Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

==== 1.2.1.1 Risk Framing ====

<div id="h3-1-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Risk''' in this report is defined as the potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems, recognising the diversity of values and objectives associated with such systems. In the context of climate change impacts, risks result from dynamic interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure and vulnerability of the affected human or ecological system. In the context of climate change responses, risks result from the potential for such responses not achieving the intended objective(s), or from potential trade-offs or negative side effects (see Annex II: Glossary). '''Risk management''' is defined as plans, actions, strategies or policies to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse potential consequences, based on assessed or perceived risks (see Annex II: Glossary).

Risk framing is increasingly used to assess climate change impacts on human and natural systems (Sections 1.2.4.1; 16.1; 17.3; Cross-Chapter Box CLIMATE in Chapter 1; [[#IPCC--2012|IPCC, 2012]] ; [[#Mach--2017|Mach and Field, 2017]] ; [[#O’Neill--2017|]] [[#O’Neill--2017|O’Neill et al., 2017]] ; [[#Connelly--2018|Connelly et al., 2018]] ; see also [[#Oppenheimer--2014|Oppenheimer et al., 2014]] ). A risk framing reflects key dimensions of the climate challenge. These features include the changing likelihoods of many different outcomes (including adverse consequences and beneficial opportunities), uncertainties that will persist, and different and contested values, priorities and goals ( [[#Jones--2011|Jones and Preston, 2011]] ; [[#Mach--2016|Mach et al., 2016]] ). The IPCC AR6 and associated special reports apply a broad definition of risk. WGI Cross-Chapter Box 1.3. WGI uses the Climatic Impact Driver terminology, rather than hazard, to neutrally assess changing climatic conditions that are relevant to human and natural systems, leaving the determination of positive/negative consequences and resulting impacts and risks for WGII assessment (WGI Section 12.3). In most cases, throughout this WGII report, the term ‘risk’ refers to the risks of climate change impacts. The full assessment, however, incorporates all relevant risks from climate change impacts and responses.

The broad definition of risk involves quantitative and integrative understandings of risk ( [[#Oppenheimer--2014|Oppenheimer et al., 2014]] ; [[#Mach--2017|Mach and Field, 2017]] ; see also Section 17.3). Risk is sometimes defined as the probability of a consequence, multiplied by the magnitude of that consequence, acknowledging both the diversity of possible consequences and the relevance of values. Yet it also applies in circumstances where probabilities cannot be fully quantified (e.g., [[#Adger--2013|Adger et al., 2013]] ). For example, in some cases the probability and magnitude of consequences may be more uncertain, dependent on complex dimensions of the climate (e.g., a cyclone, high tide, and heatwave co-occurring) or the vulnerability of different communities (e.g., the ways in which social networks and community cohesion support the most vulnerable individuals during disasters) ( [[#Ford--2018|Ford et al., 2018]] ). The determinants of risk vary dynamically through space and time ( [[#Jurgilevich--2017|Jurgilevich et al., 2017]] ; [[#Viner--2020|Viner et al., 2020]] ). They interact, compound, and cascade ( [[#Dawson--2015|Dawson, 2015]] ; Adger et al., 2018; see also Section 16.1.2).

Risk framing supports connections with solutions ( [[#Jones--2011|Jones and Preston, 2011]] ; [[#Mach--2016|Mach et al., 2016]] ; Adger et al., 2018). First, risk framing connects the present with the future. (Papathoma-Kohle et al., 2016). For instance, whether wildfire or drought, recent experiences have demonstrated limits to current response capacities relevant to future preparedness (e.g., evacuation of large communities on tight time frames or water management simultaneously responsive to intensifying drought and flooding). Second, risk framing emphasises that uncertainties and complex interactions are integral to decision making ( [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ; [[#Dawson--2015|Dawson, 2015]] ). The uncertainties include high-impact, low-probability outcomes and deep uncertainties for which core processes are not understood and meaningful probabilities cannot be applied ( [[#Adler--2016|Adler et al., 2016]] ; see also Section 17.2.1; Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in Chapter 17; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7|Chapter 7]] in SRCCL, [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ; Cross-Chapter Box 5 in SROCC, [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ). In these circumstances, risk assessment can occur through tools used for risk management across contexts, such as insurance, business, social protection, security and policy planning, and decision making can be iterative and support dynamic adaptive pathways through time ( [[#Jones--2011|Jones and Preston, 2011]] ; [[#Watkiss--2015|Watkiss et al., 2015]] ; [[#Aven--2016|Aven, 2016]] ; see also Section 17.3.2)

'''Iterative risk management''' ( [[#Vervoort--2018|Vervoort and Gupta, 2018]] ) emphasises that anticipating and responding to climate change does not consist of a single set of judgements at a single point in time, but rather an ‘ongoing cycle of assessment, action, reassessment, learning and response ( [[#USGCRP--2018|USGCRP, 2018]] ). It is consistent with most approaches applied for implementing adaptation ( [[#Jones--2011|Jones and Preston, 2011]] ; [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ). For instance, the Paris Agreement is organised as a polycentric process (see Section 1.4) of iterative risk management in which national governments pledge to take specific actions. Those actions are monitored and assessed, and nations asked to update their pledges in light of that assessment.

<div id="1.2.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="vulnerability"></span>