0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views

Part D Review Paper

This paper reviews the current state of climate change research related to transportation systems, specifically focusing on climate risks, adaptation strategies, and planning for road and rail infrastructures. It highlights significant research gaps and emerging topics, providing a comprehensive analysis of 100 peer-reviewed articles published from 2005 to 2018. The study aims to guide future research directions and improve understanding of climate adaptation in transportation systems.

Uploaded by

Suvam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views

Part D Review Paper

This paper reviews the current state of climate change research related to transportation systems, specifically focusing on climate risks, adaptation strategies, and planning for road and rail infrastructures. It highlights significant research gaps and emerging topics, providing a comprehensive analysis of 100 peer-reviewed articles published from 2005 to 2018. The study aims to guide future research directions and improve understanding of climate adaptation in transportation systems.

Uploaded by

Suvam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D


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

Climate change research on transportation systems: Climate risks,


T
adaptation and planning
Tianni Wanga,b,c,d, Zhuohua Qub, Zaili Yangc, , Timothy Nicholb, Geoff Clarked,

Ying-En Gea
a
College of Transport and Communications, Shanghai Maritime University, China
b
Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
c
Liverpool Logistics, Offshore and Marine Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
d
Freight & Logistics Department, AECOM (UK) Ltd, UK

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: With the occurrence of more frequent and intense climate change events, transportation systems,
Climate change including their infrastructure and operations become increasingly vulnerable. However, the ex-
Road isting research related to climate risks, adaptation and planning in the transport sector is still at
Railway an embryonic stage. Understanding such, this paper presents a critical review on climate risks,
Climate risk
adaptation strategies and planning in the context of road and rail transportation systems. It aims
Adaptation strategy
to conduct a rigorous survey, to highlight any significant research gaps not addressed in past
Transport planning
studies and to analyse current emerging topics to guide future directions. It critically dissects the
selected papers by categorising them into several dimensions to reveal the status quo and po-
tential challenges, including climate risk assessment, transport asset management, climate
planning and policy, and adaptation of transport infrastructure to climate change. It will provide
valuable references for future research and constructive insights and empirical guidance on cli-
mate adaptation, risk analysis, transport planning and other important relevant topics.

1. Introduction

Climate change has been an interdisciplinary frontier study. The transport infrastructure and operations are seriously threatened
and challenged by the existing variability in climate. Scholars have proposed adaptation measures and strategies to tackle the climate
risks on ports, railways and roads, and applied them to different geographical locations and regions (e.g. Strauch et al., 2015; Dobney
et al., 2009, 2010; Ng et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2019b). It is the time to conduct a rigorous survey on the studies to find
the lessons learnt for cross-referencing among different transport modes and explore prominent research challenges to shift the
research focus to the most relevant emerging topics. Therefore, this study conducts a comprehensive review on climate adaptation of
transportation systems based on relevant prestigious journal papers in the past decade. It aims to elaborate important theories and
practise with a new classification method to present climate adaptation research in transportation areas with reference to diverse key
topics. Meanwhile, it contributes to revealing the research gaps and guiding research directions in future through statistics of the
relevant studies and in-depth qualitative analysis (see Fig. 1).
According to the definition from the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC (2007), adaptation to climate change is “an adjustment in
natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102553

Available online 05 October 2020


1361-9209/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Fig. 1. Distribution of papers by published year (January 2005 - December 2018).

opportunities”. Compared with the mitigation strategies, adaptation strategies accept the status quo of climate change and strive to
strengthen resilience of transport systems to protect infrastructure and operations from severe damages (United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP), 2010; Ng et al., 2018).
Predominant interests in the early studies of climate change and transportation were on how to reduce the effects of transpor-
tation systems on climate change, such as the reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from the transport sector to the air (e.g.,
Kishimoto et al., 2017; Hendricks et al., 2018).
Given that climate change is an irreversible process, posing destructive threats to human well-being (Keohane and Victor, 2011),
the relevant strategies in response to climate change tend to combine mitigation and adaptation rather than pure mitigation (Ng
et al., 2016). Climate change studies in the context of transportation are not exceptional from such a tendency. Hence, this paper
undertakes a systematic investigation by comprehensively analysing the state of art of research, with an emphasis on the impacts of
climate change to transportation systems (i.e. road and railway), risk assessment as well as the corresponding adaptation and
planning issues. This comprehensive literature review concerning journal articles published over the past decade allowes researchers
to identify the emerging issues and associated themes; how these concerns and themes have evolved over time; and what are the
challenges to be addressed in future. Also, a relatively new area of research, semantics analysis based on the categorisation of five
research themes, provides researchers with an innovative thinking pattern in future climate adaptation research.
This novelty of this work is twofold. First, although a notable few of review studies regarding climate adaptation in transportation
sector has been conducted (e.g., Eisenack et al., 2012; Koetse and Rietveld, 2012), the papers were written about 10 year ago and the
information does not contain the development of the relevant research in the past decade, which is the fastest development period in
terms of the total number of the published papers. More importantly, the existing work in the literature fails to analyse the studies
based on critical dimensions, such as climate risk assessment, asset management and other issues during the implementation of
adaptation planning. This paper conducts a comprehensively review of the state-of-the-art data of climate adaptation in transport
sector. By systematically dissecting the trends of existing research and key research themes, it reveals the research gaps and emerging
topics to offer possible research directions and suggestion in future. Second, some systematic reviews in recent years focused on
seaport and airport adaptation to climate change (e.g. Poo et al., 2018; Becker et al., 2018), there is no comprehensive review on road
and rail transport. This paper conducts critical review on climate risks, adaptation strategies and planning in the context of road and
railway systems, which will facilitate the collaboration and engagement of diverse stakeholders in the inland and multi-mode
transport during the process of adaptation planning.
After this introduction section, Section 2 indicates the approach used to conduct this state-of-the-art survey. Section 3 presents the
survey results with respect to the overall trend of research by published years and journals, geographic locations and co-authorship,
research methods and themes. Furthermore, in Section 4, we critically analyse the selected papers by categorising them into six
dimensions: climate impacts on rail/road transportation, climate risk assessment, climate change and asset management, climate
planning and policy, transportation adaptation to climate change and others. The implications suggesting future research directions
on climate risk and adaptation planning are described in Sections 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper.

2. Methodology and scope of the review

A systematic assessment on the research papers regarding climate change and adaptation of transportation systems, in particular
roads and railways, published in internationally recognised scholarly journals from Web of Science and Emerald Management Plus
databases was undertaken in December 2018. Referring to the systematic literature network analysis (Colicchia and Strozzi, 2012;
Lau et al., 2013), this review work is conducted in two steps: the systematic literature review approach (Rousseau et al., 2008) to
select, screen and refine the representative articles, and the Co-authorship Analysis (Newman, 2004) to identify how the knowledge is
generated, transferred and developed.

2
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

The systematic literature review consists of three phases, namely, “Question formulation”, “Locating studies”, and “Study se-
lection and evaluation” (Rousseau et al., 2008). Firstly, the authors defined the scope of this research according to the objectives by
applying the CIMO (Context, Intervention, Mechanisms, and Outcome) logic (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). Accordingly, the main
themes of interest in this research were defined as climate change, adaptation and transportation. Initially, through a brainstorming
process, the 12 keywords were identified, including climate change, impacts, risks, adaptation, planning, policy, transportation, road,
rail, asset management, risk analysis and risk assessment. A team containing three scholars and two practitioners in the transpor-
tation field refined these keywords to provide sound validity. To avoid too generic and extensive results, the keywords were com-
bined by employing simple Boolean logic operators so that intricate searches could be constructed through a simple list (Colicchia
and Strozzi, 2012). During the selection and evaluation procedure, the authors identified the relevant papers by utilising the database
of Web of Science as one of the foremost comprehensive academic search platforms (Clarivate Analytics, n.d.), and Emerald Man-
agement Plus database comprising the world's best management and business journals (Emerald Group Publishing, n.d.). Search
strings such as ‘climate change’, ‘transportation’, ‘adaptation’, ‘planning’ ‘road’ and ‘rail’ (together with their substrings) were chosen
as ‘keywords'. Then, we combined all the searching results by an ‘OR’ function. The results revealed that there were only 17 most
relevant articles found between the years 1970 and 2004, and since then, the number of papers significantly increases. Hence, we
took year 2005 as a threshold and surveyed the published articles from 2005 to 2018. In total 192 articles were retrieved from 75
academic journals in subjects of business, management, transportation, economics and engineering. Only papers written in English
were collected and reviewed.
Next, we thoroughly reviewed all the 192 articles including some cross referencing which could be traced back to 1990s. To
guarantee the quality and relevance of the reviewed papers, we carefully screened them using two strict constraints: 1) only peer-
reviewed academic journals as the peer-review process is the most respected in the scientific community (Bergström et al., 2015); 2)
only relevant titles, abstracts and keywords were retained, improving the screening efficiency by ruling out irrelevant papers.
Conference proceedings, technical reports, book chapters and editorial materials were deliberately excluded from the screening.
Other articles where climate change or adaptation was regarded only as a label or subtopics were eliminated. Furthermore, the papers
relating to air and water transportation were excluded. This is because they rely less on man-made infrastructures compared to rail
and road, and their critical mass is small (12 water-related and 4 air-related papers) to generate sensible conclusions at this stage.
Consequently, the database for this research has been refined to include 100 peer-reviewed journal papers.
At the second stage, we utilised a co-authorship analysis (Newman, 2004) approach to categorise these journal papers regarding
affiliation of the author(s), as well as years of publication, top journals, and geographic location of researchers. The main themes and
research methods are discussed in Section 3.3. By examining the research papers by this systematic approach, we seek to investigate
the evolving pattern during the period of 2005–2018 to reveal the research gaps and stimulate novel exploration.

3. Trends in climate change and adaptation research on transportation systems

3.1. Evolution of paper numbers and top journals

A critical review has been conducted with regards to the identified 100 papers, addressing a variety of aspects such as climate
risks, adaptation planning and policy, featured in 65 internationally recognised academic journals in a timespan between January
2005 and December 2018. Analysis of the publications over the past 14 years allows us to identify the changing pattern and themes,
and how the research themes have evolved over time in this subject.
The distribution of the reviewed papers based on the timeline is presented in Fig. 2.1. Among the 100 papers, 76 (76%) were
published during the latest 7-year (2012–2018) period, with 24% were published during the period between 2005 and 2011. The
generation rate of these paper was about 3.4 each year before 2012 compared to 12.6 papers per year between 2012 and 2018. The
number of papers peaked in 2015 when 16 were published. This is a strong indication of the growing interests in this research topic.
The top journals that published the most articles in the literature review are listed in Table 1. Among them, the pivotal source of
articles is Transportation Research Record, accounting for 11 articles alone. Transportation Research-Part D, Climatic Change,
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research and Natural Hazards are the followers. Other related journals include the
Journal of Transport Geography and Transport Policy. All the aforementioned journals together occupied approximately two-thirds of
the papers reviewed. It is noticeable that the top journals are multifaceted, involving the subjects of transportation, climate change,
risks, policy and geography.

