Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in EIA practice —

Perspectives of actors in Austria and Germany
Alexandra Jiricka a,b,⁎, Herbert Formayer a,b, Anna Schmidt a,b, Sonja Völler c, Markus Leitner c,
Thomas B. Fischer d, Thomas F. Wachter e
a
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
b
Department of Landscape, Spatial and Infrastructure Sciences, Institute for Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, Peter-Jordan-Straße 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria
c
Environment Agency Austria, Environmental Impact Assessment and Climate Change, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Wien, Austria
d
Environmental Assessment and Management, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UK
e
Büro für Umweltplanung Dr. Wachter, Wiesnerring 2c, Hamburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Current political discussions and developments indicate the importance and urgency of incorporating climate
Received 19 June 2015 change considerations into EIA processes. The recent revision of the EU Directive 2014/52/EU on Environmental
Received in revised form 16 November 2015 Impact Assessment (EIA) requires changes in the EIA practice of the EU member states. This paper investigates
Accepted 16 November 2015
the extent to which the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can contribute to an early consideration of
Available online xxxx
climate change consequences in planning processes. In particular the roles of different actors in order to incorpo-
Keywords:
rate climate change impacts and adaptation into project planning subject to EIA at the appropriate levels are a
Environmental Impact Assessment core topic. Semi-structured expert interviews were carried out with representatives of the main infrastructure
Climate change adaptation companies and institutions responsible in these sectors in Austria, which have to carry out EIA regularly. In a
Actors second step expert interviews were conducted with EIA assessors and EIA authorities in Austria and Germany,
in order to examine the extent to which climate-based changes are already considered in EIA processes. This
paper aims to discuss the different perspectives in the current EIA practice with regard to integrating climate
change impacts as well as barriers and solutions identified by the groups of actors involved, namely project de-
velopers, environmental competent authorities and consultants (EIA assessors/practitioners). The interviews
show that different groups of actors consider the topic to different degrees. Downscaling of climate change
scenarios is in this context both, a critical issue with regards to availability of data and costs. Furthermore,
assistance for the interpretation of relevant impacts, to be deducted from climate change scenarios, on the spe-
cific environmental issues in the area is needed. The main barriers identified by the EIA experts therefore include
a lack of data as well as general uncertainty as to how far climate change should be considered in the process
without reliable data but in the presence of knowledge about possible consequences at an abstract level. A
joint strategy on how to cope with uncertain prognoses about main impacts on environmental issues for areas
without reliable data requires a discussion and cooperation between EIA consultants and environmental
authorities.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) and impacts of climate

Consideration of climate change in large-scale projects requiring
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) is increasingly and at times
controversially discussed in the international professional literature. In
the recent amendment of the EIA Directive – Parliament and of the
Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment – climate change is identified as an important new
challenge. In this context, both, impacts of projects on climate change
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alexandra.jiricka@boku.ac.at (A. Jiricka).
change on projects are included. This amendment is connected
with an acceptance that large-scale and long-term investment infra-
structure projects such as highways, power lines, railway lines, urban
developments, airports, and hydropower plants can be affected by
climate change related impacts (Defra, 2011; European Commission
(EC), 2013c) and will require changes to EIA practices in all EU Member
States.
A number of studies and guidelines (e.g. McCallum et al., 2013;
Walker et al., 2013; EC – European Commission, 2013a; EC —
European Commission, 2013b; Byer et al., 2012; Agrawala et al., 2010;
Runge et al., 2010; CARICOM — Caribbean community secretariat,
2004; CEAA — Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2003)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.010
0195-9255/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
have suggested that EIA, in particular in combination with SEA (Fischer
et al., 2011; Posas, 2011) has the ability to address climate change issues
and could provide a suitable entry point to incorporate considerations of
climate change impacts and associated adaptation within existing mo-
dalities of project design, approval and implementation. Byer et al.
(2012) and McCallum et al. (2013) consider the stepwise approach of
the EIA procedure to be a good framework for integrating climate
change aspects, enabling its consideration in the design of projects. Fur-
thermore, the European Commission (EC) (2013c), along with authors
such as Fischer and Sykes (2007), expect the integration of climate
change in existing project development structures and processes –
such as EIA and SEA – to be more effective than the development of sep-
arate/new assessment instruments (see also European Commission
(EC), 2013c). Elsewhere, Ohsawa and Duinker (2014) report on the im-
portant role of EIA in climate change mitigation in the Canadian EIA
system.
To date, there has only been little practical experience with incorpo-
rating climate change impacts and adaptation into project development
and EIA in the EU. Larsen (2014) examined integration of climate
change aspects into EIA practice in Denmark. Her study showed that if
at all, only climate mitigation aspects rather than adaptation were
considered (in 18 out 19 EIAs). Earlier, Kamau and Mwaura (2013)
had already revealed an absence of consideration of climate change in
Kenian EIA practice. Their findings point at a lack of knowledge amongst
EIA practitioners. Several studies on climate change adaptation, such as
Brown and Harvey (2009) and Newig (2007) highlighted the role of
groups of actors involved as main multipliers of integrating climate
change related topics into planning and assessment. Miller and Bowen
(2013) stress the necessity to engage with stakeholders in the assess-
ment and discussion of climate change related vulnerability. The per-
spectives of stakeholders (in the following addressed as actors)
involved in EIA processes are therefore an important step to further in-
tegrate climate change impacts and adaptation options into EIA
practice.
This paper is based on the results of the two-year research project
“envisage-cc”, funded under the Austrian Climate Research Program.
In this project, the capabilities and perspectives of actors involved in
EIA and the planning of projects subject to EIA were examined. In
order to meet project aims, interviews with EIA experts were conducted
in Austria and extended to Germany later because EIA systems are high-
ly comparable and it was felt that further good practice may thus be
identified. Both countries have been portrayed in the professional liter-
ature as frontrunners in integrating environmental policies (Schmidt,
2011; Knill et al., 2012) and in applying environmental precautionary
planning.
In this paper, the consideration of climate change impacts in EIA in
Austria and Germany and, in this context, the potential to consider
adaptation to the changing climate are explored. Barriers perceived by
different actors involved in EIA and project planning as well as solutions
are identified. A particular focus is put on the differences between
different target groups.
2. Background
2.1. Climate change impacts for projects subject to EIA
The consideration of climate change impacts and associated adapta-
tion in projects subject to EIA can apply to a project itself (keyword
“climate proofing”), as well as to the environmental impacts surround-
ing it. Jiricka et al. (2014) suggested categorization of climate change-
related consequences for EIA as follows (adapted from Birkmann and
Fleischhauer (2009) and Runge et al. (2010)):
• direct impacts of climate change on projects;
• indirect impacts on projects, which are associated with the project en-
vironment; and
79
• changes of impacts on the environment by projects caused by an in-
creased vulnerability of environmental issues.
Climate change can lead to a change of the frequency and intensity of
meteorological phenomena (EC — European Commission, 2013a,b).
