Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change, to address the conceptual confusion around vulnerability and related concepts. Design/methodology/approach -The framework was developed using the method of formalisation -making structure explicit. While mathematics as a precise and general language revealed common structures in a large number of vulnerability definitions and assessments, the framework is here presented by diagrams for a non-mathematical audience. Findings -Vulnerability, in ordinary language, is a measure of possible future harm. Scientific vulnerability definitions from the fields of climate change, poverty, and natural hazards share and refine this structure. While theoretical definitions remain vague, operational definitions, that is, methodologies for assessing vulnerability, occur in three distinct types: evaluate harm for projected future evolutions, evaluate the current capacity to reduce harm, or combine the two. The framework identifies a lack of systematic relationship between theoretical and operational definitions. Originality/value -While much conceptual literature tries to clarify vulnerability, formalisation is a new method in this interdisciplinary field. The resulting framework is an analytical tool which supports clear communication: it helps when making assumptions explicit. The mismatch between theoretical and operational definitions is not made explicit in previous work.

Using a novel climate–water conflict vulnerability index to capture double exposures in Lake Chad

“…Many vulnerability indicators capture these components separately, paying limited or no attention to how to integrate them. The lack of communality in definitions has often meant that indicators must come from the specific research or policy questions considered (Wolf et al 2013). Further, due to the place-based and contextspecific nature of vulnerability, normative value judgement has tended to guide many vulnerability assessment methodologies (Hahn et al 2009;Shah et al 2013).…”

“…Weights are an important aspect of indexing approaches (see Barnett et al 2008;Hinkel 2011;Wolf et al 2013). Although what constitutes an appropriate weighting system can vary significantly based on contexts (Chen and Lopez-Carr 2015), we applied the balanced/equal weights framework used in Hahn et al (2009) assuming that each indicating basket contributes equally to a group's overall vulnerability despite that the number of indicators under each basket differs.…”

“…For example, Working Group II of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) identifies exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity as the defining components of vulnerability. Yet the largely subjective connotation of these components makes it unclear how they can combine to capture vulnerability, as well as the relationships between them (Wolf et al 2013). Many vulnerability indicators capture these components separately, paying limited or no attention to how to integrate them.…”

Enhancing the Ostrom social-ecological system framework through formalization

“…Formalization is the process of making form (or structure) of linguistic expressions explicit by translating them into a formal language (Hinkel 2008, Ionescu et al 2009, Wolf et al 2013. As suggested by the name, formalization targets form, that is, the relationships between concepts rather than the meaning of the concepts themselves.…”

Vulnerability Concepts and its Application in Various Fields: A Review on Geographical Perspective

“…Source: Adopted from Cutter (1996), Weichselgartner (2001), Hogan and Marandola (2005), Adger (2006), Wolf, et al, (2013).…”