Appendix C: Screening Tool Worksheets

Appendix C of the Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit.

Stage 1: Screening Table

Aspect Description Examples of risk sources/vulnerability Examples of Council adaptation actions
Coastal Planning Coastal planning is the most pressing climate change priority, given the region’s ‘soft’ erodible beaches and exposed housing stock.
The risks that this area embodies not only relate to current and future planning decisions, but also challenging issues relating to the impact on existing developments and property rights.
Location: infrastructure developments, residential & business properties (existing or new) at risk of physical damage or loss from events such as inundation, storm surges, erosion of ‘soft’ shorelines.
Planning: changes to planning tools due to climate change.
Costs: increased cost to maintain coastal shorelines and infrastructure within coastal areas.
Insurance: increased cost or inability to obtain insurance for residential and business properties.
Council responsibility: community expectations to protect private assets or liability associated with approval of inappropriately located developments.
  • Seek new information and guidance relating to impacts of climate change on coastal developments & ensure planning tools incorporate climate change in planning decisions
  • Advocate and implement community initiatives to build understanding & awareness of planning implications of climate change
  • Examine long term sea level rise options from defence structures to relocation
Asset Management Council has responsibility for assets ranging from buildings, to local roads, to drainage systems. Asset management is an area where Council is particularly exposed to climate change risks.
Depending on their location, assets are potentially exposed to extreme weather events as well as other long term processes such as coastal erosion, sea level rise and drought.
Planning: changing operating conditions included in the planning and building of new infrastructure (such as asset location, design, construction materials, operational costs, asset life)
Asset integrity: frequency of condition assessments, preventative maintenance, physical damage from climate events
Design: ‘fit for purpose’, change to design standards, codes, urban heat island effect
Asset failure: Council liability, cost to clean Costs: to maintain and operate existing assets under changed climate conditions
  • Understand current decision making tools and procedures to ensure consistent and robust approach for approval of upgrades / retrofits/ new assets
  • Understand current research and technology improvements, operational standards and materials adopted by Council
  • Conduct asset surveys to understand exposure to changed climatic conditions
  • Understand liability and insurance issues
Emergency Management Council has a Municipal Emergency Management Plan (MEMP) to protect communities and assist them to recover from the impacts of emergency situations such as floods, fires and storms.
As the frequency and intensity of these events increases under climate change, there will be additional burdens placed on the MEMP and Council’s role within it.
Resources: Increased frequency and severity of emergency events &
impact on personnel
Planning: Adequacy of MEMP to respond to climate related emergencies
Budgets: Increased impact to respond and recover
Volunteers: Increased burden placed on emergency response personnel
Psychological: impact on local community, Council employees, volunteers
Community expectations: Role of council to respond to emergency events whilst maintaining service delivery
 
