The following paper has been published in the international peer-reviewed journal Sustainability Science, which reveals novel insights in the context of limits to adaptation and transformational risk management for tackling residual risks (WP3):
Mechler, R., Singh, C., Ebi, K., Djalante, R., Thomas, A., James, R., Tschakert, P., Wewerinke-Singh, M., Schinko, T. et al. (2020). Loss and Damage and limits to adaptation: recent IPCC insights and implications for climate science and policy. Sustainability Science DOI:10.1007/s11625-020-00807-9. Available (open access) at:

Interim Project Results – November 2020

The stakeholder and governance map displays the connections between individuals and institutions active in the field of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, both of which are part of a comprehensive climate risk management approach and relevant for L&D issues (WP1).

Figure 1: Stakeholder and governance map for Austria

The initial assessment of the interviews carried out with Austrian experts are described in the following (WP1 & WP4):
• The main concerns regarding potential limits to adaptation in Austria, include increases in precipitation extremes and heat stress, but also greater socioeconomic vulnerability due to non-climatic factors such as the increased exposure of assets due to wealth increases as well as building and zoning choices.
• Extreme heat and drought are of particular concern for certain regions in Austria, disproportionately affecting the agricultural and forestry sectors, as well as more vulnerable parts of the population such as the sick and elderly. The loss of forests not only affects livelihoods and leisure, but also the availability of territory and human safety due to the importance of protection forests. Storms and stronger wind also significantly contribute to observed and predicted damages.
• Risks posed by floods and alpine hazards were mentioned but are not considered to be main sources of concern or potential impacts beyond affected communities’ ability to adapt due to the long tradition of technical risk management in Austria. The voluntary relocation of inhabitants in the Eferdinger Becken after heavy flooding in 2013, however, is a recent example of a measure with a more transformative impact, highlighting the growing insufficiencies of traditional flood risk management measures.

The literature review in WP2 showed that the science debate is focused on the general understanding of L&D and on how to properly quantify tangible and intangible dimensions of it. The applied literature is predominantly concerned with questions regarding what factors to include in the L&D assessment, how to measure them, what data to collect, how to store it and how to translate data into condensed but meaningful, policy-relevant information. Risk metrics are still a marginal issue.

Figure 2. Conceptual TransLoss CRM framework. Source: Own conceptualization based on Schinko et al. (2015, 2018) and GIZ et al. (2018)

We have further developed the conceptual CRM framework that has been introduced in the context of L&D by previous ACRP-funded research. Specifically, we have further extended the previous 6-step approach by two more steps, which now better highlights the two closely interlinked elements of the CRM framework: (i) climate risk assessment and (ii) decision making, implementation and monitoring of CRM measures (WP3).

Downloads 2020
TransLoss Flyer (Deutsche Version)
TransLoss Flyer (English Version)