In October 2021, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) launched a novel national system for impact-based weather warnings, moving from the traditional format for meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic warnings towards an assessment process that includes collaboration and consultation with regional stakeholders. For certain types of warnings, joint assessments of the potential impacts of weather events for a specific geographic area and time frame are made in collaboration with local and regional actors. As part of this new system, local and regional administrative efforts are made to create assessment-support documentation which are collated by practitioners at the municipal or organizational level, drawing on local knowledge, and subsequently compiled by the County Administrative Board. This process aims to support the collaborative decision-making processes ahead of the publication and in the evaluation of issued weather warnings.This paper explores the potential of integrating long- and short-term perspectives in societal response to climate change impacts with focus on extreme weather events. We present a case of AI-based technology to support processes linked to the national system for impact-based weather warnings and its integration with local and regional climate adaptation processes. We explore opportunities to integrate an AI-based pipeline, employing AI-based image and text analysis of crowdsourced data, in the processes of the warning system, and analyse barriers and enablers identified by local, regional, and national stakeholders. We further discuss to what extent data and knowledge of historical extreme weather events can be integrated with local and regional climate adaptation efforts, and whether these efforts could bridge the divide between long-term adaptation strategies and short-term response measures related to extreme weather events. Thus, this study unfolds the existing and perceived barriers to this integration and discusses possible synergies and ways forward in risk management and climate adaptation practice.

Elevating parts or the entirety of the structure of buildings in exposed coastal areas can be an effective way of managing the growing risks associated with climate change and sea level rise. While these accommodation measures are well known, there is little to no research on their role in coastal adaptation policy in Europe or on accommodation taking place at all. A systematic review of grey literature was carried out in metropolitan France, the UK and Ireland to assess the current state of structural accommodation. The analysis shows that although measures such as the raising of floor levels of new developments are common practice as part of property-level resilience and flood risk management on the coasts of the three studied countries, accommodation remains driven by local spatial planning and poorly integrated in overarching adaptation policies. Accommodation is found to be unevenly distributed along the assessed coasts and in many locations is happening in protected or sheltered locations to manage residual risk. Comparisons with the experience from the US – where elevated buildings have been an established strategy for over 50 years – suggest that accommodation could be enhanced by providing guidelines that better account for coastal processes such as the impacts of waves, as well as by promoting financial incentives through subsidies or insurance schemes. National coastal adaptation policies are rapidly evolving in Europe and could benefit from a better understanding of the advantages and limitations of accommodation by elevating buildings.

Under the on-going climate change, slow-onset events, such as sea-level rise and salinity intrusion, have a more pronounced effect on biodiversity and ecosystem services, which have fewer options for adaptation compared to human systems, resulting in losses and damages. People who rely on ecosystems are also experiencing substantial damages and irreversible losses. Therefore, accurately assessing the losses and damages to ecosystem services becomes crucial. To address this issue, this paper employs an analytical framework adopted from Geest et al. (2019) and conducts a case study on the effects of extreme and slow-onset events on a coastal island of Bangladesh to evaluate the current losses and damages to ecosystem services. The study estimates the economic losses and damages to individual households, specifically in terms of some provisioning services, such as rice and fish, ranging from US$28 to US$419 per household. Furthermore, the case study elucidates the diverse values that individuals attributed to ecosystem services in their everyday lives, as well as non-economic losses, damages, and harms that are rooted in human emotions and experiences. It highlights non-economic losses and damages such as the gradual decline of social unity, an increase in mental illness, long-term physical health consequences, increased feelings of insecurity, and the depletion of fertile topsoil. The research concludes that building human capital for ecosystem-based adaptation is crucial to mitigating these impacts. It emphasises the need of documenting losses and damages locally using web-based recordkeeping in order to take evidence-based action to address losses and damages.

Climate change and natural hazards present a major risk to individuals and communities; however, the current quantitative risk assessment methodologies struggle to capture the wider consequences that arise from society’s complex interconnections. These complex interconnections exist due to the number of mutually dependent systems and mean that impacts on one system can be felt in another. These cascading impacts present a major challenge to climate risk assessments. Climate risk assessments often consider a range of “wellbeing” or “value” domains; for example, in New Zealand the five wellbeing domains are Natural Environment, Human, Economic, Built Environment, and Governance. Existing assessments have sought to characterize the risk to each domain, but do not quantitatively or rigorously consider the interplay between the domains. For example, how does the risk to the human domain change as a result of the impacts to the built environment? This interplay and the ensuing cascading impacts could substantially modify the assessed risk. The change could potentially alter the prioritization and subsequent adaptation plans. In this paper, we show that considering cascading impacts not only increases the magnitude of risk but can shift the prioritization. This highlights the importance of capturing cascading impacts for effective adaptation to climate change.