[MUSIC] Hello, my name is Diana Reckien. I am associate professor for climate change at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. My research focuses on climate change vulnerability, climate change impact and adaptation. I am particularly interested in impacts across social and economic groups, such as the elderly, kids and people in poverty. And related socially sensible adaptation options in Indian, European and US American cities. Recently, I also coordinated a global assessment on equity and climate change in cities done with the Urban Climate Change Research Network. In this video, we first speak about definitions and then about approaches to climate change vulnerability. Knowing about vulnerability is important as it lets you determine who in a city or a society might be particularly affected by climate change. After watching the video, you will be able to understand the evolution of the concept and to distinguish different forms of vulnerability. So what is vulnerability to climate change? What does it mean? In general terms, it is just a concept that describes the propensity or predisposition to be adversely effected. This can apply to people or systems, such as cities or structures, like transportation. As such, it encompasses a variety of concepts and elements, including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm, and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. The lack of capacity to adapt includes the inability of populations to access resources, for instance, food, as well as basic services, such as adequate housing, clean water, and infrastructure. It may also include the inability to access or understand information and technologies for climate risk reduction. It is note worthy here, that this definition contains passive and active elements, for example, not just physical exposure but also the ability to respond. The concept of vulnerability has evolved over time. Usually, it is determined by the combination of several indicators, such as wealth, social status, and gender. However, the indicators included and, therefore, representing vulnerability has changed over time. The definition I just cited comes from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or short, IPCC. The IPCC is an expert who group of scientists that provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its impacts. It mostly does that by large assessments. The latest, the Fifth Assessment Report, were published in 2013 and 14. Now, the community is preparing the sixth assessment. The IPCC also informs the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or short, UNFCCC. Which is the respective United Nations body setting frameworks for intergovernmental efforts to tackle climate change. In the IPCC, the concept of vulnerability has evolved over time, as I just said, it is a matter of ongoing discussions. For example, in the first and the second assessment reports, vulnerability referred to threats to human social economic well being, primarily determined by health, safety, and food security. In the third and fourth assessments, the scope broadened, now also including natural systems, so that the definition applied to natural and social systems alike. In this diagram here, you see the conceptualization of vulnerability as understood in the fourth IPCC assessment. It is relatively easy to comprehend, clearly dividing between the exposure to a climate or weather event, such as a heat wave. The sensitivity or susceptibility to it, meaning the potential harm caused by a hazard. And the adaptive capacity available to a person, collective, institutions, or an ecosystem to adapt to the event. Because of its clarity, many climate change researchers still refer to this concept today. However, from the fourth to the fifth assessment report, the concept and understanding of vulnerability changed again. The focus is now on human system. So human systems were introduced and made the primary domain of vulnerability once again. This is partly due to the fact that the IPCC, in its latest assessment, wanted to merge the concept of climate change vulnerability with concepts developed in the disaster risk reduction community. The disaster risk reduction community is a school of thought, that for a long time studied the potential damage of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and others on human systems. As there is an overlap with disasters caused by climate change, these two communities now established common ground in its terminology. So here you see both, vulnerability as conceptualized in the fourth and the fifth assessment reports. In the latter, here shown on the right hand side, the element of risk comes to the four. The understanding of risk is similar to climate change impact, broadly referring to harm. So it is important to understand that risk and impacts are now determined by different levels of hazard, the exposure to it and the vulnerability of people, communities or structures to the event. For example, a tropical cyclone can have different impacts, depending on whether it makes landfall near well serviced, higher income neighborhoods that have adequately constructed buildings and the ability to absorb the shock. Or near informal settlements, where housing materials may be less robust, service is inadequate, and inhabitants less able to absorb the effects. So far, we have seen the conceptualization of vulnerability as described in the IPCC assessment reports. We are now looking deeper into the factors that are assumed to contribute to vulnerability and different research communities. According to Fissel, for example, there are five different approaches to vulnerability, which correspond to parallel developments in different scientific communities. These five approaches are, the risk hazard approach, which refers to a natural phenomenon of a certain intensity, for instance, heavy rainfall. And the biophysical impact associated with it. For instance, flooding and flood damages. Second, the political economy approach, which situates climate change adaptation in the struggle over power and resources. Third, the pressure and release model, which understands disasters as an interplay of two forces, namely, vulnerability. In this case, referring to poverty or access to resources and the physical exposure to hazard. In this case, things such as living in a dangerous location or poorly maintained buildings. Then, also, the integrated approaches, such as hazard of place approaches, where people's perception of place influence the extent to which people display environmentally conscious behaviors. And last but not least, the resilience approach. A mighty interpretation approach that refers to the ability of a city to recover after a disaster, to self organize and learn in order to be better prepared to climate change events in the future. Each of these approaches include different vulnerability factors. That is, factors assumed to either increase or decrease vulnerability. These factors are labeled internal, socioeconomic, internal bio physical, external socioeconomic and external biophysical. They are listed in the top rows of the table. Internal, refers to factors internal to the system of interest. External, refers to factors outside of the system of interest, so not able to be influenced. I will provide an example from the political economy approach on the next slide. If you're interested in the other approaches, you can read The Paper. For the context of this MOOC, which focuses on African countries, the political economy approach is of largest interest, because it prevails in the poverty and development literature and mainly asks, who in a group of people or society is most vulnerable and why? It has a sole focus on internal social economic vulnerability factors. Internal, means that it looks at factors internal to a social system relating vulnerability to availability of resources and the entitlement of individuals or groups of individuals to call upon these resources. Socioeconomic, means that this approach focuses on social systems, people or groups of people, and socioeconomic factors that positively or negatively influence their vulnerability. An example would be gender, age and social status. All these and the access to related resources determine vulnerability. The political economy approach is also interesting because it later lead to the development of the social vulnerability approach, another strand of research. Which is discussed in the next video of this MOOC. So, this ends the video on approaches to climate change vulnerability. You have now learned how the concept of vulnerability has evolved over time and how it developed from sole analysis of climate or risk, to analysis that include social economic factors explaining vulnerability in different people, societies, and political economies. This distinction is important because too narrow a focus, grants the risk of framing vulnerability as a purely technical managerial effect. Instead, climate vulnerability and adaptation are influenced by existing socioeconomic, political and cultural conditions in cities. And acknowledging these processes is key, if we want to reduce climate vulnerability without exacerbating resource exploitation, marginalization of minorities or poverty. Tune into the next video, which digs deeper into vulnerability, particularly looking at the social dimension. [MUSIC]