. This gives an initial hint as to whether fluvial flooding represents an issue of concern for the NUTS3 region and should therefore be investigated in more detail. If the Z-Score is above zero this highlights that the indicator value for the NUTS3 region lies above the average for all European NUTS3 regions. A Z-Score below zero demonstrates that the indicator value is below the European average. The higher (or lower) the Z-Score, the further the value for the NUTS3 region is away from the European average. The European ClimateRisk Typology provides further statistical data on each indicator (including minimum, maximum, mean, median and standard deviation), and related maps and visualisations, which can support decision making
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.
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.
If you would want to use the resulting Impact Chains as input for other RESIN tools, they have to be further digitalised, e.g. by using the Impact Chain Editor plus