Skip to main content
PMC home page
Ambio logoLink to Ambio
. 2022 Nov 21;52(2):376–389. doi: 10.1007/s13280-022-01806-z

Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted?

Ronald C Estoque 1,6,✉, Asif Ishtiaque 2, Jagadish Parajuli 3, Darshana Athukorala 4, Yasin Wahid Rabby 5, Makoto Ooba 6
PMCID: PMC9755408  PMID: 36414854

Abstract

In the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports (TAR and AR4, respectively) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vulnerability is conceived as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. However, in its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) and Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC redefined and separated exposure, and it reconceptualized vulnerability to be a function of sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt. In this review, we found that the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted and that researchers’ preference, possible misinterpretation, possible confusion, and possible unawareness are among the possible technical and practical reasons. Among the issues that need further clarification from the IPCC is whether or not such a reconceptualization of vulnerability in the SREX/AR5 necessarily implies nullification of the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept as far as the IPCC is concerned.

Keywords: Adaptation, Climate change, Exposure, Hazard, IPCC, Risk

Introduction

Adaptation to climate change and variability is one of today’s most pressing global societal challenges. In the cyclical planning process of adapting or adjusting to the actual or expected climate and its effects, climate-related vulnerability and risk assessments are an important phase because they are designed to help in the identification of adaptation options and measures (UNFCCC 2012; EC 2013; Estoque et al. in press).

This review focuses on vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability framework proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Third (IPCC 2001) and Fourth (IPCC 2007) Assessment Reports (TAR and AR4, respectively) is widely used in climate-related vulnerability assessments (Nguyen et al. 2016, 2017; Crane et al. 2017; Aslam et al. 2018; Filho et al. 2018; Foden et al. 2019). In this framework, vulnerability is conceived as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Fig. 1a).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The IPCC’s climate-related impact assessment frameworks. a The vulnerability (V) assessment framework in the TAR/AR4, and b the risk (R) assessment framework in the SREX/AR5. The diagrams were drawn by the authors based on the definition of vulnerability in the TAR (IPCC 2001) and AR4 (IPCC 2007), the definition of risk and Figure SPM.1 in the AR5 (IPCC 2014), Figure SPM.1 in the SREX (IPCC 2012), and Box 1 in Foden et al. (2019)

However, in its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC 2012) and Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC 2014), the IPCC shifted its focus to a risk-centered assessment framework, in which risk is expressed as a function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (Fig. 1b). As a result, exposure and vulnerability have been reconceptualized.

In the TAR/AR4, exposure is a hazard-centered concept (IPCC 2001) (indicators include heatwave duration index, drought intensity, and occurrence of floods) (Oh et al. 2017; Ducusin et al. 2019; Huynh et al. 2020; Mafi-Gholami et al. 2020), but in the SREX/AR5, it refers to exposed elements (e.g., people, assets, or ecosystems at risk) (IPCC 2012, 2014). Vulnerability, on the other hand, has become a function of sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC 2014; GIZ and EURAC 2017).

The IPCC’s transition from a vulnerability to a risk framework offers new perspectives on the assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation pathways. For example, by focusing on risk, the IPCC (a) recognizes that a significant proportion of interrelated impacts are triggered by hazardous events, and thus these impacts should be appropriately addressed by the risk concept, and (b) encourages more investigative studies in risk management to determine the potential consequences of hazardous events (GIZ and EURAC 2017). The SREX/AR5 risk framework also highlights the importance of exposure and vulnerability, and it contributes to the integration of the two research realms, namely climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction and management (GIZ and EURAC 2017; Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Estoque et al. 2020).

In this review, we attempted to measure the extent to which the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has been used in recent vulnerability studies to gain an understanding of whether vulnerability research synchronously responded to the conceptual advancement of vulnerability. To do this, we conducted a systematic review of climate-related vulnerability studies published within the past 4 years (January 2017–December 2020).

The literature on climate-related vulnerability is rich and continuously growing. Other reviews are available, covering a wide range of topics, from the conceptual origin and models of vulnerability (Timmerman 1981; Füssel and Klein 2006; Füssel 2007; Fellmann 2012; Giupponi and Biscaro 2015), to the relationships and integration of vulnerability with resilience (Adger 2006; Gallopín 2006), adaptation (Adger 2006; Gallopín 2006), and risk (Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Sharma and Ravindranath 2019). Some reviews have focused on indicators of vulnerability and their role in the science-policy interface (Hinkel 2011; Tonmoy et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2016), as well as on the sectoral and geographical applications of vulnerability assessments [e.g., social (Cutter 2003; Nguyen et al. 2017), livelihood (Hahn et al. 2009), urban (Filho et al. 2018) and coastal (Nguyen et al. 2016) regions, groundwater (Aslam et al. 2018), biodiversity (Foden et al. 2019; Pacifici et al. 2015), agriculture (Crane et al. 2017; Fellmann 2012), and forestry (FAO 2018)].

This review aims to complement these existing reviews on climate-related vulnerability by focusing on two specific questions. First, to what extent has the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept been adopted in climate-related vulnerability assessments? Second, what factors have influenced the adoption or non-adoption of the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept?

Materials and methods

Review database

We used the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection as the source database for the review. WoS is a large database of articles, including those in the social and environmental sciences. Other databases are also available, such as Scopus (Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Tonmoy et al. 2014) and Google Scholar (de Sherbinin et al. 2019), but previous reviews have demonstrated that WoS alone can be used as a source for major systematic reviews (Runting et al. 2017; Estoque et al. 2019; Newell et al. 2019). Furthermore, the resulting total number of articles from the search process was large enough for the purpose of our review.

Review protocol

We performed a systematic review (Grant and Booth 2009), informed by the RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis (ROSES) protocol (Haddaway et al. 2018). The review process included three main steps: searching, screening, and appraisal and synthesis (Haddaway et al. 2018; Estoque et al. 2019) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Flow of the systematic review on climate-related vulnerability assessments (January 2017–December 2020)

Searching

We used two sub-databases (SCI-EXPANDED and SSCI) within the WoS Core Collection. Under “Title”, we searched for the following terms: [“climate” AND “vulnerability”] OR [“climate” AND “vulnerabilities”] (Fig. 2). We focused on “Articles” written in “English” and published within the past 4 years (1 January 2017–31 December 2020). The search resulted in 600 articles.

The commencement date (1 January 2017) was decided after taking into consideration the publication time of the SREX (2012) and the AR5 (2014). Papers published in 2015–2016 might have been based on research projects conceptualized before the publication of the AR5. Hence, the lag period was intended to allow for the dissemination of the SREX and AR5, as well as for authors to gain awareness of the latest developments in the field of climate-related vulnerability assessment, at least as far as the IPCC was concerned.

Screening

We were able to access all the articles except one. We reviewed each article and examined whether the article under consideration adopted and/or demonstrated a clear concept of vulnerability (Fig. 2). Many of the articles reviewed did not present a clear concept of vulnerability; for example, sometimes the word “vulnerability” was mentioned only in the title. These articles were screened out, leaving 464 articles for the next stage of the review.

Appraisal and synthesis

At the appraisal and synthesis stage, we answered five questions (Fig. 2; Table 1). We paid particular attention to the rationale for the choice of vulnerability concept or model adopted or used in each study. We synthesized the information obtained from this process and used it as the basis of our discussion on the possible reasons and contributing factors for the adoption or non-adoption of the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept.

Table 1.

Review questions and their explanations

Choices Notes
1. What vulnerability concept or model did the study use?
TAR/AR4, SREX/AR5, AR5-like, and other In the TAR/AR4, vulnerability is a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, in which exposure is a hazard-centered concept. In the SREX/AR5, vulnerability is a function of sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt. The SREX/AR5-like category included studies that defined vulnerability as a function of sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt, but without any reference to the AR5 or the SREX. Other included vulnerability concepts or models other than those mentioned above
2. What is the rationale for using such a vulnerability concept or model?
Any reasons or explanations by the authors in this regard were considered
3. Did the study cite the AR5 (Contribution of Working Group II) or the SREX?
Choices Notes
Yes or No “Yes” means the study cited the following: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5), or Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, or Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), be it in the form of a synthesis report, summary for policymakers, glossary, etc. Articles citing studies that made reference to any of these sources were also included
4. What is the focus of the study in terms of sector?
Choices Notes
Agriculture, fisheries, forestry, biodiversity, health, energy, water, multi-sector, and other Agriculture also included animal husbandry but excluded fisheries. Forestry also included mangrove ecosystems and urban forestry. Biodiversity also included studies focusing on (plant/animal) species and habitat vulnerability. Water also included glaciers. Multi-sector means that the study considered more than one sector. Some studies did not specify a sector; instead, they determined vulnerability in a geographic or administrative region (e.g., a coastal region, a basin, or a city or urban area). These studies were also classified under the multi-sector category. The other category included sectors other than those mentioned above
5. What is the focus of the study in terms of climate-related hazards?
Choices Notes
Flooding, extreme heat, drought, landslide, sea level rise, multi-hazard, and other Flooding also included soil erosion. Extreme heat included heatwave and warming. Drought also included indicators referring to dry periods. Multi-hazard means that the study considered more than one climate-related hazard. Some studies considered changes in the intensity and pattern of more than one essential climate variable, such as temperature and rainfall, while some studies did not specify any variable but considered climate change in general. These studies were also classified under the multi-hazard category. The other category included climate-related hazards other than those explicitly mentioned above, including wildfires, pests, and windstorms
Open in a new tab

Results and discussion

Recent trend in climate-related vulnerability assessment

The SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept was used in the IPCC’s 1.5 °C Special Report (IPCC 2018) and was regarded as influential (Barnett 2020). Yet, our results indicate that this revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted in climate-related vulnerability studies across sectors worldwide and that its influence in the field of climate-related assessment has so far been minimal. Of the 464 research articles that we reviewed, 201 (43%) employed the TAR/AR4, 241 (52%) used other vulnerability concepts, and only 16 (3%) adopted and/or implemented the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept (Fig. 3). In general, our findings are consistent with earlier observations. For example, some studies have noted that the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has received little attention (Borges et al. 2019; Foden et al. 2019) and that the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept continues to predominate (Pinnegar et al. 2019; Timberlake and Schultz 2019) and to be used across vulnerability studies (Nguyen et al. 2016; Crane et al. 2017; Filho et al. 2018; Aslam et al. 2018).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Climate-related vulnerability assessments (January 2017–December 2020). The stacked column graph shows the distribution of vulnerability studies (n = 464) across sectors subdivided according to the vulnerability concept used. The inset pie chart on the left summarizes the proportion of studies that adopted and/or implemented the vulnerability concepts. The inset pie charts on the right show the proportion of studies that adopted and/or implemented the TAR/AR4 and other vulnerability concepts and that cited or did not cite the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept. See Table 1 for details

Reasons for low adoption of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept

Most of the studies that we reviewed did not explain the rationale for their adoption and/or implementation of a particular vulnerability concept or model. Because of this, we could not synthesize in this review the plausible theoretical reasons behind the low adoption of the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept. Such reasons may include any observed advantages/strengths and disadvantages/weaknesses of the SREX/AR5 vulnerability framework for a particular vulnerability assessment. Nonetheless, based on our synthesis, we have identified a number of possible technical and practical reasons for the low adoption of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept, including researchers’ preference, possible misinterpretation, possible confusion, and possible unawareness. We believe these technical and practical reasons are as important as any plausible theoretical reasons. For instance, if the researchers were not aware of the existence of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept, then there would be no discussion about the theorical reasons for its low adoption.

In the following discussion, “[n]” refers to the article code assigned to the study and referred to in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Table 2.

