Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Mark Ching-Pong Poo
 -- 4554 2023-06-02 07:06:25 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 Meta information modification 4554 2023-06-02 07:10:06 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Wang, T.; Poo, M.C.; Ng, A.K.Y.; Yang, Z. Climate Change Risk Indicator. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45119 (accessed on 02 May 2024).
Wang T, Poo MC, Ng AKY, Yang Z. Climate Change Risk Indicator. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45119. Accessed May 02, 2024.
Wang, Tianni, Mark Ching-Pong Poo, Adolf K. Y. Ng, Zaili Yang. "Climate Change Risk Indicator" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45119 (accessed May 02, 2024).
Wang, T., Poo, M.C., Ng, A.K.Y., & Yang, Z. (2023, June 02). Climate Change Risk Indicator. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45119
Wang, Tianni, et al. "Climate Change Risk Indicator." Encyclopedia. Web. 02 June, 2023.
Climate Change Risk Indicator
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15108190

Climate change has threatened the infrastructure, operation, policymaking, and other pivotal aspects of transport systems with the accelerating pace of extreme weather events.

climate adaptation transport infrastructure risk assessment

1. Introduction

Transport is a crucial component for humans and society [1]. However, many factors, including the economy and public health, affect the system by presenting different disruptions. Furthermore, climate change is one of the most threatening issues influencing human activities because it could significantly reduce the efficiency of transport systems [2]. The goals of Agenda 2030, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), include a range of objectives related to climate change adaptation [3]. SDG 11, “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable”, is particularly relevant to climate change adaptation for transport infrastructure. This SDG includes the target to “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”, which can be achieved through measures such as improving the resilience of transport infrastructure to climate change impacts. Furthermore, SDG 13, which aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”, is relevant to climate change adaptation for transport infrastructure, as discussed earlier. This SDG aims to “integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning”, which can help mainstream climate change adaptation considerations in terms of transport infrastructure planning and design.
Therefore, many scholars, such as Becker [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and Schweikert [12][13][14][15], have tended to investigate the relationships between transport and climate change. The focus has been two-fold: mitigation in domination and adaptation with a growing profile. In terms of mitigation, new energy alternatives, such as electric vehicles [16][17] and ships [18][19], and tactical management, such as speed control [20] and reverse logistics [21], have been used to promote decarbonisation with diverse supports, including the application of urban policies [22] and the circular economy concept [23].
In the post-pandemic era, the stresses between transport and climate change are tightening due to complex natural and human factors which increase the vulnerabilities of the urban system [24]. As far as adaptation is concerned, the analysis of climate threats and risks is the first and foremost step. Different transport modes face various climate threats to different extents [25]. A threat could affect several areas and cause damage and transport disruptions with enormous economic losses. For instance, a significant drop in water level occurred in the Port of Montreal, QC, Canada, and impacted its transport networks, including requiring a reduced tonnage per trip, resulting in an increased number of trips and traffic backup [26]. A further decrease in the water level by 0.5–1.0 m was expected to result in an economic loss of over USD1.9 billion by 2050. In the USA, research showed that the temperature increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit annually from the year 2014 to 2015 [27]. Drivers, pedestrians, and bikers who are more likely to go out in warmer weather accounted for over 20% of the increase in road deaths in 2015 [28].
In the UK, there was a 70% increase in flooding events from 1998 to 2009 [29], and a significantly wetter period occurred, prolonging the flooding caused by intensive rainfall from 2013 to 2016. A catastrophic flood that occurred in Cumbria in 2015 broke the precipitation records from 2009 with 341.4 mm of rainfall [30]. Roads were shut in the severely affected areas, and over 100 bridges were damaged or destroyed. In October 2017, the floods between Carlisle and Maryport resulted in enormous disruptions and the blockage of rail lines, estimated to have caused over US$1.3 billion in damages, and claimed 18 lives [31]. In addition, the temperature at London Heathrow Airport in the summer of 2020 reached 37.8 °C, which was recorded as the UK’s third hottest day in history. The Meteorological Office UK confirmed that the August 2020 heatwave broke temperature and duration records. One of the most common impacts is the melting of roads which puts heavy pressure on maintenance [32]. Based on the prediction by the UK Hadley Centre for Climate Change Prediction Research that there would be a 4 °C rise in the global temperature by the end of this century, it was expected that temperature-related accidents would cause approximately 600 additional deaths annually, equating to a cost of US$60 billion from 2010 to 2099 [33]. In 2021, wildfires at White Rock Lake disrupted Kelowna International Airport in BC, Canada, where more than 40 flights were cancelled over 24 h [34].
There is no scarcity of research on climate adaptation in the transport sector (e.g., [31][35][36][37][38]). Nonetheless, the effect of climate change on transport is multi-dimensional, given the popularity of multi-modal transport in the containerised freight sector. A container shipment often combines sea, road, rail, and possibly air transport segments in an established supply chain for door-to-door service from the manufacturer to the end user. The current studies on transport’s adaptation to climate change are lacking integration between different transport modes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide an overview of the development of a new holistic climate adaptation framework across different transport modes.

