• decreasing the expected average overall costs (i.e. the anticipated cost in any
given year, estimated through the various indicators, and averaged over the
likelihood of various conceivable perturbations) of infrastructure disturbances,
repair and/or reconstruction (arising from natural disasters or other causes) or
• decreasing the prospect of unacceptable overall costs of infrastructure disturbances, repair and/or reconstruction (i.e. the probability for the impacts of
disturbances to exceed a politically acceptable threshold) (short-term resilience).
• implementing alternatives to decrease future costs (financial investment and
non-financial costs like organisational changes) of infrastructure retrofit, and/or
to decrease the probability of unacceptable retrofit costs (long-term resilience).
These short-term and long-term costs to increase resilience can be estimated using
different factors or “dimensions”. Although monetary metrics may be used for these
costs to be included in a cost-benefit analyses, many factors are not easy to describe
in a monetary unit. A multi-criteria approach is then more useful and helpful to
enable widely-accepted decisions on these factors.
The factors/dimensions are considered as inputs required to implement a policy
option under two criteria:
(a) public financing needs, and
(b) implementation barriers
The possible impacts of a policy option are considered as outputs under four
criteria:
(a) the environmental dimension,
(b) the economic dimension,
(c) the social component, and
(d) the political and institution dimension.
Figure 10.1 depicts this approach.
Scenarios to consider include:
• Low rate v/s high rate population growth or rapid population increase
(immigration)
• Limited v/s large warming
• Decreasing v/s increasing rainfall
• Extreme events of low v/s high magnitude (droughts/floods)
The different scenarios can be combined in different ways. Assessing the likelihoods of the different scenarios, during future climates, is difficult. Using only the
model results may entail an underestimation of the uncertainty. It may be preferable,
therefore, to associate a middle-range scenario with a worst-case scenario (high or
low). Experts can choose the middle-range and worst-case scenarios from existing
trends or scenarios in the region.
298
10 Climate Change and Infrastructure
given year, estimated through the various indicators, and averaged over the
likelihood of various conceivable perturbations) of infrastructure disturbances,
repair and/or reconstruction (arising from natural disasters or other causes) or
• decreasing the prospect of unacceptable overall costs of infrastructure disturbances, repair and/or reconstruction (i.e. the probability for the impacts of
disturbances to exceed a politically acceptable threshold) (short-term resilience).
• implementing alternatives to decrease future costs (financial investment and
non-financial costs like organisational changes) of infrastructure retrofit, and/or
to decrease the probability of unacceptable retrofit costs (long-term resilience).
These short-term and long-term costs to increase resilience can be estimated using
different factors or “dimensions”. Although monetary metrics may be used for these
costs to be included in a cost-benefit analyses, many factors are not easy to describe
in a monetary unit. A multi-criteria approach is then more useful and helpful to
enable widely-accepted decisions on these factors.
The factors/dimensions are considered as inputs required to implement a policy
option under two criteria:
(a) public financing needs, and
(b) implementation barriers
The possible impacts of a policy option are considered as outputs under four
criteria:
(a) the environmental dimension,
(b) the economic dimension,
(c) the social component, and
(d) the political and institution dimension.
Figure 10.1 depicts this approach.
Scenarios to consider include:
• Low rate v/s high rate population growth or rapid population increase
(immigration)
• Limited v/s large warming
• Decreasing v/s increasing rainfall
• Extreme events of low v/s high magnitude (droughts/floods)
The different scenarios can be combined in different ways. Assessing the likelihoods of the different scenarios, during future climates, is difficult. Using only the
model results may entail an underestimation of the uncertainty. It may be preferable,
therefore, to associate a middle-range scenario with a worst-case scenario (high or
low). Experts can choose the middle-range and worst-case scenarios from existing
trends or scenarios in the region.
298
10 Climate Change and Infrastructure