State of the Art Report (4) Vulnerability Assessment - www.resin-cities.eu
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
State of the Art Report (4) Vulnerability Assessment Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods www.resin-cities.eu
Deliverable No. 1.1
Work Package 1
Dissemination Level PU
Connelly, Angela; Carter, Jeremy G.; Handley, John
Author(s)
The University of Manchester
Rome, Erich; Worst, Rainer; Voβ, Norman
Co-author(s)
Fraunhofer IAIS
Date 30 November 2015
File Name D1.1_SOTAVulnerability_UNIMAN_2015-11-30
Status
Revision 17 November 2015
Peter Bosch
Reviewed by (if applicable) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuur-
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO
This document has been prepared in the framework of the European project RESIN –
Climate Resilient Cities and Infrastructures. This project has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
no. 653522.
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not
necessarily represent the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the
European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information
contained therein.
CONTACT:
Email: resin@tno.nl
This project is funded by
Website: www.resin-cities.eu the Horizon 2020
Framework Programme
of the European Union.
2
Contents
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................7
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Method .................................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Report overview .................................................................................................... 10
2. Vulnerability: Definitions and Conceptual Approaches ......................................... 12
2.1. Vulnerability Definitions in Disaster Risk Management .................................... 12
2.2. Vulnerability Definitions in Critical Infrastructure Protection .......................... 13
2.3. Vulnerability Definitions in Climate Change Studies ........................................ 14
2.3.1. Outcome Vulnerability and Contextual Vulnerability ........................................ 15
2.3.2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Redefining Vulnerability . 16
2.3.3. Adaptive Capacity ................................................................................................. 17
2.4. Discussion ............................................................................................................. 18
3. Why are Cities and their Critical Infrastructures Vulnerable to Climate Change?21
3.1. Vulnerability of Critical infrastructure................................................................. 21
3.2. Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructure Systems ................................................. 22
3.3. Societal Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 22
3.4. Section Summary .................................................................................................. 23
4. Vulnerability Assessment Methods and Examples ................................................ 25
4.1. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 26
4.2. Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 27
4.3. Specific Approaches ............................................................................................. 27
4.3.1. Case Study and Analogue Methods .................................................................... 27
4.3.2. Indicator based vulnerability assessments (IBVAs) .......................................... 28
4.3.3. Role of GIS Mapping ............................................................................................. 30
4.3.4. Adaptation Tipping Points ................................................................................... 32
4.3.5. Section Summary .................................................................................................. 32
4.4. Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 33
4.5. Existing Urban Vulnerability Assessment Approaches .................................... 34
4.6. Standardization ..................................................................................................... 35
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
34.7. Section Summary .................................................................................................. 36
5. RESIN Project Issues and Connections ................................................................... 37
5.1. Gaps in Knowledge ............................................................................................... 37
5.2. Conceptual Issues ................................................................................................. 37
5.3. Practical Issues ..................................................................................................... 38
6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 40
7. Key Resources............................................................................................................ 41
8. Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 43
9. References .................................................................................................................. 45
10. Annex 1 ........................................................................................................................ 53
10.1. Selected list of relevant European projects ....................................................... 53
10.1.1. Critical Infrastructure Protection Projects ....................................................... 53
10.1.2. Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events: Relevant Projects ............... 56
11. Annex 2 ........................................................................................................................ 61
.
4List of Tables & Figures
Figure 1: Concepts in CI Vulnerability Assessment .........................................................13
Figure 2: Visualization of climate change vulnerability and related concepts................15
Figure 3: Outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability..........................................16
Figure 4: Conceptualization of risk by the IPCC (2014).....................................................17
Table 1: Comparison of commonly employed terminology .............................................19
Table 2: Main features in different methodologies for vulnerability assessments........ 25
Figure 5: Image of the social heat map for Rotterdam. ....................................................30
Figure 6: Screenshot from the EcoCities project............................................................. 31
Table 3: Strengths and weaknesses of vulnerability assessment methods.................. 33
Table 4: Overview of existing vulnerability assessments................................................ 60
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
5LIST OF ACRONYMS
CI Critical Infrastructure
CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection
DRM Disaster Risk Management
EEA European Environment Agency
ENISA European Network and Information Security Agency
EU European Union
GIS Geographical Information Systems
IBVAs Indicator-based Vulnerability Assessments
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MCDA Multi-criteria Decision Analysis
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
SES Socio-ecological Systems
UHI Urban Heat Island
UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
6Executive Summary
This report is based on a desk-based review of literature and selected European Union (EU)-
funded projects that contain a vulnerability assessment component.
The report begins by outlining key vulnerability definitions from the disaster risk management
(DRM), critical infrastructure protection (CIP) and climate change adaptation (CCA)
communities. This report recommends that RESIN adopts the definition of vulnerability as
outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5); this is a risk-based framework that separates exposure from vulnerability.
The report also looks at what makes cities and critical infrastructure vulnerable. The review
suggests that RESIN focuses on three aspects of vulnerable elements within an overall
schema of climate change vulnerability:
Critical Infrastructure (CI) Vulnerability – the vulnerability of particular physical
infrastructure assets
Critical Infrastructure (CI) Systems Vulnerability – the vulnerability of infrastructure
based on the links with other elements
Societal Vulnerability – the wider vulnerability amongst populations, groups and the
built environment.
The report also outlines issues relating to the handling of exposure and adaptive capacity as
concepts related to vulnerability. A glossary is also included in this report in order to guide the
definitions to be adopted for the RESIN project.
