Qualitative assessment of complex and interacting climate risks
This report highlights the limitations of solely relying on quantitative climate risk assessments and emphasises the importance of qualitative methods. It discusses complex interactions between hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposures across built, social, natural, and economic domains, advocating for systems thinking and intersectional approaches to better capture and mitigate climate risks.
Please login or join for free to read more.
OVERVIEW
Introduction
This report examines complex climate risk interactions across built, social, economic, and natural domains in Australia. It analyses qualitative assessments from various sources, highlighting cascading and compounding risks, feedback loops, and limitations of quantitative models. The study emphasises the need for coordinated, systemic approaches to climate risk assessment and management.
Methods for qualitative assessment
The research utilises a framework for complex climate change risk assessment, identifying risk interactions through a review of post-disaster discussions and reports. The approach considers four domains: built environment, natural, economy, and social. The methodology involves collecting observations from reports, summarising interactions, mapping them onto diagrams, and drawing key results and learnings.
Results of qualitative assessment
The assessment reveals numerous interactions within and between risk domains. Key findings include:
- Hazard interactions: Storms can influence coastal inundation, erosion, floods, and bushfires. Heat stress is associated with bushfires.
- Social domain impacts: Critical infrastructure, housing quality, and environmental factors significantly affect social vulnerability.
- Cascading risks: For example, storms decrease agricultural productivity, leading to reduced community capital and quality of life.
- Compounding risks: Successive events like drought, bushfires, and COVID-19 increased mental health toll in communities.
- Feedback loops: Low economic capital results in vulnerable populations residing in at-risk housing, creating a cycle of increasing vulnerability.
Key learnings
- Climate risk complexity: Linear thinking can overlook nuances in complex climate risks.
- Time horizons: Different timescales yield different risk assessments and treatment options.
- Social domain exacerbation: Climate risks highlight and exacerbate existing societal inequalities.
- Hazard interactions: Current quantitative models often fail to capture interactions between hazards.
- Coordinated solutions: Complex risks require conversation and coordination across stakeholders.
Improvements
The assessment could be expanded to include cyclone and earthquake hazards, structural interventions for hazard reduction, and a more comprehensive array of sources. Further analysis of vulnerabilities for a broader range of communities is also suggested.
Potential solutions
- Apply First Nations systems thinking to risk assessments.
- Employ an intersectional lens to understand compounding vulnerabilities.
- Integrate systemic impacts within quantitative assessments.
- Utilise technology and innovation to mitigate cascading and compounding risks.
Recommendations
While there is no specific ‘recommendation’ section, the report suggests:
- Incorporating qualitative assessments to supplement quantitative models for a more comprehensive understanding of climate risks.
- Considering complex interactions, feedback loops, and cascading effects in risk assessments and management strategies.
- Engaging with First Nations knowledge and applying intersectional approaches to risk assessment.
- Investing in technology and innovation to address complex climate risks.
- Coordinating efforts across domains and stakeholders for more effective risk treatment.
