Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NATIONAL LEVEL MONITORING AND EVALUATION
OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM1
1 . This report has been drafted with support from Kiran Sura and David Thompson from the UK Adaptation
Sub-Committee (ASC) of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Projected impacts of climate change .................................................................................................... 4 2. National approach to climate change adaptation ................................................................................. 6
Strand 1: Providing the evidence.............................................................................................................. 6 Strand 2: Raise awareness, and helping others take action ...................................................................... 7 Strand 3: Ensuring and measuring progress ............................................................................................. 7 Strand 4: Government policy and process – embedding adaptation ........................................................ 8 Progress to date ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3. National level monitoring and evaluation of adaptation ...................................................................... 9 The conceptual framework ....................................................................................................................... 9 Indicators ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Data requirements .................................................................................................................................. 13 The example of flooding ........................................................................................................................ 14 Measuring the climate preparedness of the natural environment ........................................................... 21
4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 22
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 24
ANNEX 1: INDICATORS USED BY THE UK ASC TO MEASURE FLOOD RISK ............................... 26
Tables
Table 1. Data summary table ............................................................................................................... 14 Table 2. The list of flood indicators for England ................................................................................. 16 Table 3. Number of properties within areas of different flood likelihood ........................................... 18 Table 4. Indicator availability and areas for data improvement on flooding ....................................... 21 Table 5. ASC indicators to assess change in risk of flooding .............................................................. 26
Figures
Figure 1. The UK adaptation preparedness ladder ................................................................................ 10 Figure 2. The ASC assessment toolkit .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3. Annual growth rate of development in river and coastal floodplains .................................... 17 Figure 4. Number of properties built in the floodplain between 2001-2011, by flood risk category,
accounting for the presence of flood defences ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 5. Estimated benefits from flood defence spending ................................................................... 19
Boxes
Box 1. Methodology to create the dataset for assessing flooding risk and adaptation action in England . 15
3
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACC Adaptation to Climate Change
ARP Adaptation Reporting Power
ASC Adaptation Sub-Committee
CCC Committee on Climate Change
CCRA Climate Change Risk Assessment
Defra Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
ECR Economics of Climate Resilience
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
NAP National Adaptation Programme
NI National Indicator
UKCIP UK Climate Impacts Programme
UKCP UK Climate Projections
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
4
NATIONAL LEVEL MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
1. The UK is one of the leading OECD countries in terms of climate change adaptation policy
planning and implementation. The government objective is to create an enabling environment where both
governmental and non-governmental actors can make timely and well-informed decisions on how to
address the risks and opportunities posed by climate change (Defra, 2012d). To achieve this objective, the
government approach has been to integrate adaptation into all planning processes based on a strong
evidence base that has benefitted from government support since the 1990s.
2. A central element of the national level monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation is
the role played by the Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), an
independent body created under the Climate Change Act (2008) to fulfil a number of statutory
responsibilities. One of these is to “assess the preparedness of the UK to meet climate change risks and
opportunities”. In doing so, annual ASC assessment reports have focused on identifying indicators to
examine the design, implementation and effectiveness of programmes, policies and plans expected to
reduce vulnerability to climate change. These are chosen to allow the Committee to assess current action
on adaptation and make recommendations on how to further progress. Notably, these are intended to
facilitate mid-course corrections to adaptation priorities, but they do not directly assess the cost-
effectiveness of the UK government‟s national adaptation programme. The value-for-money of specific
interventions is addressed by the standard appraisal (“Green book”) and evaluation (“Magenta book”)
systems.
3. This report outlines the ASC‟s monitoring and evaluation framework as of January 2013.
Monitoring and evaluation of adaptation, however, is a continuously evolving area of work. The current
approach is based on lessons learned over the past couple of years and this process of learning is likely to
continue in the future. Furthermore, it should be noted that with the publication of the UK National
Adaptation Programme (NAP) expected in 2013, the nature of reporting may change but the approach is
likely to remain the same. The ASC has a statutory duty to report on progress made every two years
starting in the second year after which the NAP is published.
4. The objective of this report is to inform the discussion on national level monitoring and
evaluation of climate change adaptation. By illustrating how climate change vulnerability and preparedness
are evaluated in practice, highlighting lessons learned and remaining challenges, this report contributes to a
discussion paper on emerging approaches to monitoring and evaluation of adaptation. The UK case study
was conducted in parallel with three other country case studies in Germany, Nepal and Mozambique,
ensuring a mix of lessons learned in four different country contexts.
5. The next section summarises some of the projected climate change impacts for the UK. Section 2
outlines the national approach to climate change adaptation, while section 3 examines the approach used to
monitor and evaluate UK‟s climate preparedness, drawing on the example of flooding. The fourth section
presents some concluding comments.
1. Projected impacts of climate change
6. The UK has in recent years seen a temperature increase of between 0.5°C and 1°C compared to
the 1961-1990 average, with great year-to-year variation (Defra, 2012b). As a consequence, there has been
an increase in the number of severe weather events and major coastal and inland flooding. The 2007 flood
affecting England, Wales and Northern Ireland illustrated the potentially disruptive impact of extreme
weather on people, property, infrastructure and businesses, with costs of related damages amounting to
5
GBP 3.2 billion in England alone. Under the current climate, the estimated annual damage of sea and
estuaries flooding is over GBP 310 million while the annual damage from river flooding is around GBP
690 million in England and Wales. At the same time, droughts have significant consequences for water
supply, industry, agriculture and the environment (Defra, 2012b). In 2011, the dry spring in parts of South
East England resulted in a significant economic loss to many farmers due to reduced crop yields.
7. There is a long established climate modelling capacity in the UK, with the most recent set of
projections being the UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09). This model provides relatively high spatial
resolution (25 km2 grid) and explicit treatment of uncertainty: results are provided as probability
distributions rather than point estimates. The projections – distinguished by low, medium and high
emissions scenarios – are presented as plausible impacts and opportunities of a changing climate within 3
timeframes: „the 2020s‟ (2010-2039), „the 2050s‟ (2040-2069) and „the 2080s‟ (2070-2099). The
projections are intended to account for both natural variability and the inherent uncertainty regarding the
nature of a changing climate. Estimates for the 2080s medium emissions scenario include (Defra, 2012b, p.
1):
increased mean summer temperature of between 1°C and 8°C;
changes in summer rainfall between 16% and minus 65%;
increased winter rainfall between 3% and 73%;
several-fold increase in the number of heavy rain days in the UK lowland during the winter
months and up to a two-fold increase in the summer months.
8. The climate projections have been complemented with a Climate Change Risk Assessment
(CCRA) that translates changes in climate variables into social, economic and environmental impacts. The
first CCRA was published in 2012, with there being a statutory requirement to undertake future studies on
a five year cycle. The 2012 study found that while the UK already is vulnerable to extreme weather events,
the climate will continue to change. In the short-term, climate variability – both temperature and
precipitation patterns – is projected to increase. With the build up of greenhouse gasses, a systematic shift
is expected to take place in the long-term with average increases in summer and winter temperatures
despite continued variation (Defra, 2012b). Similarly, the average annual rainfall is projected to increase in
the winter and decrease in the summer, with a large fraction of annual precipitation falling as heavy events
(Defra, 2012b). Projected impacts from these climatic changes include (Defra, 2012b; CCRA, 2012; ASC,
2010):
between 27 and 59 million people affected by water supply-demand deficits by the 2050s;
increase in annual property damages in the UK from GBP 1.3 billion today to between GBP 2.1
and 12 billion by the 2080s;
transport disruptions and additional welfare costs from more frequent winters and severe snow
and ice conditions accumulating to an average of GBP 1 billion per annum.
increase in heat-related illnesses and premature deaths from colder winters and hotter summers;
higher flood risk to businesses and key infrastructure due to a projected sea level increase of 21-
68 cm (190 cm under the highest emission scenario) in the London area.
6
2. National approach to climate change adaptation
9. The UK has a long history of government support for work on climate change. Early research on
the impacts of climate change dates back to the 1990s, followed by the establishment of the UK Climate
Impacts Programme (UKCIP) in 1997. The objective of UKCIP was to bridge the gap between research
and policy communities (West and Gawith, 2005). In 2008, the UK introduced the Climate Change Act, a
legally-binding framework on climate change mitigation and adaption. The Act specifies that: i) a climate
change risk assessment must be conducted every five years; ii) a National Adaptation Programme (NAP)
addressing prioritised climate change risks to England must be put in place and reviewed every five years;
and that iii) the government has the authority to ask key infrastructure providers to assess the risk of
climate change on their work and outline how they plan to address these risks.
10. In response to these statutory duties, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) launched in 2008 the Adaptation to Climate Change (ACC) programme2. The cross-government
programme co-ordinated work on adaptation by the UK government and the wider public sector (Defra,
2008). This creates an enabling environment in which local authorities, business and civil society can make
informed decisions on how to respond to climate change, and ensures that government‟s own activities and
policies reflect the climate change agenda (Defra, 2012a). In 2008, a team of 35 people was established to
develop the evidence base and to help government officials and others to integrate adaptation in all
systems, policies and plans. As required by the Climate Change Act, the ACC Programme consists of two
phases: Phase 1, starting in 2008 provides the foundations on which the NAP will be implemented in Phase
2. Phase 2 will start as soon as possible and likely in 2013. More recently the ACC Programme has been
re-branded as the Climate Ready Programme, which is a joint venture between Climate Ready teams in
Defra and the Environment Agency. Phase 1 of the Programme consists of four strands outlined below.
Strand 1: Providing the evidence
11. The Climate Ready Programme brings together research undertaken by the Met Office Hadley
Centre, the UKCIP and other research organisations to ensure a robust and accessible evidence base
(Defra, 2008). The core of this evidence provision has been the climate projections and risk assessment
mentioned above. The UK Climate Projections (UKCP) were first produced in 1991 and have subsequently
gone through four iterations with the fifth (UKCP09) projecting potential impacts and opportunities of
climate change at a resolution of 25 km2. Building on UKCP09, the CCRA published in 2012 assessed the
main risks and opportunities from climate change. The evaluation of more than 100 different risks (from an
initial list of over 700 risks) across eleven sectors provided the information needed by the government to
prioritise action on adaptation based on the criteria of i) magnitude of consequences, ii) confidence in the
risk assessment, and iii) urgency. The high priority risks recommended to receive immediate action include
(Defra, 2012b):
flood risk to people, property and businesses;
overheating of buildings, infrastructure and the potential health risks;
risks to ecosystems;
water resource scarcity;
2. The Devolved Administrations have their own programmes similar to the government‟s approach for
England. Components of the ACC Programme with a UK wide scope, however, were developed in
partnership with the Devolved Administrations.
7
opportunities for the UK economy.
12. Actions are already being taken by many to limit the potential damage and to exploit potential
opportunities from climate change. But, there are important barriers to some actions being effective, timely
and proportionate to the challenges facing the UK. To inform the NAP and the adaptation plans of the
Devolved Administrations, the Economics of Climate Resilience (ECR) project seeks to understand the
extent of current and expected adaptation, relative effectiveness of those actions, and the barriers to
effective action. It investigates whether there is a case for further intervention by the government or by
other bodies. In doing so, the ECR addresses a series of questions set by government policy officials.
These cover five priority themes identified across the 100 risks outlined in the CCRA: i) agriculture and
forestry, ii) buildings and infrastructure, iii) health and well-being, iv) business and services, and v) the
natural environment.
13. The first phase of the ECR will seek to establish the case for further action and identify a range of
measures for addressing the policy questions across the five themes. Recognising the need for tools and
guidance on how to make decisions on adaptation responses, a practical and pragmatic framework to
appraise interventions will be the key deliverable for phase two of this project. Two worked examples will
be used to illustrate the application of such a framework.
Strand 2: Raise awareness, and helping others take action
14. Once the evidence base is developed, it is important that individuals and organisations are aware
of it and know how to use it. Awareness raising and promotion of tools already available is therefore an
important component of the Climate Ready Programme. In some cases, this may involve the enhancement
of stakeholders‟ capacity and capability to understand the potential climate impacts and guidance on what
action to take (Defra, 2008). This includes training end-users (e.g. public- and private-sector officials, civil
society, and academic institutes) on how to interpret and use the climate projections and findings from
national, regional or sectoral risk assessments.
15. In addition to awareness raising, the Climate Change Act 2008 outlines that public and private
sector organisations responsible for key services and infrastructure (e.g. water and energy utilities) must
report on their climate change risks and adaptation actions through the Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP)
(Great Britain, 2008). The organisations must report on the projected impacts of climate change on their
operations and outline what proposals or policies are in place to mitigate them. The first ARP report
published in 2012 targeted 91 organisations responsible for national infrastructure in the energy, transport
and water sectors. An additional 12 organisations reported on a voluntary basis on their risks and
opportunities from climate change and their complementary responses (Defra, 2012c). The second ARP is
scheduled for 2013/14. For some organisations, the ARP has been a catalyst in improving the awareness of
the adaptation needs and to enhance corporate risk management processes. While the quality of the reports
varied, they provided some useful information on the levels of preparedness in key infrastructure sectors.
Strand 3: Ensuring and measuring progress
16. One of the initial means used to assess progress at the local level was the National Indicator on
Adaptation (NI 188). The goal of the indicator was to help local authorities assess the climate change risks
and to provide a tool for measuring climate change preparedness. In doing so, the aim was also to
encourage local authorities to take action. NI 188 was a process-based indicator and local authorities were
responsible for assessing their progress against it. Data were collected on this indicator for three years until
it was abolished in 2011. The removal of this indicator was part of a wider series of reforms intended to
reduce administrative burdens on local authorities.