List of reviewed articles that are referred to in the discussion by article code (i.e., [n]). Studies listed in Tables 3 and 4 are not shown here

Article code Focus climate-related hazard Focus sector Vulnerability model Did it cite the SREX/AR5? References
2 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Xu et al. (2020)
33 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Dhamija et al. (2020)
40 Multi-hazard Multi-sector Other Yes Johns et al. (2020)
60 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Schneiderbauer et al. (2020)
89 Sea level rise Forestry TAR/AR4 Yes Cinco-Castro and Herrera-Silveira (2020)
113 Sea level rise Other TAR/AR4 Yes Shi and Varuzzo 2020)
144 Multi-hazard Multi-sector Other No Zadkovic et al. (2021)
146 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 No Schilling et al. (2020)
152 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Zhang et al. (2020)
161 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Adzawla and Baumüller (2021)
189 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Gerlak and Greene (2019)
194 Extreme heat Fisheries Other Yes Troia and Giam (2019)
195 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Gupta et al. (2019)
201 Multi-hazard Forestry Other No Wang et al. (2019)
207 Multi-hazard Other TAR/AR4 Yes McIntosh and Becker (2019)
213 Multi-hazard Multi-sector Other Yes Owusu and Nursey-Bray (2019)
214 Multi-hazard Fisheries TAR/AR4 Yes Greenan et al. (2019)
218 Multi-hazard Biodiversity Other No Rinnan and Lawler (2019)
224 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Lokonon (2019)
228 Multi-hazard Biodiversity TAR/AR4 Yes Borges et al. (2019)
233 Drought Water Other No Kim et al. (2019)
234 Multi-hazard Fisheries TAR/AR4 Yes Crozier et al. (2019)
237 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Huong et al. (2019)
239 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Zhang et al. (2019)
242 Multi-hazard Multi-sector Other No Formetta and Feyen (2019)
261 Multi-hazard Health TAR/AR4 Yes Bae et al. (2019)
273 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes He et al. (2019)
296 Flooding Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Dogra et al. (2019)
299 Multi-hazard Multi-sector Other Yes Apreda et al. (2019)
319 Multi-hazard Biodiversity TAR/AR4 Yes Foden et al. (2019)
381 Flooding Forestry TAR/AR4 Yes Sam and Chakma (2018)
421 Multi-hazard Forestry TAR/AR4 Yes Menezes et al. (2018)
453 Multi-hazard Other TAR/AR4 Yes Jedd et al. (2018)
460 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Steiner et al. (2018)
503 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 No Nguyen et al. (2017)
517 Multi-hazard Fisheries TAR/AR4 Yes Monnereau et al. (2017)
553 Multi-hazard Multi-sector TAR/AR4 Yes Shukla et al. (2017)
560 Multi-hazard Biodiversity TAR/AR4 Yes Culp et al. (2017)
598 Multi-hazard Agriculture TAR/AR4 Yes Wiréhn et al. (2017)
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

List of reviewed articles that adopted and/or implemented the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept

Article code Focus climate-related hazard Focus sector Vulnerability model (Operationalization of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept) Remarks References
10 Extreme heat Health f(sensitivity, adaptive capacity) In the context of risk. Used the SREX, together with another reference Jagarnath et al. (2020)
21 Multi-hazard Forestry f(susceptibility, lack of adaptive capacity) In the context of risk. Used the IPCC’s 1.5 °C special report. That report is based on the SREX/AR5 Lecina-Diaz et al. (2021)
62 Flooding Multi-sector f(susceptibility, lack of resilience), where the latter is: f(lacking capacity to anticipate, cope, and recover) In the context of risk. Used the AR5, together with another framework Leis and Kienberger (2020)
91 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(social, economic, environmental indicators) Used the SREX. Indicators were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Orozco et al. (2020)
169 Multi-hazard Fisheries

f(sensitivity

and adaptability)

 Based on a previous study Chen et al. (2020)
271 Drought Multi-sector

f(28 factors from six different

sectors: land use, economy, health, energy and infrastructure, social, and water resources)

 In the context of risk. Used the SREX. Factors were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Ahmadalipour et al. (2019)
278 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(community-scale socioeconomic or demographic indicators) In the context of risk. Used the SREX. Indicators were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Spangler et al. (2019)
363 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(sensitivity, adaptability) Used the AR5 Gao et al. (2018)
388 Multi-hazard Multi-sector

Vulnerable households are those that fall below a pre-set

poverty line with a certain probability

 Used the AR5. Indicators were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Angelsen and Dokken (2018)
423 Multi-hazard Biodiversity f(sensitivity, adaptive capacity) In the context of risk. Used the AR5 Jones and Cheung (2018)
457 Multi-hazard Forestry f(sensitivity, adaptive capacity) Used the AR5 Halofsky et al. (2018)
476 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(social, economic, environmental indicators) Used the SREX. Indicators were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Duvat et al. (2017)
518 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(sensitivity, adaptive capacity) Used the AR5 Tapia et al. (2017)
530 Multi-hazard Health f(socio-economic indicators) Used the AR5. Indicators were not categorized into sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt Navi et al. (2017)
540 Multi-hazard Agriculture f(susceptibility, capacity) Used the AR5 Jones et al. (2017)
573 Other Multi-sector f(the degree to which household income is affected by variation in rainfall) Used the AR5. The study focused on economic vulnerability Flatø et al. (2017)
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

List of reviewed articles that adopted and/or implemented a SREX/AR5-like vulnerability concept

Article code Focus climate-related hazard Focus sector Vulnerability model Remarks References
41 Multi-hazard Biodiversity f(climate sensitivity, adaptive capacity) Referred climate sensitivity to a study published in 2003 and adaptive capacity to a study published in 2019 Valencia et al. (2020)
149 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(susceptibility, resilience) Based on the authors’ review of the literature Jhan et al. (2020)
270 Multi-hazard Multi-sector f(sensitivity, adaptation) Proposed by the authors, arguing that “exposure indexes are hard to consider at the national scale, not only because the contribution of temperatures and precipitation varies among countries but also because it is hard to judge the negative or positive impact of exposure [citing one study]” (p. 217) Li et al. (2019)
316 Multi-hazard Other f(sensitivity, adaptive capacity) Based on a study published in 2011 Cowood et al. (2019)
487 Multi-hazard Water f(sensitivity, adaptability) Based on a study published in 2012 (Xia et al. (2017)
586 Multi-hazard Water f(sensitivity, adaptability) Based on a study published in 2012 Shi et al. (2017)
Open in a new tab

Researchers’ preference

The conceptual framing of vulnerability varies across fields of study, and scholars tend to prefer a framework that is already relatively more established in their respective fields. For example, in a separate review on species vulnerability, the authors eschewed the SREX/AR5 in favor of the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept because the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept had been widely adopted by the conservation community, with little attention paid to the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept [319]. This observation was also echoed by other scholars [228]. Other researchers selected the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept because they wanted to compare their studies with other previous studies [146, 517].

