1. URBAN FUTURES * * * * * * * * * * * www.ral.ucar.edu/csap/themes/urbanfutures Vulnerability and Uncertainty Uncertainty in Climate Change Research: An integrated Approach Paty Romero-Lankao

2. Goals 1.Engaging in mutual learning 2.Discussing key paradigms of vulnerability and risk 3.Integrating vulnerability, uncertainty and risk, gaps and challenges a)paradigms, cognitive biases b)nature of science policy interface 4.Concluding remarks Shanghai Mexico City 2012 Beijing geographyblog.eu

3. Vulnerability Potential for loss and damage Difficulty to cope with stress or hazard Lack of ability or capacity to withstand shock Degree of susceptibility to a natural hazard The place and context specific capacity to respond to risk Uncertainty Indeterminacy Limited or lack of knowledge Margin of error Set of possible states and outcomes Measurement of risk: set of measured uncertainties

4. Multi- and interdisciplinary approaches Focus on socio-ecological systems, underlying drivers, feedback mechanisms and building flexibility and learning Political economy/environmental justice Focus on who is more vulnerable and why, assets and capacity, and structural drivers of vulnerability Origins: natural hazards/top down CC Vulnerability results from exposure to hazards sensitivity (impacts) Scaled-down scenarios, future impacts and adaptation options Romero-Lankao, Qin 2011; Romero-Lankao, Qin & Dickinson 2012 What do we mean by vulnerability? Inherent/contextual vulnerability (bottom up) Impact/outcome vulnerability (Top-down) Resilience and integrated approaches

5. O’Brien et al 2007 Turner et al 2003

6. Risk is the possibility of negative outcomes resulting from the combination of  hazards and capacities of exposed populations and  the interaction of broader societal and environmental processes that shape their experience of risk Hazards are probable or looming stresses people are exposed to  One-off extremes  Slow-onset events  Subtle everyday threats My own definition of key concepts Patricia Romero-Lankao, Sara Hughes, Jorgelina Hardoy, Hua Qin, Angélica Rosas-Huerta, Roxana Bórquez, Andrea Lampis (2012) and (2013) Capacity a pool of assets/options Individual (age, medical conditions) Household assets (education, income, housing, social networks) Infrastructures/built environment Governance (territorial planning, services, pollution controls,..) Lack of capacity = vulnerability

7. Urban Risk and Vulnerability Capacity Romero-Lankao, Hughes, Rosas, Qin, Borquez, Lampis (2014)

8. Goals 1.Discussing key paradigms to vulnerability and risk 2.Integrating vulnerability, uncertainty and risk, gaps and challenges a)paradigms, cognitive biases b)nature of science policy interface 3.Engaging in mutual learning 4.Concluding remarks Shanghai Mexico City 2012 Beijing geographyblog.eu

9. 2a. Urban populations’ vulnerability to temperature- related hazards: motivation Global relevance of urban areas, increased number of case studies – Different hazards (temperature, floods, SLR, storms) – Different geographical areas – Different dimensions (impacts, exposure) – Different paradigms Data Conservancy awarded by NSF Coastal flooding after Sandy…

10. Urban populations’ vulnerability to temperature- related hazards: motivation Can we conduct a meta-analysis and “meta-knowledge” to draw out broader lessons from this diverse body of literature? Focus on temperature-related hazards – Large impacts – Clearly tied to climate change – Enough number of studies Data Conservancy awarded by NSF

11. Multidisciplinary, integrated approach Focus on socio-ecological systems, adaptation, mechanisms Political economy approach Focus on adaptive capacity and structural drivers of vulnerability Natural hazards origins Vulnerability results from exposure to hazards, people’s sensitivity & impacts Romero-Lankao and Qin 2011 What do we mean by urban vulnerability? Inherent urban vulnerability (3) Urban vulnerability as Impact (48) Urban resilience/integrated (3)

12. 244 Cities Covered in the Meta-analysis Source: Patricia Romero Lankao, Hua Qin and Katie Dickinson 2012

13. (1) Text color denotes categories of vulnerability dimensions. Green = Hazard; Yellow = Exposure; Red = Sensitivity; Blue = Adaptive capacity/adaptation (2) Symbols in parentheses = direction of relationship between vulnerability and outcome (medium or high level of agreement only) + positive relationship (increases vulnerability); - negative relationship (decreases vulnerability); ~ no relationship Determinants of urban vulnerability to temperature-hazards: evidence and agreement