The report reviews a range of vulnerability assessment methods and notes that indicator
based vulnerability assessment (IBVA) methods, with a focus on adaptation tipping points,
may be useful for the RESIN project. Selected existing city vulnerability assessments are
outlined (see Annex 2), which demonstrate that there are, as yet, no standardized methods
for undertaking a vulnerability assessment in practice; however, some notable European
projects have attempted to provide a framework for the various steps that would need to be
taken.
The report concludes by showing the gaps in knowledge and the conceptual and practical
considerations raised by the review. These mainly centre on the type of data used and
cautions on the need for pragmatism in order for vulnerability assessment methodologies to
be replicable. In addition, it will be important to consider how a focus on the consequences of
critical infrastructure failure may be combined with understandings of urban vulnerability. To
this end, it is stated that following a standardized process of vulnerability assessment may be
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
7key. The data that supports the analysis can be context dependent and may, therefore, not
be possible to standardize.
81. Introduction
‘Improving the resilience of existing transport infrastructure and energy
networks requires a common and coordinated approach for assessing the
vulnerability of critical infrastructure to extreme weather events’ (EC 2009).
The Climate Resilient Cities and Infrastructure (RESIN) project aims to explore the potential
to develop standardized methods for assessing climate change impacts, vulnerabilities, and
risks. However, there is no consensus for standardized methods of approaching vulnerability
assessments across both the disaster risk management (DRM) (including critical
infrastructure protection [CIP]) and climate change adaptation (CCA) communities.
Standardization is important to the extent that it may help to compare cities with one another
in order to share learning between them and, importantly, to set priorities and allocate funds
at national and European level (cf. Hinkel 2011). If this is to be achieved, then considering
the different approaches and methods of undertaking vulnerability assessments of cities and
their critical infrastructure will be crucial. This report aims, in part, to investigate this through
critically appraising the state of the art in urban vulnerability assessments.
RESIN has a focus on critical infrastructures and cities. To date, there is work that assesses
the vulnerability of critical infrastructures to a range of contemporary hazards (terrorism, other
human-induced disasters, extreme weather events) (e.g. Bach et al., 2013; Bosher et al.,
2007; Hellström, 2007; Koudogbo et al., 2014; Moederl and Rauch, 2011; O’Rourke, 2007).
Recent studies have begun to understand the vulnerability of critical infrastructures to climate
change, mainly taking a sectoral or hazard perspective (Bates et al., 2008; Chapman et al.,
2013; Chappin and van der Lei, 2014; Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; Klinger et al., 2014; Koetse
and Rietveld, 2009; Lambert et al., 2012; Luber and McGeehin, 2008; Panteli and
Mancarella, 2015; Rübbelke and Vögele, 2011; Ruth and Coelho, 2007; Wilby et al., 2009).
Although there is a shared focus on vulnerability reduction (IPCC, 2012), there have been
differences in the use of terms such as ‘vulnerability’, ‘adaptive capacity’ and ‘exposure’. And,
whilst ‘the multidimensional nature of vulnerability and exposure makes any organizing
framework arbitrary, overlapping, and contentious to a degree’ (IPCC, 2012: 76), it is
important to set a common language for the RESIN project.
The report is predominantly definitional in focus. Thus, the main research questions are:
How is vulnerability defined within the context of undertaking vulnerability
assessments in cities and of urban critical infrastructure?
How are vulnerability assessments typically approached and what methods are
used?
What is the value in harmonizing/integrating approaches?
The main report themes are:
Definitions of vulnerability and associated concepts
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
9 Vulnerability of critical infrastructure, critical infrastructure interdependencies, and
cities
Vulnerability assessment approaches
Vulnerability indicators
Use of scenarios in vulnerability assessments
1.1. Method
This section sets out the methods for collating and reviewing literature and vulnerability
assessments in practice.
A literature search was carried out using the terms ‘vulnerability assessment’ and ‘climate
change’ via scopus.com (n: 554). The resulting citations were screened in order to isolate
vulnerability assessments that pertained to European areas (n: 146) and further limited by
those aimed at more local scales from city-regions to neighbourhoods (n: 45). In addition, the
initial list was searched for literature that specifically looked at critical infrastructure (n: 8).
Similarly, a search for peer-reviewed papers with the keywords ‘vulnerability assessment’ and
‘critical infrastructure’ yielded only 35 articles. Some authors state that the understanding of
vulnerability of critical infrastructure to climate change, with a focus on human dynamics, is a
gap in the literature (e.g. (Chappin and van der Lei, 2014).
The EU-ClimateAdapt (http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/) portal was searched for items
tagged ‘vulnerability assessment’. A long list of European projects and city adaptation plans
that contain a vulnerability assessment component was drawn up. In addition, a list of
European projects on critical infrastructure and its vulnerability was also compiled via the
CIPRNet project (https://www.ciprnet.eu/summary.html). Prioritized examples include those
projects that are a) European b) focus on cities and c) have transparent methodologies.
Some international examples have been included where they have significantly influenced
the shape and scope of the European literature.
1.2. Report overview
The focus is on cities and, particularly, critical infrastructure. European specific reports have
mainly been utilized, although relevant international literature (i.e. the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]) has been utilized. The report does not aim for a
comprehensive overview of the meaning of vulnerability, or of all vulnerability methodologies
and approaches; rather, the report concentrates only on those issues which appear relevant
for RESIN, particularly with regard to the harmonization of processes for undertaking
vulnerability assessments in urban areas, with a focus on critical infrastructure.
10The report begins by considering how vulnerability is conceptualized within disaster risk
management, critical infrastructure protection and climate change adaptation studies. This
will provide the context for understanding the evolution of IPCC’s vulnerability definition as it
is recommended that the RESIN project follows the current Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
definition (IPCC, 2014a). The report then considers how the vulnerability of cities and critical
infrastructures (to a range of threats) is currently assessed in order to make a judgement on
how this may be harmonized with approaches in climate change studies.
The report provides an insight into vulnerability assessment methods with an overview of the
way in which previous and concurrent European projects have understood and, accordingly,
organized their vulnerability studies. Annex 1 provides contains selected projects and their
key characteristics whilst Annex 2 provides an overview of existing city assessments.
It should be noted that this report corresponds closely to other RESIN State of the Art reports.
These include the definitional reports on adaptation, disaster risk and resilience (Nassopoulos
et al., 2015) and urban critical infrastructure systems [which defines the system of interest]
(Rome et al., 2015), as well as weather and climate hazards [which urban areas and their
critical infrastructures are potentially vulnerable to] (Carter et al., 2015). The suggestions
made will also be relevant to interlinking work packages and, therefore, the reports covering
adaptation options (Abajo et al., 2015) and decision support (Wijnmalen et al., 2015).
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
112. Vulnerability: Definitions and Conceptual
Approaches
Vulnerability is a contested concept, Thywissen (2006) documented no less than thirty-six
definitions. A brief overview is presented here, however the reader is referred to other major
reviews of the vulnerability concept, as deployed in climate change studies (e.g. Adger, 2006;
Adger and Kelly, 1999; Brooks et al., 2005; Gallopín, 2006; Ionescu et al., 2008; Smit and
Wandel, 2006; Turner et al., 2003; Wolf et al., 2013) and in disaster risk management (e.g.
Cutter, 1996; Ezell, 2007; Weichselgartner, 2001).
Four observations are consistent across the literature:
vulnerability is place-based and thus lends itself to spatial analysis;
vulnerability is dynamic (i.e. it changes over time) due to a range of climatic, physical
and socio-economic drivers;
vulnerability is not experienced: it is a theoretical construct that is deductively
assessed; and
in order to be vulnerable to an extreme weather event, one has to be exposed to it in
the first place. However, an entity can be exposed to an extreme weather event but
not be vulnerable if it is not susceptible to harm from the event.
The next three sub-sections consider different notions of vulnerability within disaster risk
management, critical infrastructure protection and climate change. This will provide the
context for understanding the IPCC’s modification of its definition of vulnerability over time.
2.1. Vulnerability Definitions in Disaster Risk Management
Within the disaster risk management literature, vulnerability is a component of risk.
Vulnerability interacts with the hazard and exposure to the hazard to indicate the level of risk.
The following formulation is used to understand risk:
Risk = f (Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability) where
Hazard: the extent, severity and probability of the hazard of interest, or ‘source of
potential harm’ (CIPedia© 2015).
Exposure: refers to ‘people, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard
zones that are thereby subject to potential losses’ (UNISDR, 2009).
12 Vulnerability ‘the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or
asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard’ (UNISDR 2009).
Examples of vulnerability may include the quality of building construction, presence of
protective measures, knowledge and awareness of risks and how to prepare (UNISDR 2009).
Thus, in this literature, exposure is considered to be independent of vulnerability which is a
characteristic of a system of interest. Vulnerability is the present day inherent vulnerability in
a system of interest.
2.2. Vulnerability Definitions in Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Critical infrastructure protection is normally approached with a hazard-centric view; that is by
considering when and where critical infrastructure comes into contact with a specific hazard
(terrorism, technical failures, extreme weather events). A collection of such definitions can be
found in the CIPedia© review of this term (CIPedia© 2015); e.g., ISO 22300:2012(en) defines
vulnerability as ‘intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that
can lead to an event with a consequence’. This follows the DRM definition, which focuses on
present day contexts, as discussed in the previous section.
However, the hazard-centric view has its limitations: the severity of consequences is not
necessarily related to the severity of a hazard. Traditionally, the vulnerability of a CI was
defined from the view of risk management. As a response a new approach for the
vulnerability assessment of critical infrastructures was introduced (Zio & Kröger 2009). Their
general scheme distinguishes between three elements of vulnerability of technical systems:
degree of loss, and damages due to the impact of a hazard;
degree of exposure to the hazard, i.e., the likelihood of being exposed to hazards of
a certain degree, and the susceptibility of an element at risk to suffer loss and
damages; and
degree of capacity of resilience, i.e., the ability of a system to anticipate, cope with
or absorb, resist, and recover from the impact of a hazard or disaster (social).
Figure 2: Concepts in CI Vulnerability Assessment after (Zio & Kröger, 2009)
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
13The concepts of this approach are shown in Figure 1. The system analysis, as the essential
part of the approach, is based on a hazards and threat identification, which is a part of risk
assessment; a taxonomy of threats to CI has been created by an earlier EU project called
VITA (Luiijf and Nieuwenhuijs, 2008). The identification of physical and logical structures
and modes of operation requires domain specific knowledge and data, may be subject to
privacy issues, and may cause security issues. Dependencies and interdependencies
identification and modelling as well as cascading failure dynamics analysis have been
core CIP research topics for years. Thus, the CI assessment is used to build resilience
through system improvements.
2.3. Vulnerability Definitions in Climate Change Studies
Vulnerability assessment of socio-ecological systems (SES) is the main focus of the climate
change literature; reflecting that both the ecological and social systems are coupled. The
notion of vulnerability, as adopted by the IPCC up to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),
defines vulnerability as:
‘The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate
variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity’
(IPCC, 2001, p. 995).
This may be expressed as a function: Vulnerability = f (Exposure, Sensitivity, Adaptive
Capacity) where:
Sensitivity: is ‘the degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely
or beneficially, by climate variability or change’ (IPCC, 2014b);
Exposure: is ‘the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant
climatic variations‘ where the exposure unit is ‘an activity, group, region, or resource
that is subjected to climatic stimuli’ (IPCC, 2001, p. 995);
Adaptive Capacity: is the ‘ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other
organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to
respond to consequences’ (IPCC, 2001).
A common way of visualizing this relationship and how it feeds into risk assessments is
shown in Figure 2.
14Figure 2: Visualization of climate change vulnerability and its relationship to other
concepts. Source: Pasztor & Bosch 2011
2.3.1. Outcome Vulnerability and Contextual Vulnerability
Reflecting its dual heritage in the natural sciences and the social sciences, vulnerability is
often broken into bio-physical vulnerability and socio-economic vulnerability. Within the
climate change literature, the emphasis of early work (so-called ‘first-generation’) was on
biophysical vulnerability which tends to focus on observed and projected changes in climate
that may exacerbate exposure and sensitivity (Füssel and Klein, 2006). However,
developments in knowledge drew attention to the ways in which existing socio-economic
circumstances interact with climate change, and led to a distinction between outcome
vulnerability and contextual vulnerability (O’Brien et al., 2007).
Outcome (or ‘end-point’) definitions refer to the residual level of vulnerability once
adaptation actions have occured (see Figure ). Outcome definitions are typically
quantitative, look to the future, are top-down as they stem from global climate models, and
were incorporated early in the genealogy of climate change vulnerability assessments
(Hinkel, 2011).
Contextual (or ‘starting-point) vulnerability focuses on the current characteristics of a given
system that exist before any hazard affects it (O’Brien et al 2007). Furthermore, climate
change is only one of other interacting stressors (or drivers) on that system. Characteristics
may be socio-economic; institutional; technological; and biophysical (see Section 3.3).
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
15Figure 3: Left hand side: depiction of outcome vulnerability. Right hand side: depiction
of contextual vulnerability. Source: based on O’Brien et al., 2007
These two definitions are fundamentally different and it is important to make clear which
approach is being specified in any vulnerability assessment framework. There are attempts
to integrate the two (Ionescu et al., 2005); however others believe that the two notions are
discursively different and, whilst complementary: ‘it is perhaps more important to recognize
the usefulness of approaching vulnerability from different perspectives.’ (O’Brien et al., 2007,
p. 85). This discussion provides the background for considering the different definition(s) of
vulnerability, as recently adopted in the most recent IPCC report (2014a).
2.3.2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Redefining
Vulnerability
The IPCC has modified their definition of vulnerability in AR5 by moving to a risk-based
conceptual framework (Figure 4) (IPCC, 2012; 2014a,). This reflects the more nuanced
understandings of vulnerability in research, as well as harmonising with disaster risk
management (EEA 2012). AR5 (IPCC, 2014a; 2014b) states that vulnerability is:
‘the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability
encompasses a variety of concepts including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm
and lack of capacity to cope and adapt’ (IPCC 2014b).
16This is a more generic definition. There are separate definitions for outcome (end-point)
vulnerability (IPCC, 2014b, p. 1769) and contextual (starting-point) vulnerability (IPCC 2014b,
p. 1762), which reinforces the point that any vulnerability assessment will need to make clear
the notion that is being employed.
Figure 4: Conceptualization of risk by the IPCC. Source: IPCC (2014) AR5, WG-II, Ch. 19.
It is notable that exposure, which previously formed part of vulnerability pre-AR5, is
differentiated in line with the disaster risk management approach discussed in Section 2.1.1.
Exposure is now defined as: ‘the presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems,
environmental services and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets
in places that could be adversely affected.’ (IPCC, 2014b). It is argued that this makes sense,
particularly in CI studies, because an electricity transmission line, for example, is only
exposed to windstorms if it is above ground (McCord et al., 2015, p. 48).
Whilst RESIN will follow the IPCC AR5, an overview of other ways of understanding
vulnerability across the literature are presented in Annex 3.
2.3.3. Adaptive Capacity
The IPCC AR5 vulnerability definition seems to include sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The
IPCC have indicated that they are related – sensitivity to climate change may also imply a
lack of adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2012, p. 33). However, it is worth pointing to reports which
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
17separate adaptive capacity out in order to leave vulnerability as sensitivity. The argument is
made that this is useful because vulnerability may be difficult to change. However, adaptive
capacity may be easier to alter so, practically, it makes sense to ‘decouple’ the two in order to
progress adaptation responses (Rosenzweig et al., 2011). An example is a piece of aging
infrastructure, such as sewerage systems, that will be vulnerable because of increases in
population and the increased precipitation projected under climate change. It may not be
possible to upgrade that system, however, a city might target non-structural measures that
increase the adaptive capacity of the potentially affected population without decreasing the
vulnerability of the sewerage system. Thus it may be advantageous to separate adaptive
capacity conceptually from vulnerability in order to be practically relevant ‘when trying to
formulate targeted policies or assessing barriers to implementing adaptation responses’
(Carter et al., 2015).