Extreme events, in particular, are of high relevance for large-scale infra-
structure projects (Altvater et al., 2011). Various authors (including
Haurie et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2008, and Swart and Biesbroek,
2008) have looked at the consequences of extreme rainfall, including
e.g. overloaded drainage systems and floods. Altered temperature con-
ditions, in particular heat-waves or the number of heat days per year
and shifts between freezing and thawing can directly impact energy
infrastructures (Sathaye et al., 2013; Eskeland et al., 2008) and road sur-
faces (Harvey, 2004; Enei et al., 2011). Impacts can happen either
through damage to the project infrastructure itself or through reduced
functionality and thus profitability of the project, for example, through
short or long-term restrictions on its operation. Negative impacts on a
project can also be indirectly associated with the project environment
considered in EIA. Table 1 lists direct and indirect impacts, both of
which could be caused by the same causes. In the event that environ-
mental issues change continuously as a consequence of a changing
climate (e.g. altered soil characteristics), serious consequences for the
technical construction of a project can also arise. In alpine areas, indirect
effects of intense localised rainfall can include landslides, mudslides and
unstable slopes (Stoffel and Huggel, 2012). These, in turn, can lead to
considerable costs due to reconstruction measures, blockage of strategi-
cally important routes, network failures or even physical injury to
persons (Altvater et al., 2011; Birkmann et al., 2010). Thawing of perma-
frost can lead to instability of high-lying infrastructure (Jochem and
Schade, 2009; Nelson et al., 2001; Gruber and Haeberli, 2007). Further-
more, in lower and mid-range altitudes, a rise in winter temperatures
could lead to an increase in precipitation on unfrozen ground. This, in
turn, can increase the risk of unstable slopes and landslides. Increased
soil sensitivity should therefore be taken into account in project plan-
ning, including issues such as site selection, depth of foundations, and
slope stability. A rise in the frequency of fires on embankments and in
nearby (protective) forests (Leidinger et al., 2013; Birkmann et al.,
2010) could also arise as an indirect effect on projects. In Germany, ad-
ditional effects of climate change have to be taken in account. For exam-
ple, along the North Sea, sea level rise can increase the danger of
flooding. Coastal management is therefore of great importance (e.g.
Knieling et al., 2009).
The project environment and the biophysical environment within
which EIAs are applied can be affected by climate change. In this
context, McCallum et al. (2013), for example, described the cumulative
impacts that can arise when the “baseline environment” is influenced
by climate change. These impacts provide important information to de-
scribe the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
(baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof with-
out implementation of a project, which Article 5 (1) No. 3 of the
Table 1
Examples for direct and indirect impacts of meteorological phenomena on major projects.
Meteorological Possible direct impact Possible indirect impact
phenomena
Intense Obstruction of railways and Increased soil erosion and risk of
localised roads through strong snowfall landslides (e.g. ski slopes/power
precipitation and damages to infrastructure lines on slopes)
through wet snow
Storms Deactivation of wind turbines Storm damage to trees and
related obstruction of railways,
roads, power lines
Heat/drought Overheating of Forest fires
materials/electricity facilities
Sea level rise Flooding of coastal zones Dam failure and flooding of
countries downstream
80 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88

Table 2 observed that invasive species such as Robinia pseudoacacia could dis-
EIA experts interviewed in Austria and Germany. place native species. A rise in mean annual temperatures can also lead
EIA experts to a change in pest pressure and infestation and subsequently to a
Federal state Austria Germany
changed species composition. In some cases, these altered conditions
could cause increased slope instability. Stoffel et al. (2014) as well as
Vienna 4
Stoffel and Huggel (2012), for example, have reported increased ground
Lower Austria 3
Upper Austria 2 movement and rockfall events. Due to an increase in mean annual tem-
Burgenland 1 peratures, a rise in water temperatures and associated change in oxygen
Styria 2 levels have already been observed which could lead to shifts and losses
Tyrol 3 of species in rivers, streams and lakes, particularly in greyling and trout
Lower Saxony 5
Schleswig–Holstein 1
regions (Melcher et al., 2012; Schmid et al., 2014). Pletterbauer et al.
Hesse 1 (2012) also discuss climate change-related changes in river flow re-
Northrhine–Westfalia 3 gimes and impacts on Austrian fish overall. Seasonally altered runoff in-
Hamburg 1 tensities (not only intense rainfall and glacial melt but also low water
Total 15 11
levels) amplify the altered habitat conditions.
Environmental issue expertise Austria Germany With regards to human population and health, the anticipated rise of
thermal discomfort leading to an increase in health impacts (heat stroke
Soil 5 1
Water 5 0
and even deaths; see Robine et al., 2008) have already been identified as
Flora/fauna/biodiversity 6 1 relevant issues in urban development (WHO — Word Health
Air/climate 1 0 Organization, 2012). For EIA, the question is how these potential effects
EIA-coordination 2 9 change the description, prognosis and assessment of the impacts of the
Total 19 (more than one category possible) 11
project on the environment.
Role in EIA Austria Germany
2.2. Working under complexity regarding climate change impacts in EIA
Environmental authority 9 2
EIA consultant 3 9
Double role 3 0 There are different challenges for developing a standardised proce-
Total 15 11 dure for EIAs where climate change impacts are dealt with according
to the new EIA Directive 2014/52/EU. Runge et al. (2010) as well as
Davoudi et al. (2009) described approaches to recognising the
amended EIA Directive 2014/52/EU requires. Furthermore, information consequences of climate change in project planning and EIA. Just like
of climate change impacts on the project environment influences the in other studies (e.g. Refsgaard et al., 2013; Agrawala et al., 2010 or
analysis of the sensitivity and/or consideration of mitigation measures CEAA — Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2003) however,
that are elaborated on within EIA processes (EC — European the authors found serious difficulties in dealing with uncertain progno-
Commission, 2013a). In addition, information about the development ses and decision-making under uncertainty.
of the environment is necessary to establish indirect impacts on pro- What is often referred to as “climate proofing”, has certain limita-
jects, associated with the project environment. tions. Main challenges of integrating climate change in project design
Subsequently, a sample of environmental effects is described. The mentioned in nearly all studies include the complexity and multi-
effects included here are of particularly importance for projects in the sectoral nature of climate change as well as the long time dimensions
Alpine Region. To start with, climate change may lead to a change of of the changing climate conditions (e.g. EC — European Commission,
mean annual temperatures and altered precipitation regimes. This 2013b; Agrawala et al., 2010; Runge and Wachter, 2010). Birkmann
may lead to shifts in the distribution ranges and composition of species and Fleischhauer (2009) foresee new challenges regarding changes
(Essl and Rabitsch, 2013; Essl et al., 2009). For example, climate change without linear predictability, which is likely to complicate adherence
is expected to alter the migration behaviour of some animal species. to threshold values and legal requirements – as is currently common
Changes are already observed in the case of amphibians and birds practice in Austrian EIAs – or could even require such practice to be
(Valiela and Bowen, 2003; Li et al., 2013; Araújo and Luoto, 2007). reconsidered.
Changes in migratory behaviour have also been observed for certain The topics described above are not just connected with technical
bat species (e.g. common noctule) (Sherwin et al., 2013; Rebelo et al., challenges and knowledge specific to regional circumstances, but in-
2010). Species with limited migratory capacity, as well as those restrict- volve strategies for appropriate transdisciplinary knowledge transfer
ed by geographic barriers or a lack of habitat connectivity are also between actors. Applied knowledge about the best way to transfer
threatened by climate change, mainly because they cannot evade al- and consider climate change impacts and risks in planning practice to
tered conditions (Valiela and Bowen, 2003; O'Dunn and Moller, 2013). date has remained limited (Rannow et al., 2010; Fischer, 1999). Some
Stenoecious species, already endangered species (red-list species) and authors consider more and better information as one of the main
species adapted to cool and humid climates are considered to be the needs for climate change adaptation (e.g. Biesbroek et al. 2010). What
most vulnerable to climate change (Balas et al., 2010). will be key is appropriate trans-disciplinary communication of complex
Especially in alpine and high alpine areas, changes to favourable con- scientific issues in a way that is comprehensible and appropriate to dia-
ditions for plant and animal species adapted to warmer and drier cli- logue partners (target groups) (Akerlof et al., 2012; Roeser, 2012;
mates have already been observed (Dullinger et al., 2012, Gottfried Moser, 2010; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). The knowledge of relevant groups
et al., 2012). New competition situations are arising through other ther- of actors of current as well as future vulnerability builds the basis for
mophilic species, both native and alien. Particularly in high alpine pro- considering the changing climatic conditions, focusing on likely climate
jects subject to EIA, such as ski pists and high-voltage power lines, this change impacts (European Commission (EC), 2013c). Climate change
could become an issue when assessing the rarity of species or the recov- interacts with many other environmental and social aspects and factors
erability of habitats (Rehnus et al., 2013). Besides the consideration of affecting human and natural systems. This is why climate change im-
altered habitat conditions when assessing the baseline situation of pacts and adaptation options cannot be considered separately. It rather
flora, fauna and habitats, changes also need to be considered when con- requires an interactive approach, applying trans-disciplinary communi-
ceiving mitigation and compensation measures. Another climate cation (Byer et al., 2012). Even when there are standards for knowledge
change impact on vegetation was illustrated by Essl et al. (2011) who transfer, future EIA is likely to be more complex than today because
 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
many phases of the planning process require an adjustment on the basis
of climate change knowledge.
