WP1-Cross scale Assessment Structure (CAS)


boletin2The general objective of WP1 is to set the “scene” for the assessments within RISES-AM-. The first step is defining a Cross scale Assessment Structure (CAS) that will be applied throughout the project, in each case study and cross cutting all WP’s. The CAS is based on the DPSIR concept and the Multi-Layer Model already mentioned in Section B1.2. It accounts for the different scales and is characterized by four steps:

Step 1

Driving forces: Determine drivers and their interactions, and possible scenarios for change, as a starting point for impact assessment and risk analysis.

Step 2

Vulnerability & impacts: Determine key sectors and responsibilities at the stakeholder level. Interaction between layers is here addressed to analyze how impact propagates.

Step 3

Risks: Establish risk calculation structure (hazard x vulnerability x exposure) at long-term and event scales, linking it to perception / awareness with stakeholder involvement at various spatial scales.

Step 4

Responses and solutions: Structure (as a function of scale) governance, adaptive management (path ways) and decision making for the strategies/measures that will be elaborated.

Guidance for applying the CAS to the different case studies, will be supplied by WP1 as part of the coordination tasks 3.0 and 4.0 and through the production of a guidance document (deliverable D1.4). This WP will also define common boundary conditions and criteria for the assessments through the following specific objectives:

• To define the coastal zone and to develop a coastal typology (for our risk-based analyses)

• To define adaptation / mitigation options and -pathways and develop homogeneous evaluation criteria

• To define requirements, with regard to drivers, to methods and to modelling tools

Description of work and role of partners

In this WP we shall select the case studies to be representative of vulnerable coastal stretches at global, regional and local scales. They will cover a wide range of conditions, to allow a generalisation for the development of a generic adaptation roadmap (Task 4.3). These conditions will include the physical (e.g. wave conditions and set-back lines), economic (e.g. economic level and development) and social (e.g. administrative and legal settings) components, so as to be representative of vulnerability hotspots and adaptation approaches across scales. An initial selection of possibilities appears on Table 1.1, indicating the partners responsible for coordinating each case. This work has been structured into three Tasks, indicating in parenthesis the contributing partners (the lead is underlined).

Task 1.1. Definition of coast: typologies and initial set of cases (Deltares, CAU, VU-IVM, SOTON, UPC)

Start: Month 1, End: Month 9

In this Task a coastal typology will be developed, distinguishing coastal areas (archetypes) based on physical-ecological and socio-economic characteristics starting from an overview of existing typologies and indicators (Milestone 1). These characteristics will be expressed in terms of a number of indicators suited to global, regional and local scales. Examples of socio-economic key sectors to be considered are safety against flooding and erosion, shipping and other transport sectors, households, energy and recreation.

We will explore the potential of available methods for developing coastal typologies (e.g. LOICZ) and draw on experience from the development of the DIVA typology. Additionally we will utilize the best available global, regional and, where available, local datasets to prepare an elaborated inventory (Deliverable 1.1) and achieve a new level of information for our assessments.

Task 1.2. Catalogue and evaluation criteria of coastal adaptation/mitigation options (VU-IVM, Deltares, SOTON, UPC, GeoEcoMar)

Start: Month 1, End: Month 9

This task will develop an inventory of existing and potential adaptation and mitigation options across the three considered scales. The inventory will be based on the state of art literature, the partnership experience and current practices (Milestone 2). In order to be able to classify the options according to the selected coastal typologies (Task 1.1), a set of evaluation criteria will be prepared. In this “score-system” of options for authorities at different scale levels, special attention will be paid to the integration of different scores for a wide range of indicators. Specific criteria to be considered are flexibility and robustness, to ensure higher resilience in the future, particularly under high-end scenarios. The set of criteria will be suitable for classifying adaptation strategies according to their relative contribution to climate mitigation. The evaluation criteria provide the basis for the selection of options and the design of adaptation pathways in WP4 and WP5. The inventory (Deliverable 1.2) will be used throughout Task 3.2 to give a first direction of suitable adaptation options per case study. New case-specific intervention options, brought forward by stakeholders in the workshops for our assessment cases (organized in Task 3.2) will be used to enlarge the inventory and satisfy users’ requirements while incorporating the process-based criteria of the partnership.

Task 1.3. Requirements for drivers, methods and modelling tools (Deltares, SOTON, UPC, GeoEcoMar, VU-IVM)

Start: Month 1, End: Month 12

The set of high end scenarios for physical and socio-economic variables (to be established in WP2) combined with the modelling tools (to be selected and refined in WP3) must be capable of determining the above-mentioned typology-dependent evaluation criteria (Task 1.2). This should also serve to calculate the effect of the prepared coastal adaptation and mitigation options. Therefore, in this Task, the datasets and modelling tools (Table 1.1) available to the consortium will be analysed to determine their capabilities, their required inputs (variables, spatial and temporal scales) and their suitability to generate the required outputs.

The capabilities of the available datasets and tools will be compared against the requirements for the proposed risk assessments across scales (Milestone 3). This will result in a gap analysis, which will provide the way forward for WP2 and WP3 to specify the required translation of scenarios into physical and socio-economic variables for impact calculation. This will also serve to determine the improvements needed in our modelling tools (Deliverable 1.3). Possible gaps could be related to the variables required for downscaling, to the most appropriate spatial and temporal resolution, to the required temporal scale (e.g. event-based time series or return period-scale) and to the ability of models to estimate the effects of adaptation and/or mitigation measures. Our approach will also contribute to combine the uncertainty in drivers (at local to global scales) with that of impacts (for local scales with some illustration for the global effect) and the uncertainty in the responses, combining adaptation and mitigation elements within our Comparative Assessment Structure (CAS). The uncertainty assessment will therefore cover the technical aspects (e.g. the energy or carbon footprint) and socioeconomic aspects (e.g. the cost of social perception). The range of variation established for each dependent or independent variable will be commensurate with the knowledge and data available and for that reason we shall provide estimates of uncertainty (in statistical terms whenever possible and in terms of subjective probabilities as an alternative) and robustness. This will lead to a set of best practice guidelines (Deliverable 1.4) for the assessment cases at the three considered scales.