Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Scrieciu, S. Şerban; Belton, Valérie; Chalabi, Zaid; Mechler, Reinhard; Puig, Daniel

doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9538-z

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scrieciu et al (2014) provide a climate policy-oriented methodology. The main contribution, MCA4climate, 13 is an application of MCA focused on addressing development-compatible climate policies.…”

Section: Assessment Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining the resilience dividend: accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning

Fung¹,

Helgeson²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report presents the concept of the resilience dividend as a useful metric for community resilience planning. The report suggests defining the resilience dividend as the net co-benefit (or co-cost) of investing in enhanced resilience, in the absence of a disruptive incident. In order for this definition to be useful, the report reviews literature on co-benefits. The main lessons from this review are that: (1) there is no consensus on the use of the meaning of cobenefit; (2) much of the literature on co-benefits is focused on climate change; and (3) there exist opportunities for the development of co-benefit measurement and assessment methodologies in the context of resilience planning. This report provides guidance and direction on the study and use of the resilience dividend by categorizing the various definitions of co-benefits to provide a frame of reference, reviewing measurement and assessment efforts, and summarizing the review in an annotated bibliography that can serve as a "quick guide" for researchers and practitioners looking for existing work on co-benefits. The report also highlights potential directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The paper presents a great example of a negative case for a disaster risk management tool, due in part to the lack of positive co-benefits. 32 See also Scrieciu et al (2014). 33 Table 1 lists mitigation options considered for the case study, including co-benefits.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining the resilience dividend: accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning

Fung¹,

Helgeson²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the methodologies have some limitations (e.g., only address a single hazard type), they provide a reasonable starting point for this activity. Additional methodologies, such as multicriteria decision analysis [e.g., see Gregory and Keeney 1994;Porthin et al 2013;Scrieciu et al 2014;Wardekker et al 2016] and other optimization techniques where multiple criteria are simultaneously optimized, also provide useful support for prioritization. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190GB-13…”

Section: Collaboration Of Infrastructure Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guide Brief 13 - Resilience Gaps - Identifying and Prioritizing Closure of Resilience Gaps

NIST¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Guide Brief aims to assist collaborative planning teams withStep 4, Plan Development, by supporting communities in identifying resilience gaps using the performance goals tables. These performance goals focus on system function rather than individual component performance. The document discusses approaches to prioritize actions that address those gaps and/or mitigation measures to close those gaps. Both are essential aspects of developing an overall resilience plan.The intended user of this Guide Brief is an analyst or resilience planning team member who helps set priorities for the overall community or for a specific building cluster or infrastructure system. Section 2 illustrates an example of using performance goals tables to identify resilience gaps. A performance goals table for buildings or infrastructure systems can be used in the same way. Section 3 discusses considerations for evaluating various alternatives for closing resilience gaps. Section 4 discusses three methods for prioritizing resilience gaps that communities can apply. IntroductionThe first step in developing a community resilience plan is identifying the gaps between the anticipated performance and the desired performance of building clusters and supporting infrastructure systems. This step is followed by prioritizing mitigation and recovery approaches to address those gaps.After resilience gaps are prioritized based on the importance of the gaps themselves, adjustments may need to be made to the list of priorities based on additional criteria. For example, if a mitigation measure is very expensive, the gap may move down the list of priorities. Additionally, the feasibility and practicality of the solutions may also affect the prioritization.While there is no single correct way to approach this task, this Guide Brief reviews a number of possible approaches, considering such concepts as:Economic, social, and environmental elements When the improvement would affect the restoration and recovery process https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190GB-13How existing assets may influence decisionsThe overall importance of the infrastructure in meeting critical needs of the community (particularly in post-event circumstances).The Riverbend example in Chapter 9 of the Guide develops a number of gap closure projects, all of which are carried forward in that example. Completing all the proposed projects may be possible, but prioritization is always an important aspect of community resilience planning. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Economic Decision Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (EDG) [Gilbert et al. 2015] investigates two competing Riverbend bridge mitigation approaches from an economic perspective. Identify Resilience GapsThis section provides an example of identifying a resilience gap (desired versus anticipated performance) by inspecting the completed performance goals table and comparing desired goals with anticipated performance using one infrastructure system, the wastewater system.

show abstract

“…However, even though it is recognized as a valid and sound decision making analysis approach [37], its application in the field of climate change policy assessment remains relatively limited albeit its increasing use [21,35]. Recently, other authors provided a more detailed review of MCA applications in climate change policy [37,38].…”

Section: Defining the Assessment Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping and Measuring European Local Governments’ Priorities for a Sustainable and Low-Carbon Energy Future

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The main objective of this article is to assess the priorities of local governments (LGs) in Europe regarding climate change mitigation technologies evaluation in the electricity sector and to provide important insights for energy policy design. The study applies a hybrid weighting methodology to elicit LGs' preferences in a constructive and iterative way regarding the evaluation criteria of low-carbon energy technologies. Furthermore, the study employs three data collection and preference elicitation methods, namely: survey, workshop, and webinar. The study was conducted across thirty one (31) European LGs that were categorized according to three variables: population size, geographical region and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The analysis shows that "CO2 emissions" is the most important criterion among European LGs, followed by "mortality and morbidity" and "ecosystem damages". The results illustrate the potential synergies of climate and energy policies for addressing both CO2 emissions and air pollution. It was also found, based on a correlation analysis, that LGs with higher GDP per capita tend to provide higher weights to criteria related to security of energy supply and technological innovation. The current study provides insights on the actual LGs' priorities that are important to consider during low-carbon energy technologies evaluation and energy policy design. Interestingly, the results of the European LGs' preferences clearly show that the EU climate policy objectives have reached OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2015, 8 11642 different levels of governance-and at this particular case, the local level. Furthermore, the developed methodology could be applied at different geographical regions to map other regions' LG priorities, but also at a group decision making context to elicit relevant stakeholders' preferences regarding low-carbon energy technologies and policy objectives.

show abstract

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Cited by 28 publications

References 71 publications

Defining the resilience dividend: accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning

Defining the resilience dividend: accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning

Guide Brief 13 - Resilience Gaps - Identifying and Prioritizing Closure of Resilience Gaps

Mapping and Measuring European Local Governments’ Priorities for a Sustainable and Low-Carbon Energy Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About