3. Underlying methodology
The central research questions addressed in this paper are:
- What is the current level of awareness for the effects of climate
change amongst different groups of actors (public environmental
authorities, EIA consultants) involved in EIA of large infrastructure
projects?
- To what extent are these issues considered in current EIA practices
in Austria and Germany?
- What phases of EIA are best suited for the consideration of climate
change and the potential for adaptation to climate change in the fu-
ture according to the different groups of actors?
- What are the barriers to the integration of climate change impacts in
EIA practices according to the different groups of actors?
- What solutions do actors involved in EIA suggest for a better consid-
eration of climate change impacts in the future?
- What are the limits to consider climate change impacts in EIA?
In order to answer these questions, first, existing guidelines on EIA
and climate change adaptation were analysed. In this context, the
focus was on process — assessing how the project environment can be
incorporated into project planning itself, and where advantages for an
early consideration of climate change effects might thereby arise. The
analysis of the guidelines served as baseline for the development of
the interviews, in order to identify “crucial steps” where possible inte-
gration of climate change impacts in project planning through EIA can
best occur.
The results thus obtained are connected with a detailed analysis of
the possible vulnerability to climate change of different project types.
Results are summarised in a support document for project developers,
prepared within the “envisage-cc” project (Dallhammer et al., 2014).
Semi-structured interviews and two stakeholder workshops with
Austrian proponents were used to gauge the awareness for climate
change consequences and the necessity and possibility of adaptation
measures.
3.1. Semi-structured expert interviews
Fifteen semi-structured expert interviews were carried out face-to-
face between October 2013 and April 2014 with representatives from
the main infrastructure companies and institutions (altogether nine
project developers in the following sectors — railways, federal roads,
skiing slopes and ropeways, golf courses, waterways, wind energy,
water power, power grids and large housing infrastructure) in Austria.
These conduct EIAs regularly.
The interviews focused on the following questions:
- Have climate change impacts been considered in project planning
and EIA so far?
- At what stage of the planning process are they considered?
- Since when have climate change impacts become a topic of consid-
eration in the company/institution?
- What data are included in the planning process in order to gain in-
formation on climate change impacts and for integration into the
planning process?
- What is the support needed for the future consideration of climate
change in project planning (e.g. guidance, data sheets)?
To further examine the perspectives of actors, interviews were con-
ducted by phone between May 2014 and September 2014 with EIA as-
sessors from competent environmental authorities and EIA consultants.
81
In a small country like Austria, the number of EIA experts is limited. This
is a reason for German experts also being involved at times in Austrian
EIA. In order to provide an overview of the consideration of climate
change in EIA in both countries, a total of 26 experts - 15 from Austria
and 11 from Germany - were interviewed. Table 2 summarises origin
and expertise of the interviewees.
Interviews contained the following questions:
- At which stages of EIA (screening, scoping, zero-option, assessment
of alternatives, assessment of environmental impacts, mitigation
and compensation measures, monitoring) is climate change current-
ly considered?
- For which environmental issues is climate change relevant?
- What are the sources providing relevant information on climate
change in EIA? Where is knowledge on climate change for inclusion
in EIA gained (e.g. scientific publications, conferences, informal ex-
change with colleagues)?
- At what stages of EIA (screening, scoping, zero-variant, assessment
of alternatives, assessment of environmental impacts, mitigation
and compensation measures, monitoring) would it be important to
consider climate change impacts in the future?
- What are the barriers for the integration of climate change impacts
in EIA?
- What may be future solutions to facilitate integration of climate
change impacts in EIA?
In preparing interviews, main topics were distributed beforehand
to interviewees. The main focus of the interviews was adaptation to
climate change impacts. The interviewed EIA experts represent all
major project types according to the sectors mentioned before, for
which EIA is carried out in Austria (many have expertise in several
sectors), and those that are most frequently subject to EIA in
Germany.
3.2. Computer-aided analysis of data
Analysis of interview results was conducted with the programme
MaxQDA 11, a common software package for qualitative data analysis
(QDA). Here, through computer-aided analysis, codes “are displayed
in the text itself, […] are always visible and can be edited anytime”
(Kuckartz et al., 2007, p. 18). Thereby, clarity was ensured during anal-
ysis, despite a large amount of data provided by the transcripts.
Qualitative content analysis following Mayring (2010) was also con-
ducted. For this purpose, firstly, material was screened and relevant text
passages were highlighted. They were sorted according to the topics of
the interviews (status quo of EIA practice/“consideration of climate
change so far”, relevance for the future/“consideration in future”, obsta-
cles/“barriers”, and proposals for “future solutions”). Then, categories
were defined inductively (from within the material). The pre-sorted
thematic correspondence to the research questions as well as the ques-
tions from the interview guidelines formed the basis of this process.
From that, categories and subcategories were developed and combined
into a set of coding guidelines. Assigning the interview statements to
subcategories often proved challenging, as statements often addressed
more than one topic at a time. Furthermore, they often addressed
non-specified uncertainties regarding the handling of climate change.
A first in-depth analysis of the material was conducted after an initial
round of interviews. All important text passages were highlighted and
assigned to the now refined categories. Some more subcategories
were added during this step. Possible sources of errors resulting from
the ambiguity of expressions, wrongly or imprecisely recorded thematic
references or substituted terms (see Mayring, 2010, pp. 110–111) were
reduced by using the automatic coding function of the QDA software in
addition to human screening of data. Text passages added by this meth-
od were inspected carefully to ensure they matched the context of their
82 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
respective categories. During this process, the categories were
reappraised with regards to their suitability and were adjusted where
necessary.
4. Results
4.1. Awareness and perception of project developers
During the course of the interviews with proponents – in Austria re-
ferred to as project developers (=PD) – some differences with regard to
the consideration of climate change in different projects became appar-
ent. Subsequently, some statements by interview partners that illustrate
the different levels of importance attributed to the topic of climate
change adaptation by interviewees are presented. One interviewee stat-
ed, “The consequences of climate change are currently not an issue in our
project development”. Another interviewee suggested “Questions related
to climate change play a subordinate role in new construction projects. The
given natural conditions and circumstances, on the other hand, are natural-
ly already considered”. One interviewee also suggested “Climate change is
an issue in various project phases” and that “Climate change always plays a
role in project development — be it directly or indirectly”, PD4. Determin-
ing factors of the consideration of climate change are connected with
the size of the company and the number of large-scale projects conduct-
ed that require EIA.
In infrastructure companies, climate change was quite strongly asso-
ciated with natural hazard management, as the following statements
from interviewees who work in transport planning show: “In the re-
sponsibility of [company] XX, climate change effects are largely only an in-
direct issue, mainly connected with the consideration of natural hazards
and natural hazard management”, PD5. “We develop natural hazard
plans, consider danger potentials, evaluate risk, and develop and prioritise
measures. Furthermore monitoring of natural hazards is conducted”, PD2.
“An estimation of future changes regarding site selection and natural haz-
ards (according to the current state of knowledge) lies within the responsi-
bility of the geological assessment”, PD1.
