Birkmann j 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_durand

Institut für Raumordnung und Entwicklungsplanung Universität Stuttgart

Measuring the dynamics of risks at the global

and local level: information for transformative

change

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Jörn Birkmann, Dr. Torsten Welle (Univ. of

Stuttgart) and Dr. Matthias Garschagen (UNU-EHS)

www.uni-stuttgart.de/ireus

Our Common Future Under Climate Change – Paris - 2015

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Jörn Birkmann, Dr. Torsten Welle and Dr. Matthias Garschagen

Reasons for Concern (RFCs) AR5




SOCIOECONOMIC PROCESSES

Socioeconomic Pathways

Adaptation and Mitigation Actions

Governance

CLIMATE

Natural Variability

Anthropogenic Climate Change

RISK Hazards

Exposure

Vulnerability

IMPACTS

EMISSIONS and Land-use Change

The new framework




Table SPM.3: TABLE ICONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Hazard

Key vulnerabilities

Key risks

Emergent risks

Sea level rise,

coastal flooding

including storm

surges.

[WGI AR5 3.7.1,

13.5.1, Table 13-

5; 5.3.2, 8.1.4,

8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.2.4,

13.1.4, 13.2.1,

13.2.2, 29.3.1,

29.3.2, 29.4.3,

29.5.1, Table 29-

1, 30.3.1]

High exposure of people, economic

activity, and infrastructure in low-lying

coastal zones and SIDS.

Urban population unprotected due to

substandard housing and inadequate

insurance. Marginalized rural

population with multidimensional

poverty and limited alternative

livelihoods.

Inadequate local governmental

attention to disaster risk reduction.

Death, injury, and

disruption to

livelihoods, food

supplies, and

drinking water.

Loss of common-

pool resources,

sense of place, and

identity, especially

among indigenous

populations in rural

coastal zones.

Interaction of rapid

urbanization, sea level rise,

increasing economic

activity, disappearance of

natural resources, and

limits of insurance; burden

of risk management shifted

from the state to those at

risk leading to greater

inequality.

Increasing

frequency and

intensity of

extreme heat,

including

urban heat island

effect.

[8.2.3, 11.3,

11.4.1, 11.5.3,

11.6.2, 24.4.6,

25.2, 25.3, 25.8.1,

25.10.2, 25.10.3,

Table 25-1, Figure

25-5, Box 25-9]

Increasing urban population of the

elderly, the very young, expectant

mothers, and people with chronic

health problems in settlements subject

to higher temperatures.

Inability of local organizations which

provide health, emergency and social

services to adapt to new risk levels for

vulnerable groups.

Increased

mortality and

morbidity during

periods of

extreme heat.

Interaction of changes in

regional temperature

extremes, local heat island,

and air pollution, with

demographic shifts.

Overloading of health and

emergency services.

Mortality, morbidity, and

productivity loss among

manual workers in hot

climates.

IPCC AR5:

What are key vulnerabilities and key risks

policy makers should be concerned about? Key risks (AR5) account for both physical changes in

natural/ climate systems (hazards) and the societal

changes that influence vulnerability

Risks Determinants




IPCC AR5:

What are key vulnerabilities and key risks

policy makers should be concerned about?

Risks and the potential for adaptation according to different

timeframes, climatic hazards and vulnerabilities

Risks and Management Options




Example: Global Risk Assessment WRI




Exposure of People to Climatic Hazards




Vulnerability




Risk




Scenarios for Vulnerability

Source:

Birkmann, J.; Cutter, S.; Rothman, D.; Welle, T.; Garschagen, M.; van Ruijven, B.; O’Neill, B.; Preston, B.;

Kienberger , S.; Cardona, O.; Siagian, T.; Hidayati, D.; Setiadi, N.; Binder, C.; Hughes, B.; Pulwarty, R. (2013)

Scenarios for vulnerability: opportunities and constraints in the context of climate change and disaster risk.

Climatic Change (DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-0913-2)

Exposure Scenarios




Urban Growth and Vulnerability




3 Scenarios for

Susceptibility

• Need for vulnerability

scenarios

• Linking: vulnerability

research group (IAV) with

the Integrated Modeling

community (IAM)

• Important player in a

global think tank network –

scenarios for adaptation

policies

Scenarios for

Susceptibility




City Scale Vulnerability Scenarios (TRUC)




Participatory Scenario Development:

4-Step Methodology

• drivers of vulnerability and

urban transition/development

• major cross-roads for overall development

trends in the city (independent from CC)

• populating scenario space with drivers

• policy options for

adaptation and

transformation




Workshops

• Ho Chi Minh City | July 2012

• Jakarta | July 2012

• Lagos | July 2014 |

• New York City | February 2015 |

• London | February 2015 |

• Kolkata | February 2015 |

• Tokyo | Aug./Sept. 2015 (tbc.)

• variety of stakeholders

• 14-26 participants




• Planning is balanced, socially inclusive, and climate change aware;

stronger coupling between planning and implementation

• Green spaces are public and provide adaptation for all

• Water bodies are kept and have higher quality

• Public support for upgrading social housing in non-flood prone areas.

• Public goods and services increased and climate change aware

• Livelihood program/re-designs are climate change aware and create

climate change valued livelihoods

• DRM is public and climate aware

• Real estate is communal and climate aware

• Regulated building design that is climate adaptive

• Increased social integration and increased cooperation for

adaptation to climate change; more equity

• Increased government integration leads to improved climate

adaptation

• Civic awareness through public awareness and climate sensitive

• Planning has a balancing and integrative role but is not climate change

aware; stronger coupling between planning and implementation

• Green spaces are public but do not provide adaptation

• Water bodies are kept but are poorly managed

• Public support for upgrading social housing but in flood prone areas.

• Public goods and services increased but are not climate-proof

• Livelihoods are supported but are vulnerable to climate change

• DRM is public but not climate aware

• Real estate is communal but not climate-change-proof

• Regulated building design that is not enforced

• Increased social integration that is fulfilled at the cost of the

environment

• Increased integration of government but moving toward environmental

degradation or away from climate adaptation

• Civic awareness through public programs but nonresponsive

• Planning enables the elite, but awareness of climate change is lacking;

decoupling from planning and implementation

• Spaces are private and not adaptive

• Water bodies degrade

• Individuals are responsible for their own housing. People who can't

afford it are pushed into vulnerable areas (e.g. slum development in

flood prone areas)

• Public goods and services are for payment if available at all and are

not climate aware

• Livelihoods are individual responsibility and most people choose

informal livelihoods that are vulnerable to climate change

• DRM is individual responsibility, but is vulnerable to climate change

• Real estate is strong and not sensitive to climate change risks

• No rules on building design and no climate awareness

• Social disintegration that is a hindrance to climate adaptation

• Increased disintegration or lack of coordination which leads to lack of

climate adaptation

• Civic awareness depends on responsibility of individual groups and no

awareness of climate change

• Planning enables elite, but elite are climate change aware; decoupling

between planning and implementation

• Green spaces are private and provide adaptation for elite

• Water bodies are kept and managed by local communities

• Individuals are responsible for their own housing but are more aware

of flood threat

• Public goods and services are for payment if available at all but are

climate proof

• Livelihoods are individual responsibility but are not vulnerable to

climate change

• DRM is individual responsibility but is not vulnerable to climate change

• Real estate is strong but is climate adaptive for insurance reasons, etc.

• No rules on building design but individuals are climate aware

• Increased social disintegration but with elite adaptation for themselves

• Increased dis-coordination but with project oriented adaptive outcomes

(e.g. compartmentalized projects)

• Civic awareness preventive mindset for climate change but adaptation

is for individual group

adaptive Kolkata

private (slim

government) public (big

government)

non-adaptive Kolkata

I

III IV

II




Conclusions

• Scenarios for exposure and vulnerability can complement

climatic change scenarios in order to identify risk.

• Linking quantitative and qualitative scenario approaches

still needs to be improved in order to capture the

complexity of risk and vulnerability.

• Scenario development and modeling needs can be

informed by relevant and bottom-up story lines.

• Future adaptation policies (e.g. NAPAs) should be robust

and flexible in terms of being able to address different

scenarios of exposure and vulnerability at different

temporal and spatial scales in order to support

transformative change.




Selected Literature

IPCC (2012) : Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation; Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part

A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp.

Birkmann, J.; Welle, T.; Krause, D.; Wolfertz, J.; Suarez, D.C.; Setiadi, N. (2011):

WorldRiskIndex: Concept and Results. In: Alliance Development Works

(ed.): The WorldRiskReport 2011, Berlin: 13-42

Birkmann, J.; Cutter, S.; Rothman, D.; Welle, T.; Garschagen, M.; van Ruijven,

B.; O’Neill, B.; Preston, B.; Kienberger , S.; Cardona, O.; Siagian, T.;

Hidayati, D.; Setiadi, N.; Binder, C.; Hughes, B.; Pulwarty, R. (2013)

Scenarios for vulnerability: opportunities and constraints in the context of

climate change and disaster risk. Climatic Change (DOI 10.1007/s10584-

013-0913-2)

Garschagen, Matthias and Romero-Lankao, P. (2013). Exploring the

relationships between urbanization trends and climate change vulnerability.

Climatic Change, online first, 1-16

Birkmann, J.; Buckle, P., Jaeger, J.; Pelling, M.; Setiadi, N.; Garschagen, M.;

Fernando, N.; Kropp, J. (2010): Extreme Events and Disasters: A Window

of Opportunity for Change? Analysis of Changes, Formal and Informal

Responses After Mega-Disasters, Natural Hazards 55(3): 637-655

http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:2081

http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:2081

Science

Birkmann j 20150708_1500_upmc_jussieu_-_amphi_durand