  • Ensure MEMP is adequate
  • Allocate resources to ensure appropriate preparedness, response and recovery from an emergency
  • Ensure coordinated approach to emergency response and recovery by working with other agencies & emergency volunteers
Vulnerable People Council already plays an active role in caring for vulnerable groups in the community. These groups are likely to be worse affected when exposed to climate change.
This may place additional demands upon Council services and generate the need for new services.
Resources: Increased expectation and demand on Council resources to support vulnerable people (e.g. during emergency response & recovery, increased impact from urban island effect)
Community welfare: Vulnerability of most vulnerable people exacerbated, through increased costs, increased exposure, lack of insurance etc., new vulnerable groups emerge
Psychological/Health: impact on local community, Council employees, volunteers from stress, extreme weather, isolation, lack of support networks, increased mortality
Budgets: Increased impact to respond and recover, and support vulnerable people
Community expectations: Role of council to support vulnerable people
  • Understand and track vulnerable people
  • Educate & assist vulnerable groups to prepare for climate change
  • Establish procedures to assist vulnerable people in climate-related emergencies
  • Ensure Council policies and programmes do not unnecessarily or disproportionately impact vulnerable groups
Open Space Open space provides multiple social, environmental and economic benefits to the community such as providing recreation, education and tourism opportunities.
Much of this open space will be placed under stress by climate change, creating additional resourcing burdens for Council.
Biodiversity: Loss of vegetation and changes in condition
Community welfare: Loss of green spaces condition & availability
Resources: Increased demand on Council personnel to maintain condition of open space environments, prevent impacts from urban island effect
Budgets: Demand on budgets to respond to changed conditions e.g. not enough water/too much water
Psychological/Health: impact on local community, Council employees, volunteers to loss of vegetation & changed conditions of open space, recreational facilities, extreme weather
Liability: Increased frequency or severity of injuries to community members using sporting fields or public open spaces that have a deteriorated condition
  • Continue to provide recreational opportunities for residents through all seasons
  • Cost-effectively maintain all open sporting fields and passive open space areas to an adequate standard
  • Incorporate climate change scenarios in long term plans and budgets
  • Consider water requirements, benefits of trees, opportunities to create resilient open spaces in face of drought and extreme weather events.
Biodiversity The City of Greater Geelong is physically diverse and contains many different ecosystems, a significant proportion of which contain endangered or significant species.
Climate change impacts have the potential to significantly impact the region’s biodiversity, through affecting ecosystem resilience and shifting appropriate habitat ranges.
Biodiversity: Loss of vegetation, loss of integrity of local ecosystems, changes in condition
Community welfare: Loss of green spaces, significant vegetation, increase in invasive species, loss of amenity
Resources: Increased demand on Council personnel to maintain condition of open space environments
Budgets: Demand on budgets to respond to changed conditions e.g. not enough water/too much water
Psychological/Health: impact on local community, Council employees, volunteers, tourists to loss of vegetation & changed conditions of open space environments
  • Understand and build knowledge in the distribution of species and their vulnerabilities
  • Build resilience of biodiversity & open space areas through collaboration with various interest groups
  • Educate community about biodiversity & its maintenance
  • Consider creation of adaptation corridors to allow species to adapt and migrate naturally
  • Consider biodiversity when reducing fuel loads
Building Community Engagement Community has a large role to play in adaptation. To facilitate working together and to optimise the benefits of the relationship between Council and the community, the broader community needs to understand Council’s role in managing and promoting adaptation, and Council needs to understand community needs and concerns. Council Roles/Responsibility: New situations and conditions resulting in community requiring assistance, co-ordinated response & management from other agencies & pressure from other levels of definition of roles and responsibility for a particular crisis or problem
Community expectation: changed conditions resulting in community pushing Council beyond resources, power and capability
Resources: increased pressure on resources to respond to new situations, community expectations
  • Understand established lines of responsibility in relation to particular risks, including other responsible agencies/authorities
  • Understand role in preparing for and responding to climate change
  • Build community awareness of Council’s role
  • Build relationships with agencies/ authorities/ community groups to gain feedback on the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, communicate uncertainties, explore scenarios to identify areas of confusion or overlap in responsibilities.



[Back to Top]

Stage 2 and 3: Risk, Vulnerability and Adaptation Action Interaction

Part A: Does the proposal interact with climate change risk or vulnerability or create a new risk?

Diagram showing decision tree

Figure A: Proposal generates a new climate risk or vulnerability

The diagram is of a decision tree stepping the user through determining what actions are required if the proposal generates a new climate risk or vulnerability. This decision tree is used, only if the proposal does generate a new risk or vulnerability. The first node of the decision tree asks the user to assess the new climate risk or vulnerability against the organisation’s risk criteria and assign a risk rating.

If the risk rating is:
  • Serious, then the new risk is likely to justify redesigning or abandoning the proposal. The next node (the action node) recommends redesigning or abandoning the proposal. Then the decision tree use is complete; or
  • Priority risk, then the action node recommends two actions, 1) to create a new priority risk in the risk register and assign a responsible person, and 2) complete Tools 1 and 2 for the new priority risk. Then the diagram directs you onto Part B of the process, considering if the proposal interacts with a planned adaptation action s; or
  • Non-priority risk, the action node recommends to create a new risk in the risk register and assign a responsible person. Then the diagram directs you onto Part B of the process, considering if the proposal interacts with a planned adaptation action.
Diagram showing decision tree if the proposal increases vulnerability to an existing risk
Figure B: Decision tree if the proposal increases vulnerability to an existing risk
The diagram is of a decision tree stepping the user through determining what actions are required if the proposal increases an existing climate risk or vulnerability. This decision tree is used only if the proposal does increase a risk or vulnerability. The first node of the decision tree asks the user to assess the increased risk or vulnerability against the organisation’s risk criteria to determine if it is enough to justify redesigning or abandoning the proposal? If:
  • Yes, the action node recommends that the proposal is redesigned or abandon; or
  • No, the next node asks, ‘is the existing climate risk a priority risk? If
    • Yes, the next node, directs the user to notify the person responsible for the risk, and based on the existing risk context and adaptation documentation (this documentation will have been developed during the completion of Tools 1 and 2), consider, if the climate risk register will need to be updated? And will a change to the existing/planned adaptation actions be required?
      • The action node, than recommends to update relevant documentation, and depending on the extent of increase, consider going through full risk context worksheet or adaptation worksheet process again to consider the increased risk or vulnerability in further detail.
    • Or
    • No, the next node recommends that the person responsible for the risk is notified, and then to assess the new risk rating based on the proposal being implemented. Then it asks does the existing risk become a new priority risk? If:
      • Yes, the action node recommends to create a new priority risk, contact the relevant person responsible, and complete Tool 1 and 2 for new priority risk; or
      • No, the action node recommends to consider if any information on the climate risk needs to be updated, and update documentation as required.

Once you have reached and completed an action node, then the diagram directs the user to Part B of the process, considering if the proposal interacts with a planned adaptation action.

Diagram showing decision tree if the proposal decreases vulnerability to an existing risk

Figure C: Decision tree if the proposal decreases a vulnerability to an existing risk
The diagram is of a decision tree stepping the user through determining what actions are required if the proposal decreases a climate risk or vulnerability. This decision tree is used, only if the proposal does decrease a risk or vulnerability. The first node of the decision tree asks the user if the existing risk is a priority risk? If:

  • Yes, the next node recommends that the person responsible for the risk is notified, and that the risk context be reviewed based on the potential decrease in risk. If:
    • There is no change to the risk rating, but there are changes to the risk context required, then the action node recommends that relevant documentation be updated; or
    • The proposal would result in a downgrade of the priority risk to a non-priority risk, than the action node recommends that relevant documentation be updated and ensure that the risk is re-entered into the system as a non-priority risk. Then all relevant people must be notified; or
    • The proposal would eliminate risk entirely, the action node recommends removing it from the risk system.
  • Or
  • No, the risk that is decreased is a non-priority risk, than the next node recommends that the person responsible for the risk is notified, and that it is considered whether the reduction in the risk justifies its removal from the risk system. If:
    • Yes, the action node recommends that risk is removed from the risk system; or
    • No, no further action is required.

Once you have reached and completed an action node, then the diagram directs the user to Part B of the process, considering if the proposal interacts with a planned adaptation action.

Part B: Does the proposal interact with an existing or planned adaptation action?

Diagram showing decision tree if the proposal decreases vulnerability to an existing risk

Figure D: Decision tree if the proposal decreases a vulnerability to an existing risk
The diagram is of a decision tree stepping the user through determining what actions are required if the proposal interacts with an existing or planned adaptation action. This decision tree is used, only if the proposal does interact with a planned or existing action. The first node of the decision tree recommends that the person responsible for the adaptation action is contacted, and that the supporting documents and the risk context of that action is reviewed. Finally, it asks if the interaction is with an existing adaptation action or planned action? If the interaction is with:
  • A planned action, the next node asks if the proposal potentially negatively or positively impacts the planned action’s objectives? If:
    •  Positive interaction, no further action is required; or
    • Negative, the user is directed to consider the strategic importance of the proposal against the severity of the risk the adaptation action is designed to address, another way of achieving the objectives of the proposal that does dos not interfere with the adaptation action, and, if the adaptation action can be modified to eliminate any interference without compromising the integrity of its purpose or function.
      • Based on the review of this information, the action node recommends that all risk and adaptation action documentation is updated to reflect the outcome of the analysis.
  • Or
  • An existing action, the next node asks, does the proposal potentially impact the proposed adaptation action positively or negatively? If:
    • Negatively, the impact on the performance of the adaptation action must be considered along with trade-offs. Then the user is directed to the same node as the negatively affected planned adaptation, which asks the user to consider the strategic importance of the proposal against the severity of the risk the adaptation action is designed to address, another way of achieving the objectives of the proposal that does dos not interfere with the adaptation action, and, if the adaptation action can be modified to eliminate any interference without compromising the integrity of its purpose or function.
      • Based on the review of this information, the action node recommends that all risk and adaptation action documentation is updated to reflect the outcome of the analysis.
    • Or,
    • Positively, the next node asks if the adaptation action performs a similar function to the adaptation action? If:
      • Yes, remove adaptation action from register and/or incorporate new project as an adaptation action; or
      • No, no further action required.



[Back to Top]

Toolkit Sections






Page last updated: Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Print