2.4. Discussion
Whilst having many overlaps and similar conceptual issues, the above discussion shows the
terminological differences between disaster risk management (DRM) and critical
infrastructure protection (CIP) and climate change adaptation (CCA) approaches to
vulnerability assessments. Additional differences between the approaches focus around
three main points. Firstly, they have different time-horizons: DRM and CIP are focused on
present or near-term hazards and may use past events as a basis for understanding
vulnerability. Climate change, on the other hand, is forward looking and, it is argued, past
events may not provide a benchmark for future events (Wolf, 2011). Second, DRM focuses
on shocks such as extreme weather events; whereas climate change adaptation mainly
focuses on gradual change and ‘stressors’ (Rosenzweig et al 2011, 18). Even so, focusing on
the risks of extreme weather events can be useful because they cause some of the most
serious and costly impacts both now and in the future (IPCC 2012). Adaptation responses
can also meet both short-term and long-term goals. Third, a focus on vulnerability leads to
questions on who or what experiences an impact whereas risk based approaches focus on
providing technical solutions to reduce risk (Pasztor and Bosch, 2011, p. 8).
Table 1 compares and contrasts the key concepts between each knowledge area to explore
the commonalities and differences. When those working within climate change (pre-IPCC
AR5) refer to vulnerability, DRM understand this as risk. Similarly, vulnerability in DRM
equates to sensitivity within climate change studies (pre-IPCC AR5) (Kaźmierczak and
Handley, 2011).
18IPCC AR5
DRM CIP IPCC AR4
Adaptive/Coping Coping capacity: The ability (Lack of) resilience: The The ability of a system to Coping capacity: The ability
Capacity/ (Lack of) of people, organizations ability of a system, adjust to climate change of people, institutions,
Resilience and systems, using community or society (including climate organizations, and systems,
available skills and exposed to hazards to variability and extremes) to using available skills,
resources, to face and resist, absorb, moderate potential values, beliefs, resources,
manage adverse conditions, accommodate to and damages, to take and opportunities, to
emergencies or disasters recover from the effects of a advantage of opportunities, address, manage, and
(UNISDR 2009). hazard in a timely and or to cope with the overcome adverse
efficient manner, including consequences (IPCC 2007) conditions in the short to
through the preservation medium term (IPCC 2014b).
and restoration of its
essential basic structures Adaptive capacity: The
and functions (UNIDSR ability of systems,
2009) institutions, humans, and
other organisms to adjust to
potential damage, to take
advantage of opportunities,
or to respond to
consequences (IPCC
2014b)
Exposure People, property, systems, The potential loss to an The nature and degree to The presence of people,
or other elements present in area due to the occurrence which a system is exposed livelihoods, species or
hazard zones that are of an adverse event to significant climatic ecosystems, environmental
thereby subject to potential (ENISA) variations (IPCC 2001). services and resources,
losses. (UNISDR 2009) infrastructure, or economic,
social, or cultural assets in
places that could be
adversely affected (IPCC
2014b)
(What is exposed?)
Hazard A dangerous phenomenon, Source of potential harm N/A The potential occurrence of
substance, human activity (CIPedia© 2015) a natural or human-induced
or condition that may cause physical event or trend, or
loss of life, injury or other physical impact, that may
health impacts, property cause loss of life, injury, or
damage, loss of livelihoods other health impacts, as
and services, social and well as damage and loss to
economic disruption, or property, infrastructure,
environmental damage livelihoods, service
(UNISDR 2009). provision, and
environmental resources
(IPCC 2014).
Vulnerability The characteristics and A characteristic of an Vulnerability is a function of The propensity or
circumstances of a element of the CI’s design, the character, magnitude, predisposition to be
community, system or asset implementation, or and rate of climate variation adversely affected.
that make it susceptible to operation that renders it to which a system is Vulnerability encompasses
the damaging effects of a susceptible to disruption or exposed, its sensitivity, and a variety of concepts
hazard (UNISDR 2009). destruction by a threat and its adaptive capacity (IPCC including sensitivity or
(Who or what is vulnerable?) includes dependencies on 2007) susceptibility to harm and
other types of infrastructure (Who, or what is vulnerable and lack of capacity to cope and
(European Commission, to what, when and where?). adapt.
COM(2006)787)
(Who or what is vulnerable, and
(Who or what is vulnerable?) to what extent can they
cope/recover from/adapt?)
Table 2: Comparison of commonly employed terminology
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
19There are slight differences in terminology with regard to ‘sensitivity’ and susceptibility,
fragility. Birkmann et al (2013) suggest that it is possible to use these terms interchangeably
even though there are subtle differences, an approach which the RESIN project should
follow. Indeed, the MOVE project provides an assessment framework that distinguishes the
various components of sensitivity: physical, ecological, social, economic, cultural and
institutional (Birkmann et al., 2013). These differences will be further explored in Section 3
with relevance to CI and urban areas.
Exposure is different too. The CIP literature refers to what is exposed (that is, railway tracks,
electricity substations) and what might be lost. However, the pre-IPCC AR5 considered the
degree of exposure (that is, the degree to which railway tracks or electricity substations come
into contact with a hazard). This has been modified in the IPCC AR5 to focus more on what is
exposed and, therefore, seems to show been some harmonisation.
Adaptive capacity and resilience also have overlaps. For example, several studies in DRM
consider (lack of) resilience to be an important factor in vulnerability (McCord et al., 2015).
However, some in the CCA community refer to this as adaptive capacity. Though closely
related, the two concepts are different. The DRM community consider resilience more as
‘coping’ without necessarily transforming a state of affairs. The CCA community bring in the
concept of adaptation, transformation and learning (Birkmann et al., 2013; Pelling, 2010).
Climate Proof Cities, which emerged from the Dutch Knowledge for Climate Change
programme, delineates various aspects in order to demonstrate that adaptive capacity can
encompass threshold capacity (identifying the point at which coping is not possible),
response/coping capacity, and recovery capacity (Pasztor & Bosch 2011, p. 7).
Many climate change-focussed European projects have adopted the IPCC’s pre-AR5
definition. The EEA’s Urban Vulnerability Map (2015) used indicators relating to sensitivity,
exposure and response capacity. The ESPON climate vulnerability assessment also utilized
the IPCC’s AR4 definition where vulnerability is a function of sensitivity, exposure and
adaptive capacity. The Vulnerability Sourcebook (BMZ 2014), which outlines a detailed
process of undertaking vulnerability assessment, also holds to the IPCC’s AR4 definition,
although the authors were aware of the impending IPCC change and argue that their
approach remains broadly compatible with AR5. This points to a challenge for the RESIN
project which may be drawing on assessments and approaches that have been formulated
under the earlier IPCC definition. There will need to be a careful translation and care
taken to identify and separate exposure indicators when following a pre-existing
approach.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) (EEA, 2012a) addressed issues linked to
vulnerability, focusing on cities and urban areas. The report notes that there are different
definitions and concepts of vulnerability, and states that: ‘While being aware of the different
definitions and concepts of vulnerability, we do not use a specific definition or concept
stringently in this report but rather use the term in a more generic way’ (EEA 2012, 127). This
raises the question of whether a specific (and narrow) definition of vulnerability is required for
the RESIN project. It is highly likely that the interdisciplinary work in the RESIN project
will need to be guided by a clear and consistently applied definition of vulnerability in
order to make progress.
203. Why are Cities and their Critical
Infrastructures Vulnerable to Climate
Change?
RESIN has a focus on cities, built up areas and critical infrastructure. This section therefore
considers three particular elements that may be sensitive to climate change: critical
infrastructure, critical infrastructure systems, and society (including culture, governance,
socio-economic characteristics). The focus on these factors follows the insights of the
CRISMA project, which divided its modelling into physical vulnerability of elements at risk,
systemic vulnerability and social vulnerability (Polese et al., 2014). This is useful as it helps to
identify sub-systems of interest in the RESIN project and how they interrelate.
3.1. Vulnerability of Critical infrastructure
Critical infrastructure may be vulnerable for a variety of reasons and to a variety of hazards.
Critical Infrastructures (CI) are characterized such because their functioning is essential for
citizen well-being (see Rome et al 2015). Collectively they form a system of systems with the
following properties:
CI are complex
CI depend on other CI
CI extend cross-border
CI are continuously changing, adapting to changes in technology, economy,
legislation
Different elements of assessing the vulnerability of CI include:
Vulnerability of CI against malicious attacks
Vulnerability of CI against cyber attacks
Vulnerability of built infrastructure
General vulnerability of CI (all hazards)
Vulnerability of specific CI sectors
Vulnerability assessment as part of risk assessment for CI
Vulnerability assessment for enhancing CI resilience
In addition, there is a dynamic notion of vulnerability for CI which may be called ‘time-
dependent’ that refers to: ‘the vulnerability affected by deterioration of elements
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
21characteristics due to ageing and/or damage’ (Polese et al 2014, p. xi). This might also
include (lack of) maintenance.
Climate change represents a developing area within critical infrastructure protection studies
which adds further attention to considerations of time. Particular CI elements may be at
considerable risk because of climate change. Nuclear power generators, for example, need
to be cooled. During the French heatwave of 2003, a number of power stations had to be
closed down because there was too little water to cool them which was exacerbated by high
temperatures (Poumadère et al., 2005). Thus, the need for cooling presents an inherent
design vulnerability for power stations that needs to be adapted.
3.2. Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructure Systems
RESIN will have, as its focus, an approach based on urban systems. Continuing with the
nuclear power plant example, France exports a proportion of its electricity to other European
countries. The reduced capacity to do so during the 2003 heatwave limited the amount of
electricity that could be exported, with knock on effects in countries such as the UK.
Therefore, understanding the interdependency between critical infrastructures and
across borders is important. In addition, a physical element at risk may not be within a flood
zone (i.e. exposed) but, because of interdependencies, may be affected by a related
extreme weather event. This will have implications for climate change vulnerability
assessments; as ‘the interdependent nature of infrastructure implies that while climate
change preparedness at a point within the system might be more evolved than in others, it is
still vulnerable to failure caused at other, less resilient points.’ (Guthrie and Konaris, 2012, p.
12).
Vulnerability approaches for critical infrastructures are currently based on risk reduction,
while approaches for other parts of cities, such as buildings and public spaces, are mainly
oriented toward increasing resilience (or decreasing vulnerability). Combining and/or
merging these approaches would contribute to a more consistent evaluation of
vulnerabilities in a city, and is a necessary step towards a harmonized choice between
adaptation options. A specific aspect of this is the incorporation of cascading effects
relating to CI-systems into a vulnerability assessment.
3.3. Societal Vulnerability
‘Natural’ disasters interact with existing human conditions to vary the impact of the disaster
on particular groups of people (Blaikie et al., 2014). It is reasonable to assume that critical
infrastructure failure, and system failure, will have effects that are different for different sets of
people and groups who live within a city. The CIP literature considers wider societal
vulnerabilities in the sense that cascading effects are analyzed (see Rome et al., 2015). The
CRISMA project, which focussed on emergency response, modelled the movement of
populations during evacuation using a DYNAPOP model (Polese et al., 2014). However, it is
rare that the CIP literature looks specifically at the impact of cascading effects on the
population and the differential impact on specific groups.
