Cargando…
Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted?
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 Disaste...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01806-z |
_version_ | 1784851420061630464 |
---|---|
author | Estoque, Ronald C. Ishtiaque, Asif Parajuli, Jagadish Athukorala, Darshana Rabby, Yasin Wahid Ooba, Makoto |
author_facet | Estoque, Ronald C. Ishtiaque, Asif Parajuli, Jagadish Athukorala, Darshana Rabby, Yasin Wahid Ooba, Makoto |
author_sort | Estoque, Ronald C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9755408 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97554082022-12-17 Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? Estoque, Ronald C. Ishtiaque, Asif Parajuli, Jagadish Athukorala, Darshana Rabby, Yasin Wahid Ooba, Makoto Ambio Review 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. Springer Netherlands 2022-11-21 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9755408/ /pubmed/36414854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01806-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Estoque, Ronald C. Ishtiaque, Asif Parajuli, Jagadish Athukorala, Darshana Rabby, Yasin Wahid Ooba, Makoto Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title | Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title_full | Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title_fullStr | Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title_full_unstemmed | Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title_short | Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
title_sort | has the ipcc’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01806-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT estoqueronaldc hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted AT ishtiaqueasif hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted AT parajulijagadish hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted AT athukoraladarshana hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted AT rabbyyasinwahid hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted AT oobamakoto hastheipccsrevisedvulnerabilityconceptbeenwelladopted |