14. -13 factors account for 66% of tallies on determinants of urban populations’ vulnerability -hazard magnitude, age, population density, gender, pre-existing medical conditions, education, income, poverty, minority status, acclimatization, and access to home amenities -Two factors extensively studied: hazard magnitude and age -Findings biased by -Geographic coverage -Dominance of a paradigm: “urban vulnerability as impact”

15. Urban vulnerability studies: research questions Vulnerability as impact Inherent vulnerability ResilienceAll studies Number of studies/Research question48 3354 1. Relationship temperature and mortality EXCLUDING additional factors (see question 2)?1531%00%0 1528% 2. Additional factors affecting the relationship between temperature and human health3268%267%3100%3770% a.Factors making people more sensitive to temperature 2553%267%2 2955% a.Factors influencing people’s ability to adapt 2349%267%3100%2853% a.Structural drivers (e.g., socioeconomic inequality, political power) of vulnerability to temperature- related hazards 00%267%3100%59% 3. How does air pollution (or other biophysical factors) affect the temperature-health relationship?2145%00%0 2140% 4. How does climate change affect temperature- health outcomes relationships511%00%0 59% 5. Other factors influencing temperature-related hazards and their distribution (e.g., urban form, land cover, heat islands)24%00%267%48% 6. People’s perception of vulnerability to temperature-related hazards00%133%1 24% 7. existing and potential adaptation options?12%00%133%24%

16. Urban vulnerability studies: methods Quantitative48100% 267%3100%5298% - Time series/longitudinal3165% 133%00%3158% - Cross-sectional1633% 00%267%1834% - Spatial12% 133%267%48% - Meta-regression (multiple studies)24% 00%0 24% Qualitative00% 267%133%36% Type of data Primary00% 267%2 48% Secondary48100% 267%3100%5298% Simulated/modeled 3 6% 00%133%48% Level of analysis Individual617% 133%00%713% Neighborhood12% 267%3100%611% City4798% 00%0 4687% Temporal scale Single event817% 3100%3 1426% Short term2655% 133%00%2751% Medium term1940% 00%0 1834% Long term511% 00%0 59% Vulnerability as impact Inherent vulnerability ResilienceAll studies

17. Three paradigms have made important contributions – Nature of hazards – Processes shaping inequalities in vulnerability – Integration of human & environmental factors Still knowledge has shed light on only certain aspects of the problem Scale can influence a study’s findings (city, short term) Uncertainty results from the questions we ask and methods and data we use

18. 2b. Nature of science policy interface globally and locally  Collective, deliberative process  Three features of effectiveness  Relevance (decision makers/users)  Credibility (scientific/technical quality)  Legitimacy: fairness and impartiality  Impact on decision making is not a measure of effectiveness  Science-policy interface fit with  Scientific context  Policy and political context National Research Council. Analysis of Global Change Assessments, 2007.

19. Policy and Political Context Scientific Context Science-Policy Interface Boundary Relevance Credibility Legitimacy

20. Scientific context  Level of maturity & consensus  Treatment of uncertainty  Evidence and data available  Knowledge from several fields, capacity for fields to  communicate to different audiences  agree on approaches to the questions of concern  integrate results stemming from different paradigms Policy and Political Context  Where are climate VIA in policy agenda  Whose agenda this is & what interests and values are at stake  Ability to progress depends on  Agreement over actions to be taken  Extent of conflict over knowledge users are arguing about  To what extent actors base policy arguments on scientific claims or else on values and vested interests Challenges to science-policy interface

21. How to enhance credibility and legitimacy? E.g., IPCC SPM approval process Developed/developing countries or countries by income levels “small island developing states” “small islands”, or “small island developing states and other small islands.” http://mediamatters.org/

22. Goals 1.Discussing key paradigms to vulnerability and risk 2.Integrating vulnerability, uncertainty and risk, gaps and challenges a)paradigms, cognitive biases b)nature of science policy interface 3.Engaging in mutual learning 4.Concluding remarks Shanghai Mexico City 2012 Beijing geographyblog.eu

23. Integrating uncertainty into vulnerability: gaps and challenges Lack of consistency between “paradigms” result in cognitive biases, a source of uncertainty Key determinants of vulnerability are understudied, (because they are not quantifiable) Differing approaches to uncertainty between – scientists want to reduce and analyze it – decision makers and stakeholders frame it based on their values and preference (perceive it as unavoidable)

24. Three reasons why vulnerability studies promise more certainty that they can deliver Complexity of the system is greater than that described by other types of studies Difficult to obtain data to test key interactions between vulnerability determinants Informing decision making is complex; involves values, power and preferences in addition to science