8
17. The 2008 Climate Change Act introduced a framework for independent scrutiny of the
government‟s adaptation programme. This included the introduction of the ASC. The role of the ASC is to
advise national authorities on adaptation, to provide assistance (advice, analysis, information or other
assistance) in the preparation of the CCRA, and to report to the UK Parliament on the government‟s
progress in implementing the NAP (Defra, 2012a). The ASC has developed a monitoring and evaluation
framework which it will apply in its first statutory report to UK Parliament on the Government‟s progress
on adaptation in 2015. Section 3 will examine this approach in more detail.
Strand 4: Government policy and process – embedding adaptation
18. The final component of the Climate Ready Programme aims to ensure that adaptation becomes
integrated in all government policy making, spending and investment decisions. These processes provide
the enabling environment in which the public and the private sector adapt. To facilitate this integration
process, the HM Treasury published in 2003 the Green Book, outlining a cost-benefit framework
applicable to all government appraisals of projects, programmes and policies. In collaboration with HM
Treasury and the UK Office of Government Commerce, the Climate Ready Programme has also developed
guidance material to facilitate the integration of adaptation in decision-making processes and government
procurement guidelines (HM Treasury and Defra, 2009; Defra and OGC, 2010).
Progress to date
19. The four strands of the Climate Ready Programme are not an exhaustive list of the government‟s
approach to adaptation. Instead, they outline the range of activities underway to facilitate the adaptation
process in the UK. Annual reports from the ASC in 2010, 2011 and 2012 show that the UK is starting to
build capacity for climate change adaptation. Evidence is emerging that there is increasing awareness of
projected climate change impacts and appropriate adaptation strategies, especially in public sector
organisations. This has translated into examples of adaptation effectively being integrated into decision-
making processes. However, technical capacity to use climate change information to design and implement
adaptation is an important barrier despite training being a core component of the Climate Ready
Programme. For example, using the UKCP09 climate projections demands a certain level of technical
expertise.
20. A review by the UK National Audit Office confirmed that resource and capacity constraints are
among the main barriers to action by government departments (NAO, 2009). In particular, public and
private sector stakeholders are under pressure to demonstrate the added value of implementing adaptation
measures that may only have long-term benefits (Mullan et al., forthcoming). The identification of key
risks by the CCRA and the forthcoming ECR analysis therefore provided an important evidence base to
make the case for further action on adaptation.
21. The ASC reports also note that there is limited evidence of low-regret adaptation measures (e.g.
improving water efficiency or improving the resilience of buildings to flooding) being implemented,
although these are cost effective in the long-term and often also in the short-term.
22. As with the Climate Ready Programme, the NAP will focus on England. Likewise, “reserved,
expected and non-devolved matters” will be addressed in collaboration with the Devolved Governments
(Defra, 2012a, p. 39). This for example includes aspects of energy and aviation policies that fall under the
UK Government. The first NAP will focus on the risks identified in the CCRA as requiring urgent action
by the 2020s. Subsequent NAPs will draw on future climate risk assessments. The government objective of
ensuring that the enabling environment is in place for all stakeholders to take action on adaptation will be
carried over to the NAP.
9
3. National level monitoring and evaluation of adaptation
23. The overall objective of the UK adaptation programme is “a society which makes timely, far-
sighted and well-informed decisions to address the risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate”
(Defra, 2012d). Whilst the detailed framework for monitoring and evaluating achievement of this objective
is still under discussion, it is recognised that this could include compilation of existing relevant,
quantitative data that could usefully indicate whether the country over time is becoming less vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change. This facilitates mid-course adjustments of prioritised government adaptation
measures.
24. Central to the evaluation of quantitative and process-based information is the ASC. Under the
Climate Change Act, the ASC has a duty to prepare an independent assessment of the progress being made
by the UK Government in implementing the NAP. The Act requires this report to be presented to the UK
Parliament two years after the NAP is published, and then every two years after that. In making an
independent assessment of progress, the Committee will consider whether or not:
1. the objectives of the NAP address the key climate change risks where Government intervention is
required;
2. the policies set out meet the objectives of the programme by addressing outstanding barriers to
adaptation and enabling action to prepare; and
3. the policies are being implemented.
25. Once the first NAP is in place, the Climate Change Act requires that it is reviewed every five
years. This coincides with the five-yearly cycle of the CCRA and will contribute to regular assessments of
the government approach to adaptation and whether or not priority areas need to be revised. The ASC‟s
reports on progress will also inform the development of subsequent NAPs.
The ASC conceptual framework
26. This section will outline the conceptual framework that the ASC has developed in order to assess
climate change preparedness in the UK, focusing on the process of indicator development. Although it is
still uncertain what M&E framework will be used to evaluate the NAP and who will be responsible for this
assessment, this section outlines an M&E framework of adaptation currently being tested in the UK. To
illustrate how the ASC theoretical framework has been applied in practice, the section will examine the
approach taken by the ASC to evaluate the UK‟s climate preparedness for flooding and look at some of the
initial challenges faced when doing a similar assessment for the natural environment.
27. In 2010, the ASC proposed a conceptual framework to monitor and evaluate UK‟s progress in
adapting to a changing climate. The objective of the framework is to assess: i) if the UK is becoming more
or less vulnerable to current and future climate risks, ii) the level of uptake of low-regret adaptation
actions, and iii) whether climate risks are systematically integrated into long-term decision-making
processes. In order to capture these aspects, the framework is structured around three elements, comprising
the “adaptation preparedness ladder” (Figure 1):
Desired adaptation outcomes: adaptation outcomes are defined with reference to overall
national objectives. This requires a good understanding of the potential impact of current and
future climate on those objectives. In the short-term, process indicators evaluate the
implementation of an enabling environment needed to achieve adaptation outcomes. In the
longer-term, a set of indicators for key activities and variables will be developed.
10
Delivery of adaptation outcomes: the rungs of a ladder are used to illustrate the necessary
components of adaptation. First, the capability of stakeholders to understand the potential impact
of climate change and how to respond to them must be enhanced. This enables them in the
second step to build the business case for adaptation and to adopt a decision-making approach. In
the final step tangible adaptation action can be taken (e.g. integration of adaptation into national
plans).
Policy to support delivery: the policy framework ensures that the relevant knowledge is
available and that regulatory and incentive structures are in place to ensure accountability, to
remove barriers to adaptation, to ensure co-operation and allocation of responsibilities for
adaptation, and to protect those most vulnerable to climate change.
Figure 1. The UK adaptation preparedness ladder
Source: ASC, 2010.
28. Recognising the complex nature of climate change, the ASC identified five priority areas to focus
its assessments. These are similar to the five priority themes subsequently identified by the CCRA and
include: i) land use planning, ii) national infrastructure, iii) building design, iv) natural resources, and v)
emergency planning. These priority areas are where adaptation measures are required now to put the UK
on the path to becoming a well-adapting society. They were identified based on two broad criteria:
Climate-sensitive decisions: the need to identify and manage risks in areas with a high
sensitivity to the weather and climate in the short-term. Adaptation in these areas will provide
immediate benefits, increase the resilience to current and future climate and reduce the risk of
potentially long-lasting damage. This is particularly relevant in the context of managing natural
resources as a number of ecosystems such as peatlands and freshwater habitats are already
showing signs of increased vulnerability to the climate, and in emergency planning for extreme
weather events such as floods, droughts and heat waves.
