Abstract
Future climate risk is not only dependent on future climatic changes but also on how exposure and vulnerability develop in the future. There is a gap in understanding what drives future climate vulnerability, and how to account for its spatial emergence. This issue is particularly pertinent for cities due to the concentration of assets and population at risk, and rapid socio-economic and land use changes. We develop a mixed methods approach, which integrates quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods to (1) identify internal and external drivers of socio-economic development and land use change, (2) explore a range of future pathways using local socio-economic scenarios, and (3) visualize changes in vulnerability indicators with the help of a participatory mapping exercise. We test the approach in the City of Helsinki with the timeframe up to 2050. Our results show the connections between the drivers and changes in vulnerability indicators, while maps developed in a stakeholder workshop visualize the potential spatial changes in indicators. Our approach of connecting indicators, drivers and adaptation/planning needs, as well as scenario analysis, provides a deeper understanding of vulnerability dynamics as a process and provides insights for different sectors of urban policy and planning.
Highlights
Assessing future climate risks includes accounting for both climatic and non-climatic factors (Oppenheimer et al, 2014)
We develop and apply a mixed methods approach to explore the dynamics of climate change vulnerability of urban population as a process and to visualize the changes spatially
We identify the key drivers of change, use a range of urban socio-economic and land use change scenarios, and utilize a participatory SoftGIS tool (Rantanen and Kahila, 2009) to map changes in vulnerability indicators
Summary
Assessing future climate risks includes accounting for both climatic (hazards) and non-climatic (exposure and vulnerability) factors (Oppenheimer et al, 2014). Their interlinkages, as well as indirect and cascading effects of socio-economic changes on future vulnerability is limited and needs to be studied further (Ford et al, 2018). This pre supposes acknowledging system complexity in the assessments, embedding vulnerability in a socio-economic context, and accounting for cross-scale interactions (Ford et al, 2018; Dilling et al, 2015; O’Brien et al, 2007)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
