Suchergebnisse

This book summarizes work being pursued in the context of the CIPRNet (Critical Infrastructure Preparedness and Resilience Research Network) research project, co- funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The project is intended to provide concrete and on-going support to the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) research communities, enhancing their preparedness for CI-related emergencies, while also providing expertise and technologies for other stakeholders to promote their understanding and mitigation of the consequences of CI disruptions, leading to enhanced resilience. The book collects the tutorial material developed by the authors for several courses on the modelling, simulation and analysis of CIs, representing extensive and integrated CIP exper tise. It will help CI stakeholders, CI operators and civil protection authorities understand the complex system of CIs, and help them adapt to these changes and threats in order to be as prepared as possible for mitigating emergencies and crises affecting or arising from CIs.

Abstract
Shifting from effect-oriented toward cause-oriented and systemic approaches in sustainable climate change adaptation requires a solid understanding of the climate-related and societal causes behind climate risks. Thus, capturing, systemizing, and prioritizing factors contributing to climate risks are essential for developing cause-oriented climate risk and vulnerability assessments (CRVA). Impact chains (IC) are conceptual models used to capture hazard, vulnerability, and exposure factors that lead to a specific risk. IC modeling includes a participatory stakeholder phase and an operational quantification phase. Although ICs are widely implemented to systematically capture risk processes, they still show methodological gaps concerning, for example, the integration of dynamic feedback or balanced stakeholder involvement. Such gaps usually only become apparent in practical applications, and there is currently no systematic perspective on common challenges and methodological needs. Therefore, we reviewed 47 articles applying IC and similar CRVA methods that consider the cause–effect dynamics governing risk. We provide an overview of common challenges and opportunities as a roadmap for future improvements. We conclude that IC should move from a linear-like to an impact web–like representation of risk to integrate cause–effect dynamics. Qualitative approaches are based on significant stakeholder involvement to capture expert-, place-, and context-specific knowledge. The integration of IC into quantifiable, executable models is still highly underexplored because of a limited understanding of systems, data, evaluation options, and other uncertainties. Ultimately, using IC to capture the underlying complex processes behind risk supports effective, long-term, and sustainable climate change adaptation.

Over the course of 2021, UBA commissioned a series of workshops on the topic of climate resilient infrastructure systems to discuss why research outputs are not more consistently transferred into practice of infrastructure operation. This paper presents the outcomes of this process. It presents barriers for successful transfer of research outputs into practice and for each barrier provides recommendations to overcome them. The identified key lessons for facilitating climate resilience of infrastructure systems are: (i) A better approach to knowledge co-production is needed at all stages of research, including the explicit inclusion of a trust-building phase between researchers and users; (ii) Frameworks related to funding, standards, and regulations need to be systematically assessed to determine whether and why they might facilitate or hinder the uptake of research results; (iii) Existing capacity to raise Technology Readiness Levels needs to be increased, e.g., by providing funding programs that support long-term collaboration among successful consortia; (iv) There is a need for European and national services to support long-term access to research results; (v) More capacity needs to be provided for education and training of users; (vi) There is a need for improved cross-sector applicability through harmonization of methods, data formats, and terminology; and (vii) A mechanism is needed to support the extension of already well-established (but potentially sector-specific) research results for critical infrastructure systems. The target audiences for these recommendations are funding bodies, policy makers, and standardization bodies that can influence the framework conditions under which infrastructure resilience research takes place, research project coordinators and other academic/researcher institutions who are often the main responsible for the design of research projects, and practitioners who design and manage (critical) infrastructure systems.