11
Decisions with long-lasting consequences: the need to avoid closing off options and making it
harder to adapt in the future. This includes:
Long asset life: The climate experienced by assets built today will be significantly different in
future decades. The UK can no longer rely on historic weather and climate trends to inform
planning and design. Allowing for future climate in the provision of national infrastructure
and the design of buildings, and incorporating flexibility to cope with uncertainty is likely to
be less costly and easier than retrofitting assets at a later date.
Irreversible impacts: This is a particular concern when managing natural resources. For
example, many habitats and ecosystems cannot be reintroduced once they are lost.
Systemic consequences: Some climate hazards, in particular extreme events, may have
disproportionate, far-reaching or multiple effects on the economy and society. Understanding
of the potential of these systemic consequences is very limited, but their possibility means
that they merit particular attention. Additionally, the effects of climate change can result in
conflicts and synergies between sectors or activities. In making adaptation decisions it is
important to recognise the broad-scale and long-term consequences of these decisions.
Failure to recognise these interactions can result in maladaptation, for example building
coastal defences without recognising that this could increase flood risk on neighbouring
coasts. Similarly, when making decisions about land use, it will be important to avoid
development in areas that will lock future generations into a development path that increases
vulnerability to climate change or that will be very costly to maintain or reverse.
29. In practice, the framework is easier to apply to some sectors than others. For example, when
applied to the built environment, there may be some information available due to the interest of insurance
companies to better understand insurance risks3. However, when applied to a subset of land-use planning
focusing on the relationship between wheat production and the UK food and drink industry, it is difficult to
disaggregate the climate and adaptation factors from broader societal, economic and political factors
(Miller et al., 2011).
30. The adaptation preparedness ladder subsequently informed the development of the ASC
assessment toolkit, introduced in 2012 (see Figure 2). The toolkit has two components: i) monitoring
changes in climate risks using indicators, and ii) evaluating preparedness for future climate (ASC, 2012).
The first component monitors change using indicators of risk (both climate and non-climate
drivers), indicators of adaptation action (measuring risk reduction rather than simply the
introduction of e.g. a policy or programme), and indicators of climate impact (the net result of the
risk factors and the effect of adaptation actions). This requires robust datasets that have reliable
time series and are spatially disaggregated.
The second component evaluates UK‟s preparedness for future climate by analysing decision-
making processes to determine if adaptation action is sufficient and correctly targeted to address
current and future climate risks. This involves the uptake of low-regret adaptation options that are
beneficial in any climate scenario, and the integration of climate change considerations into
decisions that have long-term and systematic consequences.
3. Insurance data, however, is not always publicly available due to commercial confidentiality.
12
Figure 2. The ASC assessment toolkit
Source: ASC, 2012
31. In 2012, the ASC applied the toolkit to two of the largest risks to emerge from the CCRA:
increased flooding and water scarcity. Over the coming years, the toolkit will be applied to some of the
other major risks identified in the CCRA to assess changes in exposure and vulnerability, and to evaluate
the uptake of adaptation action. The reports in 2013 and 2014 will focus on risks to natural environment,
business, human health and infrastructure. In undertaking this analysis, the Committee will identify
existing barriers to action, for example barriers that might be preventing households or businesses from
installing low-regret measures, or preventing infrastructure providers from investing in adaptation. This
analysis will highlight opportunities for Government policy to enable adaptation by key actors. It will also
contribute to the establishment of a baseline that the forthcoming NAP can be evaluated against in 2015.
Indicators
32. The ASC assessment reports are based on the evaluation of a set of indicators to help assess
adaptation progress. In 2010-2011, AEA Technology was commissioned by the ASC to explore possible
outcome indicators to facilitate the monitoring process of 5 sectors (critical infrastructure, health and well-
being, built environment, natural environment, and business and economy). The process of indicator
development was closely aligned with ASC‟s conceptual framework, using system maps to identify
potential impacts, drivers and actions. For each system, AEA focused on a discrete set of impacts for
further indicator development (Harvey, 2011). The identification of which impact to focus on involved an
extensive literature review, numerous workshops and working sessions with members of the ASC, and
expert consultation on sectoral and methodological aspects (Harvey, 2011). This first stage of the process
resulted in a set of “ideal indicators” that could have been used in the absence of any practical constraints.
13
33. Based on the set of ideal indicators, a number of “proposed indicators” were identified, that
prioritise a relatively small set of the impacts identified in the initial system mapping. This reflects the fact
that it is neither possible nor desirable to measure every possible impact. In order to identify the most
significant impacts and risks to focus on, an evidence-based assessment was undertaken. This assessment
was based on three criteria (Harvey et al., 2011):
The significance of the impact to the UK society, environment and economy, focusing on the
current situation;
The sensitivity of the impact to climate;
The expected future changes in impact anticipated under climate projections.
34. Complementing the impact system mapping process, the availability, relevance and quality of
existing datasets suitable for the proposed indicators were reviewed. For each impact system, a number of
indicators were presented to the ASC.
35. The need for a systems approach rather than focusing on stand-alone indicators was emphasised
throughout the process of developing the indicators, to better facilitate the monitoring and evaluation
process. This approach does not aim to attribute particular changes in climate vulnerability to specific
adaptation actions or policy. Instead, it aims to look at impacts, drivers and actions in parallel in order to
better understand how they are connected, where adaptation efforts may be needed, and how they can best
be targeted (Miller et al., 2011). While this runs the risk of simplifying complex relationships into a linear
process of climate impacts, it is difficult to strike the right balance between a comprehensive assessment of
risks and a manageable set of indicators (Harvey et al., 2011).
Data requirements
36. Data availability is a major constraint for the choice of indicators. Across the five sectors
considered by AEA, data were collected for 40% of the proposed indicators. For each of the potential
indicator, data from well-known sources that are regularly updated (e.g. the Office of National Statistics,
Eurostat, and the Economic and Social Data Services), publicly available, and with UK-wide coverage
were to the extent possible used. A further requirement was that a transparent methodology applying
appropriate statistical procedures was used to collect the data. Sector experts and members of the database
development team were consulted when identifying datasets specific to the individual indicators.
37. The datasets were scored on their statistical quality against a number of criteria to facilitate a
comparison across different datasets and to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses:
Temporal coverage: How many years of data are available?
Update frequency: How often is the dataset updated?
Data measurement approach: Has the data been measured through a monitor or a survey?
Availability: Are the data publicly available or available for a fee?
Objectivity: Is there a potential bias introduced as a result of the data collection procedure?
Statistical quality: Do the statistical techniques employed conform to standard statistical
procedures?
14
Relevance as an indicator: How relevant is the dataset to a particular subject area?
38. The information for each criteria was recorded in a summary table (see example below). This
facilitated the process of moving the discussion from looking at ideal indicators to developing a set of
indicators where good quality data that meets set standards is available.