2. Elaboration of a Corpus on Climate Adaptation Research in the Transport Sector

Different from previous research, this study has filled the gap of current climate adaptation studies focusing only on individual segments of a whole transport chain/network, such as inland transport [39] or seaports [40]. From this perspective, it makes new contributions to the holistic analysis of all the transport segments for both cross-enrichment among different transport modes and integrated adaptation planning from a supply chain perspective. A database was first prepared to collect all the relevant articles on climate change impacts and adaptation research in the transport sector tracing back to 2000, when it was evident that the fast growth of climate adaptation emerged in the transport sector [39].
During the first phase, researchers confirmed the scope of this research as climate change, adaptation planning, and transport (Note: Researchers recognised the possibility of other transport modes (e.g., oil pipelines are also regarded as a type of transportation), but researchers only focused on the main four modes (i.e., sea, air, road, and rail)). Accordingly, the two groups of 10 keywords, included (1) “climate change”, “impact”, “risk”, “analysis”, and “adaptation” (Group 1); and (2) “transport”, “seaport”, “airport”, “port”, “road” and “rail” (Group 2). Then, those search strings and their substrings (e.g., transport, railway) were entered into the two searching platforms linked by an “AND” function, meaning the combinations of any keyword from each of the two groups. Subsequently, the search results (i.e., all the combination results) were initially analysed through an “OR” function, by which there were 1791 articles elaborated upon.
Afterwards, three filtering and refining stages were set for purifying the most relevant papers, as below. First, only the articles containing more than one keyword (at least one in Group 1 and one in Group 2) were regarded as the targets, assuring that the selected papers were relevant to climate change and transport. Second, only peer-reviewed journal articles were collected, ensuring this research’s authority. Third, the remaining database was further assessed and screened by reviewing each paper’s title, keywords, and abstract to filter out unrelated papers to enhance the review’s reliability. Finally, the three-stage selection procedure helped yield 160 highly relevant representative articles published since 2000.
Before the second phase, the selected papers were categorised into four groups regarding transport modes (sea, air, road, and rail). Furthermore, publication and authorship analysis were conducted regarding the publication numbers of each year, citation trends, dominant journals, geographical location, and collaboration of researchers. In particular, the circumstances of each transport mode were specifically evaluated to demonstrate the similarities and differences. Another novelty of this study is that researchers employed a context analysis by examining the details of these studies regarding related transport modes. To minimise omitting essential knowledge, this research employed an author-based citation analysis approach [41] to supplement the above purified database in the last phase. This meant that after the current database development, the top 10 leading authors were analysed as the search to find their publication records and further collect relevant papers to ensure the inclusion of all key articles as comprehensively as possible. The method used to identify the leading authors referred to the co-authorship analysis across climate change research and adaptation for different transport modes [39][40].

3. Critical Review and Empirical Results

To interpret different dimensions of transport research on climate adaptation, publication tendencies were first discussed, including publication numbers, citations, dominant journals, and the geographical locations of authorship. Next, a specific assessment was undertaken to reveal each transport mode’s research focus and characteristics.

