Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introducing the UK Climate Resilience Programme -- 1 Introduction -- 2 A Brief History of UK Climate Research and Policy on Adaptation -- 3 The Science Plan and its Implementation -- 4 Book Roadmap -- References -- 2 Climate Resilience: Interpretations of the Term and Implications for Practice -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Broad or Narrow -- 3 Operational or Place-based -- 4 Implications for Building Resilience in the UK -- 5 What Next? -- References -- Part I Undertaking Resilience Research -- 3 Towards a Step Change in Co-Production for Climate Resilience -- 1 Introduction -- 2 What is Co-Production? -- 3 What Works Well -- 3.1 Gathering Community Experience -- 3.2 Sustaining Engagement Throughout -- 3.3 Getting Creative with Storytelling -- 3.4 Balancing Power and Managing Expectations -- 3.5 Experimenting with Upscaling -- 4 Emerging Challenges and Opportunities -- 4.1 Focus on the Process, Not Just Outputs -- 4.2 Revise Funding Structures and Timescales -- 4.3 Promote New Measures of Success -- 4.4 Invest in Multidisciplinary Approaches -- 5 Conclusions -- References -- 4 Learning from Organisational Embedding for Climate Resilience -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Embedded Researcher Scheme -- 2.1 Funded Projects and Outcomes -- 2.2 A Note on Embedding During a Global Pandemic -- 3 How did researchers and hosts experience the ER scheme? -- 4 What Helped and What Hindered in Achieving Effective Outcomes? -- 4.1 Being 'on the Inside' of the Organisation -- 4.2 Flexibility in the Research Workplan -- 4.3 Openness to Learning on Both Sides -- 4.4 Seniority and Length of Service Are Less Important Than Personality and Outlook -- 4.5 Adequate Commitment from ER and Host -- 5 Conclusions -- References -- Part II Managing Climate Risks.

Chapter 1 Introducing the UK Climate Resilience Programme -- Chapter 2 Climate Resilience: interpretations of the term and implications for practice -- Chapter 3 Towards a step change in co-production for climate resilience -- Chapter 4 Learning from organisational embedding for climate resilience -- Chapter 5 Putting climate resilience in its place: developing spatially literate climate adaptation initiatives -- Chapter 6 Learning from arts and humanities approaches to building climate resilience in the UK -- Chapter 7 What have we learnt from the climate service projects delivered through the UK Climate Resilience Programme? -- Chapter 8 What insights can the programme share on developing decision support tools? -- Chapter 9 Improved understanding and characterisation of climate hazards in the UK -- Chapter 10 Future changes in indicators of climate hazard and resource in the UK -- Chapter 11 What has been learned about converting climate hazard data to climate risks information? -- Afterword.

This open access book draws together key research from the UK Climate Resilience programme. It focuses on topics central to the programme's research agenda, including improved characterisation and quantification of climate risks, enhanced understanding of the management of climate risks, and the development and delivery of climate services. Key chapters address the challenges inherent to undertaking resilience research, including how to make the term 'climate resilience' usable and useful, co-producing research between academics, policy makers and practitioners, and engaging and communicating outside of academia. This book is unique in providing a concise and accessible overview of the programme's key lessons, placing the findings into a wider context and it will inform future research, policy and practice agendas.

Brown, S.; Nicholls, R.J.; Pardaens, A.K.; Lowe, J.A.; Tol, R.S.J.; Vafeidis, A.T., and Hinkel, J., 2019. Benefits of climatechange mitigation for reducing the impacts of sea-level rise in G-20 countries. Journal of Coastal Research, 35(4), 884-895. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. This paper assesses the potential benefits of climate-change mitigation in reducing the impacts of sea-level rise over the 21st century in G-20 countries (excluding the European Union as a whole), using the Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment model. Impacts of the expected number of people flooded annually and wetland losses were assessed. To assess the benefits of mitigation, it was assumed that defences were not upgraded during the study. Globally, with a sea-level rise of 0.68 m by the 2080s (with respect to 1980-99), representing a potential future with limited climate-change mitigation, and with the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1 socio-economic scenario, 123 million additional people could be flooded annually and 39% of present global wetland stock could be lost. For a 0.19-m rise in sea level, associated with a substantial reduction in emissions, the number of people flooded could be reduced to 13 million/y, with 21% of global wetland stock loss, unless new wetlands emerge. Collectively, non-Annex 1 G-20 countries experience a disproportionately higher number of people flooded in their nations compared with the proportion of population flooded globally. The greatest wetland losses for G-20 countries are projected for Australia, Indonesia, and the United States. Thus, G-20 nations with the highest emissions or gross domestic product frequently do not experience the greatest impacts, despite some of these nations being potentially more able to pay for adaptation.

Political decisions, adaptation planning, and impact assessments need reliable estimates of future climate change and related uncertainties. To provide these estimates, different approaches to constrain, filter, or weight climate model projections into probabilistic distributions have been proposed. However, an assessment of multiple such methods to, for example, expose cases of agreement or disagreement, is often hindered by a lack of coordination, with methods focusing on a variety of variables, time periods, regions, or model pools. Here, a consistent framework is developed to allow a quantitative comparison of eight different methods; focus is given to summer temperature and precipitation change in three spatial regimes in Europe in 2041–60 relative to 1995–2014. The analysis draws on projections from several large ensembles, the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble, and perturbed physics ensembles, all using the high-emission scenario RCP8.5. The methods' key features are summarized, assumptions are discussed, and resulting constrained distributions are presented. Method agreement is found to be dependent on the investigated region but is generally higher for median changes than for the uncertainty ranges. This study, therefore, highlights the importance of providing clear context about how different methods affect the assessed uncertainty—in particular, the upper and lower percentiles that are of interest to risk-averse stakeholders. The comparison also exposes cases in which diverse lines of evidence lead to diverging constraints; additional work is needed to understand how the underlying differences between methods lead to such disagreements and to provide clear guidance to users. ; ISSN:0894-8755 ; ISSN:1520-0442