Accounting for uncertainty and flexibility in flood risk management: comparing R eal‐ I n‐ O ptions optimisation and A daptation T ipping P oints

• Published in: Journal of flood risk management Vol. 8; no. 2; pp. 135 - 144
• Main Authors: Gersonius, B., Ashley, R., Jeuken, A., Pathinara, A., Zevenbergen, C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.06.2015
• ISSN: 1753-318X; 1753-318X
• DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12083

Abstract This paper provides practical experience with two climate impact and adaptation assessment methods: R eal‐ I n‐ O ptions ( RIO ) optimisation and A daptation T ipping P oints ( ATP ). These methods were selected because they both provide insight into and promote the ability of the system to deal with future change and thus can be used within a resilience approach. The resilience approach takes a dynamic perspective on adaptive processes and the effects of these processes at/across different spatio‐temporal scales. Although the two methods share a similar aim, they have considerable differences in orientation and application. RIO optimisation aims to minimise the expected costs of acquiring climate change resilience. To achieve this aim, it uses probabilistic climate data to identify the optimal set of adaptive strategies in response to advances in knowledge about future climate change. The ATP method is virtually independent of climate change scenarios, and in particular of probabilities of climate change. Rather, it requires input from decision makers and other stakeholders to select the preferred adaptive strategy. This paper discusses the concept, procedures, case examples and benefits/limitations of each method, examining its usefulness for informing adaptation‐related decision making. Based on this, it gives specific recommendations on which method to use under what circumstances.