3.1. Publication Trends

By counting the publication year of all related publications, the analysis in this part provides readers with an overview of the evolving themes and patterns, particularly the research tendency of each transport mode, with the latest information on this subject.
Through the critical analysis of the selected papers, in general, there were two periods divided by 2013, showing a significant pattern difference. As shown in Figure 1, in the first phase (i.e., from January 2006 to December 2012), the total number of publications was only 11. However, since 2013, there has been a noticeable rise, while the number has started to fluctuate, growing from seven to 29. This was possibly because of the impact of COVID-19, as much transport research efforts (e.g., research grants and special issues leading transport journals) in terms of dealing with the emerging challenges presented by the pandemic over the past 2–3 years. Maintaining a high publication rate of 13.5 per year, the second phase (from January 2013 to April 2023) contributed 93.1% of the total papers, with a peak in 2020 when 29 papers were published. The fast-growing pattern over the recent ten years indicates the strong developing potential of this research area.
Sustainability 15 08190 g001
Figure 1. Number of papers by year of publication (January 2006–April 2023).
Among the papers, sea and road transport were the domain segments, in which 89 studies related to climate risks and adaptation in these two transport segments were found, occupying 56% of the total. However, as elaborated upon in Figure 2, less attention was given to air and rail transport, with only seven and ten papers being presented, respectively. It was worth noting that relatively large proportional studies involved more than one mode. That being said, 28% of the publications stemmed from the multi-modal industry.
Sustainability 15 08190 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of papers by transport mode (January 2006–April 2023).
The citation trend is another index that allows the measurement of the contribution of climate adaptation research in transport-related fields. Researchers found that the citation number was highly associated with the distribution of the publication of each mode. The top citation was for the multi-modal sector, with 586 citations, beginning from 35 records in 2006, followed by 375 for sea, 250 for road, 108 for rail and 18 for air transport. Thus, it was suggested that multi-modal research attracted attention, but systematic review and analysis were relatively scarce. Meanwhile, there was a relatively mature research pattern in terms of sea and road transport compared with rail and air transport. The latter, especially air transport, had developed slowly and might be overlooked by researchers, industrial professionals, and the government. This is possibly because the current transport adaptation focuses more on infrastructures than operations. Road and railway are associated with many studies, while seaports are often treated as the node and gateway of large door-to-door supply chain services, closely linked with road and railway. Relatively speaking, scholars are more concerned about airport operations than infrastructure, which partially justifies why more attention is given to infrastructure than operations in terms of existing transport adaptation.
To identify the geographical distribution of climate adaptation research in transport, researchers recognised each paper’s first and/or corresponding author as who was usually regarded as the primary author(s). By doing so, researchers could understand the popularity and accessibility of this research topic in different regions. As is demonstrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the corresponding researchers primarily came from more than 20 countries. However, researchers from the UK, the US, and Canada were the main forces, with 59 papers published over the past 16 years.
Sustainability 15 08190 g003
Figure 3. Number of articles by geographic location of the corresponding author (January 2006–April 2023).
Sustainability 15 08190 g004
Figure 4. Map graph of number of articles by geographic location of the corresponding author (January 2006–April 2023).
Specifically, researchers from the US and Canada formed a pivotal team focusing on the climate adaptation of sea and road transport since 2008. Meanwhile, research on climate adaptation in the rail sector has been predominantly carried out by scholars from Europe, especially the UK, since 2014. The background of the researchers was diversified in geography, including European (e.g., the UK, Germany, the Netherlands), North American (i.e., the US and Canada), and Australian backgrounds. As for multi-modal transport, American and British scholars still played the dominant role, while researchers were less regionalised, scattered from other European countries (e.g., Sweden), and from Asia (e.g., China) to Africa (e.g., South Africa). Thus, it is evident that developed countries (e.g., the US, UK, Canada) have conducted considerable research on the topic in the sea, road, and rail transport sectors. There is enormous potential for climate adaptation research on air transport and shipping to develop research opportunities for international collaboration in multi-modal fields.

3.2. Research Focused on Each Transport Mode

Acknowledging the overall trend in climate adaptation research in transport, one can categorise the selected articles into five groups based on their corresponding transport mode: sea, air, road, rail, and multi-modal. The evolving pattern, current situation, and dilemmas of each transport sector were investigated through context analysis to provide meaningful insights for future research on climate adaptation in transport.

Sea Transport

The first article linking climate change and seaports can be traced back to 2010. Focusing on the impacts of climate change on maritime navigation, Hawkes et al. [42] discussed how the changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and velocity could influence vessels, accessibility, transport infrastructure, and operation both positively and negatively. Also, they mentioned the utilisation of climate adaptation measures to respond to these impacts, which were clustered into diverse types of adaptation strategies and applied to the seaport sector in northwest Germany by Osthorst and Mänz [43].
In 2013, Becker et al. [8] published a paper on the impacts of climate change and adaptation planning in seaports, entitled “A note on climate change adaptation for seaports: a challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society”. At the time this study took place, it was the highest cited article, stressing for the first time the strategic role of seaports and their vulnerability to climate risks (e.g., sea level rise (SLR) and storms) [8]. Furthermore, the results from collecting the opinions of worldwide seaport stakeholders concerning climate change impacts and adaptations suggested it was emergent to adapt these impacts through “soft” and “hard” measures with global efforts.
Furthermore, Becker et al. [4][9] explored how seaport resilience could be strengthened to minimise climate risks by requiring adaptation strategies from associated experts within two US seaports (Port of Providence and Gulfport). They suggested a seaport cluster composed of all of the relevant stakeholders (e.g., seaport authorities, governmental institutions, and insurance companies) to form a long-term master plan with solid leadership from “boundary organisations” [4][9]. Notwithstanding, until 2019, the stakeholders in the case of Providence still held vague perceptions about who should take a leadership role and offer significant investment for climate adaptation [6]. More recently, Mclean and Becker [11] have tended to determine the barriers challenging decision-makers to make resilience investments to climate and extreme weather hazards for seaports. Accordingly, the seven key adaptation barriers were typologies from extensive interviews among 15 seaports in the US (e.g., the absence of understanding of threats, funding, and communication).
Among the reviewed papers, although a considerable number of assessments have been made for measuring climate vulnerabilities to develop adaptation measures, most of these have applied qualitative techniques (e.g., interviews, focus groups, case studies) on small- or medium-sized scales. Some of these studies might be limited by their data representativeness and referential experiences for other regions beyond the investigated scope. In contrast, only a few articles, particularly after 2017, employed quantitative methods to evaluate climate risks and the effectiveness of adaptation measures, while they were coincidently highly cited. For instance, Yang et al. [38] developed a fuzzy Bayesian model to rank climate risks and the cost-effectiveness of adaptation measures with its applications in 14 container seaports in Greater China (Note: Greater China includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Meanwhile, there have been additional concerns about inter- and intra-port coopetition in terms of seaport adaptation investments, as well as the significance of the market structure of terminal operator companies in determining the size and timing of investment [44][45][46]. These studies modelled climate disasters under a general form of Knightian uncertainty, establishing a two-period options game model and conducting vulnerability analysis, especially in the condition of asymmetric information about actual climate disasters [47][48].
Overall, it is widely accepted by both academia and industrial practitioners that SLR, storms, and other climate-related hazards have been threatening diverse aspects of seaports (e.g., Panahi et al. [49]). Moreover, with growing evidence from scientific reports and research papers, adapting to climate change impacts has been put on the agenda for many seaport administrators worldwide, whilst many are stuck in its implementation [7]. Thus, the issues on how to stimulate the willingness to conduct adaptation planning and overcome dilemmas during the execution process have triggered considerable discussions in the recent decade. As the latest review paper by Loza and Veloso-Gomes [50] stated, how to integrate adaptation measures in the initial stage of new port design deserves to be considered as a larger project instead of focusing on narrow aspects or case studies. To tackle this outstanding challenge, topics such as employing quantitative risk assessment methods, building a standardised adaptation framework, and stimulating effective stakeholder collaboration are generating widespread concern associated with urgency.

Air Transport

The aviation sector has been considered to be a key contributor to climate change. The discussion regarding the relationship between climate change and aviation was initially revealed by Bows [51]. The article highlighted the significant role of the aviation industry in reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on a consensus projection that aviation would contribute up to 5% of global emissions by 2050. However, because airports are primarily situated in or close to urban areas, next to rivers, or alongside coasts, they are vulnerable to the impacts posed by climate change, such as flooding, SLR, increased temperatures, high winds, and extreme weather events [52][53].
Surprisingly, a few studies, mainly on a regional scale, recently started investigating how to respond to the impacts of climate change in airports with adaptation strategies. For instance, the authors in [52] illustrated the best practice, namely in Singapore Changi Airport, by implementing climate adaptation planning with solid governmental support. Through collecting data from 13 major Canadian airports, Zhao and Sushama [53] estimated the changes in temperature and wind influencing aeroplane take-off and landing performance. The study provided practical suggestions for flight operation with growing temperatures by examining three types of flights (long-, medium-, and short-haul) in diverse conditions (i.e., weight restriction days, strong tailwind, and crosswind). Another case study regarding climate risk assessment occurred at Athens International Airport in 2021 [54]. Combining historical climate data with adaptation data from surveys and interviews, they provided a list of risk evaluations with practical recommendations for outdoor workers, drainage systems, and infrastructure design to improve airport climate resilience.
A relatively comprehensive review of the studies regarding climate change impacts and adaption in the aviation sector was undertaken recently [55]. Analysing more than 40 relevant articles, the authors concluded that the emergent demand for adapting to the impacts posed by climate change had been inadequately researched nor considered by industrial practitioners in the air sector. The literature was considered highly relevant but multi-disciplinal (e.g., tourism is a commonly mixed discipline).
As stated by Tsalis, Botsaropoulou et al. [55] and Skouloudis, Evangelinos et al. [56], despite a rising number of sustainability reports being provided by airports, there were neither standard nor mandatory accounting principles for airports in reporting practices, which led to the failure of the assessment of disclosed information regarding climate risks. It partly explained the stagnancy of climate adaptation research in the aviation sector. Also, for an airport that has attempted to adapt to climate change impacts by enhancing the system resilience, measuring the resilience performance of airports in diverse extreme weather events is a challenge. It could be tackled by establishing a resilience metric measured by the speed of recovery, which was applied to a trial of the aviation system in China [57]. Echoed by Ryley, Baumeister et al. [58], research on climate adaptation in airports was generally constrained by complicated methods of crossing disciplines and the inaccessibility of researching the climate and airport data involved. Other gaps including the paucity of funding, qualitative investigations, and long-term timespan for adaptation planning were revealed. Therefore, it is suggested to review the literature, better benchmark industrial standards, and offer practical recommendations through best practices for future climate adaptation planning in airports.

