You are here: Home / Pathfinder / Identifying adaptation needs / Impacts or capacity / Impact analysis

Seek expert consensus

Expert judgment methods can be appropriate in regions where availability of quantitative data is poor. A number of methods exist addressing the task of seeking consensus amongst experts including the Delphi method. An alternative or complementary approach to quantitative indicator studies elicits the involvement of stakeholders in agreeing upon the main issues and responses for assessing vulnerability to climate change. This new model of knowledge production for vulnerability assessments goes beyond the traditional one-way flow of information from science into policy. Stakeholder involvement can take many forms, often dependent on the scale of analysis and purpose of the impact assessment.

AP interactive decision tree - click any node to select it

Question addressed

How can the context-appropriate knowledge of communities, and technical expertise of experts, contribute to the robustness of the vulnerability assessment?

Conditions of applicability

Data on potential vulnerability drivers as appropriate to context.

Theoretical assumptions

The stakeholders that will experience climate change (depending on the scale of analysis) have valid knowledge and experience which can be used to add value to vulnerability assessments.

Steps taken

1. Identification of salient domains 2. Selection of drivers and strategies by stakeholders 3. Knowledge representation

Results achieved

A more robust and comprehensive vulnerability assessment.

Issues involved

[text to be added]

Example cases from literature

[text to be added]


Read more in the Toolbox under the following category:

Expert judgment

Toolbox detail page(s) available for:

Policy Exercise

This section is based on the UNEP PROVIA guidance document

Criteria checklist

1. You want to assess vulnerability.
2. Your focus is on impacts.
3. Studies on future impacts are available.
4. The available studies are comprehensive and credible.
5. Results of available studies are ambiguous regarding impacts.