Post a comment on the text below

Diverse methods are reported for the conduct of risk or vulnerability assessments

The self-assessment asked countries to describe the methodology used when undertaking risk or vulnerability assessments. Responding countries (27) report the use of a variety of methods (Table 2.5). Looking across different countries, variation is also observed regarding the level of the methodological elaboration. In Austria for example, an extensive literature review was conducted prior to the assessment to collect readily available information on observed impacts, exposure, sensitivity, impacts etc. Qualitative vulnerability assessments were then carried out on the basis of the collected information. In Germany, a multi-method approach was developed, including the use of literature review, climate impact models from different sources, indicators derived from impact models and expert judgment, quantitative and qualitative socioeconomic scenarios and normative decisions made by experts from federal agencies. In Denmark a dialogue based approach was developed, involving the private sector and industry. This ensured a forward-looking input and ownership of the climate change adaptation efforts, which, along with other initiatives undertaken, strengthened the vulnerability assessment. Other countries describe less elaborated approaches employing a single method (e.g. expert appraisal) for the conduct of risk or vulnerability assessments. These countries often tend to be at an earlier stage in the adaptation process. Mix-methods approaches, however, are reported by most of the countries.