Dataset Information

A Framework for Identification, Assessment and Prioritization of Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Roads and Railways.

ABSTRACT: Severe accidents and high costs associated with weather-related events already occur in today's climate. Unless preventive measures are taken, the costs are expected to increase in future due to ongoing climate change. However, the risk reduction measures are costly as well and may result in unwanted impacts. Therefore, it is important to identify, assess and prioritize which measures are necessary to undertake, as well as where and when these are to be undertaken. To be able to make such evaluations, robust (scientifically based), transparent and systematic assessments and valuations are required. This article describes a framework to assess the cause-and-effect relationships and how to estimate the costs and benefits as a basis to assess and prioritize measures for climate adaptation of roads and railways. The framework includes hazard identification, risk analysis and risk assessment, identification, monetary and non-monetary evaluation of possible risk reduction measures and a step regarding distribution-, goal- and sensitivity analyses. The results from applying the framework shall be used to prioritize among potential risk reduction measures as well as when to undertake them.

SUBMITTER: Andersson-Skold Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8657026 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Framework for Identification, Assessment and Prioritization of Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Roads and Railways.

Andersson-Sköld Yvonne Y Nordin Lina L Nyberg Erik E Johannesson Mikael M

International journal of environmental research and public health 20211123 23

Severe accidents and high costs associated with weather-related events already occur in today's climate. Unless preventive measures are taken, the costs are expected to increase in future due to ongoing climate change. However, the risk reduction measures are costly as well and may result in unwanted impacts. Therefore, it is important to identify, assess and prioritize which measures are necessary to undertake, as well as where and when these are to be undertaken. To be able to make such evalua ...[more]

PMID: 34886037

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHeatstroke mortality is highest among older adults aged 65 years and older, and the risk is even doubled among those aged 75 years and older. The incidence of heatstroke is expected to increase in the future with elevated temperatures owing to climate change. In the context of a super-aged society, we examined possible adaptation measures in Japan that could prevent heatstroke among older people using an epidemiological survey combined with mathematical modeling.MethodsTo identify possible interventions, we conducted a cross-sectional survey, collecting information on heatstroke episodes from 2018 to 2019 among people aged 75 years and older. Responses were analyzed from 576 participants, and propensity score matching was used to adjust for measurable confounders and used to estimate the effect sizes associated with variables that constitute possible interventions. Subsequently, a weather-driven statistical model was used to predict heatstroke-related ambulance transports. We projected the incidence of heatstroke-related transports until the year 2100, with and without adaptation measures.ResultsThe risk factor with the greatest odds ratio (OR) of heatstroke among older adults was living alone (OR 2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-5.4). Other possible risk factors included an inability to drink water independently and the absence of air conditioning. Using three climate change scenarios, a more than 30% increase in the incidence of heatstroke-related ambulance transports was anticipated for representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5, as compared with a carbon-neutral scenario. Given 30% reduction in single living, a 15% reduction in the incidence of heatstroke is expected. Given 70% improvement in all three risk factors, a 40% reduction in the incidence can be expected.ConclusionPossible adaptation measures include providing support for older adults living alone, for those who have an inability to drink water and for those without air conditioning. To be comparable to carbon neutrality, future climate change under RCP 2.6 requires achieving a 30% relative reduction in all three identified risks at least from 2060; under RCP 4.5, a 70% reduction from 2050 at the latest is needed. In the case of RCP 8.5, the goal of heatstroke-related transports approaching RCP 1.9 cannot be achieved.

Project description:Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1.Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk?2.Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output.3.Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Project description:BackgroundProjections of health risks of climate change are surrounded with uncertainties in knowledge. Understanding of these uncertainties will help the selection of appropriate adaptation policies.MethodsWe made an inventory of conceivable health impacts of climate change, explored the type and level of uncertainty for each impact, and discussed its implications for adaptation policy. A questionnaire-based expert elicitation was performed using an ordinal scoring scale. Experts were asked to indicate the level of precision with which health risks can be estimated, given the present state of knowledge. We assessed the individual scores, the expertise-weighted descriptive statistics, and the argumentation given for each score. Suggestions were made for how dealing with uncertainties could be taken into account in climate change adaptation policy strategies.ResultsThe results showed that the direction of change could be indicated for most anticipated health effects. For several potential effects, too little knowledge exists to indicate whether any impact will occur, or whether the impact will be positive or negative. For several effects, rough 'order-of-magnitude' estimates were considered possible. Factors limiting health impact quantification include: lack of data, multi-causality, unknown impacts considering a high-quality health system, complex cause-effect relations leading to multi-directional impacts, possible changes of present-day response-relations, and difficulties in predicting local climate impacts. Participants considered heat-related mortality and non-endemic vector-borne diseases particularly relevant for climate change adaptation.ConclusionsFor possible climate related health impacts characterised by ignorance, adaptation policies that focus on enhancing the health system's and society's capability of dealing with possible future changes, uncertainties and surprises (e.g. through resilience, flexibility, and adaptive capacity) are most appropriate. For climate related health effects for which rough risk estimates are available, 'robust decision-making' is recommended. For health effects with limited societal and policy relevance, we recommend focusing on no-regret measures. For highly relevant health effects, precautionary measures can be considered. This study indicated that analysing and characterising uncertainty by means of a typology can be a very useful approach for selection and prioritization of preferred adaptation policies to reduce future climate related health risks.

Dataset Information

A Framework for Identification, Assessment and Prioritization of Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Roads and Railways.

Publications

A Framework for Identification, Assessment and Prioritization of Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Roads and Railways.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets