No abstract

ABSTRACT. Resilience and vulnerability represent two related yet different approaches to understanding the response of systems and actors to change; to shocks and surprises, as well as slow creeping changes. Their respective origins in ecological and social theory largely explain the continuing differences in approach to social-ecological dimensions of change. However, there are many areas of strong convergence. This paper explores the emerging linkages and complementarities between the concepts of resilience and vulnerability to identify areas of synergy. We do this with regard to theory, methodology, and application. The paper seeks to go beyond just recognizing the complementarities between the two approaches to demonstrate how researchers are actively engaging with each field to coproduce new knowledge, and to suggest promising areas of complementarity that are likely to further research and action in the field.

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

No abstract

Disaster associated with natural hazards can lead to important changes-positive or negative-in socio-ecological systems. When disasters occur, much attention is given to the direct disaster impacts as well as relief and recovery operations. Although this focus is important, it is noteworthy that there has been little research on the characteristics and progress of change induced by disasters. Change, as distinct from impacts, encompasses formal and informal responses to disaster events and their direct and indirect impacts. While smaller disasters do not often lead to significant changes in societies and organizational structures, major disasters have the potential to change dominant ways of thinking and acting. Against this background, the article presents an analytical framework for distinguishing change from disaster impacts. Drawing from research in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, formal and informal changes after the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 are examined and discussed against the background of the conceptual framework. The changes examined range from the commencement of the peace process in Aceh, Indonesia, to organizational and legal reforms in Sri Lanka. The article concludes that change-making processes after disasters need to be understood more in depth in order to derive important strategic policy and methodological lessons learned for the future, particularly in view of the increasing complexity and uncertainty in decision making due to climate change.

No abstract

Statistical data shows that the increase in disasters due to natural hazards over the past 20 years has, for the most part, been caused by meteorological and hydrological events. This increase has been largely assigned to climate change [Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2010, http://www. emdat.be/Database/Trends/trends.html], that is, with climate-related hazards being major triggers for the majority of disasters. Consequently, there is obvious concern about how a changing climate will exacerbate the situation in the future (McBean and Ajibade in Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1: [179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186] 2009). However, the attribution of a single hazard event or specific losses to climate change is still difficult, if not impossible, due to the complexity of factors that generate disaster losses. Disaster risk is a product of the interaction of the hazard (event) and the vulnerability conditions of the society or elements exposed. As a result, the need for a systematic linkage between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) to advance sustainable development, and finally human security is being discussed within the ongoing climate change negotiations as well as within the disaster risk community, for example, in the framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on 'Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation'. However, crucial differences between DRR and CCA exist that have widely limited or hampered their integration in practice. A review of existing literature on the topic and current national and local adaptation strategies, as well as 38 expert interviews conducted between April and May 2009, have led the authors to hypothesise that most of these differences and challenges can be categorised with respect to different spatial and temporal scales, the knowledge base, and norm systems. This paper examines the reasons for the practical barriers when linking CCA and DRR according to these three aspects. Finally, we outline recommendations and measures that need to be adopted in order to overcome existing barriers. In addition, quality criteria are formulated that should be applied in order to constantly monitor and evaluate adaptation strategies designed to simultaneously meet DRR requirements and vice versa.

The Reasons for Concern (RFC) framework communicates scientific understanding about risks in 1 relation to varying levels of climate change. The framework, now a cornerstone of the IPCC 2 assessments, aggregates global risks into five categories as a function of global mean temperature 3 change (GMT). We review the RFC's conceptual basis and the risk judgments made in the most recent 4 IPCC report, confirming those judgments in most cases in the light of more recent literature and 5 identifying their limitations. We point to extensions of the framework that offer complementary 6 climate change metrics to GMT and better account for possible changes in social and ecological 7 system vulnerability. Further research should systematically evaluate risks under alternative scenarios 8 of future climatic and societal conditions. 9The RFC framework was developed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) to inform discussions 10 relevant to implementation of Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 11Article 2 presents the Convention's long-term objective of avoiding "dangerous anthropogenic 12 interference with the climate system." The RFC framework and the associated "Burning Embers" 13 diagram illustrating authors' risk judgments have since been widely discussed and used to inform policy 14 decisions. For example, they informed a recent dialog between Parties to the UNFCCC and experts 1, 2 on 15 the adequacy of the long-term goal of avoiding a warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial, contributing 16 to a strengthening of that goal in the recent Paris Agreement 3 . Elaborations of the Burning Embers have 17 been used to represent climate impacts and risks at the regional level 4 and for specific systems (e.g., 18ocean systems 5 ). 19This article reviews the conceptual basis for the RFCs (Box 1) and offers an explanation of the reasoning 20 behind associated risk judgments that is complementary to, but goes beyond, the treatment in the IPCC 21Fifth Assessment Report 6 . We focus explicitly on the evidence base for transitions from one risk level to 22 the next, incorporate post-AR5 literature in those discussions, and offer thoughts about limitations of 23 the subjective judgments behind each RFC. We also improved the synthesis of RFC-related material 24 across AR5, and in turn provide both a clearer connection to evidence from AR5 that supports the RFC 25 judgments, as well as a comparison of the RFCs to similar approaches employing metrics other than 26 GMT for characterizing risk. Perhaps most importantly, we consider improvements in the framework, 27 particularly emphasizing the dynamic nature of exposure and vulnerability, two key components of risk 28 not sufficiently covered in the current approach. 29 TEXT BOX 1: Conceptual Basis 30The Reasons for Concern (RFCs) reported in AR5 are: 31 Types of risk included in each category are discussed in the next section. The categories share an 37 emphasis on going beyond changes in biophysical systems to possible consequences for society and 38...