Abstract

Increasing awareness of the risks to coastal communities and infrastructure posed by sea level rise and possible climate-induced changes to the frequency and intensity of catchment flooding events have triggered a large number of studies that have assessed the risk, and developed a prioritisation of actions. These prioritised action recommendations are typically encapsulated in climate adaptation plans and pathways documents, risk reduction strategies, and climate action plans. These studies typically involve a vulnerability assessment task and an action prioritisation task, often performed in the same study. Most of the focus on research and method development over recent decades has been on the first task that aims to quantify the vulnerability of coastal communities and infrastructure. It is argued here that as a result of this emphasis on assessing vulnerability, at the cost of adequate consideration of response actions, along with the linear ‘fix and forget’ management approach to climate adaptation, has led to a lack of uptake in coastal climate adaptation studies and strategies. To this end the aim of the work presented here is to highlight common shortfalls in this fix and forget approach and in particular in the response prioritisation task. Ways that these shortfalls can be avoided, based on knowledge from decision theory, are presented.

Highlights

  • Over the last two decades an increasing number of climate change risk and adaptation studies have investigated potential climate change-induced impacts to coastal settlements and infrastructure

  • to demonstrable future climate risk reduction is unhelpful for elected officials

  • Whilst it is clear that deliverers of climate adaptation studies are well-meaning

Read more

Summary

Pitfalls in developing coastal climate adaptation responses

University of Queensland, School of Mathematics and Physics, St Lucia, Queensland 4007, Australia AECOM, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4007, Australia article info. Increasing awareness of the risks to coastal communities and infrastructure posed by sea level rise and possible climate-induced changes to the frequency and intensity of catchment flooding events have triggered a large number of studies that have assessed the risk, and developed a prioritisation of actions These prioritised action recommendations are typically encapsulated in climate adaptation plans and pathways documents, risk reduction strategies, and climate action plans. It is argued here that as a result of this emphasis on assessing vulnerability, at the cost of adequate consideration of response actions, along with the linear ‘fix and forget’ management approach to climate adaptation, has led to a lack of uptake in coastal climate adaptation studies and strategies To this end the aim of the work presented here is to highlight common shortfalls in this fix and forget approach and in particular in the response prioritisation task.

Introduction
Direct mapping of vulnerability to priority or action responses
Spatial scale
Applying housing values
Valuations in MCAs
Common shortfalls when applying the fix and forget approach
Selecting a single option or pathway to follow in perpetuity
Pathway lock in and perverse incentives
Summary and concluding remarks
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call