1 Quick overview - our (tentative) approach

1.1 Key information for any Climate Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning cycle

Any climate risk assessment and adaptation planning cycle requires contextual information around: - The general motivation for conducting the cycle; in particular, an understanding of long-term stakeholder goals
- Key climate drivers that could influence the long-term stakeholder outcomes - Key processes that are influenced by the climate and, in turn, influence long-term stakeholder goals - Potential adaptation options that could be used to ensure the long-term stakeholder goals are met - A suite of metrics representing the long-term stakeholder goals that can be used to evaluate different adaptation options

This information is represented in the case study ‘post card’ template below. As we progress through a climate risk assessment and adaptation planning cycle, these ‘post cards’ will be continuously updated and refined.

The dark blue boxes are based upon the XLRM framework used in Robust Decision Making (RDM) - RDM contains many useful concepts for climate risk assessment and adaptation planning. Here, we’ve tried to represent these concepts in a less technical way.

1.2 Generic Climate Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning cycle

To date, we have mainly based our proposed approach using concepts from Structured Decision Making (SDM). Originally developed and applied in environmental management, SDM is a cyclical framework that emphasises the decision context and stakeholder values when assessing risks and choosing adaptation strategies. The explicit emphasis on decision context and stakeholder values, which are typically implicit in existing climate risk and adaptation frameworks, means SDM presents the process of climate risk assessment and adaptation in an accessible, general language (in contrast to the technical, methodological framing of existing frameworks). Furthermore, SDM is cyclical and iterative, meaning that decision making is adaptive and can account for changing decision contexts. In contrast, existing frameworks are often presented as a ‘one-time’ process of risk assessment and adaptation planning, meaning that decision contexts are only considered during each new planning process. Finally, SDM is a generic framework that does not prescribe specific participatory and technical methods (unlike existing frameworks, which prescribe specific methods at the exclusion of others). This makes SDM commensurate with current and future participatory and technical methods useful to climate risk assessment and adaptation.
We have slightly modified the original SDM framework to make it more suitable for climate risk assessment and adaptation planning. It involves seven key steps, each of which requires different technical and/or participatory methods. A better understanding of which methods are suitable for what context will be a crucial outcome of this project. The general steps of climate risk assessment and adaptation planning are:

1. Establish context: Rapidly defining the problem, including a preliminary outline of what the cycle will require and achieve. This step identifies the key stakeholders, key problems to be addressed by conducting the cycle, and the desired outputs and outcomes of the cycle. A ‘cycle sketch’ is also produced that outlines the expected work required to complete the cycle. This step ensures that everyone involved has a shared understanding of the problem and provides an initial understanding on how the cycle goals can be achieved.

2. Define the system, objectives, and performance metrics: Identifying the system in which the decision is being made (particularly the relevant system boundaries), articulating the objectives that the cycle aims to achieve, and quantifying performance metrics which can evaluate system objectives. Objectives and performance metrics should be specific, measurable, and reflect the values and priorities of the stakeholders. They should also prescribe a baseline level of acceptable system performance or some normative targets of future system behaviour.

3. Risk assessment: Identify and evaluate the climate conditions in which system performance or objectives will not be met, framed around system-specific future socio-political scenarios. The system vulnerabilities identified in this step inform the subsequent generation of alternative strategies.

4. Alternatives: Generating a range of potential strategies that could address the cycle problem and mitigate risk. This step involves consideration of diverse perspectives to ensure a comprehensive set of options are agreed upon.

5. Consequences and trade-offs: Assessing the likely outcomes of each alternative in terms of their impacts on the defined objectives and performance metrics, then comparing the consequences of each alternative. Estimating the consequences requires using models or expert judgement. Estimating the trade-offs involves comparing alternatives and considering how they align with stakeholders’ values and preferences.

6. Decision Support: Presenting the different alternatives and developing an implementation plan. This includes identifying necessary resources, timelines, responsibilities, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

7. Implement, monitor and learn: Continuously monitoring the outcomes of the cycle and making necessary adjustments based on new information or changing conditions. This ensures that the decision remains effective and responsive to evolving circumstances.