Table 1
Top five journals of climate adaptation research on transportation (January 2005 to December 2018).
No. Journal Title No. of Articles

1 Transportation Research Record 11


2 Transportation Research Part D 8
3 Climatic Change 6
4 European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 5
4 Natural Hazards 5
5 Journal of Transport Geography 4
5 Transport Policy 4

3
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Fig. 2. Distribution of articles by geographic location (January 2005 to December 2018).

3.2. Evolution of the geographic location and co-authorship

The popularity of climate change and adaptation research on transportation in a typical country can be interpreted by the number
of researchers (i.e. authors) from that country. In the reviewed articles, the researchers were mainly from 13 countries according to
the locations of their institutions. Fig. 2 elaborates the regional distribution regarding the researcher numbers in each continent over
the past decade. Overall, the North American (27%) and European (25%) researchers were the main forces on climate adaptation
research in transportation. The unknown category implies some international collaboration or work without geographic features. In
particular, before 2012, the relevant research was only conducted in a few countries within North America and Europe, and the
number of researchers was meagre. Since then, more papers were generated and geographically extended to Australia, South
America, Asia and Africa. It has been observed that European and North American scholars dominated this research field during the
period between January 2005 and December 2018. However, South American, African and Asian researchers have become gradually
involved in the global research team over the last 7 years.
Furthermore, the co-authorship analysis of scientific collaborations was applied in this paper. It served to extract useful in-
formation related to the existence of communities (clusters) of various types in a co-authorship network and investigate their
emerging factors (e.g., linguistics, geography, and/or disciplinary proximity) (Newman, 2004), and to reveal the general structure of
the collaboration pattern from fragmentation to cohesion (Newman, 2010). Indeed, we measured the scientific collaborations of not
only the individual authors but also the authors who wrote together, ignoring the authors’ order or role (e.g., first author or cor-
responding author), in order to capture the linkages among the researchers. By doing so, the results of co-authorship are illustrated by
a mapping graph, in which links (edges) are as the co-occurrence of multi-author in the same paper and graph nodes (vertices) are as
authors.
Fig. 3 visualises the network of the co-authorship across the research of climate change and adaptation in the transportation field.
The data was manipulated by NetMiner 4.3 (Cyram, 2017), which is an efficient tool in social network analysis for visualising the
data’s unique feature and level of integration in large-size networks. In Fig. 3(a), the size shown by the author’s name indicates the
total number of the papers he/she has published in the field. Fig. 3(b) elaborates the overview of the collaborative network of the co-
authorship, while Fig. 3(c–e) enlarges the three key networks to show more detailed relevant information.
Since 2005, it can be seen that there were two main communities including Chinowsky, P., Schweiker, A., Strzepek, N. and
Strzepek, K. in one and Chapman, L. and Doll, C. in the other. In particular, all these publications were generated since 2010, except
the only one published by Chapman, L. alone in 2007, implying that the co-authorship network had been formed since 2010 with the
markedly increased number of research papers. Among the two communities, the collaborative networks involved researchers from
different geographical regions. Specifically, co-authored papers led by Chinowsky, P., together with Schweiker, A., Strzepek, N. and
Strzepek, K. had background of North America, Africa and Asia, such as United States, South Africa, Vietnam and Korea. Meanwhile,
the group represented by Chapman, L. and Doll, C. consisted of researchers from European countries such as the United Kingdom. It
therefore explains why the overall geographic distribution of the publications is heavily weighted towards European and North
American countries and gradually extended to other regions.

3.3. Evaluation of primary research methods and themes

The primary research methods exerted in the selected studies fall into seven categories, including review articles, conceptual
work, survey, case studies, simulation, mathematical modelling and others (e.g. Sachan and Datta, 2005). The category of ‘others’
encompassing descriptive research and perspectives from industries, mainly refers to qualitative methods. Fig. 4 illustrates the
published papers distributed against different research methods during this review period.
In accordance with the result of categorisation, ‘case studies’ and ‘conceptual work’ are the two pivotal methods, accounting, in
combination, for 39% of the total publications. Together with the review articles and others, the papers using the qualitative research
methods make up 68% of the total, while those using the quantitative research methods, including survey, simulation and mathe-
matical modelling, only account for 32% of the total publications. Among the 32% quantitative studies, the majority uses surveys
such as the evaluation of adaptation measures in the transport sector by surveying a group of experts (Stamos et al., 2015). The

4
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Fig. 3. (a–e) Key network of the co-authorship in published articles (January 2005 to December 2018).

Fig. 4. A categorisation of papers based on research methods.

5
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Fig. 5. A categorisation of papers based on research themes (January 2005 to December 2018).

remained are conducted based on simulation including the CLIMATE-C (Maoh et al., 2008) and mathematical modelling including
the general circulation models (Schweikert et al., 2014).
It is also noted that some of the studies utilise mix-methods, for instance, the combination of ‘conceptual work’ and ‘case studies’
(Wilson and McDaniels, 2007; Espinet et al., 2017), and the hybrid of ‘modelling’ and ‘case studies’ (e.g. Walker et al., 2011). Under
such circumstance, we counted twice each categorised method.
The semantics analysis was applied to categorise the selected work based on different themes, by which scholars were searched
for emerging ideas and tendency within large corpuses (Knuth, 1993; Ferrer et al., 2001). In this paper, we started analysing the titles
and abstracts of the selected papers, as they can best summarise the main themes of the articles through elaborating readers the first
information before reaching the rest of the work (Lau et al., 2017). After that, we examined the corpuses through a full-text review.
Accordingly, the selected papers were categorised into six dimensions based on diverse subjects of the research: climate risks on rail/
road transportation, climate risk assessment, climate change and asset management, climate planning and policy, transportation
climate adaptation on transportation, and others. Fig. 5 depicts the number of papers in each dimension. A summary of context
analysis by research themes is shown in Table 2, while its details are presented in Section 4.

4. Critical review results by research themes

4.1. The impacts of climate change on transportation

The transport-related activities are vulnerable to heterogeneous weather extremes, which include but not limited to changes in
temperature, winds, rainfalls, sea-level and other-water levels, visibility and fog period, thunderstorms, thaw and frost (e.g.,
Schweikert et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019b). The climate change impacts could be further magnified because those posed at one
location could pass to all sorts of aspects of transportation networks in other regions directly or indirectly especially in the cases of
multimodal transport. Some significant weather parameters which lead to the disruptions to transportation infrastructure and op-
erations are categorised in Table 3.
Climate impacts have widespread implications for transport design, planning, operations, material specifications, maintenance,
network and vehicle function, with several studies in the public domain (i.e., Taylor and Philp, 2010; Hooper, 2013; Meyer et al.,
2014; Chinowsky et al., 2015a; Olmsted et al., 2017). There has been relevant research conducted at a national and multi-regional
scale. Meanwhile, the majority of research papers about the climate impacts on transportation are primarily focusing on the specific
transport modes, typically on the road, rail and ports. In reality, climate impacts on transport infrastructure vary on the different
transportation modes, geographic locations and conditions of event occurrence (Suarez et al. 2005).

4.2. The risk assessment for climate change

A considerable number of methods and practices have been developed in recent years for identifying the vulnerabilities of
transportation systems when facing the risks of climate change. These studies include not only the assessment of environmental
impacts (i.e., Neumann et al., 2015; Tonmoy and El-Zein, 2018; Matthews et al., 2017), but also economic analysis of climate risks
and the associated adaptation costs (i.e., Qiao et al., 2015; Schweikert et al., 2014; Twerefou et al., 2015).
In recent years, some regional studies have been developed via the establishment of multiple decision models. In the United
States, Neumann et al. (2015) investigated the potential climate threats on bridges, roads and coastal developments as well as urban
drainage infrastructure. Four models were synthesised to assess vulnerabilities and the efficiency of corresponding measures. A
regional travel demand model was proposed by Kim et al (2018) to evaluate the risks of flooding affecting an urban transportation
system in America, by using travel demand data to forecast potential evacuation and sheltering requirements. Tonmoy and El-Zein

6
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Table 2
Critical analysis by research themes.
Themes Context Gaps

Climate impacts on rail/road Research has been maturely developed at a national and Little research appeared in the public domain; the majority
transportation multi-regional scale (i.e., some developing countries). of studies was primarily focusing on the specific regions and
transport modes.
The US road system: climate stressors, impacts and Climate change has not been taken into consideration in all
adaptation cost analysis the phases of transportation decision making; lacking in
secondary impacts and indirect economic losses; requiring
wider scope of climate stressors and alternative adaptation
approaches.
The UK road and rail: predicted climate change impacts on Only recently, more attention has been attracted; mainly
transport infrastructure focusing on road freight.
Asia: threats posed by climate change on road infrastructure Research mainly focused on railway infrastructure; how
and building infrastructure in Asian countries (e.g. climate would change in the future, especially at a local
Vietnam) level remains uncertain; requiring nationwide analysis and
quantifications of impacts and diagnostic frameworks.
Climate change risk Geographic Information System (GIS); Climate Impact A few uncertainties in decision making (e.g., nature of
assessment Assessment (CIA); scenario-based risks/vulnerabilities climate change itself and changing social and institutional
analysis; environmental assessment index; General dimensions) have not been well addressed; insufficient
Equilibrium Model (GEM); Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis; attention on particular types of climate change events and/
multiple decision models; resilience of transportation or transportation assets.
systems in climate risk evaluation
Climate change and asset Risk-based methodology and adaptation framework; asset Data limitation; inadequate treatment of risk; lack of
management management system; a sustainability framework with its sufficient financial resources; uncertain demands in future
associated modelling and visualisation techniques; system
sensitivity matrix; Building Information Modelling (BIM)
Climate planning and policy Mitigation-related policies: pricing, land use and tax-related The expected goals and capacity of policy in response to
policy, the roles of policy capacity and spatial planning in climate change have not been sufficiently translated into
climate change transitions. Planning: structure decision- actions; focusing on the 'proofing' of infrastructure whilst
making and its tools ignoring other important factors in the short-medium terms.
Transportation adaptation to Trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation; research is Existing literature is too vague or focuses on general
climate change still at a stage of infancy: primary focus on physical principles and overly detailed technical adaptation
infrastructure, roadways and railways, a set of case studies measures; much knowledge for adapting to climate change
and top-down policy pattern remains unclear; research is relatively scattered, without
dominant theories, themes and journals, current
transportation investment and planning could not address
climate change impacts adequately; lacking of access to
financial resources.

