Stefan Schneiderbauer

Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework

The paper deals with the development of a general as well as integrative and holistic framework to systematize and assess vulnerability, risk and adaptation. The framework is a thinking tool meant as a heuristic that outlines key factors and different dimensions that need to be addressed when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural hazards and climate change. The approach underlines that the key factors of such a common framework are related to the exposure of a society or system to a hazard or stressor, the susceptibility of the system or community exposed, and its resilience and adaptive capacity. Additionally, it underlines the necessity to consider key factors and multiple thematic dimensions when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural and socio-natural hazards. In this regard, it shows key linkages between the different concepts used within the disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) research. Further, it helps to illustrate the strong relationships between different concepts used in DRM and CCA. The framework is also a tool for communicating complexity and stresses the need for societal change in order to reduce risk and to promote adaptation. With regard to this, the policy relevance of the framework and first results of its application are outlined. Overall, the framework presented enhances the discussion on how to frame and link vulnerability, disaster risk, risk management and adaptation concepts.

Assessing adaptive capacity within regional climate change vulnerability studies—an Alpine example

Adaptive capacity represents a crucial component in the assessment of a region’s vulnerability to climate change. The term adaptive capacity is only fuzzily defined, and determining it is difficult and often neglected in previous studies. In this paper, a newly developed adaptive capacity concept is introduced, with a respective indicator/criteria system and simple aggregation methods. The approach allows for adaptive capacity assessments at 3 levels of specificity (impact specific, sector specific and regional generic). The selection of indicators is tailor-made for Alpine regions, where the approach has been widely tested. The presented approach requires extended stakeholder involvement, namely for the evaluation of the indicators. The overall effort needed for its implementation remains reasonable. The outcome of the assessment exercise does not provide precise objective measurements, but remains an indicative estimation due to the fuzziness and complexity of the underlying concept. The conceptual approach is transferable to other mountain areas and beyond, the selection of indicators however is only valid for the Alpine region. The showcase presents results from the adaptive capacity assessment in the region of South Tyrol, where the method was carried out as part of a climate change vulnerability study. The outcomes indicate a number of issues that future actions could address in order to improve adaptive capacity in the region, namely in the field of prevention measures against meteorological extremes and natural hazards.

A consensus based vulnerability assessment to climate change in Germany

Purpose – This paper aims to propose a collaborative approach toward an integrated vulnerability assessment to climate change in Germany that attempts to bridge the gap between scientific output and policy demand. Design/methodology/approach – Conceptually, the approach follows the definition of vulnerability as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it has modified this basic concept. It clearly distinguishes between three time slices (presence, near and remote future) not only regarding the change in the climatic conditions but also socio-economic development trends. Findings – The paper concentrates on the selected methodological framework, the collaborative research design and those preliminary results of the nationwide vulnerability assessment that are transferable to other settings. Practical implications – A Vulnerability Network (“Netzwerk Vulnerabilitaet”) emerged from an applied research project commissioned under the Adaptation Action Plan of the German Strategy for Adaptati...

What “on” the world is going on?

In recent years, much has been investigated, presented, written, and published concerning the ‘‘vulnerability’’ of populations to natural hazards. Concepts and approaches have been developed in order to recognize, describe, and often quantify certain aspects and parameters of vulnerability. Often, the most positive effects of these actions of ‘‘formulating’’ vulnerability have not been the achievement of robust and tangible results, but rather the development of interdisciplinary approaches and the improvement of awareness levels between those who possess ‘‘scientific’’ information and those most at risk. These achievements represent small but important steps toward improved integrated risk management and a reduction in loss of lives and damages. However, there is still significant room for enhancing our knowledge of whom and what is vulnerable and how this vulnerability changes spatially and over time. What can remote sensing contribute to closing knowledge gaps, particularly when talking about the potentially devastating impact of earthquakes? If you were to ask scientists or practitioners involved in vulnerability assessments about what they perceive as seriously hindering their ability to work efficiently and effectively, there is one topic that they would undoubtedly bring up: the lack of data in an appropriate form that is up to date, trustworthy, and sufficient in coverage. Additionally, that it is at a suitable scale, and preferably frequently updated and last but not least affordable. Earth observation (EO) systems are one among many such data sources that potentially fulfill these demands but may fail to do so under certain circumstances. Clearly many, and probably some of the most important aspects of vulnerability, cannot be directly observed from above, let alone with images from Space. It goes without saying that EO data are unable to reveal the underlying reasons (the so-called root sources) causing vulnerability, and thus is not an appropriate data source on which to build adaptation or mitigation strategies. However, some important issues, particularly those which are spatially explicit and reveal changes over time may be best detected (or at least best monitored) with satellite sensors. The most notable of these are built-up areas: as

The most recent view of vulnerability

Disaster risk is determined by the combination of physical hazards and the vulnerabilities of exposed elements. Vulnerability relates to the susceptibility of assets such as objects, systems (or part thereof) and populations exposed to disturbances, stressors or shocks as well as to the lack of capacity to cope with and to adapt to these adverse conditions. Vulnerability is dynamic, multifaceted and composed of various dimensions, all of which have to be considered within a holistic vulnerability assessment.Conceptually, there are two types of storm in meteorology: (1) the hazardous weather phenomena themselves (such as windstorms, rainstorms, snowstorms, hailstorms, thunderstorms and ice storms (freezing rain)), and (2) the meteorological features in the atmosphere — the ‘storm systems’ — that can be said to be responsible for this adverse weather (notably tropical cyclones, extra-tropical cyclones and convective systems). These storm systems, which are a focal point in the following discussion, can be distinguished from one another by their mechanism of development (growth), their structure, their geographic location, their spatial scale and their typical lifetime. Other types of storm system do exist, but these can be considered subtypes of the three systems listed above.

Theoretical framework for the assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change [in Europe]

Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards covers the vulnerability of human and environmental systems to climate change and eight natural hazards: earthquakes, floods, landslides, avalanches, forest fires, drought, coastal erosion, and heat waves

Theoretical and conceptual framework for the assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change in Europe: the MOVE framework

Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards covers the vulnerability of human and environmental systems to climate change and eight natural hazards: earthquakes, floods, landslides, avalanches, forest fires, drought, coastal erosion, and heat waves