In some cases, a dedicated person responsible for climate change
matters (adaptation and/or mitigation) had been instated. In this con-
text, it became apparent that people with an educational background
in the natural sciences (e.g. forest managers and agricultural engineers)
had a different perspective on long-term effects of climate change (e.g. a
longer vegetation period) than, for example, technical engineers and
economists.
There were also some distinct differences in terms of the time that
climate change effects had already been an issue for companies. Several
of the project developers have already taken into account certain mete-
orological factors for several years. However, actually considering cli-
mate change in EIA is new to many. “We have been dealing with the
issues of wind and storm gusts since the late 90s, but changes due to climate
change have not yet been considered” (PD8). Therefore, activities directly
connected with climate change have largely only taken place over the
recent past, as was explained, for example by PD2: “In the summer of
2013, we launched a series of internal workshops dealing with the issues
of natural hazards and, subsequently, climate”.
The following statement shows that the issue of climate change ad-
aptation has already become an issue for those companies that have
identified immediate economic implications: “Environmental factors
with the potential to cause [economically significant] disruptions [to
power lines] are avalanches and strong winds, for example. Avalanche
risk is therefore observed and considered during planning and mainte-
nance”, PD1.
Depending on the project type, high economic vulnerability was de-
termined in some cases — especially if climate-related extreme events
should cause significant damage to the project infrastructure itself, or
lead to lengthy shut-downs or periods of restricted operation. In some
cases, the option of a step-by-step climate-adaptation of projects (e.g.
as part of regular maintenance) has remained. Intense localised
precipitation provides a good example in the case of linear projects:
“Proper drainage plays a crucial role when constructing new routes. A con-
stant re-adjustment of drainage system dimensions is necessary in this
case. Measurements of precipitation levels are updated continuously to
form a valid basis of assessment”, PD2.
Specific adaptation measures already covered were only mentioned
in a few cases: “The topic of climate change is increasingly becoming a part
of urban planning. It is important to consider climate change in city con-
struction projects”, PD6. “Heat is playing an increasingly important role.
Therefore, adequate cooling of buildings is becoming more of an issue”,
PD7. “Roof and façade greening will also become more important in the
near future”, PD7.
Uncertain predictions and a lack of regional data were seen as the
greatest obstacles to integration of climate change effects into project
planning. Here, again, companies were dealing with these challenges
in different ways. Some commissioned their own studies: “Climate
change plays a role in this business sector, so [company] XX has joined in-
ternational partners to elaborate research projects on climate
change”(PD3). Others revert to external research results, which often
come with their own set of problems: “We draw our climate change-
related data from various studies. These studies are highly complex and
their outcomes often differ considerably, which reduces their meaningful-
ness to a certain degree” (PD5). Some companies also use their own
data series as a basis for considering climate change effects in planning:
“Therefore, [company] XX has its own observational network at its disposal,
as well as having implemented monitoring of consequences of climate
events” (PD2). “There is regular contact with the research community via
research projects about weather data and prognoses regarding wind ener-
gy. We operate our own meteorological stations, allowing us to monitor the
power line” (PD1).
Interviews revealed that companies have so far paid greater atten-
tion to climate change mitigation (reduction of the greenhouse gases)
than to the adaptation to climate change effects. In this context, the
“Climate and Energy Concept” (BMLFUW, 2010), legally required in
Austria as part of EIA, was referred to by two thirds of the interviewees.
It contains a short description of the possible negative effects on global
climate change caused by the project realisation as well as mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts. This makes Austria one of the
frontrunners within the EU, already considering impacts of projects on
global climate change as well as mitigation strategies within the EIA
process. The references to the “Climate and Energy Concept” demon-
strate that legal requirements do lead to increased attention for a
given subject area. A similar effect can therefore also be expected
when the amended EU EIA Directive will be implemented nationally
in the next few years, and has an effect on project planning. As men-
tioned earlier, a presentation of follow-up implications for a project
and the project environment due to climate change will then become
mandatory.
4.2. Awareness and perception of EIA expert
4.2.1. Consideration of climate change in EIA today
Interviews with EIA experts (consultants and competent authori-
ties) in Austria and Germany (subsequently referred to as A and
G) revealed a general awareness for the increased influence of climate
change on projects. However, it also became clear that adaptation to cli-
mate issues currently receives little attention in EIA practice in both
countries. The following three excerpts reflect statements made by the
majority of the experts interviewed: “So far I have not worked on any
projects that have considered the issue. I also don’t know of any other pro-
jects that picked up on this subject” (G3). “The issue of climate change is not
present in day-to-day planning” (A13). “Regarding present-day large-scale
projects subject to EIA, I can’t think of any examples where these matters
ought to have already been considered. Often, the basic data needed to con-
sider detailed developments are still lacking” (A9). Eleven of the 14
Austrian interviewees and 8 of the 11 German interviewees had not
 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
yet come into contact with the issue of climate change adaptation in
their everyday dealings with EIA matters. Those in Austria have been
in touch with climate change mitigation topics, because of the “climate
and energy concepts” required here. In the other cases, it was either “of
peripheral significance” (G4), had been discussed “very superficially”
(A3) or “a bit” (A6), or had “an indirect influence” only (A14). “In my
experience, this is done quite half-heartedly. In the EIA procedures that I
have been part of, this has always been treated very, very peripherally as
an absolutely subordinate issue” (A3).
While some experts only consider the issue to become relevant in
the next 10 to 20 years, those who already wish to consider climate
change effects in their reports and assessments have difficulties in find-
ing the right methods to facilitate it. This is illustrated by the following
statements of some interviewees: “[Climate change] does indeed play a
role in the discussions during approval procedures, there just isn't very
much of a useful foundation to fall back on. […] [In the case of] the environ-
mental issues of animals and birds, which are particularly relevant for wind
parks, I can't think of a single scenario that I could make use of. Of course
there are all sorts of discussions about faunal change, but these are all prog-
noses, sometimes contradicting each other. Obviously nobody knows
what's really going to happen”, G1. This is confirmed by Rannow et al.
(2010), who point out problems in the transfer of research findings
into planning practice.
According to some interviewees, challenges arise regarding certain
conclusions of climate change scenarios (and associated phenomena).
There also continues to be a general lack of data and information at a re-
gional level. “There just aren't really any tangible and practical, reasonably
certain prognoses that could be utilised at the moment” (G10). “The
projects themselves are obviously quite specific, and the consequences of
climate change on projects are reasonably specific. But regarding the
issue of climate change and its direct consequences on individual affected
parts of an environmental issue, these factors are usually not very specific,
or not specific enough. […] Of course for these matters you need climate
change data with a regional reference, and these tend to be lacking. […]
This problem as a whole hasn't yet really arrived in specific planning prac-
tice due to this uncertainty of current data” (G7).
According to the majority of experts interviewed, there is great un-
certainty as to how environmental changes – identified scientifically
at global or national levels, or already observed in individual studies
or specific regions – will also be relevant under the very specific, region-
al and local project conditions. As a statement by one of the Austrian
experts shows, the main difficulty appears to lie in filtering the suitable
information from the wealth of knowledge currently available: “There is
a lot of information out there, but unfortunately it doesn't come pre-
packaged” (A4).
4.2.2. Outlook
Consequences of climate change can be integrated into the likely
evolution of the environment without implementation of the project
(baseline scenario) related to the amended EIA Directive (in Austria
the so-called ‘zero’ or ‘do nothing’ alternative). However, according to
the experts, there is no certainty with regards to the contribution of cli-
mate change to this development when compared with other influenc-
ing factors (such as changes in land use). This would require long-term
surveys and individual case studies which exceed the scope of an EIA.
Being a long-term issue, climate change is often ascribed to lower so-
cietal and political relevance compared with other short-term matters,
and is therefore often receiving poor attention when weighing up differ-
ent issues. “The developments currently under way are governed by
completely different, much more important factors. […] Well, here in our
region the climate factor is a low priority factor — at least for the moment.
We urgently have to deal with very different topics such as agricultural
subsidy programmes. These are the really decisive issues” (A9).