Table 3
Summary of the impacts of climate change on transportation.
Climate parameters Categories Impacts

Precipitation Flooding, freezing and liquid precipitation, snow, liquid Delays and reduced speeds; loss of control and traction; pressures on
precipitation, perceptible water vapour, water body depths tyres and components of vehicles; flooding induced road and highway
and soil moisture closures; re-routing; wet road surface; uneven or break braking;
roadbed scouring; railroad beds softening; smoke or dust reduced
visibility due to drought barge shutdowns due to lower water levels
Temperature Surface and air temperature, heat index, heating and cooling Stresses on infrastructure and vehicle components, perishable cargoes,
degree periods and the first occurrence of season and rail buckling; reduced rail speeds; new routes in northern areas;
cost reduction and safety improvement due to the milder winter
Sea Level Unusual low and high tides, tropical cyclones, storm surge, Road and railway closures; disruptions of a whole supply chain; diverse
sea ice of open-water, sea state, hurricane winds, sea and damage to vehicles and infrastructure; obstructions on blocked rails;
wind wave height extreme water levels owing to sea level rise (SLR); changing shipments;
risk and damage to infrastructure; opening of a possible commercial
pathway
Thunderstorm Lightning, severe storm cell tracks and hail Infrastructure damage; railroads blocking; loss of control induced fast
changing conditions with different threats of damage and collisions ;
visibility influences; rock slides induced threats of collisions and delays
Winds Wind speed Vehicle instability, loss of control and re-routing; blow-overs
Visibility Restrictions due to fog, dust, haze, sun glare and smog, and Risk of damage and collisions; reduced speed; re-routing; schedule
upper atmosphere restrictions due to desert dust and delays
volcanic

Source: Adopted and processed from the analysis of multiple articles (e.g., Peterson et al., 2008; McGuirk et al., 2009; Love et al., 2010).

7
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

(2018) created an indicator-based vulnerability assessment method to evaluate the impacts of SLR on the eight beaches in Australia.
Alirezaei et al. (2017) focused on road safety, using a system dynamics method to model the economy nexus between climate change
and road safety and investigated the interactions amongst these essential areas. Five sub-models were then generated to test each
dimension of the nexus and their interactions to simulate the overall system effectively.
Two recent studies conducted by Mullan et al. (2016) and Matthews et al. (2017) respectively, concerned on climate impacts on
winter roads. Mullan et al. (2016) stated that there was a tendency towards thinner lake ice and a less time window when lake ice was
thick enough to support trucks on the Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road (TCWR). Assessed by three climate models, a clear trend
towards winter warming effects on TCWR required decision-makers to consider future climate conditions in annual haulage planning.
A new method to create a Winter Severity Index (WSI) model was developed and applied to central British Columbia, Canada
(Matthews et al., 2017). Supported by the data from the meteorological stations and maintenance records and the WSI model, users
can better interpret how winter weather is translated into inter-annual variations in winter road maintenance activities and to assist a
northern community in climate adaptation.
Regarding the economic consequences of climate change, a Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis was applied to assess its potential
threats on road pavement performance (Qiao et al., 2015). The binary non-linear programming was utilised to optimise intervention
strategies to minimise the associated costs (i.e. agency costs/total costs). Accordingly, the differences in road maintenance planning
and LCC under diverse climate scenarios were derived. A stressor-response methodology was proposed to analyse the costs “with
adapted” and “without adapted” strategies to climate change (Schweikert et al., 2014; Twerefou et al., 2015). Combining over 50
potential climate futures by general circulation models, Schweikert et al. (2014) assessed the cost caused by climate change in South
Africa. Similarly, Twerefou et al. (2015) estimated the economic impact of climate change on road infrastructure in Ghana. Such
analysis reveals that the question as to whether lowering decadal costs in the future or increasing initial costs as a priority remains
unanswered. Reasonable adaptation investment and decision making are significant at an initial planning stage.
An apparent problem is that the existing models utilised in climate risk case studies could only provide partial information to
guide adaptation planning of specific infrastructure and sectors. It is expected to adjust the sectoral model and climate scope when
extending the research to rail, port and other intermodal transport networks. Considering the interdependency of different climate
impacts on infrastructure, macroeconomic models are suggested to include the investigation of indirect effects, including business
and transportation interruption, as well as the economic failure of capital investments due to damaged infrastructure (Neumann
et al., 2015).

4.3. Climate change planning and policy

The principles and practice of planning are essential factors in adapting to climate change impacts complementary to the design,
operations and maintenance of transport infrastructure (Taylor and Philp, 2010). Climate change has been considered from the
perspectives of national and regional transportation planning and policy-making. However, the existing references are relatively
scattered and tend to only focus on GHG mitigation, such as on the pricing, land use and tax-related policies (Boarnet, 2010;
Solaymani et al., 2015), the roles of policy capacity and spatial planning in climate change transitions (Newman et al., 2013; Hrelja
et al, 2015), as well as structured decision making tools to link adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development decisions in
transport infrastructure (Wilson and McDaniels, 2007). Some climate-related long-range planning documents, literature and policies
have been reviewed, while the results reveal the existence of institutional barriers in several case studies (e.g., Taylor and Philp,
2010; Bache et al., 2015; Hrelja et al., 2015).
One of the key perspectives of transportation policy is the pressure to reduce GHG emissions in the forthcoming decades, together
with the consideration of a variety of measures to subsidise low carbon fuels (Boarnet, 2010). Holland et al. (2015) simulated four
polices for transportation sector, namely, ethanol subsidies, cap and trade, as well as low-carbon and renewable fuel standards.
Boarnet (2010) stated that combining pricing and land use regulation could effectively minimise the GHG emissions, with re-
lationship between land use and travel behaviour or distance being identified in the past decade (Ewing and Cervero, 2001; Handy,
2005). Tax policies are considered as a valid measure for reducing GHG emissions. Solaymani et al. (2015) examined the impact of
tax policies, including a carbon tax and other energy tax, on the both economy and transport sector in Malaysia. Climate change also
requires re-orientation of spatial planning, shifting attention to potential pathways (Wilson and Piper, 2010). However, existing
planning in climate policy seems to play a limited role for transitions of climate change. In other words, the expected goals and
capacity of policy for climate change have not been sufficiently translated into actions (e.g., Biesbroek, et al 2009; Preston et al.,
2011; Romero-Lankao, 2012). For instance, Hrelja et al. (2015) analysed the ability of spatial planning in supporting local transitions
of climate change to realise sustainable transportation by utilising two Swedish cases. Bache et al. (2015) examined how the UK
government’s headline on climate change targets were translated into action in the regional transport sector. The symbolic meta-
policy led to little action on the ground and only served political goals with insufficient practical values.
Newman et al. (2013) stressed the concept of policy capacity, which reflected the officers’ ability to provide and deliver practical
advice to political decision-makers effectively. Policy capacity has received a renewed interest in recent years, as a pivotal element in
the policy cycle on transportation sectors (e.g., Edwards, 2009). However, there are incompatible matches between the established
goals of transportation sector and current goals of climate action, leading to a particular administrative constraint called policy
layering (Kern and Howlett, 2009). To enhance the policy capacity, they suggested to give politicians more institutional support to
generate viable climate strategies, and appropriate solutions to helping counter these institutionalised constraints.
In the latest decade, market-based mechanism is increasingly attracting much attention in climate adaptation planning and policy
making. The market-based climate policies have been recognised as efficient approaches for regarding GHG emissions (e.g., carbon

8
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

taxes, emission-trading systems, cap and trade, and standards of clean energy) in the case of the US (Aldy and Stavins, 2011).
Nevertheless, this circumstance may not fit other markets (e.g., small countries) as argued by Ergas (2012). This is because that the
successful implementation of the market-based mechanism is on the basis of a series of premises, including long-term commitments
on technological innovation, legal updating and international agreement. In the absence of these premises, the profits of investment
of these instruments cannot be guaranteed. Meckling and Jenner (2016) discussed the two types of market-based environmental
policies, where price and quantity instruments were usually utilised by European and American governors respectively. A hybrid
policy mixes, however, is the mainstream in policy making of climate change, blending the two varieties as a consequence of global
diffusion driven by changing national government alliances. Furthermore, Shrivastava and Bhaduri (2019) linked the market-based
mechanisms (e.g., promoted by the Paris Agreement on climate change) to climate justice which has multi-institutional dimensions,
and argued that the former could archive some aspects of the latter. Effectively combining the market-based and non-market me-
chanisms would greatly contribute to the realisation of the goal of climate change planning.
Planning of transportation infrastructure for climate change is always complicated, involving uncertainty and demand for bal-
ancing costs and benefits. During the examination of land-based transport in relation to climate change in Australia, Taylor and Philp
(2010) emphasised the necessity of local rural networks for emergency evacuation planning as a future research direction. However,
the existing policies tend to look at the 'proofing' of transportation infrastructure whilst ignoring other important dimensions (Hearn,
2015). Some management agencies barely integrate climate change into the process of decision making, which partially explains why
there are insufficient tools for climate forecasting and planning (Espinet et al., 2016). Vulnerability assessment could be a crucial step
in adaptation planning as vulnerability can significantly weaken the efficiency and ability of transport operations. Hence, the next
section reviews the management of transportation infrastructure and assets for climate change.

