1. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 1 Security Diagrams Security Diagrams: Assessing the Risk of Extreme Climate Events on Society Funded by German Research Ministry Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel (Project Coordination) Joseph Alcamo Dörthe Krömker Frank Eierdanz Adelphi Research, Berlin Alexander Carius Dennis Tänzler Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Richard Klein Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik

2. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 2 Security Diagrams Susceptibility Environmental Stress Not a crisis Crises event High probability of crises Low probability of crises Framework for Quantifying Vulnerability: Security Diagram Focus on droughts

3. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 3 Security Diagrams 1.Crisis – How can crisis events be identified? 2.Environmental Stress – What measures of environmental stress best reflect society’s vulnerability to drought? 3.Susceptibility – How can susceptibility of society to drought be quantified, and how is it defined by different disciplinary perspectives? Specific Research Questions

4. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 4 Security Diagrams Case Studies Andhra Pradesh India Algarve + Alentejo Portugal Volgograd + Saratov Russia

5. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 5 Security Diagrams 1.Crisis – How can crisis events be identified? 2.Environmental Stress – What measures of environmental stress best reflect society’s vulnerability to drought? 3.Susceptibility – How can susceptibility of society to drought be quantified, and how is it defined by different disciplinary perspectives? Specific Research Questions

6. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 6 Security Diagrams Crisis: A Serious disruption of the functioning of societies causing widespread human or material losses as well as socio-cultural impacts requiring political and social responses..

7. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 7 Security Diagrams Identifying Drought Crisis Events Media analysis -- “Factiva” media data base (8000 media sources, local/regional/national) 1.Establish classes of “attributes” of crisis 2.Identify reliable local media 3.Tabulate recurrent (> 2 per month) reports of attributes

8. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 8 Security Diagrams Results of Media Analysis Example – Southern Portugal, 1983 Attributes of crisis Agriculture (0.25) Energy & Industry (0.25) Political (0.25) Social (0.25) Sum 1.0 Irrigation strongly reduced Reservoirs empty towards end of year Hydroelectric production severely curtailed. Announce- ment of „emergency‘“ for Alentejo Mandatory electricity- saving measures

9. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 9 Security Diagrams Year 19 80818283848586878889909192939495 A. Pradesh 0,750,251,00,5 S. Portugal 1,0 Volga Region 0,5 0,250,75 First Estimate – Drought Crisis Events 13/48

10. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 10 Security Diagrams 1.Crisis – How can crisis events be identified? 2.Environmental Stress – What measures of environmental stress best reflect society’s vulnerability to drought? 3.Susceptibility – How can susceptibility of society to drought be quantified, and how is it defined by different disciplinary perspectives? Specific Research Questions

11. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 11 Security Diagrams Water Stress: Withdrawal to Availability ratio 1995 Environmental stress: the intensity of environmental change that is (i) an undesirable departure, (ii) short duration.

12. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 12 Security Diagrams Water Stress Indicators -- Test against occurrence of crisis events -- Statistical significance, t test (0.05) Water withdrawal to availability ratio Deviation of groundwater recharge from long time average Deviation of water availability from long time average Runoff deficit index Deviation of evapotranspiration from long time average MaxIndex Maximum function [withdrawal to availability ratio, deviation of water availability from long term average, and percentage of area with high water stress] Water withdrawal to internal availability ratio Annual groundwater recharge in mm Groundwater discharge per capita Water availability per capita Internal renewable water availability per capita Percentage of area under stress (defined as withdrawal to availability ratio of 0.4 or more) Percentage of population under stress Deviation of precipitation from long time average Statistically significant indicatorsNot statistically significant indicators

13. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 13 Security Diagrams 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 0.0 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.8>0.8 - 1.0 Water Stress (Categories) Relative frequency of crises [number of crises / number of cases per category] 0 crises / 4 cases 3 crises / 24 cases 7 crises / 16 cases 1 crises / 2 cases 2 crises / 2 cases Testing Water Stress Water stress (“MaxIndex”) vs. crisis data from three case study regions

14. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 14 Security Diagrams 1.Crisis – How can crisis events be identified? 2.Environmental Stress – What measures of environmental stress best reflect society’s vulnerability to drought? 3.Susceptibility – How can susceptibility of society to drought be quantified, and how is it defined by different disciplinary perspectives? Specific Research Questions

15. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 15 Security Diagrams Susceptibility: the capability of an individual, community or state to resist, adapt and/or recover from environmental stress.

16. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 16 Security Diagrams 1.Develop inference models: Adapt theory, select variables, specify relationships between variables, select indicators for variables. 2. Quantify the models based on fuzzy set theory 3.Collect data for indicators: (top-down and bottom-up from case study regions: Southern Portugal, Volga region, Andhra Pradesh) 4. Input data to model and compute susceptibility Procedure to Assess Susceptibility

17. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 17 Security Diagrams Environ- mental stress Exposure Degree of being susceptible Disaster/Crises Susceptibility Conceptual Overview Economics Political science Wealth & Economic Sensitivity Socio-cultural Integration Political Capacity & Political Willingness PolSus EcoSus SocCuSus Agents’ Perception of Threat Agents’ Protection Capacity Environmental psychology Agents’ Perception of Competence Monetary Resources Agriculture Sector Gender Equality Health Status Educational Attainment Infra-structure System Economic Sus Social Sus

18. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 18 Security Diagrams Neg. conse- quences Pos. conse- quences Appraisal of threat Suscep- tibility Appraisal of competence Agrarian income Non- agrarian income Agrarian food source Non- agrarian food source Technical measures “At place” measures Barriers Resources Non- agrarian resources Agrarian resources Depen- dency ratio Threatene d values Depen- dency from agriculture Conse- quences of drought if Response-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Perceived Probability Perceived Severity measured input variable dimension, computed via Fuzzy subsystem Model of Psychological Perspective

19. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 19 Security Diagrams Results for Psychological Perpective Andhra Pradesh, India 2001 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Low capacity for technical measures Low capacity for at place measures Barriers to implement measures Low resources Negative consequences of drought Appraisal of threatened values Dependency ratio Dependency from agriculture Algarve + Alentejo, Portugal 2001 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Low capacity for technical measures Low capacity for at place measures Barriers to implement measures Low resources Negative consequences of drought Appraisal of threatened values Dependency ratio Dependency from agriculture Volgograd + Saratov, Russia 2001 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Low capacity for technical measures Low capacity for at place measures Barriers to implement measures Low resources Negative consequences of drought Appraisal of threatened values Dependency ratio Dependency from agriculture highlow

20. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 20 Security Diagrams Model of Political Perspective Relative State Capacity Socio-cultural Susceptibility Tax Revenue Conflict Involve- ment Susceptibility Economic Susceptibility Political Susceptibility Lack of Social Integration Economic Sensitivity Relative State Willingness Lack of Wealth Opport. for Particip. Immuni- zation Degree of Corruption Expendi- tures for Health GDP per Capita Employe es in Agricult. Hydro- power Prod. Size of Agricult.

21. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 21 Security Diagrams Results for Political Perspective Andhra Pradesh, India 1991-1995 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Lack of Statecapacity Lack of Statewill Lack of Wealth Economic Sensitivity Lack of Social Integration Algarve + Alentejo, Portugal 1991- 1995 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Lack of Statecapacity Lack of Statewill Lack of Wealth Economic Sensitivity Lack of Social Integration Volgograd + Saratov, Russia 1991-1995 Lack of 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Statecapacity Lack of Statewill Lack of Wealth Economic Sensitivity Lack of Social Integration lowvery high

22. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 22 Security Diagrams Susceptibility % female in labour force Expen- ditures for education Illiteracy Infant mortality Life expec- tancy Number of doctors Female literacy Social suscep- tibility Economic suscep- tibility Infra- structure system Agricul-ture sector Monetary resources Gender equality Educa- tional attainment Health status Hydro- power production Employee s in agriculture Agriculture (% of GDP) Tax revenue GDP per capita External debt Irrigated areas Model of Economic Perspective

23. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 23 Security Diagrams Results for Economic Perspective Susceptibility India 1991-1995 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Financial indicators Agriculture indicators Infrastructure indicators Health indicators Education indicators Gender indicators Portugal 1991-1995 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Financial indicators Agriculture indicators Infrastructure indicators Health indicators Education indicators Gender indicators Russia 1991-1995 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 Financial indicators Agriculture indicators Infrastructure indicators Health indicators Education indicators Gender indicators crucial low

24. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 24 Security Diagrams Results Overview Comparison of Disciplines 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 Andhra Pradesh, India Algarve + Alentejo, Portugal Volgograd + Saratov, Russia Susceptibility [Fuzzy Index] Economics perspectivePolitical perspectivePsychological perspective

25. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 25 Security Diagrams Summing up Refinement of the concepts of susceptibility, environmental stress, crisis Integrated Assessment – Coupling between approaches from the social and natural sciences Development of methodology to assess susceptibility Comprehensive and comparative approach to susceptibility First steps towards integrated approach to study the internal side of vulnerability Quantification of susceptibility Consideration of qualitative information However, more effort needed to validate findings Consider participative involvement of relevant stakeholder

26. Dörthe Krömker (Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel); Slide 26 Security Diagrams Conclusions Methodology offers diverse degrees of informational resolution Depending on stakeholders‘ interest different foci can be chosen Makes clear that a single action will not be sufficient