The interviews with German experts, in particular, often highlighted
that there is comparatively little interest in climate change, mainly be-
cause there are no legal obligations to cover this issue. “If we were
83
already at the stage that this topic was part of the guidelines issued by
the authorities, THEN we could emphasise it accordingly” (G4). “The most
important thing is fulfilling the legal requirements. So far, climate change
does not enter into that equation” (G0). Implementation of the amended
EIA Directive could make a difference to this situation.
According to interviewees, a confounding factor is that regional/local
scenarios specific to certain species or groups of species are still lacking
in many areas in Germany and Austria. These would be necessary to be
able to apply research results from individual studies to other areas (at
the project level). Mandatory declarations, such as e.g. changes in cate-
gory of protected (so-called ‘red-list’) species are important information
that ought to be taken into account in the future. This also goes for large-
scale analyses, such as altered wildlife corridors. The following state-
ment underlines the significance ascribed to the issue by a number of
experts: “Basically, we expect this topic to become relevant for all environ-
mental issues, be it reciprocally or via a feedback loop” (G6). However, the
development of certain habitats, along with the species found there,
does also bare the possibility (or the risk) that climate change might
be used as an argument for better conditions in the future, and that po-
tential threats might be assessed as being less significant. Uncertainty
about other influencing factors which have more “short time effects”
should be taken into account primarily, according to the experts, in
case this argumentation occurs.
One issue where the majority of experts see a particular need to con-
sider climate change consequences is the matter of mitigation measures
elaborated on within the EIA process: “Basically the time frames relevant
to planning processes are always around 10 to 25 years. So climate change
only becomes really relevant for us when we are discussing mitigation or
compensation measures that need to be effective on much larger timescales
[…] — for example this might influence the choice of tree species used for
plantation” (G9). “Since this is a matter that we are actually able to deter-
mine ourselves, we make a particular point of demanding clear statements
from our assessors on whether the planned mitigation measures will actu-
ally be effective in the long term under aspects of climate change” (G6). In
the case of possible mitigation and compensation measures, again, the
problem lies in reliably evaluating climate change as one of the factors
influencing the achievability of development goals. The difficulty lies
e.g. in a meaningful selection of species (e.g. for re-forestation) suited
to the site and the changing conditions.
One suggested solution was the development of ‘change scenarios’,
based on climate development, for the maintenance of mitigation and
compensation sites, and to combine these scenarios with actual results
from monitoring.
4.2.3. Barriers and solutions by segments
A closer look at the groups “EIA consultants” and “Competent au-
thorities” reveals differences in the perception of barriers and the per-
ception of future strategies to cope with challenges posed by climate
change. Both groups mentioned uncertainties at a rather unspecified
level, which hold the integration of climate change impacts in EIA
back: “the topic is much too complex” (G1); “For many people climate
change is very abstract” (A4); “climate change is so far away, it is difficult
to imagine and one does not want to burden processes with this aspect
therefore” (G5).
Nevertheless, both groups differ with regards to certain aspects
which influence the consideration of climate change aspects negatively:
Competent authorities perceive the lack of specific data and reliable
prognoses as a major barrier, linked to uncertainties and a lack of aware-
ness of the topics (see Graph 1).
Whilst EIA consultants identify these challenges, they also consider
the lack of legal requirements to consider climate change as a major
barrier. Around fifteen percent of the overall solutions addressed by
them refer to a lack of obligatory framing conditions (legal standards,
demands by authorities) when asked for barriers. “As long as there are
no legal standards […] we cannot consider the topic climate change
appropriately” (G5).
84 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88

Graph 1. Barriers identified by EIA experts (statements of experts = n) – comparison between consultants and authorities.

Accordingly, solutions suggested by competent authorities involve
in particular further research as well as specified scenarios on habitats
“research results are often too vague to transfer them to a specific exam-
ination area”, (G5) — whereas EIA consultants primarily seek for legally
binding requirements as well as guidelines on the integration of climate
change impacts (see Graph 2). Both groups consider improvements of
data availability an important step to better integrate climate change
topics.
In the following differences between Austria and Germany are exam-
ined (see Graph 3). There are differences in natural and climatic condi-
tions. Responses in this study are partly influenced by the country of
residence as e.g. the identification of impacts in mountainous areas
(which is the majority in Austria) is more complex than in other areas.
Furthermore, differences in the planning systems and planning culture
could have an influence on responses (e.g. Jiricka and Pröbstl, 2007,
2009; Jessel and Butterling, 2013; Fischer et al., 2009; Fischer, 2002). Sev-
eral aspects — such as “inaction”, “inflexibility of the systems” and “fear of
unpopular decisions” are only mentioned in Germany. On the other hand,
many Austrian interviewees mentioned “unspecified uncertainties relat-
ed to climate change”.
There are differences with regards to the necessity of guidelines for
practical implementation (mentioned particularly in Germany) as well
as the need for further research (mentioned particularly in Austria).
Based on interview results it appears that the availability of data and
the communication of research results, including specific options for
the integration of climate change topics into EIA, is a major challenge
in Germany. In Austria, a lack of data and specific information (scenari-
os) is identified as main barriers by the experts, which, however, could
be caused by a lack of communication to transfer research results into
practice (see Graph 3).

Graph 2. Solutions identified by EIA experts — comparison between consultants and authorities.
 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88 85

Graph 3. Barriers identified by EIA experts — presented by country.

Whereas barriers are found to a similar extent in both countries, sug-
gested solutions differ (see Graph 4). The Austrian interviewees ap-
peared to primarily opt for additional research and habitat specific
scenarios. German interviewees, on the other hand, emphasised the
need for additional guidelines accompanying practical implementation.
5. Discussion and outlook
Climate change impacts on the environment have been discussed by
many authors. However, up until now only little is known about differ-
ent groups of actors involved in EIA/SEA. The interviews carried out in
this study confirmed the lack of consideration in practical application
as presented by other authors, e.g. for Northern Europe by Larsen
(2014) and for Kenia by Kamau and Mwaura (2013).
To date, greater attention has been paid to climate change mitigation
(reduction of greenhouse gases) than to the adaptation to climate
change effects. This demonstrates that legal requirements – like the
“climate and energy-concept” in Austria do lead to increased attention
for a given subject area. A similar effect can therefore also be expected
when the amended EU EIA Directive will be implemented nationally
in the next few years. This will have an effect on the consideration of
both, mitigation and adaptation topics.
Despite the up-coming legal implementation of climate change
impacts in EIA many methodical questions have yet to be resolved.
The interviews show that different groups of actors consider the topic
to different degrees. Dialogue with project developers revealed that
the main impacts on projects and project environments due to climate
change are mostly recognised at an abstract level only, yet the transfer
of climate knowledge to the regional and even local planning context
still remains a challenge for the planners involved. Interviews with EIA
experts showed that the main challenges for the future involve the
investigation of specific entry points, methodological approaches for
the consideration of climate change issues and better understanding
of the relevance of climate change impacts with regards to the specific
regional/local conditions and project-related issues.
Downscaling of climate change scenarios is in this context both, a
critical issue with regards to availability of data and costs. Furthermore,
assistance for the interpretation of relevant impacts, to be deducted
from climate change scenarios, on the specific environmental issues in
the area is needed. The main barriers identified by the EIA experts there-
fore include a lack of data as well as general uncertainty as to how far

Graph 4. Solutions identified by EIA experts – comparison between countries.

86 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
climate change should be considered in the process without reliable
data but in the presence of knowledge about possible consequences at
an abstract level. According to the precautionary principle, the consider-
ation of possible climate change impacts seems necessary. However, a
joint strategy on how to cope with uncertain prognoses about main im-
pacts on environmental issues for areas without reliable data requires a
discussion and cooperation between EIA consultants and environmen-
tal authorities.
