Abstract
There is a growing research interest on the transdisciplinary measurement of vulnerability to climatic hazards from the perspective of integrated river basin management. However, the incorporation of stakeholders’ participation, local knowledge and locally spatial characteristics into the process of such vulnerability assessment is one of the challenges faced by decision-makers, especially in developing countries. This article proposes a novel methodology for assessing and communicating vulnerability to policymaking at the river basin level through a case study of Tachia River basin in Taiwan. The authors used a multicriteria decision analysis to develop an integrated vulnerability index applied to a participatory geographic information system (GIS) to map vulnerability to climatic hazards. Using a GIS-based spatial statistics technique and multivariate analysis, we test the degree to which vulnerabilities are spatially autocorrelated throughout the river basin, explain why clustering of vulnerable areas occurs in specific locations, and why some regions are particularly vulnerable. Results demonstrate that vulnerable areas are spatially correlated across the river basin. Moreover, exposure, biophysical sensitivity, land uses and adaptive capacity are key factors contributing to the formation of localized ‘hot spots’ of similarly and particularly vulnerable areas. Finally, we discuss how the findings provide direction for more effective approaches to river basin planning and management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The focus group consisted of six experts and officers from the fields of disaster management, city planning, civil engineering, climatology, and water management. The focus group meetings helped identify the framework of vulnerability indicators, the relationship between indicators and vulnerability, as well as the connections in the network of these indicators (Fig. 1).
This implies that either lower or higher income areas are more sensitive to impacts of hazards. The middle income areas are thus relatively less sensitivity to hazards than other areas.
This assumption is particularly capable to reflect the natural circumstances of Tachia River basin, because large parts of the basin are composed of environmental sensitive areas.
The AHP with its independence assumptions within and between clusters and elements is a special case of the ANP.
These nine experts were organized separately from the abovementioned focus group. But the background was similar, which was also composed of experts and officers from the fields of city planning, engineering, climatology, as well as disaster and water management.
Some villages in downstream regions were clustered highly vulnerable areas majorly due to their relatively more proximity to rivers and more social dependence, as well as lower risk perceptions and access to resources compared to other villages.
References
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):268–281
Anselin L (1995) Local indicator of spatial association. Geogr Anal 27(2):93–115
Balica SF, Douben N, Wright NG (2009) Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water Sci Technol 60(10):2571–2580
Berman R, Quinn C, Paavola J (2012) The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environ Dev 2:86–100
Bernard L, Ostländer N (2008) Assessing climate change vulnerability in the arctic using geographic information services in spatial data infrastructures. Clim Change 87(1–2):263–281
Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implication for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 15(2):151–163
Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, Haque E (2007) Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: a case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal 27(2):313–326
Ceccato L, Giannini V, Giupponi C (2011) Participatory assessment of adaptation strategies to flood risk in the Upper Brahmaputra and Danube river basins. Environ Sci Policy 14(8):1163–1174
Cutter S, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Quart 84(2):242–261
Cutter S, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience. Glob Environ Change 18(4):598–606
Eakin H, Bojórquez-Tapia LA (2008) Insights into the composition of household vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis. Glob Environ Change 18(1):112–127
Eakin H, Luers AL (2006) Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annu Rev Env Resour 31:365–394
Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ Change 21(2):647–656
Engle NL, Lemos MC (2010) Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):4–13
FRRFD (Foresight Reducing Risks of Future Disasters: Priorities for Decision Makers) (2012) Final project report. The Government Office for Science, London
Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C, Meyer V (2011) Editorial for the special issue: vulnerability to natural hazards-the challenge of integration. Nat Hazards 58(2):609–619
Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change. Glob Environ Change 17(2):155–167
Füssel HM, Klein RT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329
Gallopín GC (2006) Linkage between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 16(3):293–303
Gencer C, Gürpinar D (2007) Analytic network process in supplier selection: a case study in an electronic firm. Appl Math Model 31(11):2475–2486
Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24(3):189–206
GWP (Global Water Partnership) (2000) Integrated water resource management. Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper, No 4, Stockholm, Sweden
Hooijer A, Klijn F, Pedroli B, Van Os A (2004) Towards sustainable flood risk management in the Rhine and Meuse River Basins: synopsis on the finding of IRMA-SPONGE. River Res Appl 20(3):343–357
Hung HC (2009) The attitude towards flood insurance purchase when respondents’ preferences are uncertain: a fuzzy approach. J Risk Res 12(2):239–258
Hung HC, Wang TW (2011) Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: the case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan. Risk Anal 31(4):668–683
Hung HC, Ho MC, Chen YJ, Chien CY, Chen SY (2013) Integrating long-term seismic risk changes into improving emergency response and land-use planning: a case study for the Hsinchu City, Taiwan. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0714-y
Ionescu C, Klein RJT, Hinkel J, Kavi Kumar KS, Klein R (2005) Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press
IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: a special report of Working Groups I and II. Cambridge University Press
ISDR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Switzerland, Geneva
Klein RJ, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ Hazards 5(1–2):3–45
Krishnamurthy PK, Fisher JB, Johnson C (2011) Mainstreaming local perceptions of hurricane risk into policymaking: a case study of community GIS in Mexico. Glob Environ Change 21(1):143–153
Leach WD, Pelkey NM, Sabatier P (2002) Stakeholder partnership as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Manag 21(4):645–670
Luers AL, Lobell DB, Sklar LS, Addams CL, Matson PA (2003) A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob Environ Change 13(4):255–267
McCall MK, Minang PA (2005) Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: claiming community forests in Cameroon. Geogr J 171(4):340–356
Mehaffey M, Wainger L, Wade T, Yankee D, Smith E, Bott V, Yarbourgh R (2008) Assessing vulnerability from alternative development patterns. Landsc Urban Plan 87(1):84–95
Metzger MJ, Leemans R, Schröter D (2005) A multidisciplinary multi-scale framework for assessing vulnerabilities to global change. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 7(4):253–267
Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan (2011) Statistical yearbook of interior. Taipei, Taiwan
O’Brien K, Sygna L, Haugen JE (2004a) Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Clim Change 64(1–2):193–225
O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Schjolden A, Nygaard L (2004b) What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working Paper
Saaty TL (2004) Fundamentals of the analytic network process-multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(3):348–379
Scheuer S, Haase D, Meyer V (2011) Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Nat Hazards 58(2):731–751
Sharma U, Patwardhan A, Parthasarathy D (2009) Assessing adaptive capacity to tropical cyclones in the East coast of India: a pilot study of public response to cyclone warning information. Clim Change 94(1–2):189–209
Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):282–292
Tran P, Shaw R, Chantry G, Norton J (2009) GIS and local knowledge in disaster management: a case study of flood risk mapping in Vietnam. Disasters 33(1):152–169
Turner BL II, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy IJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8074–8079
Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan under Grants: NSC97-2621-M-305-003 and NSC98-2621-M-305-002. None of the conclusions expressed here necessarily reflect views other than those of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hung, HC., Chen, LY. Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge into assessing vulnerability to climatic hazards: application to the river basin management in Taiwan. Climatic Change 120, 491–507 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0819-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0819-z