22This literature is well-developed within the CCA community. There are a number of identified
ways in which some groups of people may be more sensitive to the effects of climate change
and extreme weather events, and lack the capacity to cope, recover and adapt (Carter et al.,
2015; Cutter and Finch, 2008; Haines et al., 2006; Kaźmierczak et al., 2015; Kaźmierczak
and Cavan, 2011; Lindley et al., 2011; Oven et al., 2012; Tzoulas et al., 2007). These
include:
older people and the very young may be more vulnerable during heatwaves due to
pre-existing physical conditions;
those who are new to the area (migrants) or do not speak the official language may
struggle to access information and may lack social networks in times of crises;
people with existing health conditions that particularly limit their mobility may be more
vulnerable during an extreme weather event;
access to social networks may play a role in supporting people before, during and
after an extreme weather event.
Other relevant indicators that affect sensitivity and the capacity to cope, adapt and respond
may be institutional (the presence of government support and policies), technical (the ability
to access innovations, acceptance of innovations), economic (availability of insurance and
national insurance schemes), ecological (specific sensitivities of ecological environments).
The EU-FP7 funded MOVE project (http://www.move-fp7.eu), for example, provides an
assessment framework that distinguishes the various components of susceptibility to harm:
physical, ecological, social, economic, cultural and institutional (Birkmann et al., 2013):
This approach considers elements such as policy frameworks and acceptance of
technologies as well as indicators relating to socio-economic characteristics. Other physical
factors may be the quality of the built environment since this might affect whether a building
floods or the presence of high rise buildings, which may exacerbate heatwave stress.
The issue for RESIN is in defining the indicators for vulnerability, which are not common
across vulnerability assessments. It will also be essential to ensure that the amount of data
needed is achievable within the RESIN project and for cities undertaking vulnerability
assessments beyond RESIN.
3.4. Section Summary
This section has attempted to discuss the way in which definitions of vulnerability may be
different within the areas of interest for the RESIN project. For the purposes of vulnerability
assessment for the RESIN project, it is suggested that the IPCC’s AR5 definition is followed
as it represents a clear means of bridging different research traditions. However, it will be
necessary to take a decision on:
whether outcome and contextual vulnerability definitions are to be employed for
different systems of interest; or:
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
23 whether one approach is to be followed throughout the whole project; and
consequently; and
the relationship of adaptive capacity to sensitivity in the new IPCC AR5 definition.
It is also argued that it is beneficial to differentiate between different systems of interest.
Rather than looking only at a particular system or sector, the RESIN project needs to look at
vulnerability in the urban system as a whole. Physical CI will contain weaknesses, such as
inherent design characteristics and deterioation over time, that render them more or less
vulnerable to a particular threat. We propose terming this as CI-vulnerability. There is also a
need to consider the interdependency of critical infrastructures, that is ‘the tendency of a
territorial element to suffer damage (generally functional) due to its interconnections with
other elements of the same territorial system’ (Polese et al 2014., p. xi). We propose terming
this CI-systems vulnerability. There are a number of existing methods from the CIP
literature for this. However, when infrastructure or systems fail there are wider consequences
and, therefore, it is important to understand where this may have more consequences than
others, e.g. due to characteristics in the population, or the inability of a government to deal
with the consequences. We term this societal vulnerability. It is important that the RESIN
project considers these three different aspects, each of which may have particular indicators
associated with them. This should be tested and refined in the city case studies and
during the formulation of the IVAVIA tool; different stakeholders may require different
indicators of vulnerability depending on their aims and outcomes from participating in and
using the assessment. Therefore, this threefold classification may evolve over the course of
the project.
The next section appraises various methods that may be employed when undertaking
vulnerability assessments.
244. Vulnerability Assessment Methods and
Examples
A vulnerability assessment identifies who and what is exposed and sensitive to change.
Vulnerability assessments require parameters that should be based on the overall aims and
objectives of a project (Preston et al., 2011; Verbeek and Husson, 2013). This helps to
identify particular areas of interest and to raise awareness amongst practitioners and other
stakeholders e.g. scoring methods can help to identify hotspots for example ((Cavan et al.,
2015; Preston et al., 2011)). However, the limitations need to be specified: that is, clarifying
uncertainties and highlighting the fallibility of the data to ensure that policies and priorities are
not decided without further investigation. Hinkel (2011), for example, is sceptical over the use
of indicators to help to allocate and prioritize funding; this is because indicators are often
more meaningful at local levels, whereas funding is usually allocated on the basis of
indicators developed at higher scales that may miss local granularity.
Critical infrastructure vulnerability assessments are different from other damage assessments
particularly through the focus on interdependencies and cascading events. Therefore:
'vulnerability assessments need to determine the consequences and damages of such
interdependencies. For getting a full picture of failure, it is thus necessary to capture second
and third order consequences both inside and outside [the flooded area]’ (Heilemann et al.,
2013, p. 4). However, the complexity of doing this in practice are challenging and the RESIN
report on Urban Critical Infrastructure Systems explores approaches to managing data
demand (Rome et al., 2015).
There are a number of different approaches to vulnerability assessments. An overview of
those used in the climate change adaptation literature are mentioned here: case studies;
indicator based vulnerability assessments (IBVAs); and adaptation tipping points (ATPs).
Modelling of CI and cascading effects are covered in Urban Critical Infrastructure Systems
(Rome et al 2015). Scenarios are briefly looked at although these are covered in greater
depth in the RESIN reports on Weather and Climate Hazards (Carter et al., 2015) and
Decision Support (Willems et al 2015).
