Building UK climate resilience through bridging the qualitative-quantitative data divide

英国最近经历了几次高强度的洪水，干旱，沿海洪水和风暴，例如2015-16年冬季，估计成本在13 - 19亿英镑之间（环境署2018）。目前的气候抗御能力是基于在短时间内积累的经验，而理解极端事件的传统方法往往基于相对较短的系列。因此，准确估计和理解高震级低概率事件具有挑战性。然而，历史记录可以质疑和背景化的独特性，无与伦比的规模或严重性往往与当代极端风暴，洪水，干旱或沿海洪水有关的索赔;解决短记录所呈现的数据缺口。现有若干整理文件材料数据库，详细介绍了过去的普通和极端气候和水文事件，也详细介绍了社区和社会如何应对，证明了风险评估、适应或复原力规划中没有经常使用的宝贵信息。该项目通过建立一个跨学科的研究人员和最终用户网络来应对这些挑战，该网络来自一系列学科（包括人文科学，科学，工程和社会科学），以确定关键的研究差距，并建立一个范围界定网络，该网络将确定弥合气候和水文科学中定性-定量数据差距的方法。在此过程中，它解决了英国气候变化风险评估确定的六个关键挑战领域中的四个：一）洪水和沿海变化对社区，企业和基础设施的风险;二）温度升高对健康，福祉和生产力的风险;三）公共供水以及农业，能源生产和工业缺水的风险，对淡水生态的影响;对自然资本的风险，包括土壤、沿海、海洋和淡水生态系统以及生物多样性。这种合作显然是有用的，也是必要的，因为目前的洪水风险评估在法律上有义务在授予新的发展规划许可之前考虑历史信息，作为规划过程的一部分。大多数供水公司的干旱计划现在通过历史上知情的分析来评估长期时间尺度上的干旱风险。然而，仍然需要更好地了解如何使用和介绍这一信息，特别是帮助告知社会和社区的复原力。我们将举办三次研讨会来应对这一挑战。每个研讨会都有一个特别的重点：i）探索现有定性数据集的启动范围界定活动（@RGS伦敦）; ii）研讨会重点关注数据集之间的桥梁和潜在的新方法（@利物浦）; iii）探索历史信息和数据如何为最广泛的受众提供最大的效用，以改善未来的气候服务，从而提高抵御能力（@Met Office档案）。研讨会的一个主要成果是制定一项新的协议，以弥合定量和定性数据集之间的“数据差距”，研讨会还将讨论有关定性来源在提供更全面的气候服务方面的潜在价值的长期问题，同时建立一个能够塑造此类服务的跨学科专家网络。

The UK has witnessed several recent high magnitude floods, droughts, coastal floods and storms, such as winter 2015-16 with estimated costs of between £1.3-1.9 billion (Environment Agency 2018). Current climate resilience is based on experiences garnered over short timescales, with conventional approaches to extreme event understanding often based on relatively short series. As such, the accurate estimation and understanding of high-magnitude low-probability events is challenging. However, historical records can contest and contextualise claims of uniqueness, unparalleled magnitude or severity often associated with contemporary extreme storms, floods, droughts or coastal flooding; addressing the data gap presented by short records. Several databases of collated documentary materials exist, detailing both past mundane and extreme climatic and hydrological events, but also detailing how communities and societies have responded, proving valuable information not routinely used in risk assessment, adaption or resilience planning. This project addresses these challenges, by building an interdisciplinary network of researchers and end-users from across a range of disciplines (including humanities, sciences, engineering and social sciences) to identify key research gaps and build a scoping network that will identify an approach to bridge the qualitative-quantitative data gap in the climate and hydrological sciences. In doing so it addresses four of the six key challenge areas identified by the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: i) Flooding and coastal change risks to communities, businesses and infrastructure; ii) Risks to health, well-being and productivity from higher temperatures; iii) Risks of water deficits in public water supply, and for agriculture, energy generation and industry, with impacts on freshwater ecology; and iv) Risks to natural capital, including soils, coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems, and biodiversity. There is clear utility and need for such collaboration, as current flood risk assessments are now legally obliged to consider historical information prior to new development planning permission being granted, as part of the planning process. Most water utility drought plans now assess drought risk over long-term timescales through historically informed analysis. However, there remains a need for greater understanding in how to use and present this information, particularly to help inform societal and community resilience. We will hold three workshops to address this challenge. Each workshop will have a particular focus: i) start-up scoping event exploring existent qualitative datasets (@RGS London); ii) workshop focused on bridging across datasets and potential new approaches (@Liverpool); and, iii) exploring how historical information and data can be of greatest utility to the widest audience for improving future climate services and thus for improving resilience (@Met Office archives). A key outcome of the workshops will be the development of a new protocol for bridging the 'data gap' across quantitative-qualitative datasets.The workshops will also address longer-term questions around the potential value of qualitative sources in the provision of more holistic climate services, while creating an interdisciplinary network of experts able to shape such services.