Table 1. Data summary table
Data Summary Table
Recommended indicator:
Source:
Dataset title:
Relevant sector(s):
Method of indicator construction:
Online link to dataset (if possible)
Scoring Criteria Options Score
Temporal coverage
Update frequency
Data measurement approach
Availability of dataset
Objectivity of source
Analytical/statistical quality of data
Relevance as an indicator 1 = orange, 2 = yellow, 3 = green
Comments
Total Score: 0
Source: Harvey et al., 2011
39. Most of the data identified either do not explicitly report on climate variables, have been
collected only in the short-term, or may not be updated on a regular basis. Finally, some of the data were
not publicly available (Miller et al., 2011). For the indicators agreed upon, data from more than 30 datasets
have been collated in an excel database that will be expanded and updated as more data becomes available.
Where possible, the data is disaggregated by country (England, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain total).
40. To give an example of how the indicator development and the data identification are done in
practice, the next section will outline the approach used by the ASC in 2012 to evaluate preparedness for
flooding in the UK.
The example of flooding
41. The risk and expected damages from both fluvial and coastal flooding is projected to rise with
climate change, as well as the lesser understood risk of surface-water flooding caused by heavy rainfall
events overwhelming urban drainage systems. Estimates show that about six million or around 10% of the
people in the UK are currently at risk of flooding. Similarly, about six million or one in six properties are
at risk, with 560,000 properties in England and Wales alone at significant risk of tidal or fluvial flooding
(CCRA, 2012). While flooding usually is localised, annual damages to properties across the UK exceed
GDP 1 billion. Climate projections estimate that annual damage costs could increase by between 70% and
400% by the 2080s4. The impact from flooding can be intensified by land-use decisions, resulting in
changes to drainage and run-off. With sea level rise and changes in storm surge characteristics, the risk and
impact of coastal flooding is also projected to increase. This can have a significant impact on key
4. This is based on the assumption of no change in population or property numbers as well as no change in
flood risk management measures (CCRA, 2012).
15
infrastructure services such as water and sewage pumping and treatment stations frequently located in the
floodplain (CCRA, 2012).
42. A better understanding of how the UK is preparing against future flood risk is crucial given the
potential sensitivity of long-lived investments with very high sunk costs to a changing climate. It is
therefore important to build in flexibility to make future investments more resilient to different climate
scenarios and to avoid locking in future vulnerability. The initial focus has therefore in many cases been on
“low-regret” adaptation options that have the potential of reducing risk despite the sensitivities of climate
change uncertainties. Such low-regret options include for example the establishment of early warning
systems, improved drainage systems, land-use planning, and insurance systems (Ranger et al., 2010).
43. To facilitate the 2012 assessment of whether the UK is adequately preparing for flooding, the
ASC commissioned HR Wallingford to develop indicators to evaluate changes in exposure and
vulnerability to flooding and to monitor the uptake of adaptation actions to manage flood risk. The study
assessed risk and adaptation action in England at three periods in time: 2001, 2008 and 2011 – and then
projected some of these trends forward to understand how action today affects preparedness for future
change. A major challenge the team at HR Wallingford faced when doing this assessment was the fact that
the data were disaggregated with high variation in spatial representation. The datasets are also very large,
demanding high software and memory capacity. To get around these challenges, the team transferred the
data “from their source geographical formats and scales to a consistent national regular grid of 100m
resolution covering England” (HR Wallingford, 2012a, 2). When multiple datasets are layered, this
Reference Grid approach makes comparison between data sources at national and local scales quick and
easy.
Box 1. Methodology to create the dataset for assessing flooding risk and adaptation action in England
Key aspects of the method used to develop the dataset for assessing flood risk and adaptation action include:
The base datasets are represented by different geographic feature types (e.g. as points or irregular polygons);
These data were clipped into 10km tiles, numbering approximately 1,500 in total to provide coverage of England. The clipping of the data was undertaken to enable the subsequent spatial processing to be achieved in manageable sized chunks, taking advantage of parallel processes;
The tiled data were filtered or split into subsets representing the themes of interest (e.g. property data inside the natural floodplain were filtered from the MasterMap Property Layer, or Manmade features were extracted from MasterMap Topography Layer);
The data were merged with a 100m vector grid (using traditional GIS methods, e.g. ‘Union’) and all subsequent data parts were assigned their appropriate Reference Grid cell coordinates;
The data tables were compiled within a relational database (SQL Server 2005) where queries could be efficiently performed to assess the data on the 100m grid and report on the indicators by Local Authority.
Source : HR Wallingford, 2012a, 3.
44. The data were used to examine 12 indicators using a number of different software including a
geospatial processing software (FME), GIS software (ArcGIS), relational database software (SQLServer),
office software (Microsoft Excel and Access) and scripting in phyton as described in Box 1. 12 indicators
16
were proposed to measure key factors that are likely to affect vulnerability and exposure to current and
future flooding, as well as the uptake of actions that reduce flood risk in England (see Table 2).
Table 2. The list of flood indicators for England
Indicator Description
1 Number of properties within the fluvial and coastal floodplain
2 Number of properties within areas prone to surface water flooding
3 Number of properties in areas at risk of coastal erosion
4 Area of permeable and impermeable surfaces within floodplain and urban areas
5 Number of properties within areas of flood likelihood (accounting for flood defences)
6 The number of households in deprived areas and areas of flood likelihood
7 Vulnerable populations in areas of flood likelihood
8 Critical services and emergency infrastructure in areas of flood likelihood
9 Uptake of property-level resistance measures
10 Uptake of neighbourhood run-off measures
11 Uptake of Environmental Agency flood warning service
12 Condition of flood defence assets Source: HR Wallingford, 2012a
45. To better understand the approach used by HR Wallington to develop the indicators, three
indicators will be examined in some detail below. These are indicator 1 (number of properties within the
fluvial and coastal floodplain), indicator 5 (number of properties within areas of flood likelihood
accounting for flood defences) and indicator 9 (uptake of property-level resistance measures).
Indicator 1: Number of properties within the fluvial and coastal floodplain
46. This indicator measures the proportion of properties located within the natural floodplain for a 1
in 1000 year storm event. It provides the first estimate of the rate of developments in the floodplain,
illustrating the number of properties that are likely to be at risk to flooding in the future. It does, however,
not factor in the level of protection provided by current flood defences. This is included in Indicator 5
discussed below. Furthermore, the indicator is not able to measure if properties are becoming more
resilient to a changing climate. All new properties built within the natural floodplain are required to take
flood resilience into consideration, as advised by the Environment Agency (HR Wallingford, 2012b).
47. Since 2001, the number of properties located in the floodplain has increased by 12%, from 1.77
million in 2001 to 1.99 million in 2011, the majority of which were residential properties. The rate of
increase, however, has decreased since 2008. This corresponds with a national decrease in the number of
new properties due to the economic slowdown. Furthermore, the property density is relatively lower in the
floodplains compared to the rest of England, with the floodplains accounting for 12.5% of the total land
area but including 8.3% of all properties in 2011 (HR Wallingford, 2012b).
17
Figure 3. Annual growth rate of development in river and coastal floodplains
Source: ASC, 2012
48. The indicator is based on data from the Ordnance Survey (the national mapping agency) and the
Environment Agency (responsible for flood risk management in England). Both institutions have invested
considerable resources in order to be able to regularly monitor the risk of flooding. The Ordnance Survey
data provides grid reference, type, address and other parameters for around 24 million properties in
England. This includes information on residential properties, non-residential properties, multiple
occupancy addresses and other “objects without postal addresses” such as factories, halls and churches.
The data dates back to 2001 and is updated on a six-weekly basis. Earlier data is available but this does not
include information on objects without postal addresses. The Flood Zone data from the Environment
Agency is updated on a quarterly basis. In addition to robust historic data, it is reasonable to assume that
both datasets will be updated on a regular basis in the future. Furthermore, the data from the Ordnance
Survey is freely available, while the data from the Environment Agency is licensed to the ASC at no cost.
49. A possible limitation of the data is that it only accounts for the number of properties within the
natural floodplain and not the number of housing units. The example of upper floor flats or properties with
raised thresholds or built resilience measures are mentioned by HR Wallingford (2012a). This however, is
not seen as reason to question the validity of the indicator since even these units are expected to feel a
degree of disruption in the event of flooding. Furthermore, the categorisation of non-residential properties
is not the same in the two datasets. HR Wallingford therefore applies the more conservative definition used
by the Ordnance Survey. Finally, the large datasets require powerful and reliable hardware and software
capacity to spatially process the indicator.
Indicator 5: Number of properties within areas of flood likelihood (accounting for flood defences)
50. Indicator 5 is very similar to Indicator 1, except that the flood risk assessment takes into account
the “presence and performance” of existing flood defence infrastructure “as well as a range of storm
loading conditions”. It is based on the National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) managed by the
Environment Agency. NaFRA draws on numerous data sources to run a model that provides an overview
of where flooding is most likely in England and Wales at the national and local level, but not at the
property level. Instead, it gives a good indication of areas at risk. It is used by the government for decision
making processes but also by the private sector (e.g. the insurance industry) in developing their business
strategies. NaFRA contributes to the government‟s Flood Map that is frequently updated and validated by
local area staff, reflecting the importance of this information to the government.
18
51. The NaFRA flood likelihood data come in a vector format that covers all floodplains in England
and Wales. The data is represented in a 50m grid within pre-defined flood zones. The flood risks are
grouped into three categories of flood risk: low (1 in 200 chance or less), medium (1 in 75 to 1 in 200
chance) or significant (more than 1 in 75 chance). This assessment is based on a number of different
scenarios, the likelihood that flood defences fail or are over-topped, and detailed model results on the depth
and probabilities of flooding. The information is therefore constantly updated to reflect any changes in
flood risk. See an example of the findings for 2011 in the table below.
Table 3. Number of properties within areas of different flood likelihood
Results expressed in thousands Residential Non-residential All property
Type Count As % Count As % Count As %
2001 Significant 260 1.2% 35 3.0% 295 1.3%
Moderate 523 2.5% 50 4.3% 573 2.6%
Low 865 4.1% 68 5.8% 933 4.2%
Total property in England 21,038 100.0% 1,171 100.0% 22,209 100.0%
2008 Significant 287 1.3% 35 3.2% 323 1.4%
Moderate 572 2.6% 50 4.5% 622 2.7%
Low 950 4.3% 65 5.9% 1,016 4.3%
Total property in England 22,266 100.0% 1,106 100.0% 23,372 100.0%
2011 Significant 298 1.3% 37 3.2% 335 1.4%
Moderate 590 2.6% 52 4.5% 642 2.7%
Low 976 4.3% 70 6.0% 1,045 4.4%
Total property in England 22,679 100.0% 1,151 100.0% 23,831 100.0%
Source: HR Wallingford, 2012b
52. An important finding from this indicator is that 19% of floodplain development – equivalent to
40,000 properties – has been in areas exposed to significant risk of flooding either due to a low level of
flood protection or because there are no defences at all. It is projected that the area of significant risk of
flooding will increase with climate change.
Figure 4. Number of properties built in the floodplain between 2001-2011, by flood risk category, accounting for the presence of flood defences
Notes: GIS mapping was used to identify the number of properties in three time periods (2001, 2008 and 2011) in significant, moderate and low flood risk categories, accounting for the presence and condition of flood defences in 2011. This provides a slightly conservative estimate because, for example, a property built in a significant risk area that was subsequently protected by a defence or moved into the moderate risk category would be recorded as being built in a moderate risk area. These areas are identified by the Environment Agency’s NaFRA dataset.
Source: ASC, 2012, 33.
19
53. The 2012 ASC report uses information like this to estimate the potential benefits from additional
spending on flood defences. Around 330,000 properties are projected to be at significant risk of flooding in
2035. With climate change, this number could increase by around 280,000 (with a margin of uncertainty).
The protection from flood protection measures will depend on the level of investments in structural
defences and property level protection. Figure 5 outlines the potential benefits from two investment
scenarios: scenario A where flood defence spending is constrained to the 2008/09 cash level and scenario
B where flood defence spending is increased by GDP 20 million year-on-year over and above inflations.
The figure shows that with the more ambitious investment scenario, the number of properties at risk from
flooding could be reduced in half by 2035 at a net benefit of GDP 193 billion (ASC, 2012).
Figure 5. Estimated benefits from flood defence spending
Source: Environment Agency (2009) and HR Wallingford (2012b) in ASC (2012)
54. Data for Indicators 1 and 5 are available from 2001. As part of the core Ordinance Survey, it is
likely that they will continue to be updated on a regular basis in the future. It is however worth noting that
the methods used for NaFRA were revised in 2007, significantly improving the accuracy of the data. This
makes it difficult to make comparisons between data from 2008 onwards and earlier data. For the
20
assessment of this indicator, ASC only used the most up to date 2011 data to compare the change in the
rate of development.
55. While the NaFRA defines the likelihood of sea or river flooding, it does not consider property
level measures (e.g. raising property thresholds or property level flood proofing) or the availability of
warnings. But comparing the number of properties at risk at different points in time, it is possible to assess
if the number of households and commercial properties at risk from flooding is changing. Another
limitation of the data is that they do not specify the level of confidence of flood risk estimates. This can be
a serious limitation since the models are not as accurate for landscapes with more complex water systems.
Finally, the data are updated on an ad hoc basis in response to changes in flood defence measures or in data
availability. Since it is not always clear what information has been changed, comparisons across different
versions can be difficult.
Indicator 9: Uptake of property-level resistance measures
56. In recent years a number of products have been developed to reduce the penetration of flood
water into buildings. Given the difficulty in measuring the uptake of these tools, HR Wallingfod used a
proxy indicator. It draws on data collected by Defra and the Environment Agency, administering a grant
funding scheme for uptake of resistance measures by people that are most in need. The data includes
information on applications for grant aid and the installation of schemes. Each application includes
information on the funding amount and the number of properties protected. The data covers 4 funding
phases since 2009.
57. In 2009 and 2010 there were around 1,200 applications, of which just over half were installed.
The difference in the number of applications and installations may in part be explained by the fact that not
all installations may have been reported and in part because not all the applications proceeded – especially
those covering groups of properties (HR Wallingford, 2012b). In 2011 and 2012, an additional 1,100
properties received approval for funding. A possible limitation of the data is that it does not include
privately funded installations and only includes retro-fit installations. However, beyond the Defra funding
scheme, the sale of resistance products has been very limited.
58. To complement the proxy indicator, HR Wallingford used the results from the 2011 Environment
Agency annual flood awareness survey that focuses on the uptake of property level flood protection
measures. The survey targets communities that are at risk in England and Wales and examines people‟s
awareness of flood risk and the actions needed. The survey found that there is low awareness of flood
protection products and consequently also limited take up. This suggests that further measures to raise
awareness of risks and potential responses may be needed in areas where flood defence measures are not
economically viable.
Summary of indicator availability and areas for data improvement
59. The sections above have illustrated the importance of data availability for assessing UK‟s
preparedness to flooding. As mentioned above (and illustrated in Table 3) the UK has a large number of
datasets to draw upon for assessing climate vulnerability and preparedness. Although the information is not
centralised, much of it is either publicly available or available to the ASC at no cost. The indicators are
developed in consultation with key stakeholders that at an early stage contribute to identifying relevant
datasets. It is also clear that effectively using the data available requires both human and technological
capacity. An example is the Reference Grid approach (summarised in Box 1) to layer different datasets.
When the data available is not national in scope complementary sensitivity testing is needed.
21
Table 4. Indicator availability and areas for data improvement on flooding
Available data Areas for improvement
Risk indicators: changes in society’s exposure and vulnerability to weather events
Development trends: number of residential and non-residential properties
Type of development: can only distinguish between residential and commercial. It would be useful to understand number of upper floor flats within floodplain
Location of areas at risk from flooding/coastal erosion: both defended and undefended
Number of non-residential properties: substantial discrepancies between different datasets.
Area of hard (‘man-made’) surfacing, greenspace (‘natural’ land) and multiple land use (such as gardens)
Data on surface water flood risk are less advanced than for river/coastal flood risk.
Infrastructure in areas of flood risk: lack of time series. Surfacing: no clear record of proportion of multiple
land use (such as residential gardens) that is impermeable and how this is changing over time due to urban creep.
Action indicators: adaptation actions that aim to measure risk reduction
Design of floodplain development: proxy indicator of Environment Agency objections to applications
No nationally available data on uptake of resilience and safety measures in actual developments (both properties and infrastructure).
Flood defence investment: data on number of households benefitting
Benefits of flood defence investment: lack of spatially aggregated data on change in flood likelihood for properties following completion of flood defence projects.
Flood defence asset condition: data available on EA assets
No data available on condition of non-EA flood defence assets or time series on condition of EA assets.
Retrofitting of property level measures: data on number of properties benefitting through Defra/EA grant scheme
No national data on uptake of SuDS in new development or retrofitting of existing properties.
Uptake of SuDS in new development: data from surveys of local authorities and manufacturers
Data on uptake of flood warnings is not categorised by flood risk area, only for whole of the floodplain.
Uptake of Flood Warnings: data on number of registered properties by local authority
Data on availability of insurance is not accessible
Impact indicators: the realised impacts of weather events on the economy, society and environment
Insured losses: national data available, but not spatially aggregated.
No data on disruption to critical services from flooding.
Some data on health impacts Source: ASC, 2012
60. Despite the wealth of data, the ASC has identified a few areas for further improvement. This
includes improved data on surface water flood risk and a better differentiation between residential and
commercial properties; information on the uptake of resilience and safety measures and information on the
benefits of flood defence investments; and data on the disruption to critical services from flooding. While
some of these areas would require new data collection and reporting, it is worth noting in Table 4 that
insurance companies in some cases are collecting the information but not making it publicly available due
to commercial confidentiality.
Measuring the climate preparedness of the natural environment
61. The 2013 ASC report will focus on the natural environment. More specifically, it will assess the
climate preparedness of England‟s natural resources and ecosystem services, focusing on five key areas: i)
crop, livestock and timber production, ii) water supply, iii) climate regulation and water purification by
peatlands, iv) flooding and erosion regulation by coastal habitats, and v) biodiversity. The approach being
taken by the ASC is to develop indicators for each of the five services to assess any trends in vulnerability
22
and the uptake of adaptation action, rather than focusing on the impact of climate change. The ASC report
on the natural environment and complementary research studies will be available in July 2013
62. Monitoring climate change adaptation in the natural environment is difficult for at least four
reasons. First, the natural environment includes a number of intricately connected systems (e.g. water,
agriculture, woods and forests, soils, energy and fuel, air quality, marine environment). This makes it
difficult to define indicator frameworks with controllable and non-controllable, climate and non-climate
indicators that adequately assess whether the natural environment is adapting to climate change. Second, it
is not always clear what the adaptation objective in the context of the natural environment is. For example,
is the objective to preserve status quo, or to restore the natural environment (or aspects of it) to how it was
at a defined time-period in the past. Third, while there already are established systems in place to collect
data on the natural environment to report on international environmental agreements, they usually do not
include a climate change component, making them less suitable for measuring adaptation. A fourth reason
is the difficulty of valuing the services provided by the natural environment due to the absence of a
market5.
4. Conclusion
63. Current work on monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation in the UK has been
underway since 2005, benefitting from research on the impacts of climate change dating back to the 1990s.
The M&E framework developed by the ASC may inform a future M&E framework to assess progress
made in implementing the NAP, expected in 2013. The ASC‟s approach focuses on assessing UK‟s
preparedness to the current climate impacts in five priority areas (land use planning, national infrastructure,
building design, natural resources, and emergency planning). The current vulnerability trend is then
projected forward to understand how decisions today will affect UK‟s preparedness for future change.
64. The example of flooding illustrates the need for technical and human capacity to effectively use
the data available. The three indicators highlighted in Section 3 are all based on more than one dataset.
Firstly, this requires a good understanding of what data are available that may be used to assess the
indicator. Secondly, the capacity to combine datasets with different spatial and time scales must be
available. The first challenge is at least in part addressed during the initial consultations with key
stakeholders that have an in-depth understanding of initiatives underway and existing data availability. The
second challenge requires well-trained staff as well as sophisticated hardware and software capacity. The
long history and strong emphasis on good data collection in the UK means that both of these are available.
This however, might not be the norm across OECD member and non-member countries.
65. Despite the wealth of data available, Table 4 illustrates that there are still areas for improvement.
For the time being, however, there are no plans in place to start collecting new data due to budget
constraints. The ASC is also of the opinion that the data already available provides a good overall
understanding of UK‟s preparedness to climate change in the five priority areas that the ASC is focusing
on.