The following subsections give an overview of the methodology of vulnerability assessments,
their units of analysis, specific approaches and the incorporation of scenarios. There are also
a number of tool reviews which should be taken into account when designing the RESIN
project outputs (Climate UK, 2012; Lindley, 2009). However, some of the tools reviewed may
be dated as there has been a significant amount of work across a range of disciplines over
recent years. The Climate Adapt portal contains 16 tools relating to vulnerability
(http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu). Annex 1 provides a selected list of major European
projects in CI and CCA that may provide further tools.
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
254.1. Methodology
Vulnerability assessment methodologies differ in terms of their use of quantitative, qualitative
or mixed methodologies (see Table 2). Many vulnerability assessments are quantitative in
nature, using indicators and GIS mapping to denote particularly vulnerable areas.
Sometimes, a combination of expert judgement and stakeholder involvement may help to
define those indicators. There are examples of purely qualitative vulnerability assessments
that are often participatory with the aim of generating citizen action and involvement in
addressing climate change vulnerability. The IPCC (2014b), for example, notes that local
knowledge is often underutilized in climate change studies; participatory vulnerability
assessments offer one means of incorporating such knowledge into vulnerability
assessments. Given the co-creation focus of RESIN, it is likely that a mix of both quantitative
and qualitative methods will be used.
Methodology Description Example Projects
Quantitative Expert judgement defines the indicators to be used and these ESPON Climate (2011)
are extracted from existing sources. Entirely quantitative http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Proj
assessments can be taken across sectors and at different ects/Menu_AppliedResearch/climate.
levels of scale, although the access to data sources and html
indicators used may inhibit comparability between vulnerability
assessments. Proxy indicators are often used. ENHANCE (ongoing)
http://www.enhanceproject.eu/
RAMSES (ongoing)
http://ramses-cities.eu
Mixed Methods This approach predominantly undertakes quantitative GraBS (2011)
assessments but includes extensive stakeholder engagement http://www.grabs-eu.org/
at certain points in the vulnerability assessment. This might be
to help the project choose indicators for the assessment. Weather (2012)
Another option is that indicators are chosen on the basis of http://www.weather-project.eu
expert judgement, and stakeholders are asked to verify how
well the indicators fit with their knowledge of a sector or area. Climate Just (2013)
In some cases, indicators relating to adaptive capacity, for www.climate-just.org
example, can be difficult to source and qualitative methods are
used to derive an indicator.
Qualitative These are typically conducted at smaller spatial scales and Fazey et al 2010
(Participatory) explicitly have a focus on social vulnerability. An example Jonsson et al 2012.
Assessments includes researchers who train citizens in vulnerability
assessment; thus at the same time knowledge is co-created
and the capacity of communities increases (notwithstanding
potential criticisms about entrenching power relations).
Table 2: Overview of the main features in different methodologies for vulnerability
assessments with example projects.
264.2. Unit of Analysis
A further question arises of how vulnerability assessments operationalize questions
concerning ‘vulnerability of what?’ (i.e. the unit of analysis). Often, the region is the focus. For
example ESPON Climate (2011) takes a territorial approach to vulnerability by looking at a
range of sectors and associated vulnerability indicators (following IPCC AR4) and coming to
a judgement on the extent to which a defined territorial unit, in the case the European NUTS
3 designation, is vulnerable. RAMSES (www.ramses-cities.eu), which has produced down-
scaled climate projections as well as vulnerability and impact assessments for 571 cities, also
uses the NUTS 3 designation in order to focus on cities.
Sectoral assessments are another means. Different sectors may be transportation, electricity
generation or ecosystems for example. This is the approach taken by the UK’s Climate
Change Risk Assessment (2012) for example as well as many others including Urban
Climate Change Research Network (Rosenzweig et al., 2011). This has the drawback that it
can reinforce sectors operating in discrete silos whereas in the urban system,
interdependencies and cross-sectoral impacts may be critical. Other vulnerability
assessments look specifically at vulnerable groups of people (e.g. Lindley et al., 2011).
4.3. Specific Approaches
There are a range of vulnerability assessment methods which are too numerous to include in
this report. The report therefore focuses on case studies and analogue methods, IBVA’s and
adaptation tipping points as the RESIN project contains specific objectives around
standardised indicators and with a focus on four case study cities.
4.3.1. Case Study and Analogue Methods
Ford et al (2010) provide a review of case study and analogue methods in climate change
vulnerability assessments. Case study vulnerability assessments typically focus on a local
neighbourhood and/or community or a particular sector. The case study provides detailed
information utilizing a range of methods including historical research. Case studies are
usually place-based and typically take an exposure unit in order to fully explore the
vulnerabilities and impacts. Whilst there are concerns over the generalisability of single case
studies, Ford et al (2010) note that meta-analyses may be undertaken and, in addition, there
have been good examples of nested case studies which can explore vulnerabilities, and the
factors that determine them, across scales (e.g. Adger et al., 2008; Keskitalo, 2010).
The RESIN project’s focus on comparability across cities through the typology (WP1) and
standardization (WP5) may detract from the feasibility of using only this kind of in-depth
vulnerability assessment, even though there are four city case studies. That said, it could be
interesting to consider in-depth case studies of critical infrastructure failure, and those which
have occurred in the past due to extreme weather events, in order to fully explore the
developing quantitative aspects and choice of indicators that will be made in WP2.
Vulnerability Assessment: Definitions, Indicators and Existing Assessment Methods
27You can also read
