TY  - JOUR
A1  - Otto, Antje
A1  - Kellermann, Patric
A1  - Thieken, Annegret
A1  - Costa, Maria Manez
A1  - Carmona, Maria
A1  - Bubeck, Philip
T1  - Risk reduction partnerships in railway transport infrastructure in an alpine environment
JF  - International journal of disaster risk reduction
N2  - The transport sector is crucial for the functioning of modern societies and their economic welfares. However, it is vulnerable to natural hazards since damage and disturbances appear recurrently. Risk management of transport infrastructure is a complex task that usually involves various stakeholders from the public and private sector. Related scientific knowledge, however, is limited so far. Therefore, this paper presents detailed information on the risk management of the Austrian railway operator gathered through literature studies, in interviews, meetings and workshops. The findings reveal three decision making levels of risk reduction: 1) a superordinate level for the negotiation of frameworks and guidelines, 2) a regional to local level for the planning and implementation of structural measures and 3) a regional to local level for non-structural risk reduction measures and emergency management. On each of these levels, multi-sectoral partnerships exist that aim at reducing the risk to railway infrastructure. Chosen partnerships are evaluated applying the Capital Approach Framework and some collaborations are analyzed considering the flood and landslide events in June 2013. The evaluation reveals that the risk management of the railway operator and its partners has been successful, but there is still potential for enhancement. Difficulties are seen for instance in obtaining continuity of employees and organizational structures which can affect personal contacts and mutual trust and might hamper sharing data and experiences. Altogether, the case reveals the importance of multi-sectoral partnerships that are seen as a crucial element of risk management in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
KW  - Risk governance
KW  - Risk reduction partnerships
KW  - Transport sector
KW  - Capital Approach Framework (CAF)
KW  - Austria
Y1  - 2018
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.025
SN  - 2212-4209
VL  - 33
SP  - 385
EP  - 397
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Warszawski, Lila
A1  - Kriegler, Elmar
A1  - Lenton, Timothy M.
A1  - Gaffney, Owen
A1  - Jacob, Daniela
A1  - Klingenfeld, Daniel
A1  - Koide, Ryu
A1  - Costa, María Máñez
A1  - Messner, Dirk
A1  - Nakicenovic, Nebojsa
A1  - Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim
A1  - Schlosser, Peter
A1  - Takeuchi, Kazuhiko
A1  - van der Leeuw, Sander
A1  - Whiteman, Gail
A1  - Rockström, Johan
T1  - All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C
BT  - a scenario appraisal
JF  - Environmental research letters
N2  - Climate science provides strong evidence of the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The IPCC 1.5 °C special report (SR1.5) presents 414 emissions scenarios modelled for the report, of which around 50 are classified as '1.5 °C scenarios', with no or low temperature overshoot. These emission scenarios differ in their reliance on individual mitigation levers, including reduction of global energy demand, decarbonisation of energy production, development of land-management systems, and the pace and scale of deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. The reliance of 1.5 °C scenarios on these levers needs to be critically assessed in light of the potentials of the relevant technologies and roll-out plans. We use a set of five parameters to bundle and characterise the mitigation levers employed in the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios. For each of these levers, we draw on the literature to define 'medium' and 'high' upper bounds that delineate between their 'reasonable', 'challenging' and 'speculative' use by mid century. We do not find any 1.5 °C scenarios that stay within all medium upper bounds on the five mitigation levers. Scenarios most frequently 'over use' CDR with geological storage as a mitigation lever, whilst reductions of energy demand and carbon intensity of energy production are 'over used' less frequently. If we allow mitigation levers to be employed up to our high upper bounds, we are left with 22 of the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios with no or low overshoot. The scenarios that fulfil these criteria are characterised by greater coverage of the available mitigation levers than those scenarios that exceed at least one of the high upper bounds. When excluding the two scenarios that exceed the SR1.5 carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, this subset of 1.5 °C scenarios shows a range of 15–22 Gt CO2 (16–22 Gt CO2 interquartile range) for emissions in 2030. For the year of reaching net zero CO2 emissions the range is 2039–2061 (2049–2057 interquartile range).
KW  - climate change
KW  - emissions scenarios
KW  - 1.5 ◦C
KW  - negative emissions
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfeec
SN  - 1748-9326
N1  - Corrigendum: 10.1088/1748-9326/acbf6a
VL  - 16
IS  - 6
PB  - IOP Publishing
CY  - Bristol
ER  -