One step ahead would be the improvement of legal specifications
(e.g. the consideration of climate change in the designation of endan-
gered species or protected habitats) or guidance specific to the regional
conditions and the increased susceptibility of the environmental issues
as well as potential impacts. In this context, as a possible future solution,
recommendations and binding information (guidelines, adapted lists of
endangered species or other reliable data sources) were discussed as
deemed necessary. This confirms results from Sok et al. (2011) who
identified a strong need for specific guidance on the consideration of
climate change impacts with regards to the single steps of EIA
procedures.
Referring to the interviews, two aspects are higher-ranking than all
others, namely i) the feasibility for project developers (proponents) to
finance their own acquisition of new data, and ii) the hitherto limited
options for authorities of providing specific recommendations with a
spatial reference. The difficulties lie in forecasting long-term develop-
ments, or backing them up with scenarios. This can only partly be
reduced through improved data availability and methods. In some
areas, research results can improve trends and scenarios for climate
change consequences, but some uncertainties of climate change (partic-
ularly at a regional scale) will remain in any case. The evaluation of
future developments and necessary adaptation strategies therefore
depend on case to case decisions and also on open discussion between
all involved stakeholders. According to information from some of the
German interviewees, expert discussions arranged for specific
questions have already proven useful. An effective trans-disciplinary
knowledge transfer between all relevant groups of key actors
concerning the applicability of scientific knowledge for the concrete
EIA level is therefore needed. This involves the identification of specific
and additional data requirements and models about climate change im-
pacts as input into EIA. Furthermore, the limits of feasibility with
regards to resources and efforts (as addressed by Runge and Wachter,
2010) need to be considered. In this regard, the communication and co-
ordination between the three main groups involved – EIA practitioners,
competent authorities and project developers – needs to improve.
Expectations and benefits regarding required additional knowledge
need to be made clear and determined in an adjusted process.
Feasibility is also linked to addressing the topics at the right level. For
Environmental Assessments at the EU level, currently the EIA Directive
has been mainstreamed with climate change. However, important strat-
egies to cope with climate risks often refer to planning alternatives,
which need to be discussed at higher governance levels (programme,
plan or policy levels; see e.g. Marshall and Fischer, 2006). This is partic-
ularly important in cases where cost-intensive adaptation measures
have to be undertaken at a later stage. Thus, the consideration of climate
change risks at an earlier planning level would lead to more robust ad-
aptation strategies. This study confirms findings of Wilke et al. (2011)
and Fischer and Sykes (2007), highlighting the relevance of an amelio-
rated connectivity between the instruments and opting for a better in-
tegration of climate change adaptation at different policy and
planning levels — on superior governance and planning levels than
projects subject to EIA, e.g. plans and programmes subject to Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA). Identifying suitable adaptation
pathways is particularly important to prevent maladaptation. Strategic
decisions – such as large-scale site selection – should already be made
at superordinate levels. To conclude, foresightful approaches are just
as necessary in strategic plans, programmes and policies, in order to
consider climate change adaptation, and thereby to provide a
framework for project planning (Fischer, 2006). When climate change
adaptation is prepared at these levels already, then the necessary infor-
mation can be integrated in EIA with regard to specific measures at pro-
ject level.
Acknowledgements
This article was funded under the Austrian Climate Research Pro-
gramme. The authors thank ÖIR, Vienna, which was the managing insti-
tution of the project “envisage-cc” in particular Erich Dalhammer and
Gregori Stanzer.
References
Agrawala, S., Matus Kramer, A.M., Prudent-Richard, G., Sainsbury, M., 2010. Incorporating
climate change impacts and adaptation in environmental impact assessments: op-
portunities and challenges. OECD Environmental Working Paper No. 24.
Akerlof, K., Maibach, E.W., Fritzgerald, D., Cedeno, A.Y., Neuman, A., 2012. Do people “per-
sonally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ.
Chang. 23 (1), 81–91.
Altvater, S., van de Sandt, K., Marinova, N., de Block, D., Klostermann, J., Swart, R., et al.,
2011. Assessment of the most significant threats to the EU posed by the changing cli-
mate in the short, medium and long term — task 1 report. Ecologic Institute, Berlin,
Deutschland.
Araújo, M.B., Luoto, M., 2007. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species
distributions under climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 743–753.
Balas, M., Uhl, M., Essl, F., Felderer, A., Prutsch, A., Formayer, H., 2010.
Klimaänderungsszenarien und Vulnerabilität – Aktivitätsfelder Gesundheit,
Natürliche Ökosysteme und Biodiversität, Verkehrsinfrastruktur, Energie, Bauen
und Wohnen. Im Auftrag des Klima- und Energiefonds, Vienna.
Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H., Morcecroft, M.D.,
Rey, D., 2010. Europe Adapts to Climate Change: Comparing National Adaptation
Strategies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20 (3), 440–450.
Birkmann, J., Fleischhauer, M., 2009. Anpassungsstrategien der raumentwicklung an den
klimawandel: “Climate proofing — konturen eines neuen instruments”. Raumforsch.
Raumordn. 67 (2), 114–127.
Birkmann, J., Bach, C., Guhl, W., Witting, M., Welle, T., Schmude, M., 2010. State of the Art
der Forschung zur Verwundbarkeit Kritischer Infrastrukturen am Beispiel Strom/
Stromausfall. Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit, Berlin.
BMLFUW, 2010. Leitfaden für das Klima- und Energiekonzept im Rahmen von UVP-
Verfahren Vienna.
Brown, A., Harvey, A., 2009. Learning from stakeholders: some lessons from participatory
research and climate change adaptation in practice. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ.
Sci. 6 (2009), 392014.
Byer, P., Cestti, R., Croal, P., Fisher, W., Hazell, S., Kolhoff, A., Kornov, L., 2012. Climate
Change in Impact Assessment – International Best Practice Principles IAIA Special
Publication Series No. 8. USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Cor-
nish E. Futuring: the exploration of the future. World Future Society, Bethesda, MD
2004. 313 pp.
CARICOM — Caribbean Community Secretariat, 2004. Guide to the Integration of Climate
Change Adaptation into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process.
CEAA - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2003. Incorporating Climate Change
Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidance for Practitioners.
The Federal–Provincial Committee on Climate Change and Environmental
Assessment.
Dallhammer, E., Formayer, H., Jiricka, A., Keringer, F., Leitner, M., McCallum, S., Schmied, J.,
Stanzer, G., Völler, S., 2014. Strategische unterstützung bei der projektplanung zur
berücksichtigung von klimawandelfolgen endbericht zum forschungsprojekt envi-
ronmental impact assessment satisfying adaptation goals evolving from Climate
Change (ENVISAGE-CC).
Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., Mehmood, A., 2009. Planning for Climate Change. Earthscan,
London.
Defra., 2011. Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate. Presented
to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by
Command of Her Majesty. Published by TSO (The Stationery Office).
Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014
amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0052&from=EN.
Dullinger, S., Gattringer, A., Thuiller, W., Moser, D., Zimmermann, N.E., Guisan, A., et al.,
2012. Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate
change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 619–622.
EC - European Commission, 2013b. Non-paper. Guidelines for Project Managers: Making
Vulnerable Investments Climate Resilient. Overview on Key Approach, Audience and
Content Framework.
EC – European Commission, 2013a. Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodi-
versity Into Environmental Impact Assessment.
Enei, R., Doll, C., Klug, S., Partzsch, I., Sedlacek, N., Kiel, J., et al., 2011. Vulnerability of trans-
port systems — main report. Transport Sector Vulnerabilities Within the Research
Project WEATHER (Weather Extremes: Impacts on Transport Systems and Hazards
for European Regions) Funded Under the 7th Framework Program of the European
Commission.
 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88
Eskeland, G.S., Jochem, E., Neufeldt, H., Traber, T., Rive, N., Behrens, A., 2008. The future of
European electricity: choices before 2020. CEPS Policy Brief No. 164.Fraunhofer-ISI.
