IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Determinants of Risk: Exposure and VulnerabilityChapter 2are least able to easily adapt to changes in inter alia temperature, waterresources, agricultural production, human health, and biodiversity(IPCC, 2001; McCarthy et al., 2001; Beg et al., 2002). Small IslandDeveloping States, a number of which are also Least DevelopedCountries, are recognized as being highly vulnerable to external shocksincluding climate extremes (UN/DESA, 2010; Chapter 3). While efforts inclimate change adaptation have been undertaken, progress has beenlimited, focusing on public awareness, research, and policy developmentrather than implementation (UN/DESA, 2010).Developed countries are also vulnerable and have geographicallydistinct levels of vulnerability, which are masked by a predominant focuson direct impacts on biophysical systems and broad economic sectors.However, indirect and synergistic effects, differential vulnerabilities, andassumptions of relative ease of adaptation within apparently robustdeveloped countries may lead to unforeseen vulnerabilities (O’Brien et al.,2006). Thus, development per se is not a guarantee of ‘invulnerability.’Development can undermine ecosystem resilience on the one hand butcreate wealth that may enhance societal resilience overall if equitable(Barnett, 2001).The importance of geography has been highlighted in an analysis of‘disaster hotspots’ by Dilley et al. (2005). Hazard exposure (eventincidence) is combined with historical vulnerability (measured bymortality and economic loss) in order to identify geographic regionsthat are at risk from a range of geophysical hazards. While flood risk iswidespread across a number of regions, drought and especially cyclonerisk demonstrate distinct spatial patterns with the latter closely relatedto the climatological pattern of cyclone tracks and landfall.2.5.1.3. Settlement Patterns and Development TrajectoriesThere are specific exposure/vulnerability dimensions associated withurbanization (Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009) and rurality (Scoones, 1998;Nelson et al., 2010a,b). The major focus below is on the urban becauseof the increasing global trend toward urbanization and its potential forincreasing exposure and vulnerability of large numbers of people.2.5.1.3.1. The urban environmentAccelerated urbanization is an important trend in human settlement,which has implications for the consideration of exposure and vulnerabilityto extreme events. There has been almost a quintupling of the globalurban population between 1950 and 2011 with the majority of thatincrease being in less developed regions (UN-HABITAT, 2011).There is high confidence that rapid and unplanned urbanizationprocesses in hazardous areas exacerbate vulnerability to disaster risk(Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2005). The development of megacities withhigh population densities (Mitchell, 1999a,b; Guha-Sapir et al., 2004)has led to greater numbers being exposed and increased vulnerabilitythrough, inter alia, poor infrastructural development (Uitto, 1998) andthe synergistic effects of intersecting natural, technological, and socialrisks (Mitchell, 1999a). Lavell (1996) identified eight contexts of citiesthat increase or contribute to disaster risk and vulnerability and arerelevant in the context of climate change:1) The synergic nature of the city and the interdependency of its parts2) The lack of redundancy in its transport, energy, and drainage systems3) Territorial concentration of key functions and density of buildingand population4) Mislocation5) Social-spatial segregation6) Environmental degradation7) Lack of institutional coordination8) The contrast between the city as a unified functioning system andits administrative boundaries that many times impede coordinationof actions.The fact that urban areas are complex systems poses potentialmanagement challenges in terms of the interplay between people,infrastructure, institutions, and environmental processes (Ruth andCoelho, 2007). Alterations or trends in any of these, or additionalcomponents of the urban system such as environmental governance(Freudenberg et al., 2008) or the uptake of insurance (McLemand andSmit 2006; Lamond et al., 2009), have the potential to increase exposureand vulnerability to extreme climate events substantially.The increasing polarization and spatial segregation of groups withdifferent degrees of vulnerability to disaster have been identified as anemerging problem (Mitchell, 1999b). For the United States, where there isconsiderable regional variability, the components found to consistentlyincrease social vulnerability (as expressed by a Social Vulnerability Index)are density (urbanization), race/ethnicity (see below), and socioeconomicstatus, with the level of development of the built environment, age,race/ethnicity, and gender accounting for nearly half of the variability insocial vulnerability among US counties (Cutter and Finch, 2008). Socialisolation, especially as it intersects with individual characteristics (seeCase Study 9.2.1) and other social processes of marginalization(Duneier, 2004) also play a significant role in vulnerability creation (or,conversely, reduction).Rapidly growing urban populations may affect the capacity of developingcountries to cope with the effects of extreme events because of theinability of governments to provide the requisite urban infrastructure orfor citizens to pay for essential services (UN-HABITAT, 2009). However,there is a more general concern that there has been insufficient attentionto both existing needs for infrastructure maintenance and appropriateongoing adaptation of infrastructure to meet potential climate extremes(Auld and MacIver, 2007). Further, while megacities have been associatedwith increasing hazard for some time (Mitchell, 1999a), small cities andrural communities are potentially more vulnerable to disasters than bigcities or megacities, since megacities have considerable resources fordealing with hazards and disasters (Cross, 2001) and smaller settlementsare often of lower priority for government spending.78