4.4. Asset management for climate change

Transport infrastructure presents significant components in transportation systems. The damage and economic losses on transport
infrastructure posed by climate change could be catastrophic (Huibregtse et al., 2016). The direct costs include those relating to
repair, maintenance and replacement of infrastructure. The indirect costs may stem from a loss of infrastructure service and activity
disruption (Sawyer, 2014). Asset management has been put forward to offer a structured method to support decision making and
maintain property effectively in the transportation sector. A significant amount of works has been undertaken in the past decade,
especially in developed countries (e.g., the US, and Australia), including risk-based methodology and adaptation framework (Wall
and Meyer, 2013; Huibregtse et al., 2016; The Federal Highway Administration, 2012), economic analysis and asset planning
(Chinowsky et al., 2013; Sawyer, 2014).
In the US, risk-based transportation asset management has become a mandatory approach in assisting agencies to understand how
risk management could benefit decision making (The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2012). The second report published
by FHWA of the US transportation agencies examined risk-based approaches in asset management at multiple levels of the trans-
portation sector. The recommended asset risk management method can be embedded in relevant institutions, involving policy in-
novation, assigning responsibilities, documenting processes and training at each risk level (FHWA, 2012). Wall and Meyer (2013)
proposed a risk-based climate adaptation framework for transportation through reviewing two types of adaptation planning: on
physical infrastructure and assets, and on operations and maintenance. More recently, Huibregtse et al. (2016) applied a risk-based
approach to quantify climate impacts on a road network in the Netherlands. Based on the philosophy of identifying the system’s
resilience, this method indicated the remaining time before unexpected situations came out, can be employed in climate adaptation
planning.
Meyer et al. (2010) utilised an asset management system as a decision-making framework in climate transportation planning. It is
evident that the asset management system offered the most robust approach to develop transportation asset planning for climate
change, and the system had been widely applied to sizeable local transportation agencies to some extent. Nevertheless, there were
few resources helping decision makers to identify critical thresholds and sensitivity indicators to extreme weather events in an asset
system (Rowan et al., 2013). To deal with the resource limitation, Rowan et al. (2013) introduced the sensitivity matrix to an
adaptation pilot project in the US. Thus, the matrix allowed transportation planners to screen assets that were particularly sensitive to
climate change by setting up critical thresholds in which damage could be observed. Further studies were recommended to in-
vestigate sensitivity indicators and important thresholds for specific projects. The matrix synthesised the information from empirical
studies of damage, historical climate data and engineering analyses to link physical assets to climate variables under projected
climate scenarios.
Doust (2010) proposed a sustainability framework, together with its associated modelling and visualisation techniques, providing
planners with an approach to balance the trade-offs among governments, businesses and their communities, and to address the
challenges in climate adaptation. These techniques have been extensively applied in the construction of infrastructure in cities and
also offered valuable sources in developing a useful sustainability framework in transportation asset management. Afterwards,
Sanchez et al. (2014) applied BIM into asset management of a transportation system in Australia. BIM enabled the integration of
information from different disciplines and measured sustainability performance of asset management projects. It assisted transport
agencies to act more cost-effectively through analysis of alternative designs, as well as monitoring and optimising essential perfor-
mance for the asset (Sanchez et al., 2014). More recently, The Tennessee Department of Transportation in the US conducted an
assessment of critical transportation to respond to potential threats posed by extreme weather by 2040 (Abkowitz et al., 2017). A
framework of extreme weather vulnerability assessment was formed, including the establishment of an asset inventory, recognition of
the disaster types, and conduction of quantitative evaluations for potential asset damage.

9
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

The analysis of economic losses due to climate change is a critical component in asset management as well. The International
Institute for Sustainable Development developed a guide to help transportation practitioners to interpret the economic implications of
not only the infrastructure damages but also the investment benefits by strengthening infrastructure resiliency (Sawyer, 2014). This
guidance provided a general framework to conceptualise economic effects posed by climate change, and link asset vulnerability,
economic outcomes with climate change together.
Minimising the uncertainty in climate adaptation is a critical issue waived to be addressed for both risk analysis and asset
investment. The primary difficulty attributes to the uncertain natural of climate change itself. As it is challenging to collect precise
data by an objective approach, a group of researchers (e.g., Yang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019b, 2020) had conducted a series of
climate risk studies by using uncertainty methods, which combined fuzzy set (e.g. Lavasani et al., 2012), Bayesian networks (e.g.
Zhang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019) with evidential reasoning (e.g. Wang et al., 2019) approaches, to model subjective input data
(Baksh et al., 2018). Such methods allow modelling subjective linguistic variables extracting from the stakeholders’ opinions by
surveys. Accordingly, climate risks were assessed based on their timeframes of climate threats, occurrence frequencies, the severity of
consequences, and resilience of infrastructure to climate change with minimum uncertainty and loss of objective information (Wang
et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, the uncertainty issues on climate change had been addressed by another group of scholars (e.g., Wang and Zhang,
2018; Randrianarisoa and Zhang, 2019; Wang et al, 2020). In recent years, by studying the scale and timing of investment and
relevant issues in climate adaptation in a competitive port market. Through establishing a two-period real options game model, it was
found that the probability of climate threat occurrence, and the level of competition the information obtained could influence the
timing of investment (Randrianarisoa and Zhang, 2019). Considering the inter-and intra-port coopetition in the market of terminal
operator companies (TOCs), Wang and Zhang (2018) found that inter-port competition encouraged adaptation investments while the
free-riding effect existed among terminal operator and port authority within a port. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2019a) investigated
that the TOC market structure could moderate the effect of climate threat uncertainty on port adaptation.
However, it is only very recently that climate change has been integrated into the management of infrastructure (Huibregtse et al.,
2016), and only a limited number of agencies have considered adaptations in their organisational management practices (Wall and
Meyer, 2013). Some common barriers have been revealed in Wall and Meyer’s research (2013), including data limitation, inadequate
financial resources and treatment of risk, and uncertainty in future system demand. Hence, more professional and resilient asset
management methods are called to quantitatively analyse the effects of climate change on transportation infrastructure. They could
be supported by investigating multiple parameters, reviewing models and adding extra functionality (Huibregtse et al., 2016). To
better implement asset planning in future climate adaptation, it suggestes transportation agencies utilise common, consistent and
directive approaches, widely accepted risk standards and in-depth user guides. Broad communicating and information sharing among
agencies and climate researchers will allow them to figure out the most effective solution to each case and to enlarge benefits for the
entire transportation sector (Wall and Meyer, 2013; Sawyer, 2014).

4.5. Climate adaptation in transportation systems

4.5.1. Climate change strategies


To effectively address the threats posed by climate change on transportation, climate strategies must be adopted. From the
mitigation perspective, there have been numerous research works concerning measuring, managing and minimising carbon dioxide
and GHG emissions (Patterson et al., 2008), and the de-carbonisation of the transportation sector (Geels, 2012; Schwanen et al., 2012;
Hendricks et al., 2018). These mitigation measures include the reduction the speed of transport vehicles and the introduction of novel
technologies into engine design for more efficient operations (Love et al., 2010). Compared to the mainstream of carbon emission
studies in climate change, unfortunately, it is quite recently that climate adaptation on transportation sector has started to be
developed (Hooper and Chapman, 2012). It has been recognised that adaptation is more cost-effective compared to mitigation
strategies (e.g., Pielke, 2007). There have been more countries starting to recognise the importance of adaptation and incorporating it
to their political and scientific agenda; however, the majority of contributions are at an initial stage of climate risks determination
(Arnell, 2010).
Klein and Huq (2007) and Koetse and Rietveld (2012) explained the trade-off between adaptation and mitigation. The optimal
investment levels of the two strategies mainly depend upon cost-benefit analysis. The high efficiency of a mix of both measures can be
achieved in the case of maximum damage reduction and minimal marginal social costs (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). Likewise,
neglecting or delaying adaptations in decision-making can not only exacerbate consequences due to climate change but also degrade
the welfares of mitigation (Oswald, 2011). Considering the high interdependence of optimal mitigation and adaptation, a potential
question needing to be solved is how to balance the two strategies in policy making as mitigation is usually considered at a global
scale, while adaptation often takes place at regional and local levels (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012).

4.5.2. Adaptation strategies in transportation systems


The current research in adapting to climate change impacts mainly focuses on physical infrastructure (e.g., pavements, bridges
and drainage systems) (e.g., De Bruin et al., 2009). Dobney et al. (2009, 2010) quantified the impacts of increasing summer tem-
peratures on the British railways, and suggested two effective adaptation measures, namely, ensuring raising the stress-free rail
temperature and maintaining track and track bed appropriately. More adaptation tools and frameworks that can be utilised in
transportation are elaborated in Table 4. The framework of climate change usually indicates the process of adaptation planning with
specific context of each stage, it is could be either a standardised method (e.g., Blueprinting (Niemeier et al., 2015)) or a project-

10
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Table 4
Climate adaptation tools and frameworks in transportation.
Name Context References

Blueprinting A collaborative process that residents can involve in an interactive Niemeier et al. (2015)
dialogue regarding the future city development of their urban area
Dynamic Adaptive Planning Used to overcome the disadvantages of existing methods by dealing with Wall et al. (2015)
the deep uncertainty
Roadmaps for Adaptation Measures of Transportation Review adaptation measures and policies for the transport sector and Stamos et al. (2015)
to Climate Change evaluate them through a series of performance indicators
Three-Pillar (Policy-Management-Technology) model Sensitivity and risk analysis used to identify the key threshold and quantify Mutombo (2014)
the risks in response to the requirements in the level of management,
policy and physical infrastructure
New York City Panel on Climate Change -adaptation Map the crucial targeted infrastructure, making efficient climate forecasts Rosenzweig et al.
framework for SLR and storm surge and develop a regional risk management approach to adaptation (2011)
Climate Change Adaptation Tool for Transportation in Utilise a decision-theoretic approach to identify uncertainty and appraise Oswald and McNeil
the Mid-Atlantic areas of the United States climate change scenarios in the long-term transportation planning (2013)
Adaptive Systems Management Include projecting the potential climate change, identifying Meyer and Weigel
vulnerabilities, analysing climate change strategies from the perspective of (2010)
transportation engineering
Spatial Planning Map the coastal inundation in Indonesia via a GIS model, and analyse Suroso and Firman
changes of land use and estimate damage exposure (2018)

