Skip to content

Norway

Transport, Infrastructure and Building

Vulnerabilities - Building

A report of 2006 states that the process of climate change adaptation has so far received little attention in Norway (1). The report also states that maladaptations are likely to occur if national adaptation measures are not developed in consideration of local conditions, including an understanding of the processes that shape vulnerability at the local level.

The building sector is experiencing a loss of, or disregard for, traditional building techniques. During a severe storm in western Norway in 1992, most of the damages were caused to new buildings, whereas almost all old buildings survived with minor damages. Despite the existence of locally adapted knowledge regarding construction methods as well as, arguably, new technology and knowledge, housing structures are becoming less robust in the face of extreme events (1).

The changing climate has the potential regionally to increase premature deterioration and weathering impacts on the built environment, exacerbating vulnerabilities to climate extremes and disasters and negatively impacting the expected and useful life spans of structures (7).  

Vulnerabilities – Transport – Road

Using the impacts of current climate variability on road transport as an analog, the economic impacts of extreme weather events on goods transport has been estimated (3). For example, heavy snowfall in northern Norway in the winter of 1997 imposed an estimated additional cost of NOK 23.9 million on the transport sector. These large costs were absorbed by transport companies, rather than the producers of goods or export products. Increases in the frequency or magnitude of extreme weather events may amplify these costs and potentially exceed the capacity of both transport companies and state authorities to cope with climate extremes.


Read more

Vulnerabilities – Damages due to permafrost thawing

The thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic is causing damage to the infrastructure and buildings of the Arctic states. According to model projections, the costs of this damage will be $182 billion for all Arctic states combined by mid-century, under a moderate scenario of climate change. Under a high-end scenario of climate change the costs may rise to $276 billion by mid-century. Russia is expected to have the highest burden of costs, ranging from $115 to $169 billion depending on the scenario. For Scandinavia and Iceland, the estimated costs are $36.4 billion (moderate scenario) to $53.9 billion (high-end), while the range for North America is $30.4 - $53.1 billion. These are the mean values for the estimates; the uncertainty range of these costs is tens of percent (18).


Read more

Benefits of climate change - Road maintenance

The municipality of Bergen spends NOK 37 million (or about USD 4.5 million) annually on removing snow and ice during the winter period. Analyses indicate that a 1 °C increase in the mean temperature reduces the winter maintenance costs by NOK 14 million, and that it is likely that there will be no need for winter snow-clearing operations if the long-term mean atmospheric temperature increases by approximately 2.5 °C or more relative to the historical mean temperature level (14). 

Benefits of climate change - Navigation in the Arctic

The continuing reduction of sea ice is very likely to lengthen the navigation season and increase marine access to the Arctic’s natural resources (2). Seasonal opening of the Northern Sea Route is likely to make trans-arctic shipping during summer feasible within several decades. Reduced sea ice is likely to allow increased offshore extraction of oil and gas, although increasing ice movements could hinder some operations (and shipping!). Sovereignty, security, and environmental concerns are likely to arise as marine access increases.


Read more

Adaptation strategies – Building

Generally speaking, due consideration should be taken of risk and vulnerability aspects in land use manage­ment. Moreover, mapping should be carried out of ar­eas that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Good tools such as flood zone maps and maps of land­slide-prone areas are vital to ensure more robust social planning (6).


Read more

References

The references below are cited in full in a separate map 'References'. Please click here if you are looking for the full references for Norway.

  1. O’Brien (2006)
  2. ACIA (2004)
  3. Askildsen (2004) in: O’Brien (2006)
  4. West and Hovelsrud (2008)
  5. Aunan and Romstad (2008),in: West and Hovelsrud (2008)
  6. Ministry of the Environment (2009)
  7. Auld (2008b); Larsen et al. (2008); Stewart et al. (2011), all in: IPCC (2012)
  8. Overland and Wang (2013)
  9. ACIA (2004a); Stroeve et al. (2012a), both in: Stephenson et al. (2013)
  10. Maslanik et al. (2011); Comiso (2012); Polyakov et al. (2012), all in: Stephenson et al. (2013)
  11. Boe et al. (2009), in: Stephenson et al. (2013)
  12. Stephenson et al. (2013)
  13. Van Vuuren et al. (2011); Vavrus et al. (2012), both in: Stephenson et al. (2013)
  14. Lorentzen (2020)
  15. Nilsen et al. (2021)
  16. Freistetter et al. (2022)
  17. Several sources in: Freistetter et al. (2022)
  18. Streletskiy et al. (2023)

Share this article: