Global patterns of disaster and climate risk—an analysis of the consistency of leading index-based assessments and their results

被引:0
作者
Matthias Garschagen
Deepal Doshi
Jonathan Reith
Michael Hagenlocher
机构
[1] Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU),Department of Geography
[2] United Nations University,Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU
来源
Climatic Change | 2021年 / 169卷
关键词
Risk assessment; Vulnerability assessment; Indicators; Climate change adaptation; Disasters; Climate policy;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Indices assessing country-level climate and disaster risk at the global scale have experienced a steep rise in popularity both in science and international climate policy. A number of widely cited products have been developed and published over the recent years, argued to contribute critical knowledge for prioritizing action and funding. However, it remains unclear how their results compare, and how consistent their findings are on country-level risk, exposure, vulnerability and lack of coping, as well as adaptive capacity. This paper analyses and compares the design, data, and results of four of the leading global climate and disaster risk indices: The World Risk Index, the INFORM Risk Index, ND-GAIN Index, and the Climate Risk Index. Our analysis clearly shows that there is considerable degree of cross-index variation regarding countries’ risk levels and comparative ranks. At the same time, there is above-average agreement for high-risk countries. In terms of risk sub-components, there is surprisingly little agreement in the results on hazard exposure, while strong inter-index correlations can be observed when ranking countries according to their socio-economic vulnerability and lack of coping as well as adaptive capacity. Vulnerability and capacity hotspots can hence be identified more robustly than risk and exposure hotspots. Our findings speak both to the potential as well as limitations of index-based approaches. They show that a solid understanding of index-based assessment tools, and their conceptual and methodological underpinnings, is necessary to navigate them properly and interpret as well as use their results in triangulation.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 134 条
  • [1] Adger WN(2018)Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 376 20180106-31
  • [2] Brown I(2019)Comparing index-based vulnerability assessments in the Mississippi Delta: implications of contrasting theories, indicators, and aggregation methodologies Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 39 101128-124
  • [3] Surminski S(2007)Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications Environ Hazards 7 20-14
  • [4] Anderson CC(2016)Mapping global patterns of drought risk: an empirical framework based on sub-national estimates of hazard, exposure and vulnerability Glob. Environ. Change 39 108-261
  • [5] Hagenlocher M(2019)Assessment of aggregation frameworks for composite indicators in measuring flood vulnerability to climate change Sci Rep 9 1-2035
  • [6] Renaud FG(2003)Social vulnerability to environmental hazards* Soc Sci Q 84 242-403
  • [7] Sebesvari Z(2017)Spatially explicit sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for multicriteria-based vulnerability assessment J Environ Plan Manag 60 2013-203
  • [8] Cutter SL(2009)Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9 393-208
  • [9] Emrich CT(2018)Vulnerability and its discontents: the past, present, and future of climate change vulnerability research Clim Chang 151 189-821
  • [10] Birkmann J(2019)Drought vulnerability and risk assessments: state of the art, persistent gaps, and research agenda Environ Res Lett 14 198-1141