based solution (e.g., New York City Panel on Climate Change (Rosenzweig et al., 2011)).
Despite all these pioneering attempts, systematic reviews of literature show that existing research regarding climate adaptation in
the transportation sector is still scare (Eisenack et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019b). Lack of access to financial resources could pose a
massive challenge for the implementation of an adaptation plan (Miao et al., 2018). Deficiency of implementation of adaptation plans
may also be caused by the fact that they have a stakeholder-oriented focus, involving multiple participants (public, private and
households), actions and agencies (Nelson et al., 2007). It is challenging to develop strategies supported by all participants (Eisenack
et al., 2007).
The factors such as infrastructure age, location, design, maintenance and limited redundancy, could affect the sensitivities of
transportation systems and the implementation of adaptation planning (Strauch et al., 2015). Nevertheless, existing research has
barely taken into account how to figure out the factors constricting or promoting the implementation of adaptation. It requires more
detailed knowledge about the related actions and stakeholders for adaptation strategies at an advanced stage (Eisenack et al., 2012).
It is also noticeable that the literature concerning adaptation possibilities mainly focuses on the global North (i.e., the US and Europe)
rather than the global South where might be more vulnerable to climate change regarding geographical scale and affected popu-
lation, and has inadequate infrastructure networks to support the implementation of adaptation planning (Koetse and Rietveld,
2012).
Although almost all transportation modes have been addressed in the current literature, the primary research emphasis is put on
roads (e.g. Strauch et al., 2015) and waterways (e.g. Osthorst and Mänz, 2012) compared to railway and air transport (Eisenack et al.,
2012). Doll et al. (2014) revealed that the butterfly effects of climate change had influenced not only one mode but also connected
modes of its main line or feeder traffic, such as the delay and closure of the channel or transhipment process on account of extreme
climate events. Furthermore, even if all transport modes are involved in the climate adaptation, their level of adaptation could be
diverse due to the different degree of disruption and adaptation capacity across all modes.
Instead of long-term strategies, most of the adaptation policies in Europe, for example, strive to reinforce short-term resilience
(Aparicio Mourelo, 2017). As a result, current transportation investment and planning do not address climate change impacts
adequately. Firstly, the relatively irreversible investments in infrastructure might fail to reach their expected effects and profits under
the new climate parameters with the accelerating pace of climate change and severe climate events (Reilly and Schimmelpfennig,
2000). Secondly, relatively short planning cycles (typically 5–10 years) do not match infrastructure lifespans (typically more than
50 years), which leads to malfunctioning of transport networks (ICF International, 2008; Kintisch, 2008).
The first issue is relatively easy to handle by factoring climate change into daily monitoring and maintenance, supported by
stricter design parameters in response to various extreme climate events (e.g., TRB, 2008). This strategy is also called proactive or ex-
ante adaptation, which applies to significant and long-term investments. It well responds to the fact that major factors among
transport infrastructure are expensive, while the mistakes on investments could cause irreversible negative consequences if the
infrastructure lifespan exceed the climate thresholds (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). Embedding adaptation in broader investment or
adaptation programmes has been exemplified by the adaptive infrastructure design to SLR and coastal zone management in North
America and Europe (Adger et al., 2007).
However, the second issue requires more consideration due to its complexity. In port planning, for example, Becker et al. (2012)
noticed that a majority of the surveyed ports planned for a historic 100-year storm period. However, the accelerated rate of climate
change would make this preparation inadequate if the return period becomes 30 years instead of 100 years. As a common port
infrastructure is designed with a 50-year lifespan, new infrastructure put in place nowadays should fit a new climate regime. Hence,
balancing the investments in infrastructure with the planning cycle, especially under financial constraints, should be considered in
adaptation planning (Wang, 2015). Regarding the climate change predictions in a shorter time horizon where higher uncertainty

11
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

exists, there is a likelihood that appropriate and profitable adaptation investments become inappropriate, unprofitable, and in-
sufficient ex-post (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994). For irreversible investments, Koetse and Rietveld (2012) suggested to address the issue
by postponing the decision-making and infrastructure updating until key parameters of climate change are given with a relatively
confident certainty, in particular in the case when updating design is a long-lasting procedure and wrong decisions are costly. Also,
adaptation measures can be implemented in scheduled updating, and investment or maintenance can be followed with little addi-
tional cost, in which case the costs of overinvestment are relatively low while damages are relatively insignificant (e.g. The Advisory
Council for Transport, Public Works and Water Management (RVW), 2009). The postponement strategy in adaptation investment has
been applied to diverse policy-related planning (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012).

5. Implications and future research agenda

Research surveying the impacts of climate change on the transport sectors has been conducted at a national and multi-regional
scale in several developed countries (Pant et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; NRCNA, 2008). A considerable number of studies iden-
tifying the risks of climate change on the transportation system have been conducted to quantify the economic consequences of the
environmental impacts based on the diverse transport modes via multiple decision models. However, the literature on Asian studies is
relatively underdeveloped, calling for nationwide analyses and strengthening the infrastructure resilience by quantifications of cli-
mate impacts and adaptation costs (Chinowsky et al., 2015b). Understanding that planning for climate change remains abstract and
usually fails to identify the specific vulnerabilities in risk assessment (Walker et al., 2011), it is imperative to consider associated
planning and policy in climate risk assessment.
Transport resilience (Wan et al., 2018) has become an important concept in risk assessment for climate change in recent studies. It
has been applied into multiple transport projects, such as the risk evaluation of the impacts of sea level rise and flooding in New York
(Beheshtian et al, 2018) and climate change impacts on the road and rail systems in the UK (Wang et al., 2019b, 2020). Hence, future
studies calls for more comprehensive and in-depth investigation on how to enhance transport resilience could contribute to the
adaptation of climate change impacts.
Multiple vulnerability studies on climate adaptation are still at a relatively embryonic stage with inadequate attention on specific
transport adaptation planning and nationwide adaptation strategies (Eisenack et al., 2012). A vacuum yet to be bridged in the
existing literature is between too vague or general principles and too detailed technical adaptation measures. It is suggested to make
the adaptation instruments to be more generic for facilitating the requirement of adopting concrete organisational or technical
measures (e.g., Koetse and Rietveld, 2012).
In this process, a significant challenge for transportation planners is the shortage of data both in precise climate prediction and the
cost-benefit analysis owing to the high uncertainty of climate change (De Bruin et al., 2009). The knowledge gaps regarding direction,
magnitude and severity also lead to the failure of adaptation strategies (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). Accordingly, quantitative
analysis and cost-effectiveness evaluation for potential climate change is fundamental for making a specific adaptation plan for
transport systems (i.e., Adger et al., 2007). Owing to the high-level uncertainty towards the future climate change, adaptation
planning is encouraged to be robust. Among the literature reviewed, Espinet et al. (2017) proposed a robust prioritisation framework
for adaptation investments on transport infrastructure under such uncertainty, which offered a new decision-making process and
practical guidance on how to realise low-regret adaptation solutions for flexible design of road infrastructure. More practical and
robust adaptation frameworks on climate change are desired to assist in more accurate climate projections, transparent information
and innovative applications to minimise the vulnerability of the transport systems for expected shifts in extreme weather patterns
(Pilli-Sihvola et al., 2016).
From the perspective of adaptation planning, it is noted that many adaptation plans (e.g. those in the UK) are not explicitly
constructed to address the climate threats but for the co-benefits of other activities such as demands of infrastructure investment and
cost savings (Tompkins et al., 2010). Hence, identifying clear drivers would be the first step in climate adaptation planning regarding
entities without plans. In general, a proper infrastructure planning should be based on a systematic procedure. It includes identifi-
cation of climate threats, categorisation of the most vulnerable infrastructure and opportunities for adaptation measures, examination
of the existing institutional mechanism, as well as identification of regulatory and network constraints related to disruptions or
degradation (Espinet et al., 2016). Additionally, as adaptation strategies are significant and could be costly, infrastructure sectors
should be embedded to the future planning optimisation in advance (e.g., Neumann and Price, 2009). In Europe, the cost analysis
based on WEATHER and EVENT projects implies a high uncertainty together with the financial burden on the transportation systems,
as well as discrepancy cost rates among the transport modes. These uncertainties could be relieved through vertical and horizontal
collaboration between the company and government: the company may consider updating cost estimation schemes and making
business adaptation plans for climate change; the government should establish better risk and disaster management mechanisms and
lead suitable adaptation strategies for climate change (Doll et al., 2014).
Generally speaking, most adaptation initiatives have an organisational or planning nature that refers to a top-down policy pattern
(Eisenack et al., 2012; Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). It was explained that public stakeholders were responsible for obliging or enabling
transport providers to adapt to climate risks for transport users (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). In transportation adaptation practice,
governmental organisations, as an operator, often play the role of commissioners through setting a regulatory framework and offering
adaptation guidance, and meanwhile leaving space for receptors to develop their own concrete adaptation measures. However, as
private transport could be strictly regulated by the public sector, the top-down pattern has been doubted by researchers and argued
that most of the adaptations could be led by the private sector. To better understand the different sectors and their functions in
adaptation planning, bottom-up adaptation strategies should be considered in future research.

12
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Another pressing issue is the inadequacy of current transportation investment and planning for climate change. The pro-active or
ex-ante strategy and postponement strategy in adaptation investment might address this issue according to the scale and lifetime of
the investment (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012; RVW, 2009). The choice among ex-ante disaster prevention, insurance and ex-post aid
was discussed in recent years. The investigating results via experiment in floodplain areas of the Netherlands, for example, proved the
efficiency of premium discounts to facilitate investment for both private and public stakeholders (Mol et al., 2018). The public sector
(e.g., government) in general has stronger ability to initiate insurances and raise funds for post-disaster issues, while the motivations
vary in different countries due to unstable financial and other factors (McAneney et al., 2016). McAneney et al (2016) argued that
insurance cannot be taken as a social political instrument, and meanwhile, the incentives of insurance relies on transparency and
accuracy in pricing risks.
The decision-making processes of investment are complex, related to diverse elements (e.g., probability of disaster occurrence,
effect of information accumulation, mode capacity and coordination of government) and can vary at different stages of adaptation
planning (Xiao et al., 2015; Gong et al., 2020). The investment also relies on smart policies in climate change adaptation that contain
three elements: robustness of transport networks in adapting to current climate conditions, strong linkage of transportation policy
with other climate-related policies, and low-cost adaptation measures in supporting massive investment (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012).
Some adaptation practices in transportation design have revealed that not all communities are incapable of incorporating climate
impacts into infrastructure planning and management. Some questions are therefore deferred for future consideration, such as how
academics can cooperate with local practitioners to implement adaptation, how to balance the roles of central and local governments,
and how to tackle the barriers faced by communities in responding to climate change vulnerabilities (Picketts et al., 2016). Hence, as
echoed by Jude et al. (2017), further research requires a more comprehensive analysis on adaptation planning in terms of identifying
the feasibility, deficiency and resilience in key stakeholder organisations as well as motivation and challenges faced by other or-
ganisations. Furthermore, more systemic economic modelling studies on investment by integrating multiple factors will continually
help planners making decisions on each phase of adaptation planning with minimum uncertainties and costs.
In summary, the issues on developing appropriate adaptation tools for climate change remain. Firstly, many adaptation meth-
odologies and tools are not explicitly designed for the transportation sector. Secondly, adaptation measures are either conceptual or
lack of specific models for climate change, they could not provide a one-for-all solution for decision makers. Therefore, a compre-
hensive climate adaptation framework with systematic risk analysis on the transportation sector could provide significant con-
tributions in the future. Typically, the establishment and development of such a framework are motivated by three factors: 1)
government acts and/or legislation as adaptation planning requirements; 2) increasing frequency of extreme weather events; 3) self-
motivated internal agency initiatives (Wall and Meyer, 2013). These adaptation drivers have also been confirmed by Aguiar et al.
(2018) through reviewing over 140 European local adaptation strategies. Nevertheless, it calls for more integrated methods in
managing transport systems containing the systemic planning guidance at different stages, such as vulnerability assessment, cost-
benefit analysis, and investigation of policy measures, strategies and operational decisions (Leviäkangas and Michaelides, 2014).
Additionally, the butterfly effects of climate change imply that an extreme event could trigger substantial potential disaster and
directly or indirectly pass to all the stakeholders of its closely knitted transport systems. These all indicate the needs for better
cooperation among multiple organisations and information sharing in intermodal transportation systems.

6. Conclusion

This paper presents a state-of-the-art survey on climate adaptation of transportation systems based on 100 relevant journal papers
featured in 65 internationally recognised journals in a period between 2005 and 2018. The investigation results indicate an increased
publication rate during the most recent 7-year period with an increased rate of 12.6 papers per year. Represented by Transportation
Research Record, Transportation Research-Part D, and Climatic Change, the top journals involve multiple disciplines including
transportation, climate change, risks and geography. North American and European researchers were the main forces, while South
American, African and Asian researchers have gradually become involved in the global research team in recent years. Qualitative
research methods make up over 68% of the total, in which case study and conceptual work are the dominant ones. Though the
existing research is relatively scattered, lacking in dominant journals, researchers and theories (Eisenack et al., 2012), the co-au-
thorship analysis showes that networking between researchers from many backgrounds have created two main research communities
since 2010 with markedly increased numbers of research papers being published.
By semantics analysis, we have categorised the corpuses based on different research themes and analysed them with respect to the
climate change impacts on road/rail transportation, climate change risk assessment and asset management, climate planning and
policy and climate adaptations on transportation. Despite much effort on investigating climate risks and developing appropriate
adaptation tools for climate change, a few gaps are still revealed:

(1) Current studies mainly focus on short-term impacts and climate adaptation for the transport sector are relatively presented in
piecemeal;
(2) Many adaptation tools or frameworks are not explicitly designed for the transportation sector;
(3) Existing models could not provide a standardised solution for decision-makers; and
(4) The high uncertainty in adaptation for climate change risks poses a significant challenge for planners.

From the perspective of adaptation planning, existing research is still at an embryonic stage with inadequate attention to specific
transport adaptation planning and nationwide adaptation strategies in most countries. A few dilemmas include:

13
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

(1) Many adaptation plans (e.g., in the UK) are not explicitly designed for responding to impacts of climate change but for the co-
benefits of other activities such as demands of infrastructure investment and cost savings.
(2) The relatively irreversible investments in infrastructure might fail to reach their expected effects and profits under the new
climate parameters, where predicted short lifetimes of transportation infrastructure might be problematic with the accelerating
pace of climate change.
(3) Relatively short planning cycles (typically 5–10 years) do not match infrastructure lifespans (typically more than 50 years), which
leads to malfunctioning of transport networks.

Overcoming these gaps requires a comprehensive analysis which can be tailored to use in diverse transportation modes (e.g., rail
and road) to quantify the trade-offs between preliminary costs and long-term benefits. A systematic analysis for developing long-term
climate change adaptation planning in transportation systems can be further optimised by both quantitative and qualitative methods,
such as a developed Fuzzy Bayesian Reasoning model, real surveys, and in-depth interviews with associated transport stakeholders.
Future studies in climate adaptation planning calls for profound investigation on emerging topics, including but not limited to, the
improvement of transport resilience, reducing climate uncertainties in adaptation investment, and the rational selection of adaptation
strategies in planning and policy making.
Through in-depth analysis and discussion, this research pioneers the review work on climate change risk assessment, adaptation
planning and other relevant topics in transportation studies, contributing to yield an archive of the associated publications on the
researched themes and present the state quo of climate adaptation studies to strike the new exploration in a right track. By doing so, it
sets a future research agenda by indicating directions on how the research community should move forward to and providing
transport planners and decision-makers with valuable insights and guidance on understanding the status quo and potential challenges
in for climate risk analysis and implementation of adaptation planning in transportation. Moreover, the revealed gaps in the current
literature and potential suggestions discussed in this study will enlighten researchers and practitioners cause a paradigm shift re-
garding existing adaptation planning and management.
Although it aims to be a comprehensive review to dissect all significant research gaps and current emerging topics in the context
of climate adaptation on transportation systems, unexceptionally, this work has its limitations. First, transport systems in this work
mainly refer to road and rail transport, wider implications on other transport modes should be conducted in future for cross-refer-
encing purposes. Second, to ensure the quality and relevance of the reviewed papers, we screen them using two strict constraints.
Inevitably, some non-journal articles (e.g. government reports) that might contain useful implications are not included in the current
work. Accordingly, we encourage continuous investigation to widen the research scope with latest data in the future study.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Tianni Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Zhuohua Qu: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision, Funding acquisition. Zaili Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Timothy Nichol: Resources, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision. Geoff Clarke: Validation, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Ying-En Ge: Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgements

This research is financially supported by Liverpool John Moores University, UK AECOM UK and EU H2020 ERC Consolidator
Grant programme (TRUST Grant No. 864724). This work are also supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China
(Grant: 71671110) and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant: 18ZDA052). The authors are also grateful for the
support of the Lloyd’s Register Foundation, a charity that helps to protect life and property by supporting engineering-related
education, public engagement, and the application of research.

References

Abkowitz, M., Jones, A., Dundon, L., Camp, J., 2017. Performing a regional transportation asset extreme weather vulnerability assessment. Transp. Res. Procedia 25,
4422–4437.
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity.
In: Climate change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, pp. 717–743.
Aguiar, F.C., Bentz, J., Silva, J.M., Fonseca, A.L., Swart, R., Santos, F.D., Penha-Lopes, G., 2018. Adaptation to climate change at local level in Europe: an overview.
Environ. Sci. Policy 86, 38–63.
Aldy, J.E., Stavins, R.N., 2011. Using the market to address climate change: insights from theory and experience. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. 141 (2), 45–60.
Alirezaei, M., Onat, N.C., Tatari, O., Abdel-Aty, M., 2017. The climate change-road safety-economy nexus: a system dynamics approach to understanding complex
interdependencies. Systems 5 (1), 6.
Aparicio Mourelo, Á.C., 2017. Transport adaptation policies in Europe: from incremental actions to long-term visions. Transp. Res. Procedia 25, 3529–3537.
Arnell, N.W., 2010. Adapting to climate change: an evolving research programme. Climate Chang 100, 107–111.
Bache, I., Reardon, L., Bartle, I., Marsden, G., Flinders, M., 2015. Symbolic meta-policy: (not) tackling climate change in the transport sector. Polit. Stud. 63 (4),
830–851.
Baksh, A.A., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., Khan, F., 2018. Marine transportation risk assessment using Bayesian Network: application to Arctic waters. Ocean Eng. 159,
422–436.

