Search

Increases in the magnitudes and frequencies of climate‐related extreme events are redistributing risk across coastal systems, including their environmental, economic, and social components. Consequently, stakeholders (SHs) are faced with long‐term challenges and complex information when managing assets, services, and uses of the coast. In this context, SH engagement is a key step for risk management and in the preparation of resilience plans to respond and adapt to climate change. This paper develops a participatory method to identify and prioritize a set of risk measures, combining multi‐criteria analysis with sensitivity analysis. The process involved local and regional authorities of the Veneto region testing the method, including national, regional, and local government, catchment officers, research organizations, natural parks managers and Non‐Governmental Organizations (NGOs). SHs identified and ranked a range of adaptation measures to increase climate resilience, with a focus on coastal risk in the Venice lagoon. Results demonstrate that the sensitivity analysis provides useful information on how different sectors of expertise can influence the ranking of the identified risk management measures, highlighting the value of investigating the preferences or priorities of different SH groups within the definition of adaptation plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change influences the frequency of extreme events that affect both human and natural systems. It requires systemic climate change adaptation to address the complexity of risks across multiple domains and tackle the uncertainties of future scenarios. This paper introduces a multirisk analysis of climate hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and risk severity, specifically designed to hotspot geographic locations and prioritize system receptors that are affected by climate‐related extremes. The analysis is demonstrated for the Metropolitan City of Venice. Representative scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) of climate threats (i.e., storm surges, pluvial flood, heat waves, and drought) are selected and represented by projections of Regional Climate Models for a 30‐year period (2021–2050). A sample of results is as follows. First, an increase in the risk is largely due to drought, pluvial flood, and storm surge, depending on the areas of interest, with the overall situation worsening under the RCP8.5 scenario. Second, particular locations have colocated vulnerable receptors at higher risk, concentrated in the urban centers (e.g., housing, railways, roads) and along the coast (e.g., beaches, wetlands, primary sector). Third, risk communication of potential environmental and socio‐economic losses via the multirisk maps is useful to stakeholders and public administration. Fourth, the multirisk maps recommend priorities for future investigation and risk management, such as collection of sensor data, elaboration of mitigations, and adaptation plans at hotspot locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increases in the magnitude and frequency of climate and other disruptive factors are placing environmental, economic, and social stresses on coastal systems. This is further exacerbated by land use transformations, urbanization, over‐tourism, sociopolitical tensions, technological innovations, among others. A scenario‐informed multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in the Metropolitan City of Venice integrating qualitative (i.e., local stakeholder preferences) and quantitative information (i.e., climate‐change projections) with the aim of enhancing system resilience to multiple climate‐related threats. As part of this analysis, different groups of local stakeholders (e.g., local authorities, civil protection agencies, SMEs, NGOs) were asked to identify critical functions that needs to be sustained. Various policy initiatives were considered to support these critical functions. The MCDA was used to rank the initiatives across several scenarios describing main climate threats (e.g., storm surges, floods, heatwaves, drought). We found that many climate change scenarios were considered to be disruptive to stakeholders and influence alternative ranking. The management alternatives acting on physical domain generally enhance resilience across just a few scenarios while cognitive and informative initiatives provided resilience enhancement across most scenarios considered. With uncertainty of multiple stressors along with projected climate variability, a portfolio of cognitive and physical initiatives is recommended to enhance resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]