Combining socio-economic and climate projections to assess heat risk

Abstract

The assessments of future climate risks are common; however, usually, they focus on climate projections without considering social changes. We project heat risks for Finland to evaluate (1) what kind of differences there are in heat vulnerability projections with different scenarios and scales, and (2) how the use of socio-economic scenarios influences heat risk assessments. We project a vulnerability index with seven indicators downscaled to the postal code area scale for 2050. Three different scenario sets for vulnerability are tested: one with five global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenarios; the second with three European SSPs (EUSSPs) with data at the sub-national scale (NUTS2); and the last with the EUSSPs but aggregated data at the national scale. We construct projections of heat risk utilizing climatic heat hazard data for three different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and vulnerability and exposure data for five global SSPs up to 2100. In the vulnerability projections, each scenario in each dataset shows a decrease in vulnerability compared to current values, and the differences between the three scenario sets are small. There are evident differences both in the spatial patterns and in the temporal trends when comparing the risk projections with constant vulnerability to the projections with dynamic vulnerability. Heat hazard increases notably in RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, but a decrease of vulnerability especially in SSP1 and SSP5 alleviates risks. We show that projections of vulnerability have a considerable impact on future heat-related risk and emphasize that future risk assessments should include the combination of long-term climatic and socio-economic projections.

Development of a Complex Vulnerability Index for Fishing Shelters—The Case of Cyprus

“…The most common constraints in assessing future vulnerability are high uncertainties in projecting future socioeconomic development [38], lack of conceptual clarity, and methodological limitations, most notably the lack of future-oriented socioeconomic data at an usable spatial scale [39]. Overall, vulnerability indices constitute simplifications of vulnerability, which is a complex and immeasurable phenomenon [11]; therefore, the index results need to be critically evaluated and linked to the analysis of drivers that increase vulnerability [36]. Furthermore, the vulnerability was perceived as a dynamic process during which stakeholders' views and real-time observations are necessary to acquire a robust overview of the shelters' vulnerability.…”

“…Since only six (6) out of the 21 vulnerability variables were altered according to climate change projections (V1-V6; Table 1), which are included in the physical sub-index, the changes in this particular sub-index are illustrated in Figures 8-11. The remaining variables were excluded from this future assessment mainly because the use of socioeconomic projections has been scarce compared to the climate ones [36] but also because projections of the hereto considered variables differ in terms of time horizons. For instance, projections for utilities and facilities of the shelter (V14) are stemming from policy-making and strategic planning, usually undertaken up to 2030 or even 2050, whereas projections regarding wind velocity (V1) are obtained up to 2100.…”

Impacts of Climate Change on Work Health and Safety in Australia: A Scoping Literature Review

“…These 'effects of development' are based on social and economic factors relevant to residents and, more broadly, to an economy or even the global economy (e.g., global gross domestic product). Such socio-economic factors are numerous, including gender, age, income, wealth, education, occupation, and health [73,74].…”