Conceptual Frameworks for Assessing Climate Change Effects on Urban Areas: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Urban areas are amongst the most adversely affected regions by current and future climate change effects. One issue when it comes to measuring, for example, impacts, vulnerabilities, and resilience in preparation of adaptation action is the abundance of conceptual frameworks and associated definitions. Frequently, those definitions contradict each other and shift over time. Prominently, in the transition from the IPCC AR (International Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report) 4 to the IPCC AR 5, a number of conceptual understandings have changed. By integrating common concepts, the literature review presented intends to thoroughly investigate frameworks applied to assess climate change effects on urban areas, creating an evidence base for research and politically relevant adaptation. Thereby, questions concerning the temporal development of publication activity, the geographical scopes of studies and authors, and the dominant concepts as applied in the studies are addressed. A total of 50 publications is identified following screening titles, abstracts, and full texts successively based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Major findings derived from our literature corpus include a recently rising trend in the number of publications, a focus on Chinese cities, an imbalance in favor of authors from Europe and North America, a dominance of the concept of vulnerability, and a strong influence of the IPCC publications. However, confusion regarding various understandings remains. Future research should focus on mainstreaming and unifying conceptual frameworks and definitions as well as on conducting comparative studies.

A Review of Climate Security Discussions in Japan

“…We daresay that it takes an uncurious act of imagination not to imagine that this strategy may conceivably lead to an imbalance of studies (or research imbalance ), which in itself may lead to study bias. Of importance here is a study by Klopfer et al [ 15 ] which assessed the conceptual frameworks for climate impacts in urban areas through a scoping review of 50 publications and presented two key findings: the strong influence of IPCC publications and the imbalance in favor of European and North American researchers. This imbalance often invites criticism of research bias, but Klopfer et al [ 15 ] do not discuss the issue of imbalance as a reason for research bias.…”

“…Basically, it aims to answer specific research questions by systematically mapping relevant themes in the available literature on a topic, allows findings to be matched to predefined eligibility criteria, and helps the articulation of a broader and impartial overview [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Compared with traditional meta-analytic evaluation, a systematic review permits the thorough determination of the general aspects of a study (such as type, number and geographic focus) and is particularly useful for interdisciplinary investigation that involves quantitative and qualitative methods [ 15 ]. A systematic review is also useful in a scenario of streetlight effect.…”

Climate Impact Assessment for Sustainable Structural Change in the Rhenish Lignite Mining Region

“…To cope with the challenges of climate change, it is important to agree on and define the methodological framework, the key terminology, and the outcome of the assessment which is dealing with the possible impacts [9,25]. Corresponding studies show that there are still existing incongruities in vulnerability concepts, analyses, and assessments, both on a terminological and on a conceptual level [26,27]. This concerns, for example, the reference to place or scales of analysis, key components of vulnerability, involvement of stakeholders or, for example, dealing with uncertainty [26].…”

“…This is also linked with the evolution of assessments dealing with climate impacts. Within the evolution (see [27][28][29]) the approach and its definitions have been changed from a vulnerability approach [1,30] to a risk-based approach as currently used by the IPCC [2,3].…”

“…impacts [9,25]. Corresponding studies show that there are still existing incongruities in vulnerability concepts, analyses, and assessments, both on a terminological and on a conceptual level [26,27]. This concerns, for example, the reference to place or scales of analysis, key components of vulnerability, involvement of stakeholders or, for example, dealing with uncertainty [26].…”