Road Transport

Behind sea transport, road transport was the second most investigated sector regarding climate adaptation. Through the analysis of the 44 selected papers, it was found that existing studies have mainly focused on the physical dimensions of transport infrastructure (e.g., road pavements, drainage, tunnels, and bridges) on a national or regional scale (e.g., Tighe et al. [59], Guest et al. [60]). Moreover, instead of conducting comprehensive literature reviews or using conceptual frameworks, researchers used quantitative methods, mainly modelling, to deal with specific demands in transport networks due to the impacts posed by climate change.
One of the most popular articles was published in 2014, in which Schweikert et al. developed comprehensive software called the Infrastructure Planning Support System to assist in decision-making for long-term road infrastructure planning [12]. The system in Schweikert et al.’s work provided an effective tool for cost–benefit analysis by considering technical, economic, and social factors in both quantitative and qualitative ways, given its wide practical applications in more than 50 countries. Another recently published article assessed the impacts of increased groundwater levels on road pavements in coastal areas owing to SLR [61]. The study found that rising groundwater could flow into the unbound materials. Based on the multilayer elastic theory, a groundwater flow model was designed to assess pavement performance in diverse climate scenarios to determine the magnitude of fatigue and reduction in the rutting life of the pavement.
North America has been the hotspot region for road adaptation to climate change since 2008. The latest research topics have included an assessment of the construction of the Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road in threshold freezing conditions due to permafrost peatlands in Canada [62], an investigation of a modelling approach for bridge deck design against a corrosion attack in major Canadian cities [60], as well as an examination of the potential economic effects through a climate adaptation measure (i.e., upgrading the asphalt binder) to improve pavement resilience against growing temperatures in Virginia, USA [63].
Different from sea and rail transport (to be further discussed in the next sub-section), climate adaptation research on road transportation involved a wider geographical distribution. In addition to central European (e.g., the Netherlands, Germany) regions, a few developing countries (e.g., Malaysia, Saudi Arabia) were included. For instance, Shahid and Minhans [64] conducted a literature review by connecting climate change with road accidents to examine how climatic factors could influence road safety in Malaysia. Another study related to road safety was undertaken in Saudi Arabia that quantified the costs of road traffic accidents because of increased death and injuries due to changing climate variables, namely, precipitation, temperature, and sandstorms [65]. The latest survey investigated the mobility impacts on the road posed by flooding and heavy precipitation within urban residences in Ghana, Africa [66].
Scholars have made some achievements over the past decade. Nevertheless, there are still gaps that are yet to be bridged in terms of climate adaptation in the road industry. Guest et al. [60] stated that profound discussions regarding road research are significant when transforming revealed technical issues into effective institutional policies and long-term adaptation plans. Meanwhile, with abundant mathematical models being established and applied to regional cases, it has been suggested to re-test the results of climate risk analysis in diverse regions and tailor utilisation in other and multi-modal transport systems [37].

Rail Transport

Papers concerning rail transport were much fewer than those regarding sea and road transport. This might be because the relevant literature had not been generated until 2014. In the meantime, the research had a significant geographical feature that was narrowed to European countries, while five out of the ten selected papers concerned British railways.
Only two articles in 2016 elaborated on the climate risk analysis procedure for the high-speed rail network in Malaysia and Singapore [67]. It critically reviewed the climatic variables impacting the Malaysian railway infrastructure. Increased temperatures, heavy rainfall and flooding, lightning, and high winds were considered threats causing the delay of rail services, deterioration in operation, and failures of asset systems.
An assessment regarding existing and future flooding impacts on European railway infrastructure was conducted by Bubeck et al. [68], who utilised an infrastructure-specific damage model to project annual flooding damage in each climatic scenario. They stated that over US$340 million in annual losses could be avoided by controlling global warming to 1.5 °C, confirming climate adaptation’s significance for European railways. Other European research included the investigation of critical barriers of organisations in transferring scientific climate change information into adaptation planning in the French rail system [69] and the evaluation of flooding risks on underground transport with an application in terms of the Barcelona metro lines through a hydrodynamic model [70].
A few studies have been undertaken concerning specific climate risks related to specific dimensions regarding the UK rail system. Jenkins et al. [71] studied how hotter weather could alter passengers’ demand and service expectations on the London Underground. Their results showed that various adaptation measures of cooling down infrastructure temperatures were expected to reach the satisfied thermal conditions for most lines in the mid-21st century under a high-emission scenario. SLR was a significant climate hazard for the coastal Dawlish railway in the UK. Dawson et al. [72] investigated the correlations between rail incidents and SLR over the past century through a semi-empirical model, followed by investigation of the relationship between future projections. In southeast England, rail incidents triggered by higher temperatures and heatwaves were discovered, including but not limited to the sagging of overhead lines, the breakdown of electrical assets, and track buckling. By introducing failure harvesting, Ferranti et al. [73] found the different resilience of rail infrastructure systems to temperature over different seasons. Taking the Minnamurra Railway Bridge in Australia as a case study, Kaewunruen et al. [74] applied building information modelling to facilitate the resilience of the bridge in terms of climate adaptation regarding asset management, operation, and maintenance.
Meanwhile, bridge scours, as a primary risk threatening the rail network in the southwest of England and Wales. were modelled by simulating the causal chain between scour hazard and climate change [75]. More recently, Wang et al. [31] surveyed the critical climate risks in the UK rail network, using fuzzy Bayesian reasoning (FBR) for risk prioritisation. Damage of the bridge foundation and collapse were highlighted as the pivotal risks owing to flooding and landslips.
As the climate adaptation research in the rail system started relatively late, restricted to regional or national cases, its development is less mature, with a few gaps that have yet to be bridged. For instance, during climate risk evaluation in coastal lines, besides fiscal losses, indirect economic and other socio-economic costs that are hard to project precisely need to be factored into consideration [68]. Adaptation planning, in the meantime, demands cross-departmental involvement with a broad range of stakeholders [72]. Furthermore, given the deficiency of comprehensive climate adaptation studies on railways, some advanced risk assessment methods, such as the failure-harvesting approach [25] and FBR model [37], can be re-designed to fit the requirements of other rail projects and promote adaptation strategies.

References

  1. Tseng, Y.Y.; Yue, W.L.; Taylor, M.A. The role of transportation in logistics chain. Proc. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2005, 5, 1657–1672.
  2. Chapman, L. Transport and climate change: A review. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 354–367.
  3. Iacobuţă, G.I.; Brandi, C.; Dzebo, A.; Duron, S.D.E. Aligning climate and sustainable development finance through an SDG lens. The role of development assistance in implementing the Paris Agreement. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 74, 102509.
  4. Becker, A.; Caldwell, M.R. Stakeholder perceptions of seaport resilience strategies: A case study of Gulfport (Mississippi) and Providence (Rhode Island). Coast. Manag. 2015, 43, 1–34.
  5. Becker, A.; Chase, N.T.; Fischer, M.; Schwegler, B.; Mosher, K. A method to estimate climate-critical construction materials applied to seaport protection. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 40, 125–136.
  6. Becker, A.; Kretsch, E. The leadership void for climate adaptation planning: Case study of the port of providence (Rhode Island, United States). Front. Earth Sci. 2019, 7, 29.
  7. Becker, A.; Ng, A.K.; McEvoy, D.; Mullett, J. Implications of climate change for shipping: Ports and supply chains. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2018, 9, e508.
  8. Becker, A.H.; Acciaro, M.; Asariotis, R.; Cabrera, E.; Cretegny, L.; Crist, P.; Esteban, M.; Mather, A.; Messner, S.; Naruse, S.; et al. A note on climate change adaptation for seaports: A challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Clim. Chang. 2013, 120, 683–695.
  9. Becker, A.H.; Matson, P.; Fischer, M.; Mastrandrea, M.D. Towards seaport resilience for climate change adaptation: Stakeholder perceptions of hurricane impacts in Gulfport (MS) and Providence (RI). Prog. Plan. 2015, 99, 1–49.
  10. McIntosh, R.D.; Becker, A. Seaport climate vulnerability assessment at the multi-port Scale: A review of approaches. In Resilience and Risk: Methods and Application in Environment, Cyber and Social Domains; Linkov, I., Palma-Oliveira, J.M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 205–224.
  11. McLean, E.L.; Becker, A. Decision makers’ barriers to climate and extreme weather adaptation: A study of North Atlantic high- and medium-use seaports. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 835–847.
  12. Schweikert, A.; Chinowsky, P.; Espinet, X.; Tarbert, M. Climate change and infrastructure impacts: Comparing the impact on roads in ten countries through 2100. Procedia Eng. 2014, 78, 306–316.
  13. Schweikert, A.; Chinowsky, P.; Kwiatkowski, K.; Espinet, X. The infrastructure planning support system: Analysing the impact of climate change on road infrastructure and development. Transp. Policy 2014, 35, 146–153.
  14. Schweikert, A.; Chinowsky, P.; Kwiatkowski, K.; Johnson, A.; Shilling, E.; Strzepek, K.; Strzepek, N. Road infrastructure and climate change: Impacts and adaptations for South Africa. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014046.
  15. Schweikert, A.; Espinet, X.; Goldstein, S.; Chinowsky, P. Resilience versus Risk: Assessing cost of climate change adaptation to California’s transportation system and the city of Sacramento, California. Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2532, 13–20.
  16. Kempton, W.; Letendre, S.E. Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1997, 2, 157–175.
  17. Lopes, J.A.P.; Soares, F.J.; Almeida, P.M.R. Integration of electric vehicles in the electric power system. Proc. IEEE 2010, 99, 168–183.
  18. McCoy, T.J. Electric ships past, present, and future . IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2015, 3, 4–11.
  19. Nuchturee, C.; Li, T.; Xia, H. Energy efficiency of integrated electric propulsion for ships—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110145.
  20. Barkenbus, J.N. Eco-driving: An overlooked climate change initiative. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 762–769.
  21. Kannan, D.; Diabat, A.; Alrefaei, M.; Govindan, K.; Yong, G. A carbon footprint based reverse logistics network design model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 67, 75–79.
  22. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Contribution of global cities to climate change mitigation overrated. In The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 335–346.
  23. de Abreu, V.H.S.; Santos, A.S.; Monteiro, T.G.M. Climate change impacts on the road transport infrastructure: A systematic review on adaptation measures. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8864.
  24. Moraci, F.; Errigo, M.F.; Fazia, C.; Campisi, T.; Castelli, F. Cities under pressure: Strategies and tools to face climate change and pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7743.
  25. Koetse, M.J.; Rietveld, P. Adaptation to climate change in the transport sector. Transp. Rev. 2012, 32, 267–286.
  26. Wang, T.; Ng, A.K.Y. Responding to the barriers in climate adaptation planning among transport systems: Insights from the case of the port of Montreal. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 16, 942–956.
  27. Shlozberg, R.; Dorling, R.; Spiro, P. Low Water Blues: An Economic Impact Assessment of Future Low Water Levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River; Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014.
  28. Robertson, L.S. Reversal of the road death trend in the US in 2015–2016: An examination of the climate and economic hypotheses. J. Transp. Health 2018, 9, 161–168.
  29. Bang, N.H.; Church Burton, N. Contemporary flood risk perceptions in England: Implications for flood risk management foresight. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100317.
  30. Heritage, G.; Entwistle, N. Drone based quantification of channel response to an extreme flood for a Piedmont Stream. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2031.
  31. Wang, T.; Qu, Z.; Yang, Z.; Nichol, T.; Dimitriu, D.; Clarke, G.; Bowden, D.; Lee, P.T. Impact analysis of climate change on rail systems for adaptation planning: A UK case. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 83, 102324.
  32. Hambling, D. Weatherwatch: Protecting UK Roads from Melting in Heatwaves. The Guardian, 12 October 2021.
  33. Leard, B.; Roth, K. Weather, Traffic Accidents, and Climate Change; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  34. Ronchi, E.; Wong, S.; Suzuki, S.; Theodori, M.; Wadhwani, R.; Vaiciulyte, S.; Gwynne, S.; Rein, G.; Kristoffersen, M.; Lovreglio, R.; et al. Case Studies of Large Outdoor Fires Involving Evacuation; Victoria University: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2021.
  35. Poo, M.C.P.; Yang, Z.; Dimitriu, D.; Qu, Z.; Jin, Z.; Feng, X. Climate Change Risk Indicators (CCRI) for seaports in the United Kingdom. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 205, 105580.
  36. Poo, M.C.P.; Yang, Z.; Dimitriu, D.; Qu, Z. An advanced climate resilience indicator framework for airports: A UK case study. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 101, 103099.
  37. Wang, T.; Qu, Z.; Yang, Z.; Nichol, T.; Dimitriu, D.; Clarke, G.; Bowden, D. How can the UK road system be adapted to the impacts posed by climate change? By creating a climate adaptation framework. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 77, 403–424.
  38. Yang, Z.; Ng, A.K.; Lee, P.T.W.; Wang, T.; Qu, Z.; Rodrigues, V.S.; Pettit, S.; Harris, I.; Zhang, D.; Lau, Y.Y. Risk and cost evaluation of port adaptation measures to climate change impacts. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 444–458.
  39. Wang, T.; Qu, Z.; Yang, Z.; Nichol, T.; Clarke, G.; Ge, Y.-E. Climate change research on transportation systems: Climate risks, adaptation and planning. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 88, 102553.
  40. Poo, M.C.P.; Yang, Z.; Dimitriu, D.; Qu, Z. Review on seaport and airport adaptation to climate change: A case on sea level rise and flooding. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2018, 52, 23–33.
  41. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A. Intellectual structure of information science 2011–2020: An author co-citation analysis. J. Doc. 2022, 78, 728–744.
  42. Hawkes, P.; Pauli, G.; Moser, H.; Arntsen, Ø.; Gaufres, P.; Mai, S.; White, K. Waterborne Transport, Ports and Navigation: Climate Change Drivers, Impacts and Mitigation; PIANC: Manila, Philippines, 2010.
  43. Osthorst, W.; Mänz, C. Types of cluster adaptation to climate change. Lessons from the port and logistics sector of Northwest Germany. Marit. Policy Manag. 2012, 39, 227–248.
  44. Randrianarisoa, L.M.; Zhang, A. Adaptation to climate change effects and competition between ports: Invest now or later? Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2019, 123, 279–322.
  45. Wang, K.; Yang, H.; Zhang, A. Seaport adaptation to climate change-related disasters: Terminal operator market structure and inter-and intra-port coopetition. Spat. Econ. Anal. 2020, 15, 311–335.
  46. Wang, K.; Zhang, A. Climate change, natural disasters and adaptation investments: Inter-and intra-port competition and cooperation. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2018, 117, 158–189.
  47. Itoh, R.; Zhang, A. How should ports share risk of natural and climate change disasters? Analytical modelling and implications for adaptation investments. Econ. Transp. 2023, 33, 100301.
  48. Zheng, S.; Wang, K.; Fu, X.; Zhang, A.; Ge, Y.-E. The effects of information publicity and government subsidy on port climate change adaptation: Strategy and social welfare analysis. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2022, 166, 284–312.
  49. Panahi, R.; Ng, A.K.; Pang, J. Climate change adaptation in the port industry: A complex of lingering research gaps and uncertainties. Transp. Policy 2020, 95, 10–29.
  50. Loza, P.; Veloso-Gomes, F. Literature review on incorporating climate change adaptation measures in the design of new ports and other maritime projects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4569.
  51. Bows, A. Aviation and climate change: Confronting the challenge. Aeronaut. J. 2010, 114, 459–468.
  52. Dolman, N.; Vorage, P. Preparing Singapore Changi Airport for the effects of climate change. J. Airpt. Manag. 2020, 14, 54–66.