Furthermore, many of the studies that we reviewed anchored their vulnerability assessments on the social vulnerability index [503], livelihood vulnerability index [237], and integrated [218] and trait-based [228] frameworks for assesing species vulnerability, all of which are based on the TAR/AR4 conceptual framing of vulnerability (Williams et al. 2008; Hahn et al. 2009; Foden et al. 2013; Foden et al. 2013; Nguyen et al. 2017). Other scholars used the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept because their research projects were conceptualized before the publication of the AR5 [60, 517]. There were also studies that implemented vulnerability frameworks other than those of the TAR/AR4 and SREX/AR5 [e.g., 144, 201, 233, 242]. With regard to social vulnerability, for example, some researchers argue that the IPCC’s vulnerability concept in general has significant limitations because it “downplays the degree to which different social groupings experience hazards or risks”, and that a contextual vulnerability from a political ecology perspective is more appropriate [213].

Possible misinterpretation

Many researchers are aware of the SREX/AR5 as indicated by their citations (Fig. 3) and discussion of the reports, but some of them have operationalized the revised vulnerability concept according to their own interpretations. For example, in a study of vulnerability and the impacts of heatwaves and flooding on urban systems, the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept was operationalized by considering overall vulnerability as a function of intrinsic vulnerability and exposure [299]. Some researchers, after acknowledging that the IPCC had revised its concept of vulnerability in the SREX/AR5, argued that the three components of vulnerability in the TAR/AR4 remain relevant and can still be used [e.g., 207, 228, 598]. Other researchers have claimed that the AR5 vulnerability concept originates from the AR4 vulnerability concept [33] and that it remains as a function of exposure, sensitity, and adaptive capacity [33, 224].

Possible confusion

Among the studies that cited the SREX/AR5 (Fig. 3) but implemented another vulnerability model or framework, we observed some indications of possible confusion. For example, many related studies (e.g., in the contexts of the global framework for climate services [189], agriculture [2], agro-ecological zones [553], forestry [381], coastal regions [152], livelihood [161], health [296], fiscal planning [113], urbanization [273], tourism [453], mangrove ecosystems [89], fisheries [214], and migratory birds [560]) defined vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, but the definition explicitly referred to the SREX/AR5 (especially AR5). In a study on forest landscape vulnerability to climate change, researchers also claimed that the AR5 “[divided] vulnerability to climate stressor into three domains”, referring to the same vulnerability components in the TAR/AR4 [381]. Other studies anchored their vulnerability concept to the SREX/AR5 but ultimately defined it as a function of these same three components [e.g., 195, 224, 421, 460].

Possible unawareness

A large proportion of the studies we reviewed did not cite or even mention the SREX/AR5 (Fig. 3). Although it might not always be the case, such non-citation is a possible indication of unawareness among climate-related vulnerability researchers of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept. That said, citation of the SREX/AR5 does not necessarily mean the authors were aware of the revised vulnerability concept. For example, many of the studies that cited the SREX/AR5 did not cite the reports for its vulnerability concept, but rather cited them for other issues, such as the impacts of climate change in general [e.g., 40, 194, 234, 239, 261]. The authors of the studies cited above (under “Possible confusion”) who categorically referred to the TAR/AR4’s three original vulnerability components as part of the SREX/AR5 might also have been unaware of the reconceptualization of the IPCC’s vulnerability concept.

The reconceptualization of the vulnerability concept by the IPCC was not well discussed in the SREX/AR5, and this might have contributed to its low adoption rate. In addition, now that vulnerability has been reconceptualized, it is unclear what will happen to the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept/framework. For example, is the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept intended for risk assessment, whereas the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept can still be used for a stand-alone vulnerability assessment? (We discuss this issue in the next section.) These basic questions need some clarification. It would have been better and clearer had the operationalization and implications of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well discussed in the SREX/AR5. Of the studies that did adopt and/or implement the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept, many did so in the context of risk (Table 3). This is not surprising because the IPCC’s reconceptualization of vulnerability happened with the IPCC’s adoption of a risk framework. Some of these studies framed their vulnerability assessment based on the SREX/AR5 [e.g., 271, 518], while some studies were complemented by other frameworks or models [e.g., 10, 62].

A call for further clarification

We recognize that vulnerability is an important subject across many fields of study, including but not limited to political ecology, human ecology, human geography, disaster science, and climate change research, and that it is a complex, multidimensional concept that is still evolving. Climate-related vulnerability assessments may be anchored to different frameworks for a variety of reasons, ranging from the conceptual framing of the assessment to the preference of researchers. At the fundamental level, however, it is necessary to have a clear definition of vulnerability so that (1) an assessment framework can be formulated; (2) vulnerable ecosystems, assets, and populations can consequently be more accurately determined; and (3) plausible adaptation options can be properly identified.

Because IPCC reports like the TAR/AR4 and SREX/AR5 summarize and synthesize the state of knowledge about climate change and its impacts, they not only influence climate-related research worldwide, but also the formulation of international standards (e.g., ISO 1409: Adaptation to climate change—Guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment). However, both in the SREX and AR5, the operationalization and implications of the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept have not been explicitly explained. Considering that such a reconceptualization of vulnerability is a major conceptual advancement (GIZ and EURAC 2017; Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Sharma and Ravindranath 2019), at least a sub-section in the SREX/AR5 should have been devoted to clarifying important issues that might influence its interpretation, adoption, and operationalization.

Among the critical issues that need clarification are the following: Does the redefinition of exposure and vulnerability in the SREX/AR5 necessarily imply nullification of the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept as far as the IPCC is concerned? Or should the two concepts of vulnerability be interpreted and used independently as our review findings seemed to indicate is being done? That is, should the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept be used for stand-alone vulnerability assessments and the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept for vulnerability assessments in the context of risk? Or should the two concepts or models of vulnerability be used together in an integrated manner, and if so, how? These questions should not be interpreted as asking the IPCC to be prescriptive. Rather, they should simply be considered as questions that aim to bridge the knowledge gap resulting from the reconceptualization of vulnerability by the IPCC.

In the recently released Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) by the IPCC’s Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), the SREX/AR5 risk framework has been adopted. To address climate change risks, the report emphasizes climate resilient development pathways with a strong focus on the interactions among coupled climate systems, ecosystems (including their biodiversity), and human society (IPCC 2022). In the report, the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept was adopted: “Vulnerability in this report is defined as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected and encompasses a variety of concepts and elements, including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt” (p. 5) (IPCC 2022). Unfortunately, the questions raised above remain unclarified. Such a clarification, if and when it is done, can help advance the science and practice of climate-related vulnerability assessment across sectors worldwide, which is needed to help address the growing challenges of climate adaptation.

Limitations and prospects

We acknowledge that the results of this review are largely reliant on the search terms used, which are focused on climate-related vulnerability assessment. The non-inclusion of other related terms such as hazard, exposure, risk, disaster, and adaptation, among others, narrowed the scope of the review to the field of climate-related vulnerability assessment. For this specific field, the results revealed overwhelming evidence that the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted. The IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept, together with hazard and the redefined concept of exposure, are contained within the broader concept of risk as defined by the IPCC (Fig. 1b). Notably, many of the studies that employed the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept performed vulnerability assessment in the context of risk following the IPCC’s risk framework (Table 3). This means that had we used other terms (e.g., “risk”) in the search process, other studies would have also been captured (e.g., Mysiak et al. 2018; Akter et al. 2019; Estoque et al. 2020). This points to the importance of the question raised above about whether the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept should be used for stand-alone vulnerability assessments, and the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept should be used for vulnerability assessments in the context of risk.

A possible follow-up to this review would include other relevant search terms, as well as an expanded time period to include more recent studies. In addition, this review focused on plausible technical and practical reasons for why the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted, but another way forward is to look into theoretical reasons. Future works in this area can build upon other related works (e.g., Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Sharma and Ravindranath 2019; Ishtiaque et al. 2022). Directly consulting with authors of vulnerability studies, as well as leading experts in the field (e.g., via a questionnaire survey) might also help shed light on the theoretical reasons for the adoption or non-adoption of the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept in climate-related vulnerability assessments.

Conclusions

In this review, we attempted to determine the extent to which the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has been used in recent vulnerability studies to understand whether vulnerability research synchronously responded to the conceptual advancement of vulnerability. We found that the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted and that its influence in the field of climate-related vulnerability assessment has so far been minimal. While we could not identify the theoretical reasons for this, we identified researchers’ preference as well as possible misinterpretation, confusion, and unawareness as potential technical and practical reasons behind this trend. The lack of a focused discussion of the operationalization and implications of the revised vulnerability concept in the SREX/AR5 might have contributed to its low level of adoption. Overall, our review findings indicated that the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept has been adopted for stand-alone vulnerability assessments, whereas the SREX/AR5 vulnerability concept has been used for vulnerability assessments in the context of risk. We therefore pose the following question: Was having two concepts of vulnerability part of the IPCC’s rationale when it changed its impact assessment framework from one that focused on vulnerability to one that focused on risk and reconceptualized the ideas of vulnerability and exposure? There are several issues that need further clarification from the IPCC, including whether or not such a reconceptualization of vulnerability in the SREX/AR5 necessarily implies nullification of the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan through its Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20202009). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective institutions and the research funder. The authors also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments and suggestions.

Biographies

Ronald C. Estoque

is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Biodiversity and Climate Change, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan. He is interested in forest cover change monitoring, ecosystem services, land change science, sustainability science, climate risk, vulnerability and adaptation, and in the applications of GIScience and remote sensing for social-ecological research. He currently serves as a Review Editor for Chapter 2 of the Nexus Assessment by the IPBES. He was also a Contributing Author to the IPCC’s AR6 (WGII, Chapter 10).

Asif Ishtiaque

is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Geology and Planning at Missouri State University, USA. His research interests include climate resilience and adaptation, environmental sustainability, and adaptation governance.

Jagadish Parajuli

was a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at the School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, USA. He is interested in climate change adaptation, vulnerability, common pool resources governance, socio-ecological systems, agricultural sustainability, and international development. He was a Contributing Author to the IPCC’s AR6 (WGII, Chapter 4).

Darshana Athukorala

is a research assistant at the Department of Forest Management, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Japan. He is interested in wetland ecosystems, ecosystem services, climate risk, vulnerability and adaptation, and in the research applications of GIScience and remote sensing.

Yasin Wahid Rabby

is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, USA. He is interested in geospatial data science and geoscience, and in the applications of machine learning, data mining, and classical statistics to study hazards and vulnerability.

Makoto Ooba

was a Principal Researcher at the Center for Climate Change Adaptation, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan. He is interested in climate change vulnerability, impact and adaptation, ecosystem services, environmental ethics, and information science.

Author contributions

RCE conceived the study, deigned and performed the analysis, and wrote the paper. AI, JP, DA, and YWR helped in the review and writing of the paper. MO secured research funding and helped in the interpretation of the results.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ronald C. Estoque, Email: estoquerc21@affrc.go.jp

Asif Ishtiaque, Email: AsifIshtiaque@MissouriState.edu.

Jagadish Parajuli, Email: jagadish.parajuli@asu.edu.

Darshana Athukorala, Email: darshana12594@gmail.com.

Yasin Wahid Rabby, Email: yasinwr@wfu.edu.

Makoto Ooba, Email: ooba.makoto@nies.go.jp.

References

  1. Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 2006;16:268–281. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adzawla W, Baumüller H. Effects of livelihood diversification on gendered climate vulnerability in Northern Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2021;23:923–946. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00614-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmadalipour A, Moradkhani H, Castelletti A, Magliocca N. Future drought risk in Africa: Integrating vulnerability, climate change, and population growth. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;662:672–686. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Akter M, Jahan M, Kabir R, Karim DS, Haque A, Rahman M, Salehin M. Risk assessment based on fuzzy synthetic evaluation method. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;658:818–829. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Angelsen A, Dokken T. Climate exposure, vulnerability and environmental reliance: A cross-section analysis of structural and stochastic poverty. Environment and Development Economics. 2018;23:257–278. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X18000013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Apreda C, D’Ambrosio V, Di Martino F. A climate vulnerability and impact assessment model for complex urban systems. Environmental Science and Policy. 2019;93:11–26. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aslam RA, Shrestha S, Pandey VP. Groundwater vulnerability to climate change: A review of the assessment methodology. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;612:853–875. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bae HJ, Kang JE, Lim YR. Assessing the health vulnerability caused by climate and air pollution in Korea using the fuzzy TOPSIS. Sustainability. 2019;11:2894. doi: 10.3390/su11102894. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnett J. Global environmental change II: Political economies of vulnerability to climate change. Progress in Human Geography. 2020;44:1172–1184. doi: 10.1177/0309132519898254. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Borges FJA, Ribeiro BR, Lopes LE, Loyola R. Bird vulnerability to climate and land use changes in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biological Conservation. 2019;236:347–355. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen Y, Shan X, Wang N, Jin X, Guan L, Gorfine H, Yang T, Dai F. Assessment of fish vulnerability to climate change in the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea. Marine and Freshwater Research. 2020;71:729–736. doi: 10.1071/MF19101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cinco-Castro S, Herrera-Silveira J. Vulnerability of mangrove ecosystems to climate change effects: The case of the Yucatan Peninsula. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2020;192:105196. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105196. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowood AL, Young J, Dowling TI, Moore CL, Muller R, MacKenzie J, Littleboy M, Nicholson AT. Assessing wetland climate change vulnerability for wetland management decision support using the hydrogeological landscape framework: Application in the Australian Capital Territory. Marine and Freshwater Research. 2019;70:225–245. doi: 10.1071/MF17302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crane TA, Delaney A, Tamás PA, Chesterman S, Ericksen P. A systematic review of local vulnerability to climate change in developing country agriculture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2017;8:e464. [Google Scholar]
  15. Crozier LG, McClure MM, Beechie T, Bograd SJ, Boughton DA, Carr M, Cooney TD, Dunham JB, et al. Climate vulnerability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead in the California current large marine ecosystem. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0217711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Culp LA, Cohen EB, Scarpignato AL, Thogmartin WE, Marra PP. Full annual cycle climate change vulnerability assessment for migratory birds. Ecosphere. 2017;8:e01565. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cutter S. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly. 2003;84:242–261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. de Sherbinin A, Bukvic A, Rohat G, Gall M, McCusker B, Preston B, Apotsos A, Fish C, et al. Climate vulnerability mapping: A systematic review and future prospects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2019;10:e600. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dhamija V, Shukla R, Gornott C, Joshi PK. Consistency in vulnerability assessments of wheat to climate change-A district-level analysis in India. Sustainability. 2020;12:8256. doi: 10.3390/su12198256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dogra N, Kakde V, Taneja P. Decision tool for climate disasters and infectious disease at sub-national level in India: Ensuring a paradigm shift in health planning from prevalence to vulnerability. Acta Tropica. 2019;191:60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ducusin RJC, Espaldon MVO, Rebancos CM, De Guzman LEP. Vulnerability assessment of climate change impacts on a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) in the Philippines: The case of Batad Rice. Climatic Change. 2019;153:395–421. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02397-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Duvat VKE, Magnan AK, Wise RM, Hay JE, Fazey I, Hinkel J, Stojanovic T, Yamano H, et al. Trajectories of exposure and vulnerability of small islands to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2017;8:e478. [Google Scholar]
  23. EC . Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies. Brussels: European Commission; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Estoque RC, Togawa T, Ooba M, Gomi K, Nakamura S, Hijioka Y, Kameyama Y. A review of quality of life (QOL) assessments and indicators: Towards a “QOL-Climate” assessment framework. Ambio. 2019;48:619–638. doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-1090-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Estoque RC, Ooba M, Seposo XT, Togawa T, Hijioka Y, Takahashi K, Nakamura S. Heat health risk assessment in Philippine cities using remotely sensed data and social-ecological indicators. Nature Communications. 2020;11:1581. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15218-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Estoque, R.C., M. Ooba, T. Togawa, A. Yoshioka, K. Gomi, S. Nakamura, T. Tsuji, Y. Hijioka, et al. in press. Climate impact chains for envisaging climate risks, vulnerabilities, and adaptation issues. Regional Environmental Change. 10.1007/s10113-022-01982-4.
  27. FAO. 2018. A review of existing approaches and methods to assess climate change vulnerability of forests and forest-dependent people. Forestry Working Paper No. 5. Rome: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  28. Fellmann T. The assessment of climate change-related vulnerability in the agricultural sector: reviewing conceptual frameworks. In: Meybeck A, Lankoski J, Redfern S, Azzu N, Gitz V, editors. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2012. pp. 37–62. [Google Scholar]
  29. Filho WL, Icaza LE, Neht A, Klavins M, Morgan EA. Coping with the impacts of urban heat islands. A literature based study on understanding urban heat vulnerability and the need for resilience in cities in a global climate change context. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;171:1140–1149. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Flatø M, Muttarak R, Pelser A. Women, weather, and woes: The triangular dynamics of female-headed households, economic vulnerability, and climate variability in South Africa. World Development. 2017;90:41–62. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Foden WB, Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Vie J-C, Akcakaya HR, Angulo A, DeVantier LM, Gutsche A, et al. Identifying the World’s most climate change vulnerable species: A systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e65427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Foden WB, Young BE, Akçakaya HR, Garcia RA, Hoffmann AA, Stein BA, Thomas CD, Wheatley CJ, et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2019;10:e551. [Google Scholar]
  33. Formetta G, Feyen L. Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards. Global Environmental Change. 2019;57:101920. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Füssel HM. Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change. 2007;17:155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Füssel HM, Klein RJT. Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change. 2006;75:301–329. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gallopín GC. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change. 2006;16:293–303. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gao J, Jiao K, Wu S. Quantitative assessment of ecosystem vulnerability to climate change: Methodology and application in China. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13:094016. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aadd2e. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gerlak AK, Greene C. Interrogating vulnerability in the global framework for climate services. Climatic Change. 2019;157:99–114. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02384-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Giupponi C, Biscaro C. Vulnerabilities - bibliometric analysis and literature review of evolving concepts. Environmental Research Letters. 2015;10:123002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. GIZ, and EURAC. 2017. Risk supplement to the vulnerability sourcebook. Bonn: GIZ.
