Search results

Drought has become a dominant climate risk both around the world and in Europe, adding to the already challenging task of farming and governing the agricultural sector under climate change. Drought risk management is extremely complex. Apart from irrigation, most drought risk management options have more than one goal and may potentially have negative trade-offs with other risk management objectives. Moreover, government regulations and market mechanisms influence farmers' decision-making. However, previous studies, both in developed and in developing countries, have predominantly focused on attitudinal and structural influencing factors on farmers' risk management behavior. In this paper, we comprehensively investigate farmers' decision spaces with respect to drought risk management. We address two applied research questions: (1) What are farmers' preferred drought risk management measures? (2) From a farmer's perspective, what are the dominant factors influencing drought risk management decisions? We find that farmers primarily think of production-based rather than financial measures with respect to drought risk management. At the same time, natural and technical constraints and enabling factors dominate their mental decision space, followed by public and private institutional aspects. This research provides a basis for the design of integrated and holistic drought risk management policy and the drought risk governance needed for sustainable use of land and water resources such as needed to address systemic risks and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Moreover, we introduce a novel approach using mental models extracted from interviews to explore cognitive representations of farmers' decision spaces. This approach has the potential to complement mainstream research using standardized surveys and behavioral models to analyze drivers of risk management. ; ISSN:1387-585X ; ISSN:1573-2975

This book examines the uncertainties underlying various strategies for a low-carbon future. Most prominently, such strategies relate to transitions in the energy sector, on both the supply and the demand side. At the same time they interact with other sectors, such as industrial production, transport, and building, and ultimately require new behaviour patterns at household and individual levels. Currently, much research is available on the effectiveness of these strategies but, in order to successfully implement comprehensive transition pathways, it is crucial not only to understand the benefits but also the risks. Filling this gap, this volume provides an interdisciplinary, conceptual framework to assess risks and uncertainties associated with low-carbon policies and applies this consistently across 11 country cases from around the world, illustrating alternative transition pathways in various contexts. The cases are presented as narratives, drawing on stakeholder-driven research efforts. They showcase diverse empirical evidence reflecting the complex challenges to and potential negative consequences of such pathways. Together, they enable the reader to draw valuable lessons on the risks and uncertainties associated with choosing the envisaged transition pathways, as well as ways to manage the implementation of these pathways and ultimately enable sustainable and lasting social and environmental effects. This book will be of great interest to students, scholars, and practitioners of environmental and energy policy, low-carbon transitions, renewable energy technologies, climate change action, and sustainability in general.

Identifying the risks that could impact a low-carbon transition is a prerequisite to assessing and managing these risks. We systematically characterise risks associated with decarbonisation pathways in fifteen case studies conducted in twelve countries around the world. We find that stakeholders from business, government, NGOs, and others supplied some 40 % of these risk inputs, significantly widening the scope of risks considered by academics and experts. Overall, experts and academics consider more economic risks and assess these with quantitative methods and models, while other stakeholders consider political risks more. To avoid losing sight of risks that cannot be easily quantified and modelled, including some economic risks, impact assessment modelling should be complemented with qualitative research and active stakeholder engagement. A systematic risk elicitation facilitates communication with stakeholders, enables better risk mitigation, and increases the chance of a sustainable transition. ; This work was part of the TRANSrisk project (see http://transrisk-project.eu) and funded by the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme of the European Union, grant agreement no. 642260; the research was also supported by the H2020 European Commission Project "PARIS REINFORCE", under grant Agreement No. 820846. The sole responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors; the paper does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The authors express their thanks to the case study leaders and researchers, especially Gabriel Bachner, Brigitte Wolkinger, Luis Virla Alvarado, Paula Díaz, Leonhard Späth, Christiane Plum, Song Lei, Chen Ying, Cynthia Ismail, Takeshi Takama, Xaquín García-Muros, Tim Suljada, Oliver Johnson, Rocio Alvarez, Annela Anger-Kraavi, Katerina Foruli, Sotiris Papadelis, Serafeim Michas, Duke Ghosh, Krisztina Szendrei, Björn Nykvist, and Luis Gonzalez.

Identifying the risks that could impact a low-carbon transition is a prerequisite to assessing and managing these risks. We systematically characterise risks associated with decarbonisation pathways in fifteen case studies conducted in twelve countries around the world. We find that stakeholders from business, government, NGOs, and others supplied some 40 % of these risk inputs, significantly widening the scope of risks considered by academics and experts. Overall, experts and academics consider more economic risks and assess these with quantitative methods and models, while other stakeholders consider political risks more. To avoid losing sight of risks that cannot be easily quantified and modelled, including some economic risks, impact assessment modelling should be complemented with qualitative research and active stakeholder engagement. A systematic risk elicitation facilitates communication with stakeholders, enables better risk mitigation, and increases the chance of a sustainable transition. ; ISSN:2210-4224