  53. Zhao, Y.; Sushama, L. Aircraft Takeoff Performance in a Changing Climate for Canadian Airports. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 418.
  54. Vogiatzis, K.; Kassomenos, P.; Gerolymatou, G.; Valamvanos, P.; Anamaterou, E. Climate Change Adaptation Studies as a tool to ensure airport’s sustainability: The case of Athens International Airport (AIA). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142153.
  55. Tsalis, T.A.; Botsaropoulou, V.D.; Nikolaou, I.E. A methodology to evaluate the disclosure practices of organisations related to climate change risks: A case study of international airports. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2018, 15, 257–276.
  56. Skouloudis, A.; Evangelinos, K.; Moraitis, S. Accountability and stakeholder engagement in the airport industry: An assessment of airports’ CSR reports. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2012, 18, 16–20.
  57. Zhou, L.; Chen, Z. Measuring the performance of airport resilience to severe weather events. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 83, 102362.
  58. Ryley, T.; Baumeister, S.; Coulter, L. Climate change influences on aviation: A literature review. Transp. Policy 2020, 92, 55–64.
  59. Tighe, S.L.; Smith, J.; Mills, B.; Andrey, J. Using the MEPDG to Assess Climate Change Impacts on Southern Canadian roads. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets, Calgary, AB, Canada, 23–28 June 2008.
  60. Guest, G.; Zhang, J.; Atadero, R.; Shirkhani, H. Incorporating the Effects of Climate Change into Bridge Deterioration Modeling: The Case of Slab-on-Girder Highway Bridge Deck Designs across Canada. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020175.
  61. Knott, J.F.; Elshaer, M.; Daniel, J.S.; Jacobs, J.M.; Kirshen, P. Assessing the effects of rising groundwater from sea level rise on the service life of pavements in coastal road infrastructure. Transp. Res. Rec. 2017, 2639, 1–10.
  62. Sladen, W.; Wolfe, S.; Morse, P. Evaluation of threshold freezing conditions for winter road construction over discontinuous permafrost peatlands, subarctic Canada. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2020, 170, 102930.
  63. Qiao, Y.; Santos, J.; Stoner, A.M.; Flinstch, G. Climate change impacts on asphalt road pavement construction and maintenance: An economic life cycle assessment of adaptation measures in the State of Virginia, United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24, 342–355.
  64. Shahid, S.; Minhans, A. Climate change and road safety: A review to assess impacts in Malaysia. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 1–8.
  65. Islam, M.; Alharthi, M.; Alam, M. The impacts of climate change on road traffic accidents in Saudi Arabia. Climate 2019, 7, 103.
  66. Andreasen, M.H.; Agergaard, J.; Møller-Jensen, L.; Oteng-Ababio, M.; Yiran, G.A.B. Mobility Disruptions in Accra: Recurrent Flooding, Fragile Infrastructure and Climate Change. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13790.
  67. Sa’adin, S.L.B.; Kaewunruen, S.; Jaroszweski, D. Heavy rainfall and flood vulnerability of Singapore-Malaysia high speed rail system. Aust. J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 14, 123–131.
  68. Bubeck, P.; Dillenardt, L.; Alfieri, L.; Feyen, L.; Thieken, A.H.; Kellermann, P. Global warming to increase flood risk on European railways. Clim. Chang. 2019, 155, 19–36.
  69. Dépoues, V. Organisational uptake of scientific information about climate change by infrastructure managers: The case of adaptation of the French railway company. Clim. Chang. 2017, 143, 473–486.
  70. Forero-Ortiz, E.; Martínez-Gomariz, E.; Porcuna, M.C.; Locatelli, L.; Russo, B. Flood Risk Assessment in an Underground Railway System under the Impact of Climate Change—A Case Study of the Barcelona Metro. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5291.
  71. Jenkins, K.; Gilbey, M.; Hall, J.; Glenis, V.; Kilsby, C. Implications of climate change for thermal discomfort on underground railways. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014, 30, 1–9.
  72. Dawson, D.; Shaw, J.; Gehrels, W.R. Sea-level rise impacts on transport infrastructure: The notorious case of the coastal railway line at Dawlish, England. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 51, 97–109.
  73. Ferranti, E.; Chapman, L.; Lee, S.; Jaroszweski, D.; Lowe, C.; McCulloch, S.; Quinn, A. The hottest July day on the railway network: Insights and thoughts for the future. Meteorol. Appl. 2018, 25, 195–208.
  74. Kaewunruen, S.; AbdelHadi, M.; Kongpuang, M.; Pansuk, W.; Remennikov, A.M. Digital Twins for Managing Railway Bridge Maintenance, Resilience, and Climate Change Adaptation. Sensors 2023, 23, 252.
  75. Dikanski, H.; Hagen-Zanker, A.; Imam, B.; Avery, K. Climate change impacts on railway structures: Bridge scour. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2016.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Marine & Freshwater Biology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Tianni Wang
,
Mark Ching-Pong Poo
,
Adolf K. Y. Ng
,
Zaili Yang
View Times: 238
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 02 Jun 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback