Theme: 3. Sustainability

Topic Area: 3d. Strategies for a Successful Sustainable Transition

Background/Objectives:

Vulnerability to climate change is a product of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Currently, the Department of Defense (DoD) Climate Assessment Tool focuses on the exposure of installations to eight climate hazards: drought, riverine flooding, historical extreme conditions, wildfire, energy demand, extreme temperatures, land degradation, and coastal flooding. However, assessing climate vulnerability and effective climate adaptation requires understanding the degree to which DoD infrastructure and operating environments are sensitive to geographic differences in hazards, characteristics of the environment and infrastructure, and the capacity to adapt. Here, we present measures of sensitivity and adaptive capacity that can be combined with the existing exposure metrics to understand climate vulnerability more fully at DoD installations across the United States. Considering sensitivity and adaptive capacity in climate vulnerability assessments can help prioritize resources, highlight areas of vulnerability, and identify effective adaptation actions for resilience.

Approach/Activities:

We conducted a literature review with three objectives: 1. understand the components of an installation that may be sensitive to climate change or affect adaptive capacity, 2. describe the types of quantitative methods used to combine exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity when calculating vulnerability, and 3. develop a database of indicators used to inform sensitivity or adaptive capacity to climate change in a variety of contexts. Using the results of the review, we developed a conceptual framework that describes the installation system. We operationalized the framework by populating it with indicators from the review based on their relevance and data availability. The indicators were also vetted through statistical analysis and for their conceptual validity. In collaboration with DoD personnel and subject matter experts, we identified gaps in indicator coverage, additional data sources, and novel methods for conceptualizing the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of less well-studied components of the installation system, such as the mission space.

Results/Lessons Learned:

Our conceptual framework organizes the installation system into four environments: human, built, natural, and operational. Within each environment is a hierarchical structure with tiers of increasing specificity, allowing the user to consider adaptive capacity or sensitivity for the whole system or for more specific components such as human health. While we were able to draw on the literature for relevant indicators of the human, natural, and built environment, the unique nature of the DoD operational environment necessitated that we develop novel indicators. In addition to sharing our methodology and lessons learned, we will present on a series of pilot cases conducted to test and refine our indicators and approach. We will explore how our understanding of climate vulnerability may shift when sensitivity and adaptive capacity are considered in addition to exposure, and how that can inform more targeted and effective climate adaption.

Jerry Tagestad

Affiliation

Refine Results

Advancing Climate Vulnerability Assessment for Defense Installations by Incorporating Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity