Maps synthesizing climate, biophysical and socioeconomic data have become part of the standard tool‐kit for communicating the risks of climate change to society. Vulnerability maps are used to direct attention to geographic areas where impacts on society are expected to be greatest and that may therefore require adaptation interventions. Under the Green Climate Fund and other bilateral climate adaptation funding mechanisms, donors are investing billions of dollars of adaptation funds, often with guidance from modeling results, visualized and communicated through maps and spatial decision support tools. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of 84 studies that map social vulnerability to climate impacts. These assessments are compiled by interdisciplinary teams of researchers, span many regions, range in scale from local to global, and vary in terms of frameworks, data, methods, and thematic foci. The goal is to identify common approaches to mapping, evaluate their strengths and limitations, and offer recommendations and future directions for the field. The systematic review finds some convergence around common frameworks developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, frequent use of linear index aggregation, and common approaches to the selection and use of climate and socioeconomic data. Further, it identifies limitations such as a lack of future climate and socioeconomic projections in many studies, insufficient characterization of uncertainty, challenges in map validation, and insufficient engagement with policy audiences for those studies that purport to be policy relevant. Finally, it provides recommendations for addressing the identified shortcomings. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation

Coastal areas worldwide represent an aggregation of population and assets of growing economic, geopolitical, and sociocultural significance, yet their functions are increasingly challenged by worsening coastal hazards. Vulnerability assessments have been recognized as one way we can better understand which geographic areas and segments of society are more susceptible to adverse impacts from different stressors or hazards. The aims of this paper are to evaluate the state of coastal vulnerability assessment mapping efforts and to identify opportunities for advancement and refinement that will lead to more cohesive, impactful, and policy-relevant coastal vulnerability studies. We conducted a systematic review of the literature that addresses physical and social vulnerability to coastal hazards and contains corresponding mapping products. The content was analyzed for the scale of analysis, location, disciplinary focus, conceptual framework, metrics used, methodological approach, data sources, mapping output, and policy relevance. Results showed that most Coastal Vulnerability Mapping Assessments (CVMAs) are conducted at the local level using a range of methodologies, often with limited inclusion of social considerations and limited discussion of policy relevance. Based on our analysis, we provide seven recommendations for the advancement of this field that would improve CVMAs’ methodological rigor, policy relevance, and alignment with other vulnerability assessment paradigms.

This study explores the dilemma of whether to rebuild or relocate from the areas devastated by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Since disasters represent the discernible manifestation of other complex coastal hazards, they offer a window of opportunity to engage residents in the dialogue on relocation as sometimes the most effective risk reduction strategy. The following research evaluates attitudes towards relocation and willingness to consider buyout among 46 surveyed households located in highly-affected communities five months after Sandy. It also gauges perceptions of coastal risks and recovery concerns as drivers of relocation, the level of support for different adaptation strategies, and preferences related to the relocation process itself on how and where to relocate and with what type of assistance. Responses indicate that, even though residents prefer structural solutions to address coastal hazards, they are not fully opposed to the possibility of relocation mostly for personal health and safety reasons.

No abstract