Las memorias del sufrimiento

To identify risks for stakeholders across Pacific MSC stages (KRQA), the proposed risk-vulnerability analysis method includes 7 stages in Figure 3.3. This thesis emphasises creating a new risk perception stage (III). This ascertains stakeholder awareness of risks, when compared to actual data; to evaluate their psychological capacity to accurately determine, value and understand risks sufficiently. Given risk perception bias, this stage is proposed to consider the extent to which stakeholder awareness is measured accurately. This minimises risk omission, under and overestimation. It advises stakeholder identification of past risk frequency, duration and intensity/impact costs. This can be combined with asset failure against existing risk events, to provide objective, risk identification criteria. Once risks are identified and combined with projected impact costs and calculated through the proposed impact cost analysis in section 3.5, stakeholders may more effectively establish stage VI (risk adaptation and treatment). As Section 2.7 highlights an effective risk assessment framework would integrate mitigation, adaptation, retreat/surrender, relocation and ecological rehabilitation. Stage VII advocates prioritising risks with potentially more urgent or significant impact costs.

Each stage substantially differs from the FSA conceptual framework (Section 3.3) and other risk management frameworks yet to be adapted to climate change; through its links to MSCs and ecosystems. This framework ignores interconnected, indirect/direct impact costs in Figure 3.2. This sequence also recommends a final monitoring and evaluation stage VIII. Virtually no post-impact adaptation, feasibility studies exist for climate change, risk management including supply chain stages. This stage needs repeating to prepare stakeholders to continuously identify emergent risks, over future time horizons, as risks fluctuate in duration, intensity, frequency and impact costs. It is also necessary to assess each adaptation strategy’s value through the extent to which it resolves key risks and associated impact costs, whilst preserving stakeholder requirements. This is ignored by Figure 3.1 and other existing risk models.

91

Figure 3.3: Proposed Vulnerability-Risk, Analysis Stages For A MSC. Stakeholder Consultation/Field Research/Literature Review.

➢ I: DEFINE RISK AND VULNERABILITY. Figure 2.1 Maritime Supply Chains Figure 5.2: Maritime Ecosystem/Resources

➢ II: RISK IDENTIFICATION

Identify General and Specific Projected Climate Change Risk Types (Long and Short-Term), calculating the probabilities of risk event occurrences where possible.

➢ III: RISK PERCEPTION

Identify Stakeholder Psychological Awareness of Climate Change, Risk Events and Projections.

➢ IV: RISK-VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS.

Establish Climate Change Risk Projections, Scenario Assumptions and Time Horizons. -Identify current vulnerabilities, risks and resilience of supply chain assets, stakeholders, functions, infrastructure, ecosystems and systems.

➢ V: RISK EVALUATION.

To identify climate and non-climate change factors, which affect the rate of risk growth and impact costs. To identify future risks presented by projected climate change, competitors and interdependent supply chains influencing conditional risk probabilities of asset/system failure.

➢ VI: RISK PRIORITISATION.

To rank risks by urgency/risk probability and magnitude of impact costs.

Figure 3.2 Risk Event Tree and Impact Cost Analysis (Chapter 6).

➢ VII: RISK ADAPTATION/TREATMENT.

(This stage is addressed separately to resolve KRQC through identifying risk adaptation strategies. It aims at minimising supply chain, impact costs from associated risks). This manages, transfer, reduce or avoid risk.

➢ VIII: MONITORING AND REVIEW.

To evaluate proposed adaptation strategies’ effectiveness to reduce risk, impact costs through reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience across a MSC and its stakeholders.

Source: Author.

3.4: RESEARCH DESIGN: INTERVIEWS/SURVEY QUESTIONS (STAGE I):

Previous climate change, impact studies for ports outlined in Chapter 2 identify several advantages to a semi-structured interview/survey method approach with key stakeholders for data collection (Becker et al. 2011; McEvoy et al. 2013; Scott et al. 2013). As previous research has not been undertaken on this

92

thesis topic, field research is necessary to acquire primary data. A lack of relevant secondary data with locational/situational specific information applying to individual Pacific MSC case studies exists. This also assists to ascertain the extent of climate change awareness, and adaptation for Pacific nations. It facilitates analysis of potential solutions that may apply to other regions threatened by similar risks. Local risk, impact cost and other information identification aids in risk prioritisation and incentives to cooperate across a MSC. Attention can then be directed to more urgent risks, minimising supply chain congestion, delay and other disruption impact costs, wherever possible. It reduces reliance on external parties. 3.4.1: Research Questions

These research questions are developed in section 1.3 and justified in a systematic, literature review (Chapter 2) and pre-testing (section 3.3.2). They are specifically included in the survey in Appendix V, to affirm this multistage, research method. Given time, fiscal and other research study/developing nation constraints including scarce resources; these questions and their modified survey equivalents are few. KRQA: What are the current and projected risks for Pacific Island, MSCs from climate change consequences?

KRQB: What is projected to be the economic impact costs of climate change on the future of Pacific Island MSCs and for a specific commodity?

KRQC: How can key supply chain stakeholders adapt to minimise the impact of climate change on Pacific Island MSCs?

ARQI: What are the specific constraints/barriers to developing adaptation strategies for climate change?

ARQII: What are possible solutions to adapting MSCs to climate change in the Pacific Islands? 3.4.2: Questionnaire Pre-Testing Process and Design

The survey/interview questionnaire, invitation letter, informed consent form and reminder email in Appendices I-IV were pre-tested to enable a generic, sampling strategy response. These tested ethical considerations, research design feasibility, strength reliability, accuracy and clarity, grammar, spelling, style, structure, question relevance and minimising sample bias, systematic and random errors. The pretesting survey faced peer reviewed bias and error control. It was submitted to PhD students, AMC academics, Tasmania Research Ethics and Cook Islands Ethics Review Committee and general MSC stakeholders. Sarantakos (2005) and Fei (2009) consider a pre-testing sample of 10-30 from experienced professionals sufficiently identifies structural concerns to avoid double counting and systematic errors. The question design has been peer reviewed to ensure relevance, coherence along with included ethical

93

considerations. Questions are focused, structured and practically feasible. This includes simplifying questions, avoiding ambiguity, testing for any question omissions and existence of superfluous questions. The survey was modified where pre-testing perceived it as necessary to improve it to be sufficiently understood by Pacific MSC participants.

Pre-testing determines whether this data collection method represents a pragmatic, effective mechanism to resolve key research questions (World Bank, GFDRR and USAID 2015). The question design is based on pre-coded, fixed choice options from the risks, impact costs and adaptation solutions identified in existing literature and previous chapters. This ensures specific relevance towards this thesis’s research questions. It identifies the risks, direct and indirect impact costs identified for stakeholders in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. It identifies adaptation solutions for Figure 3.5. However, the survey/interviews contain open- ended questions to actively stimulate, local stakeholder participation. Providing a range of broad, pre- defined, question choices concentrates stakeholder perceptions on the most relevant, specific and pivotal factors, given research constraints. Constraints include stakeholder requirements, limited resources, funding capacity, legal issues, informational availability, extent of cooperation; experience; concerns and awareness of climate change on Pacific MSCs. The survey/interview questions are specifically included and designed towards understanding climate change’s, projected economic impact for Pacific MSCs. These are partially devised from time series data and survey questions 1-4. Equation 3.1 can be determined from survey questions 4/5. Impact costs are indirectly calculated from questions 4 and 5, by combining individual result calculations. Interview questions are designed to expand beyond survey questions, providing greater context. Therefore, these interview questions in Appendix I will be addressed to key Pacific stakeholders as method Stage I.