Karlsruhe Online: http://www.weather-project.eu/weather/downloads/Deliverables/
WEATHER_Deliverable-2_main-report_20110614.pdf (Last access: 25.22.2013).
Essl, F., Rabitsch, W., 2013. Biodiversität & Klimawandel. Springer, Heidelberg (I-xv,
458 pp.).
Essl, F., Staudinger, M., Stöhr, O., Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L., Rabitsch, W., Niklfeld, H., 2009.
Distribution patterns, range size and niche breadth of Austrian endemic plants. Biol.
Conserv. 142, 2547–2558.
Essl, F., Dullinger, S., Rabitsch, W., Hulme, P.E., Hulber, K., Jarosik, V., Kleinbauer, I.,
Krausmann, F., Kuhn, I., Nentwig, W., Vila, M., Genovesi, P., Gherardi, F., Desprez-
Loustau, M.L., Roques, A., Pysek, P., 2011. Reply to Keller and Springborn: No doubt
about invasion debt. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 (25), E221-E221.
European Commission (EC), 2013c. Non-paper. Guidelines for Project Managers: Making
vulnerable investments climate resilient. Overview on Key Approach, Audience and
Content Framework.
Fischer, T.B., 1999. The consideration of sustainability aspects within transport infrastruc-
ture related policies, plans and programmes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 42 (2), 189–219.
Fischer, T.B., 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land-use Plan-
ning. Earthscan, London.
Fischer, T.B., 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluat-
ing practice and developing guidance. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 24 (3), 183–197.
Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., 2007. Ingredients of governance for climate change adaptation in
the EU — some reflections on a new green paper. Town and Country Plann. 76
(11), 471–476.
Fischer, T.B., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U., Kidd, S., Peel, D., 2009. Learning through EC direc-
tive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick region in Germany.
EIA Review 29 (6), 421–428.
Fischer, T.B., Potter, K., Donaldson, S., Scott, T., 2011. Municipal waste management strat-
egies, strategic environmental assessment and the consideration of climate change in
England. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 13 (4), 541–565.
Gottfried, M., Pauli, H., Futschik, A., Akhalkatsi, M., Barancok, P., Alonso, J.L.B., Coldea, G.,
Dick, J., Erschbamer, B., Kazakis, G., Krajci, J., Larsson, P., Mallaun, M., Michelsen, O.,
Moiseev, M., Moiseev, P., Molau, U., Merzouki, A., Nagy, L., Nakhutsrishvili, G.,
Pedersen, B., Pelino, G., Puscas, M., Rossi, G., Stanisci, J.-P., Theurillat, T., Villar, L.,
Vittoz, P., Vogiatzakis, I., Grabherr, G., 2012. Continent-wide response of mountain
vegetation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. Letter 2, 111–115.
Gruber, S., Haeberli, W., 2007. Permafrost in steep bedrock slopes and its temperature-
related destabilization following climate change. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 112
(F2), 2156–2202.
Harvey, M., 2004. Impact of climate change on road infrastructure. Department of Infra-
structure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Melbourne.
Haurie, L., Sceia, A., Thénié, J., 2009. Inland Transport and Climate Change. A Literature Re-
view. UNECE.
Jessel, B., Butterling, M., 2013. Beitrag der räumlichen Planung zur Anpassung an den
Klimawandel. In: Essl, F., Rabitsch, W. (Eds.), Biodiversität und Klimawandel. Springer
Spektrum, pp. 367–374.
Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Fischer, T.B., Peel, D., Kidd, S., 2009. SEA effectiveness — the sig-
nificance of learning. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 27 (2), 133–144.
Jiricka, A., Pröbstl, U., 2007. Die SUP im Alpenraum - eine Aufgabe, vielfältige Lösungen.
In: Pröbstl, U., Weber, G., Stöglehner, G., Jiricka, A. (Eds.), Department für Raum,
Landschaft und Infrastruktur, Die Strategische Umweltprüfung (SUP) in der
Raumplanung - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit 01.02.2007, Wien, 6-7.
Jiricka, A., Probstl, U., 2009. One common way — The strategic and methodological influ-
ence on environmental planning across Europe. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (6),
379–389.
Jiricka, A., Völler, S., Leitner, M., Formayer, H., Fischer, T.B., Wachter, T.F., 2014.
Herausforderungen bei der Integration von Klimawandelfolgen und -anpassung in
Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen - ein Blick auf die Planungspraxis in Österreich
und Deutschland. UVP-Report 28 (3 + 4), 179–185.
Jochem, E., Schade, W., 2009. Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies Supporting European
Climate Policy. ADAM Deliverable D-M1.2. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Inno-
vation Research, Munich.
Kamau, J.W., Mwaura, F., 2013. Climate change adaptation and EIA studies in Kenya. Int.
J. Clim. Change Strategies Manage. 5 (2), 152–165.
Knieling, J., Schaerffer, M., Tressl, S., 2009. Klimawandel und Raumplanung. Flächen- und
Risikomanagement überschwemmungsgefährdeter Gebiete am Beispiel der Ham-
burger Elbinsel 2009. Coastline Reports 14.
Knill, C., Heichel, S., Arndt, D., 2012. Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environ-
mental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative
Policy Perspective.
Kuckartz, U., Dresing, T., Rädiker, S., Stefer, C., 2007. Qualitative Evaluation: Der Einstieg in
die Praxis. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Larsen, S.V., 2014. Is environmental impact assessment fulfilling its potential? The case of
climate change in renewable energy projects. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 32 (3),
234–240.
Leidinger, D., Formayer, H., Arpaci, A., 2013. Analysis of current and future fire weather
risk in Tyrol. [Int. Conference on Alpine Meteorology (ICAM), Kranjska Gora, 3.–7.
Juni 2013]. ICAM, 32nd Conference on Alpine Meteorology, 3–7 June 2013, Kranjska
Gora, Slovenia, “Book of Abstracts”.
Li, Y., Cohen, J.M., Rohr, J.R., 2013. A review and synthesis of the effects of climate change
on amphibians. Integr. Zool. 8, 145–161.
Marshall, R., Fischer, T.B., 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and tiered SEA
in the UK — the case of ScottishPower. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 49 (2), 279–299.
Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der
Psychologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
87
McCallum, S., Dworak, T., Prutsch, A., Kent, N., Mysiak, J., Bosello, F., Klostermann, J.,
Dlugolecki, A., Williams, E., König, M., Leitner, M., Miller, K., Harley, M., Smithers, R.,
Berglund, M., Glas, N., Romanovska, L., van de Sandt, K., Bachschmidt, R., Völler, S.,
Horrocks, L., 2013. Support to the development of the EU Strategy for Adaptation to
Climate Change: Background report to the Impact Assessment, Part I – Problem def-
inition, policy context and assessment of policy options. Environment Agency, Vien-
na, Austria.
Melcher, A.H., Kremser, H., Pletterbauer, F., Schmutz, S., 2012. Effects of climate change on
fish assemblages in terms of lakes and their outlets in Alpine areas — explained by the
case study Traunsee. [Poster]. In: Schmidt-Kloiber, A., Hartmann, A., Strackbein, J.,
Feld, C.K., Hering, D. (Eds.), Current Questions in Water Management. Book of Ab-
stracts to the WISER Final Conference Tallinn, pp. 117–121.
Miller, F., Bowen, K., 2013. Questioning the assumptions: the role of vulnerability
assessments in climate change adaptation. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 31
(3), 190–197.
Moser, 2010. Communicating climate change: Histroy, challenges, process and future di-
rections. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 1 (1), 31–53.
Newig, J., 2007. Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved
environmental quality? Towards an analytical framework. In: CCP1: 1, pp. 51–71.
Nelson, F.E., Anisimov, O.A., Shiklomanov, N.I., 2001. Subsidence risk from thawing per-
mafrost. Nature 410, 889–890.
O’Dunn, Moller, 2013. Changes in breeding phenology and population size of birds.
J. Anim. Ecol. 83 (3), 729-239.
Ohsawa, T., Duinker, P., 2014. Climate-change mitigation in Canadian environmental im-
pact assessments. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 32 (3), 222–233.
Peterson, T.C., McGuirk, M., Houston, T.G., Horvitz, A.H., Wehner, M.F., 2008. Climate var-
iability and change with implications for transportation. The National Research Coun-
cil. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. National
Academy of Science — TRB and Department of Earth and Life Sciences, Washington
D.C.
Pletterbauer, F., Steurer, L., Melcher, A., Godina, R., Schmutz, S., 2012. Water temperature
and climate change impacts on fish in Austrian rivers. In: Mader, H., Kraml, J. (Eds.),
9th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics.
Posas, P., 2011. Addressing Climate Change in Strategic Environmental Assessments:
Baseline Data and Due Diligence Criteria for Enhanced Effectiveness PhD Dissertation
University of Liverpool.
Rannow, S., Loibl, W., Greiving, S., Gruehn, D., Meyer, B.C., 2010. Potential impacts of cli-
mate change in Germany. Identifying regional priorities for adaptation activities in
spatial planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 98 (3), 160–171.
Rebelo, H., Tarroso, P., Jones, G., 2010. Predicted impact of climate change on European
bats in relation to their biogeographic patterns. Glob. Chang. Biol. 16, 561–576.
Refsgaard, J.C., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Drews, M., Halsnæs, K., Jeppesen, E., Madsen, H.,
Markandya, A., Olesen, J.E., Porter, J.R., Christensen, J.H., 2013. The role of uncertainty
in climate change adaptation strategies – ‘A Danish water management example.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 18, 337–359.
Rehnus, M., Marconi, L., Hacklander, K., Filli, F., 2013. Seasonal changes in habitat use and
feeding strategy of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus) in the Central Alps. HYSTRIX 24
(2), 161–165.
Robine, J.M., Cheung, S.L.K., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C., Michel, J.P., et al., 2008.
Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. Epidemiology. C.
R. Biol. 331, 171–178.
Roeser, 2012. Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for
emotions. Risk Anal. 32 (6), 1033–1040.
Runge, K., Wachter, T., 2010. Umweltfolgenprüfung von Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen.
Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 42 (5), 141–147.
Runge, K., Wachter, T., Rottgart, E., 2010. Klimaanpassung, Climate Proofing und
Umweltfolgenprüfung. UVP-report 27 (4), 165–169.
Sathaye, Jayant A., Dale, Larry L., Larsen, Peter H., Fitts, Gary A., Koy, Kevin, Lewis,
Sarah M., Frossard Pereira de Lucena, André, 2013. Estimating impacts of
warming temperatures on California's electricity system. Glob. Environ. Chang.
23 (2), 499–511.
Schmid, M., Hunziker, S., Wüst, A., 2014. Lake surface temperatures in a changing climate:
a global sensitivity analysis. Clim. Chang. 124 (1–2), 301–315.
Schmidt, C., 2011. Die Bewertung der gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen des Klimawandels
in der Strategischen Umweltprüfung von englischen und deutschen
Flächennutzungsplänen. UVP-report 25 (5), 251–256.
Sherwin, H.A., Montgomery, W.I., Lundy, M.G., 2013. The impact and implications of cli-
mate change for bats. Mammal Rev. 43, 171–182.
Sok, V., Boruff, B., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2011. Addressing climate change through envi-
ronmental impact assessment: international perspectives from a survey of IAIA
members. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 29 (4), 317–326.
Stoffel, M., Huggel, C., 2012. Effects of climate change on mass movements in mountain
environments. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 36, 421–439.
Stoffel, M., Tiranti, D., Huggel, C., 2014. Climate change impacts on mass movements —
case studies from the European Alps. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 1255–1266.
Swart, R., Biesbroek, R., 2008. Adaptation of Infrastructure to Climate Change: Internation-
al Inventory. University and Research Centre Alterra/Wageningen.
Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., 2003. Shifts in winter distribution in birds: effects of global
warming and local habitat change. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 32 (7), 476–480.
Walker, W.E., Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J.H., 2013. Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning
Approaches for Adaptation Under Deep Uncertainty — Overview on key Approach,
Audience and Content Framework.
WHO — Word Health Organization, 2012. Atlas of Health and Climate Change. Geneva.
Wilke, C., Bachmann, J., Hage, G., Heiland, S., 2011. Planungs- und Managementstrategien
des Naturschutzes im Lichte des Klimawandels. Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und
Biologische Vielfalt, p. 109.
88 A. Jiricka et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 (2016) 78–88

Dr. Alexandra Jiricka is a senior researcher at the University of Natural Resources and Ap- Prof. Dr. Thomas Fischer School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
plied Life Sciences Vienna. With a background in environmental science and planning, one Professor Thomas Fischer joined the University of Liverpool in March 2002. He was Head
of her main research interest is European environmental planning and legislation with of Department of the School of Environmental Sciences'; Department of Geography and
special focus on EIA and SEA implementation. Planning until 2014. Thomas is a graduate of Geography (Dipl.-Geogr.) at FU Berlin, with
parts of his study programme conducted at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada
and Université Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg, France. His specialist fields include impact as-
Prof. Dr. Herbert Formayer is assistant professor at the Institute of Meteorology at BOKU.
sessment for transport and spatial/land use policies, plans and programmes (strategic en-
He has supported many in the climate impact community with data and knowhow and
vironmental assessment) and the effective consideration of environmental, health and
has a good understanding of which climate competence can be found where. He is in-
climate change issues in spatial planning.
volved in many climate research projects and has an excellent overview of the existing
Austrian climate change literature (exposure, impacts and adaptation).
Dr. Thomas F. Wachter studied Landscape Planning at the Technical University of
Munich-Weihenstephan and received his doctor's degree at Technical University
Sonja Völler (MSc) holds a Master in Biology, with specialisation in landscape ecology and
of Berlin. Since 20 years he conducts environmental studies and research projects.
conservation biology, from the University of Vienna. She is working as an expert for EIA
As an employee at the Bosch & Partner GmbH and OECOS GmbH, Mr. Wachter was
and SEA. The main focus of her work lies in the reviewing of Environmental Impact State-
working in the field of large infrastructure projects like highways, railways and
ments (EIS), conceptual works within the field of EIA and SEA as well as providing infor-
harbour construction. Besides this, he did research especially in the areas of renew-
mation on EIA to authorities and the public (EIA information point). She is currently
able energies and nature conservation. As a scientific assistant at the TU Hamburg —
involved in climate change adaptation ACRP projects like AUTreach, envisage-cc, and re-
Harburg, TU Berlin, the University of Potsdam and the Leuphana University, he was
cently performed and coordinated an overview report of climate change adaptation efforts
working on Environmental Impact Assessment, Knowledge Management and Cli-
in Austria towards the OECD. Before February 2012, she worked in different employments
mate Adaption.
and was a research assistant at the University of Vienna and at the University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences, on national and international research projects
(StartClim2008, EU FP7, ERDF Central Europe Programme).

Markus Leitner holds an MSc in Landscape Ecology and Landscape Planning and is a spe-
cialist for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) and climate change adaptation. His main fields of expertise range from project co-
ordination and management to research management and development like the
FP6 project CIRCLE and the FP7 project CIRCLE-2 in the field of climate change im-
pacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Europe. He has contributed with his climate
change adaptation expertise to diverse ACRP project like CcTalK!, envisage-CC,
adapt2to4, COIN, ARISE, PACINAS, PATCH:ES, the Tyrolean Climate Strategy, C3-
Alps, ETC/CCA and the EU Adaptation Strategy. Since 2012, he is a lecturer at BOKU
University on the lecture “Applied EIA”.