14
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Becker, A., Inoue, S., Fischer, M., Schwegler, B., 2012. Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port
administrators. Clim. Change 110 (1–2), 5–29.
Becker, A., Ng, A.K., Mcevoy, D., Mullett, J., 2018. Implications of climate change for shipping: ports and supply chains. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9 (2),
1–18.
Beheshtian, A., Donaghy, K.P., Gao, H.O., Safaie, S., Geddes, R., 2018. Impacts and implications of climatic extremes for resilience planning of transportation energy: a
case study of New York city. J. Cleaner Prod. 174, 1299–1313.
Bergström, J., van Winsen, R., Henriqson, E., 2015. On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: a literature review. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 141, 131–141.
Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., van der Knaap, W.G.M., 2009. The mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat Int. 33 (3), 230–237.
Boarnet, M.G., 2010. Planning, climate change, and transportation: thoughts on policy analysis. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 44 (8), 587–595.
Chinowsky, P.S., Price, J.C., Neumann, J.E., 2013. Assessment of climate change adaptation costs for the US road network. Global Environ. Change 23 (4), 764–773.
Chinowsky, P., Schweikert, A., Hughes, G., Hayles, C.S., Strzepek, N., Strzepek, K., Westphal, M., 2015a. The impact of climate change on road and building
infrastructure: a four-country study. Int. J. Disaster Resilience Built Environ. 6 (4), 382–396.
Chinowsky, P.S., Schweikert, A.E., Strzepek, N., Strzepek, K., 2015b. Road infrastructure and climate change in Vietnam. Sustainability 7 (5), 5452–5470.
Clarivate Analytics, n.d. Retrieved on July 9, 2017 from http://clarivate.com/about-us/what-we-do/?product=web-of-science.
Colicchia, C., Strozzi, F., 2012. Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (4), 403–418.
Cyram, 2017. NetMiner versión 4.3. Seoul: Cyram Inc. Retrieved on May 10, 2018 from http://www.netminer.com/.
De Bruin, K., Dellink, R., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, L., van Buuren, A., Graveland, J., Roetter, R., 2009. Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate
adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Clim. Change 95 (1), 23–45.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage
Publications, London, pp. 671–689.
Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S., 1994. Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Dobney, K., Baker, C.J., Quinn, A.D., Chapman, L., 2009. Quantifying the effects of high summer temperatures due to climate change on buckling and rail related
delays in South-East United Kingdom. Meteorol. Appl. 16 (2), 245–251.
Dobney, K., Baker, C.J., Chapman, L., Quinn, A.D., 2010. The future cost to the United Kingdom’s railway network of heat-related delays and buckles caused by the
predicted increase in high summer temperatures owing to climate change. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit 224, 25–34.
Doll, C., Klug, S., Enei, R., 2014. Large and small numbers: options for quantifying the costs of extremes on transport now and in 40 years. Nat. Hazards 72 (1),
211–239.
Doust, K., 2010. Responding to climate change in cities: techniques for minimising risk through transport system and urban form planning and asset management.
HKIE Civil Conference.
Edwards, L., 2009. Testing the discourse of declining policy capacity: Rail policy and the Department of Transport. Australian J. Public Admin. 68 (3), 288–302.
Eisenack, K., Tekken, V., Kropp, J., 2007. Stakeholder perceptions of climate change in the Baltic sea region. Coastline Rep. 8, 245–255.
Eisenack, K., Stecker, R., Reckien, D., Hoffmann, E., 2012. Adaptation to climate change in the transport sector: a review of actions and actors. Mitig. Adapt. Strat.
Glob. Change 17 (5), 451–469.
Emerald Group Publishing, n.d. Retrieved on July 9, 2017 from http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/about/index.htm.
Ergas, H., 2012. Policy Forum: designing a carbon price policy: using market-based mechanisms for emission abatement: are the assumptions plausible? Australian
Econ. Rev. 45 (1), 86–95.
Espinet, X., Schweikert, A., van den Heever, N., Chinowsky, P., 2016. Planning resilient roads for the future environment and climate change: quantifying the
vulnerability of the primary transport infrastructure system in Mexico. Transp. Policy 50, 78–86.
Espinet, X., Schweikert, A., Chinowsky, P., 2017. Robust prioritization framework for transport infrastructure adaptation investments under uncertainty of climate
change. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncert. Eng. Syst., Part A: Civil Eng. 3 (1), E4015001.
Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2001. Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transp. Res. Rec. 1780 (1), 87–114.
Ferrer, R., Cancho, I., Sole, R.V., 2001. The small world of human language. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 268 (1482), 2261–2265.
Geels, F.W., 2012. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 471–482.
Gong, L., Xiao, Y., Jiang, C., Zheng, S., Fu, X., 2020. Seaport investments in capacity and natural disaster prevention. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 85, 102367.
Handy, S.L., 2005. Smart growth and the transportation – land use connection: what does the research tell us? Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 28 (2), 146–167.
Hearn, G., 2015. Managing road transport in a world of changing climate and land use. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Municipal Eng. 169 (3), 146–159.
Hendricks, J., Righi, M., Dahlmann, K., Gottschaldt, K.D., Grewe, V., Ponater, M., Kampffmeyer, T., 2018. Quantifying the climate impact of emissions from land-based
transport in Germany. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 65, 825–845.
Holland, S.P., Hughes, J.E., Knittel, C.R., Parker, N.C., 2015. Some inconvenient truths about climate change policy: the distributional impacts of transportation
policies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97 (5), 1052–1069.
Hooper, E., Chapman, L., 2012. The impacts of climate change on national road and rail networks. In: Transport and Climate Change. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp. 105–136 Chapter 5.
Hooper, E.J., 2013. Future resilient transport networks: current and future impacts of precipitation on a UK motorway corridor. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Birmingham.
Hrelja, R., Hjerpe, M., Storbjörk, S., 2015. Creating transformative force? The role of spatial planning in climate change transitions towards sustainable transportation.
J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 17 (5), 617–635.
Huibregtse, E., Morales Napoles, O., Hellebrandt, L., De Wit, S., Paprotny, D., 2016. Climate change in asset management of infrastructure: a risk-based methodology
applied to disruption of traffic on road networks due to the flooding of tunnels. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. (EJTIR) 16 (1), 98–113.
ICF International, 2008. Planning for climate change impacts at US ports. White paper prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2008.
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York.
Jude, S.R., Drew, G.H., Pollard, S.J., Rocks, S.A., Jenkinson, K., Lamb, R., 2017. Delivering organisational adaptation through legislative mechanisms: evidence from
the Adaptation Reporting Power (Climate Change Act 2008). Sci. Total Environ. 574, 858–871.
Keohane, R.O., Victor, D.G., 2011. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Polit. 9 (1), 7–23.
Kern, F., Howlett, M., 2009. Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sci. 42 (4), 391–408.
Kim, K., Pant, P., Yamashita, E., 2018. Integrating travel demand modeling and flood hazard risk analysis for evacuation and sheltering. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31,
1177–1186.
Kintisch, E., 2008. Roads, ports, rails aren't ready for changing climate, says report. Science 319 (5871), 1744–1745.
Kishimoto, P.N., Karplus, V.J., Zhong, M., Saikawa, E., Zhang, X., Zhang, X., 2017. The impact of coordinated policies on air pollution emissions from road trans-
portation in China. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 54, 30–49.
Klein, R.T., Huq, S., 2007. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: IPCC Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, pp. 745–777 Chapter 18.
Knuth, D.E., 1993. The Stanford Graph Base: A Platform for Combinatorial Computing Vol. 37 ACM, New York, NY.
Koetse, M.J., Rietveld, P., 2012. Adaptation to climate change in the transport sector. Transp. Rev. 32 (3), 267–286.
Lau, Y.Y., Ng, A.K.Y., Xiaowen, F.U., Kevin, X.L.I., 2013. Evolution and research trends of container shipping. Maritime Policy Manage. 40 (7), 654–674.
Lau, Y.Y., Ducruet, C., Ng, A.K., Fu, X., 2017. Across the waves: a bibliometric analysis of container shipping research since the 1960s. Maritime Policy Manage. 44 (6),
667–684.
Lavasani, S.M.M., Yang, Z., Finlay, J., Wang, J., 2012. Application of MADM in a fuzzy environment for selecting the best barrier for offshore wells. Expert Syst. Appl.

15
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

39, 2466–2478.
Leviäkangas, P., Michaelides, S., 2014. Transport system management under extreme weather risks: views to project appraisal, asset value protection and risk-aware
system management. Nat. Hazards 72 (1), 263–286.
Love, G., Soares, A., Püempel, H., 2010. Climate change, climate variability and transportation. Procedia Environ. Sci. 1, 130–145.
Maoh, H., Kanaroglou, P., Woudsma, C., 2008. Simulation model for assessing the impact of climate change on transportation and the economy in canada. Transp. Res.
Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2067 (2067), 84–92.
Matthews, L., Andrey, J., Picketts, I., 2017. Planning for winter road maintenance in the context of climate change. Weather Clim. Soc. 9 (3), 521–532.
McAneney, J., McAneney, D., Musulin, R., Walker, G., Crompton, R., 2016. Government-sponsored natural disaster insurance pools: a view from down-under. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 15, 1–9.
McGuirk, M., Shuford, S., Peterson, T.C., Pisano, P., 2009. Weather and climate change implications for surface transportation in the USA. WMO Bull. 58 (2), 85.
Meckling, J., Jenner, S., 2016. Varieties of market-based policy: instrument choice in climate policy. Environ. Polit. 25 (5), 853–874.
Meyer, M.D., Amekudzi, A., O'Har, J.P., 2010. Transportation asset management systems and climate change: adaptive systems management approach. Transp. Res.
Rec. 2160 (1), 12–20.
Meyer, M., Flood, M., Keller, J., Lennon, J., McVoy, G., Dorney, C., ... Smith, J., 2014. Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme
Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report, 5, 20–83.
Miao, Q., Feeney, M.K., Zhang, F., Welch, E.W., Sriraj, P.S., 2018. Through the storm: transit agency management in response to climate change. Transp. Res. Part D:
Transp. Environ. 63, 421–432.
Mol, J.M., Botzen, W.J.W., Blasch, J.E., 2018. Behavioral motivations for self-insurance under different disaster risk insurance schemes. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.12.007. In press.
Mullan, D., Swindles, G., Patterson, T., Galloway, J., Macumber, A., Falck, H., Pisaric, M., 2016. Climate change and the long-term viability of the World’s busiest
heavy haul ice road. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 129, 1089–1108.
Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 395–419.
Neumann, J.E., Price, J.C., 2009. Adapting To Climate Change: The Public Policy Response: Public Infrastructure. Final report prepared for Resources for the Future.
Retrieved on July 9, 2017 from http://www.rff.org/News/ClimateAdaptation/Pages/domestic_publications.aspx.
Neumann, J.E., Price, J., Chinowsky, P., Wright, L., Ludwig, L., Streeter, R., Martinich, J., 2015. Climate change risks to US infrastructure: impacts on roads, bridges,
coastal development, and urban drainage. Clim. Change 131 (1), 97–109.
Newman, M.E.J., 2004. Co-authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 5200–5205.
Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Newman, J., Perl, A., Wellstead, A., McNutt, K., 2013. Policy capacity for climate change in canada's transportation sector. Rev. Policy Res. 30 (1), 19–41.
Niemeier, D., Grattet, R., Beamish, T., 2015. Blueprinting” and climate change: Regional governance and civic participation in land use and transportation planning.
Environ. Plann. C: Govern. Policy 33 (6), 1600–1617.
Ng, A.K., Becker, A., Cahoon, S., Chen, S.L., Earl, P., Yang, Z., 2016. Time to act: the criticality of ports in adapting to the impacts posed by climate change. In: Climate
change and adaptation planning for ports. Routledge, pp. 265–267.
Ng, A.K., Wang, T., Yang, Z., Li, K.X., Jiang, C., 2018. How is business adapting to climate change impacts appropriately? Insight from the commercial port sector. J.
Bus. Ethics 150 (4), 1029–1047.
National Research Council of the National Academies (NRCNA), 2008. Potential impacts of climate change in US transportation, Vol. 290. Transport Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Olmsted, S., O’Connor, A., Samaras, C., Cook, L. M., Martinez-Pastor, B., 2017. A Climate Engineering Assessment for Transportation Assets–Incorporating Probabilistic
Analysis into Extreme Weather and Climate Change Design Engineering 2 (No. 17-05677).
Osthorst, W., Mänz, C., 2012. Types of cluster adaptation to climate change. Lessons from the port and logistics sector of Northwest Germany. Maritime Policy Manage.
39 (2), 227–248.
Oswald, M.R., 2011. Development of a decision support tool for transportation adaptation practices in response to climate change. University of Delaware.
Oswald, M.R., McNeil, S., 2013. Climate change adaptation tool for transportation: Mid-Atlantic region case study. J. Transp. Eng. 139 (4), 407–415.
Pant, R., Hall, J.W., Blainey, S.P., 2016. Vulnerability assessment framework for interdependent critical infrastructures: case-study for Great Britain's rail network. Eur.
J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 16 (1), 174–194.
Patterson, Z., Ewing, G.O., Haider, M., 2008. The potential for premium-intermodal services to reduce freight CO 2 emissions in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 13 (1), 1–9.
Peterson, T.C., McGuirk, M., Houston, T.G., Horvitz, A.H., Wehner, M.F., 2008. Climate variability and change with implications for transportation. Transp. Res.
Board 90.
Picketts, I.M., Andrey, J., Matthews, L., Déry, S.J., Tighe, S., 2016. Climate change adaptation strategies for transportation infrastructure in Prince George, Canada.
Reg. Environ. Change 16 (4), 1109–1120.
Pielke, R.A., 2007. Future economic damage from tropical cyclones: sensitivities to societal and climate changes. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 365
(1860), 2717–2729.
Pilli-Sihvola, K., Nurmi, V., Perrels, A., Harjanne, A., Bösch, P., Ciari, F., 2016. Innovations in weather services as a crucial building block for climate change
adaptation in road transport. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 16 (1), 150–173.
Poo, M.C., Yang, Z., Dimitriu, D., Qu, Z., 2018. Review on seaport and airport adaptation to climate change: a case on sea level rise and flooding. Mar. Technol. Soc. J.
52 (2), 23–33.
Preston, B.L., Westaway, R.M., Yuen, E.J., 2011. Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitig.
Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 16 (4), 407–438.
Qiao, Y., Dawson, A.R., Parry, T., Flintsch, G.W., 2015. Evaluating the effects of climate change on road maintenance intervention strategies and Life-Cycle Costs.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 41, 492–503.
Randrianarisoa, L.M., Zhang, A., 2019. Adaptation to climate change effects and competition between ports: invest now or later? Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 123,
279–322.
Reilly, J., Schimmelpfennig, D., 2000. Irreversibility, uncertainty, and learning: portraits of adaptation to long-term climate change. Clim. Change 45 (1), 253–278.
Romero-Lankao, P., 2012. Governing carbon and climate in the cities. Eur. Plan. Stud. 20 (1), 7–26.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W.D., Blake, R., Bowman, M., Faris, C., Gornitz, V., et al., 2011. Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the new york city
infrastructure-shed: process, approach, tools, and strategies. Clim. Change 106 (1), 93–127.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J., Denyer, D., 2008. Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through
syntheses. Acad. Manage. Ann. 2 (1), 475–515.
Rowan, E., Evans, C., Riley-Gilbert, M., Hyman, R., Kafalenos, R., Beucler, B., Schultz, P., 2013. Assessing the sensitivity of transportation assets to extreme weather
events and climate change. Transp. Res. Rec. 2326, 16–23.
RVW, 2009. Witte Zwanen, Zwarte Zwanen: Advies over Proactieve Adaptatie aan Klimaatverandering. White Swans, Black Swans: Advice on Proactive Adaptation to
Climate Change, Advisory Council for Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Sachan, A., Datta, S., 2005. Review of supply chain management and logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 35 (9), 664–705.
Sanchez, A., Kraatz, J.A., Hampson, K.D., Loganathan, S., 2014. BIM for sustainable whole-of-life transport infrastructure asset management. In: Proceedings of the
2014 IPWEA Sustainability in Public Works Conference: The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA), pp. 1–7.
Sawyer, D., 2014. The Economic implications of climate change on transportation assets: an analysis framework. The International Institute for Sustainable
Development, IISD Report. Retrieved on July 9, 2017 from https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/climate_change_transportation_assets.pdf.
Schwanen, T., Banister, D., Anable, J., 2012. Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 522–532.

16
T. Wang, et al. Transportation Research Part D 88 (2020) 102553

Schweikert, A., Chinowsky, P., Kwiatkowski, K., Johnson, A., Shilling, E., Strzepek, K., Strzepek, N., 2014. Road infrastructure and climate change: impacts and
adaptations for South Africa. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 21 (3), 0401–4046.
Shrivastava, M.K., Bhaduri, S., 2019. Market-based mechanism and ‘climate justice’: reframing the debate for a way forward. Int. Environ. Agreements-Polit. Law Econ.
19 (4), 497–513.
Solaymani, S., Kardooni, R., Yusoff, S.B., Kari, F., 2015. The impacts of climate change policies on the transportation sector. Energy 81, 719–728.
Stamos, I., Mitsakis, E., Grau, J.M., 2015. Roadmaps for adaptation measures of transportation to climate change. Transp. Res. Rec. 2532, 1–12.
Strauch, R., Raymond, C., Rochefort, R., Hamlet, A., Lauver, C., 2015. Adapting transportation to climate change on federal lands in Washington State, USA. Clim.
Change 130 (2), 185–199.
Suarez, P., Anderson, W., Mahal, V., Lakshmanan, T., 2005. Impacts of flooding and climate change on urban transportation: a system wide performance assessment of
the Boston Metro Area. Transp. Res. Part D 10, 231–244.
Suroso, D.S.A., Firman, T., 2018. The role of spatial planning in reducing exposure towards impacts of global sea level rise case study: northern coast of Java,
Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 153, 84–97.
Taylor, M.A., Philp, M., 2010. Adapting to climate change-implications for transport infrastructure, transport systems and travel behaviour. Road Transp. Res.: J.
Australian New Zealand Res. Pract. 19 (4), 66.
The Federal Highway Administration, 2012. Risk-Based Asset Management: Examining Risk-based Approaches to Transportation Asset Management. Report 2:
managing asset risks at multiple levels in a transportation agency. US Department of Transportation. Retrieved on July 9, 2017 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
asset/pubs/hif12050.pdf.
Tompkins, E.L., Adger, W.M., Boyd, E., Nicholson-Cole, S., Weatherhead, K., Arnell, N., 2010. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a
well-adapting society. Global Environ. Change. 20, 627–635.
Tonmoy, F.N., El-Zein, A., 2018. Vulnerability to sea level rise: a novel local-scale indicator-based assessment methodology and application to eight beaches in
Shoalhaven, Australia. Ecol. Ind. 85, 295–307.
TRB, 2008. Potential impacts of climate change on US transportation. TRB Special Report 290, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Twerefou, D.K., Chinowsky, P., Adjei-Mantey, K., Strzepek, N.L., 2015. The economic impact of climate change on road infrastructure in Ghana. Sustainability 7 (9),
11949–11966.
UNEP, 2010. United Nations Environment Program. UNEP strategy for the UNEP programme of work 2010–2011, 12–16. Retrieved on April 30, 2015 from http://ccsl.
iccip.net/unep_cc_strategy.pdf.
Walker, L., Figliozzi, M., Haire, A., MacArthur, J., 2011. Identifying surface transportation vulnerabilities and risk assessment opportunities under climate change: case
study in Portland, Oregon. Transp. Res. Rec. 2244, 41–49.
Wall, T.A., Meyer, M.D., 2013. Risk-Based Adaptation Frameworks for Climate Change Planning in the Transportation Sector. A Synthesis of Practice. Transportation
Research Circular, (E-C181). Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting.
Wall, T.A., Walker, W.E., Marchau, V.A., Bertolini, L., 2015. Dynamic adaptive approach to transportation-infrastructure planning for climate change: San-Francisco-
bay-area case study. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 21 (4), 05015004.
Wan, C., Yang, Z., Zhang, D., Yan, X., Fan, S., 2018. Resilience in transportation systems: a systematic review and future directions. Transp. Rev. 38 (4), 479–498.
Wang, K., Zhang, A., 2018. Climate change, natural disasters and adaptation investments: inter-and intra-port competition and cooperation. Transp. Res. Part B:
Methodol. 117, 158–189.
Wang, K., Yang, H., Zhang, A., 2019a. Seaport adaptation to climate change-related disasters: impact of multiple terminal operators. Working Paper, University of
International Business and Economics, Beijing.
Wang, T., 2015. Adapting to the risks and uncertainties posed by climate change on ports. Master Thesis. Department of Supply Chain Management, Asper School of
Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
Wang, T., Samsom, S., Ng, A.K.Y., Earl, P., 2016. Climate change and adaptation of remote ports and supply chains in Manitoba, Canada. In: Ng, A.K.Y., Becker, A.,
Cahoon, S., Chen, S.L., Earl, P., Yang, Z. (Eds.), Climate Change and Adaptation Planning for Ports. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 91–105.
Wang, T., Qu, Z., Yang, Z., Nichol, T., Dimitriu, D., Clarke, G., Bowden, D., 2018a. Impacts of climate change on rail systems: a new climate risk analysis model. In:
Haugen, S., Barros, A., Gulijk, C.V., Kongsvik, T., Vinnem, J. (Eds). The European Safety and Reliability (ESREL) Conference, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 17th - 21st June 2018. Safety and Reliability – Safe Societies in a changing World. CRC Press, London.
Wang, T., Qu, Z., Yang, Z., Nichol, T., Dimitriu, D., Clarke, G., Bowden, D., 2018b. How can the UK road system be adapted to the impacts posed by climate change? By
creating a climate adaptation framework. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Project Logistics (PROLOG), University of Hull, UK, 28–29 June 2018.
Wang, T., Qu, Z., Yang, Z., Nichol, T., Dimitriu, D., Clarke, G., Bowden, D., 2019. How can the UK road system be adapted to the impacts posed by climate change? By
creating a climate adaptation framework. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 77, 403–424.
Wang, T., Qu, Z., Nichol, T., Yang, Z., Dimitriu, D., Clarke, G., Bowden, D., 2020. Impact analysis of climate change on rail systems for adaptation planning: a UK case.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 83, 102324.
Wilson, C., McDaniels, T., 2007. Structured decision-making to link climate change and sustainable development. Climate Policy 7 (4), 353–370.
Wilson, E., Piper, J., 2010. Spatial planning, climate change and sustainable development. Spatial planning and climate change, first ed. Routledge, London Chapter 1.
Xiao, Y., Fu, X., Ng, A., Zhang, A., 2015. Port investments on coastal and marine disasters prevention: economic modeling and implications. Transp. Res. Part B:
Methodol. 78, 202–221.
Yang, Z.L., Ng, A.K., Lee, P.T.W., Wang, T., Qu, Z., Rodrigues, V.S., Pettit, S., Harris, I., Zhang, D., Lau, Y.Y., 2018. Risk and cost evaluation of port adaptation measures
to climate change impacts. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 61, 444–458.
Zhang, D., Yan, X., Yang, Z., Wang, J., 2014. An accident data-based approach for congestion risk assessment of inland waterways: a Yangtze River case. J. Risk Reliab.
228 (2), 176–188.

17

You might also like