66. Finally, it is worth noting that the decision by the ASC to focus on climate preparedness rather
than on climate impacts and responses is based on the need to acquire long time series to effectively
measure impacts. Another challenge is attributing drivers to impacts. This is a challenge that repeatedly is
raised in the context of monitoring and evaluating adaptation at the project, programme and national level.
UK‟s approach to focus on drivers and actions that affect preparedness to climate change in the short-term
5. Further information on some of the challenges and lessons learned in measuring the climate preparedness
of the natural environment will be available in July 2013 and could be included in the case study if
members of the Task Team would find this valuable.
23
works well for systems where there is a good understanding of the prominent drivers and complementary
impacts such as flooding. It might, however, be more challenging in the context of the natural environment
that has a number of potential and sometimes also poorly understood drivers. With time it is possible that
the relevant drivers and actions will change. In order to be aware of these changes, the ASC regularly
consults with key stakeholders to ensure that the assessment accurately reflects current understanding of
the prominent drivers affecting UK‟s climate preparedness.
24
REFERENCES
ASC (Adaptation Sub-Committee) (2012), Climate change – is the UK preparing for flooding and water
scarcity? Committee on Climate Change Adaptation, London
ASC (2011), Adapting to climate change in the UK: Measuring progress, Committee on Climate Change
Adaptation, London.
ASC (2010), How well prepared is the UK for climate change? Committee on Climate Change Adaptation,
London.
ASC (2009), Preparing for climate change: Adaptation Sub-Committee Work Programme, Committee on
Climate Change Adaptation, London.
Cabinet Office. (2010a) National risk assessment. London, Online:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/nationalriskregister-2010.pdf
CCRA (Climate Change Risk Assessment) (2012), Summary of the Key Findings from the UK Climate
Change Risk Assessment 2012, CCRA, London.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2008), Adapting to climate change in
England: A framework for action, Defra, London.
Defra (2012a), UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report, Defra, London.
Defra (2012b), The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012: Evidence Report, Defra, London.
Defra (2012c), Adapting to Climate Change - helping key sectors to adapt to climate change: Government
Report for the Adaptation Reporting Power, Defra, London.
Defra (2012d), Climate Ready Co-creation progress update and an invitation to Respond, Defra, London,
Online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13801-climate-change-progress-check.pdf.
Defra and OGC (Office of Government Commerce) (2010), Adapting your procurement, Defra and OGC,
London.
Environment Agency (2009), Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk, Environment
Agency, Bristol.
Great Britain (2008), Climate Change Act 2008, The Stationary Office, London.
Harvey, A., N. Hodgson, M. Benzie, S. Winne, R. Smithers, S. Dresner, P. Drummond, C. Coleman, L.
Horrocks and M. Harley (2011), Provision of research to identify indicators for the Adaptation Sub-
Committee, AEA, Edingburg.
HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, HM Treasury,
London.
HM Treasury and Defra (2009), Accounting for the Effects of Climate Change: Supplementary Green Book
Guidance, HM Treasury and Defra, London.
HR Wallingford (2012a) for Adaptation Sub-Committee, Development of spatial indicators to monitor
changes in exposure and vulnerability to flooding and the uptake of adaptation actions to manage
25
flood risk in England: Technical report, available at:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/adaptation/2012-progress-report/supporting-data-a-research.
HR Wallingford (2012b) for Adaptation Sub-Committee, Development of spatial indicators to monitor
changes in exposure and vulnerability to flooding and the uptake of adaptation actions to manage
flood risk in England: Results 2012, available at: http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/adaptation/2012-
progress-report/supporting-data-a-research.
Miller, K., M. Harley and N. Kent (2012), Climate change adaptation-related indicators, Sniffer,
Edinburgh.
Mullan, M., N. Kingsmill, A. Matus Kramer and S. Agrawala (forthcoming), National Adaptation
Planning: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD, Paris.
NAO (National Audit Office) (2009), Adapting to Climate Change – A Review for the Environmental Audit
Committee, NAO, London.
Ranger, N., A. Millner, S. Dietz, S. Fankhauser, A. Lopez and G. Ruta (2010), Adaptation in the UK: a
decision-making process, Grantham Research Institute/CCCEP Policy Brief, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London.
UKCIP (2011), Making progress: UKCIP & adaptation in the UK, UKCIP, Oxford.
West, C.C. and M.J. Gawith (eds.) (2005), Measuring progress: Preparing for climate change through the
UK Climate Impacts Programme, UKCIP, Oxford.
26
ANNEX 1: INDICATORS USED BY THE UK ASC TO MEASURE FLOOD RISK
The table below outlines the indicators proposed by the ASC to measure flood risk, action and impact
in England and broad indication of trend. The colours indicate the implications of that trend for climate
vulnerability (red = increasing vulnerability, green = decreasing vulnerability, yellow = neither increasing
nor decreasing).
Table 5. ASC indicators to assess change in risk of flooding
Indicator of Indicator name Source Trend
Indicator of risk (exposure and vulnerability)
Number of properties (houses and businesses) in areas of flood or coastal erosion risk (not accounting for defences)
Number of properties in river floodplain
Environment Agency; OS MasterMap
Number of properties in coastal floodplain
Number of properties in areas at risk of coastal erosion
Number of properties in areas at risk from surface water flooding (1 in 200 year event)
Annual rate of development (houses and businesses) in areas of flood or coastal erosion risk (not accounting for defences)
Rate of development in river floodplain
Environment Agency; OS MasterMap
Rate of development in coastal floodplain
Rate of development in areas at risk of coastal erosion
Rate of development in areas at risk from surface water flooding (1 in 200 year event
Number of properties (houses and businesses) built in floodplain, accounting for defences
Proportion of floodplain development in areas at significant risk of river/coastal flooding
Environment Agency; OS MasterMap
Change in hard surfacing
Area of impermeable surface in urban areas OS MasterMap
Vulnerable populations at flood risk
Number of households within highest 20% of ranked deprived communities in areas of significant flood risk (accounting for defences)
Office of National Statistics; Environment Agency
Number of care homes in areas of significant flood risk (accounting for defences)
Environment Agency; Care Quality Commission
Number of schools in areas of significant flood risk (accounting Environment
27
for defences) Agency; Department for Education
Indicators of action
Design of new development in areas at flood risk
Proportion of Environment Agency objections to planning applications on flood risk grounds that are over-ruled by local authority
Environment Agency
Provision of flood defences
Number of households at reduced risk due to construction of new or enhanced defences
Effective spend in flood risk management activities (capital and revenue) from public and private sources
Retrofitting property-level measures
Number of existing properties at flood risk retrofitting property-level measures
Defra
Management of surface water in built-up areas
Proportion of new development with sustainable drainage systems
Defra
Provision of early warning systems
Uptake of flood warnings by properties in the floodplain Environment Agency
Indicators of impact
Flood damages Annual insured losses from flooding (UK) Association of British Insurers
Deaths and injuries from flooding
Number of deaths caused by flooding events, per year
CCRA
Number of injuries casued by flooding events, per year
Number of mental illness cases caused by flooding events, per year
Source: ASC, 2012