  41. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009;26:91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Greenan BJW, Shackell NL, Ferguson K, Greyson P, Cogswell A, Brickman D, Wang Z, Cook A, et al. Climate change vulnerability of American lobster fishing communities in Atlantic Canada. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2019;6:579. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00579. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Gupta AK, Negi M, Nandy S, Alatalo JM, Singh V, Pandey R. Assessing the vulnerability of socio-environmental systems to climate change along an altitude gradient in the Indian Himalayas. Ecological Indicators. 2019;106:105512. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environmental Evidence. 2018;7:1–8. doi: 10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change—A case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change. 2009;19:74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Halofsky JE, Peterson DL, Prendeville HR. Assessing vulnerabilities and adapting to climate change in northwestern U.S. forests. Climatic Change. 2018;146:89–102. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1972-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. He C, Zhou L, Ma W, Wang Y. Spatial assessment of urban climate change vulnerability during different urbanization phases. Sustainability. 2019;11:2406. doi: 10.3390/su11082406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hinkel J. “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science—policy interface. Global Environmental Change. 2011;21:198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Huong NTL, Yao S, Fahad S. Assessing household livelihood vulnerability to climate change: The case of Northwest Vietnam. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2019;25:1157–1175. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2018.1460801. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Huynh HLT, Do AT, Dao TM. Climate change vulnerability assessment for Can Tho city by a set of indicators. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2020;12:147–158. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2018-0003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. IPCC . Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  52. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M.L. Parry, et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  53. IPCC. 2012. Summary for Policymakers. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. C.B. Field, et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp 3–21.
  54. IPCC. 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. C.B. Field, et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 1–32.
  55. IPCC. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, ed. V. Masson-Delmotte, et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 3–24.
  56. IPCC. 2022. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. H.-O. Pörtner et al.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 3–33.
  57. Ishtiaque A, Estoque RC, Eakin H, Parajuli J, Rabby YW. IPCC’s current conceptualization of ‘vulnerability’ needs more clarification for climate change vulnerability assessments. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022;303:114246. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jagarnath M, Thambiran T, Gebreslasie M. Heat stress risk and vulnerability under climate change in Durban metropolitan, South Africa—identifying urban planning priorities for adaptation. Climatic Change. 2020;163:807–829. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02908-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jedd TM, Hayes MJ, Carrillo CM, Haigh T, Chizinski CJ, Swigart J. Measuring park visitation vulnerability to climate extremes in U.S, Rockies National Parks Tourism. Tourism Geographies. 2018;20:224–249. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2017.1377283. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Jhan HT, Ballinger R, Jaleel A, Ting KH. Development and application of a socioeconomic vulnerability indicator framework (SVIF) for local climate change adaptation in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2020;12:1585. doi: 10.3390/su12041585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Johns RA, Dixon B, Pontes R. Tale of two neighbourhoods: Biophysical and socio-economic vulnerability to climate change in Pinellas County, Florida. Local Environment. 2020;25:697–724. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2020.1825356. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Jones MC, Cheung WWL. Using fuzzy logic to determine the vulnerability of marine species to climate change. Global Change Biology. 2018;24:e719–e731. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Jones BT, Mattiacci E, Braumoeller BF. Food scarcity and state vulnerability: Unpacking the link between climate variability and violent unrest. Journal of Peace Research. 2017;54:335–350. doi: 10.1177/0022343316684662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Jurgilevich A, Räsänen A, Groundstroem F, Juhola S. A systematic review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability assessments. Environmental Research Letters. 2017;12:013002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa5508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Kim JS, Jain S, Lee JH, Chen H, Park SY. Quantitative vulnerability assessment of water quality to extreme drought in a changing climate. Ecological Indicators. 2019;103:688–697. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Lecina-Diaz J, Martínez-Vilalta J, Alvarez A, Banqué M, Birkmann J, Feldmeyer D, Vayreda J, Retana J. Characterizing forest vulnerability and risk to climate-change hazards. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2021;19:126–133. doi: 10.1002/fee.2278. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Leis JL, Kienberger S. Climate risk and vulnerability assessment of floods in Austria: Mapping homogenous regions, hotspots and typologies. Sustainability. 2020;12:6458. doi: 10.3390/su12166458. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Li L, Cao R, Wei K, Wang W, Chen L. Adapting climate change challenge: A new vulnerability assessment framework from the global perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;217:216–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Lokonon BOK. Farmers’ vulnerability to climate shocks: Insights from the Niger basin of Benin. Climate and Development. 2019;11:585–596. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1511403. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mafi-Gholami D, Jaafari A, Zenner EK, Kamari AN, Bui DT. Vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change: Thirty-year trend analysis and prospective prediction for the coastal regions of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;741:140305. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. McIntosh RD, Becker A. Expert evaluation of open-data indicators of seaport vulnerability to climate and extreme weather impacts for U.S. North Atlantic ports. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2019;180:104911. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104911. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Menezes A, Confalonieri U, Madureira AP, DuvaldosSantos IRB, Margonari C. Mapping human vulnerability to climate change in the Brazilian Amazon: The construction of a municipal vulnerability index. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0190808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Monnereau I, Mahon R, McConney P, Nurse L, Turner R, Vallès H. The impact of methodological choices on the outcome of national-level climate change vulnerability assessments: An example from the global fisheries sector. Fish and Fisheries. 2017;18:717–731. doi: 10.1111/faf.12199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Mysiak J, Torresan S, Bosello F, Mistry M, Amadio M, Marzi S, Furlan E, Sperotto A. Climate risk index for Italy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 2018;376:20170305. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Navi M, Pisaniello D, Hansen A, Nitschke M. Potential health outcome and vulnerability indicators of climate change for Australia: Evidence for policy development. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2017;76:160–175. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Newell JP, Goldstein B, Foster A. A 40-year review of food-energy-water nexus literature and its application to the urban scale. Environmental Research Letters. 2019;14:073003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab0767. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Nguyen TTX, Bonetti J, Rogers K, Woodroffe CD. Indicator-based assessment of climate-change impacts on coasts: A review of concepts, methodological approaches and vulnerability indices. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2016;123:18–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.11.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Nguyen CV, Horne R, Fien J, Cheong F. Assessment of social vulnerability to climate change at the local scale: Development and application of a Social Vulnerability Index. Climatic Change. 2017;143:355–370. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-2012-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Oh KY, Lee MJ, Jeon SW. Development of the Korean climate change vulnerability assessment tool (VESTAP)-centered on health vulnerability to heat waves. Sustainability. 2017;9:1103. doi: 10.3390/su9071103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Orozco I, Martínez A, Ortega V. Assessment of the water, environmental, economic and social vulnerability of a watershed to the potential effects of climate change and land use change. Water. 2020;12:1682. doi: 10.3390/w12061682. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Owusu M, Nursey-Bray M. Socio-economic and institutional drivers of vulnerability to climate change in urban slums: The case of Accra, Ghana. Climate and Development. 2019;11:687–698. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1532870. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Pacifici M, Foden WB, Visconti P, Watson JEM, Butchart SHM, Kovacs KM, Scheffers BR, Hole DG, et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2015;5:215–225. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2448. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Pinnegar JK, Engelhard GH, Norris NJ, Theophille D, Sebastien RD. Assessing vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the fisheries sector in Dominica: Long-term climate change and catastrophic hurricanes. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2019;76:1353–1367. [Google Scholar]
  84. Rinnan DS, Lawler J. Climate-niche factor analysis: A spatial approach to quantifying species vulnerability to climate change. Ecography. 2019;42:1494–1503. doi: 10.1111/ecog.03937. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Runting RK, Bryan BA, Dee LE, Maseyk FJF, Mandle L, Hamel P, Wilson KA, Yetka K, et al. Incorporating climate change into ecosystem service assessments and decisions: A review. Global Change Biology. 2017;23:28–41. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sam K, Chakma N. Vulnerability profiles of forested landscape to climate change in Bengal Duars region, India. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2018;77:459. doi: 10.1007/s12665-018-7649-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Schilling J, Hertig E, Tramblay Y, Scheffran J. Climate change vulnerability, water resources and social implications in North Africa. Regional Environmental Change. 2020;20:15. doi: 10.1007/s10113-020-01597-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Schneiderbauer S, Baunach D, Pedoth L, Renner K, Fritzsche K, Bollin C, Pregnolato M, Zebisch M, et al. Spatial-explicit climate change vulnerability assessments based on impact chains. Findings from a case study in Burundi. Sustainability. 2020;12:6354. doi: 10.3390/su12166354. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Sharma J, Ravindranath NH. Applying IPCC 2014 framework for hazard-specific vulnerability assessment under climate change. Environmental Research Communications. 2019;1:051004. doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ab24ed. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Shi L, Varuzzo AM. Surging seas, rising fiscal stress: Exploring municipal fiscal vulnerability to climate change. Cities. 2020;100:102658. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102658. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Shi W, Xia J, Gippel CJ, Chen JX, Hong S. Influence of disaster risk, exposure and water quality on vulnerability of surface water resources under a changing climate in the Haihe River basin. Water International. 2017;42:462–485. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2017.1301143. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Shukla R, Chakraborty A, Joshi PK. Vulnerability of agro-ecological zones in India under the earth system climate model scenarios. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2017;22:399–425. doi: 10.1007/s11027-015-9677-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Spangler KR, Manjourides J, Lynch AH, Wellenius GA. Characterizing spatial variability of climate-relevant hazards and vulnerabilities in the New England Region of the United States. GeoHealth. 2019;3:104–120. doi: 10.1029/2018GH000179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Steiner JL, Briske DD, Brown DP, Rottler CM. Vulnerability of Southern Plains agriculture to climate change. Climatic Change. 2018;146:201–218. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1965-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Tapia C, Abajo B, Feliu E, Mendizabal M, Martinez JA, Fernández JG, Laburu T, Lejarazu A. Profiling urban vulnerabilities to climate change: An indicator-based vulnerability assessment for European cities. Ecological Indicators. 2017;78:142–155. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Timberlake TJ, Schultz CA. Climate change vulnerability assessment for forest management: The case of the U.S. Forest Service. Forests. 2019;10:1030. doi: 10.3390/f10111030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Timmerman P. Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: A review of models and possible climatic applications. Toronto: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  98. Tonmoy FN, El-Zein A, Hinkel J. Assessment of vulnerability to climate change using indicators: A meta-analysis of the literature. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2014;5:775–792. [Google Scholar]
  99. Troia MJ, Giam X. Extreme heat events and the vulnerability of endemic montane fishes to climate change. Ecography. 2019;42:1913–1925. doi: 10.1111/ecog.04576. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. UNFCCC. 2012. The National Adaptation Plan Process: A Brief Overview. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  101. Valencia JB, Mesa J, León JG, Madriñán S, Cortés AJ. Climate vulnerability assessment of the Espeletia Complex on Páramo Sky Islands in the Northern Andes. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2020;8:565708. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.565708. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Wang C, Zhang Z, Wan J. Vulnerability of global forest ecoregions to future climate change. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2019;20:e00760. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00760. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Williams SE, Shoo LP, Isaac JL, Hoffmann AA, Langham G. Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biology. 2008;6:2621–2626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Wiréhn L, Opach T, Neset TS. Assessing agricultural vulnerability to climate change in the Nordic countries—an interactive geovisualization approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2017;60:115–134. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1143351. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Xia J, Ning L, Wang Q, Chen J, Wan L, Hong S. Vulnerability of and risk to water resources in arid and semi-arid regions of West China under a scenario of climate change. Climatic Change. 2017;144:549–563. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1709-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Xu X, Wang L, Sun M, Fu C, Bai Y, Li C, Zhang L. Climate change vulnerability assessment for smallholder farmers in China: An extended framework. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;276:111315. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Zadkovic S, Lombardo N, Cole DC. Breastfeeding and climate change: Overlapping vulnerabilities and integrating responses. Journal of Human Lactation. 2021;37:323–330. doi: 10.1177/0890334420920223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Zhang Q, Zhao X, Tang H. Vulnerability of communities to climate change: Application of the livelihood vulnerability index to an environmentally sensitive region of China. Climate and Development. 2019;11:525–542. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1442808. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Zhang Y, Ruckelshaus M, Arkema KK, Han B, Lu F, Zheng H, Ouyang Z. Synthetic vulnerability assessment to inform climate-change adaptation along an urbanized coast of Shenzhen, China. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;255:109915. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Ambio are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES