Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

Understanding trends and projections of disaster losses and climate change: is vulnerability the missing link?

  • Reinhard MechlerEmail author
  • Laurens M. Bouwer
Article

Abstract

The recent IPCC-SREX report demonstrated for the first time comprehensively that anthropogenic climate change is modifying weather and climate extremes. The report also documents, what has been long known, that losses from natural disasters, including those linked to weather, have increased strongly over the last decades. Responding to the debate regarding a contribution of anthropogenic climate change to the increased burden from weather-related disasters, the IPCC-SREX finds that such a link cannot be made today, and identifies the key driver behind increases in losses as exposure changes in terms of rising population and capital at risk. Yet, in the presence of many uncertainties and omissions involved in studying trends in losses, the authors of the IPCC report did not exclude a role for climate change. In particular, one key uncertainty identified has been the incomplete consideration of economic vulnerability to natural hazards, defined as the propensity to incur losses in a hazardous event. Focussing on the role of vulnerability in determining today’s and future disaster loss risk, we critically review the literature on loss trends and projections, and provide context by way of a modeling case study of observed and projected losses from riverine flooding in Bangladesh. We find that research has almost exclusively focused on normalizing losses for changes in exposure, yet not for vulnerability, which appears a major gap given the dynamic nature of vulnerability, and documented evidence regarding decreases in vulnerability in many regions. One such region is South Asia, and of particular interest to us is Bangladesh, a country heavily at-risk, but also with substantial expertise regarding risk management, where we are able to show that economic vulnerability has been substantially reduced over the last decades. In order to understand future flood risk in Bangladesh, we project risk based on past reductions in vulnerability and compare it to a case where vulnerability is not considered explicitly and kept static. In the dynamic scenario, risk would still increase in absolute terms, yet at much smaller increments compared to a static vulnerability case. Thus, a key finding of our analysis is that, absent dynamic quantifications of vulnerability, studies on future losses under climatic change may overestimate future losses. Furthermore, the analysis also suggests that there are substantial benefits to gain by supporting vulnerability-reducing measures in many regions. Finally, we emphasize the need for further taking a risk-based perspective on modelling climate impacts in order to provide robust information on the costs and impacts from extremes in a changing climate.

Keywords

Tropical Cyclone Return Period Flood Risk Disaster Risk Climate Extreme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1141_MOESM1_ESM.docx (253 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 252 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawala S, Bosello F, Carraro C, de Cian E, Lanzi E (2011) Adapting to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits, and Modelling Approaches. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 5:245–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amendola, A., Ermolieva, T., Linnerooth-Bayer, Mechler, R. (eds.) (2013). Integrated Catastrophe Risk Modeling. Supporting Policy Processes. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkmann, J. (2013) (ed.). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  5. Bouwer LM (2011a) Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouwer LM (2011b) Reply to comments on “Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92:792–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwer LM (2013) Projections of future extreme weather losses under changes in climate and exposure. Risk Analysis 33(5):915–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouwer LM, Botzen WJW (2011) How sensitive are US hurricane damages to climate? Comment on a paper by W.D. Nordhaus. Climate Change Economics 1(2):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouwer LM, Crompton RP, Faust E, Höppe P, Pielke RA Jr (2007) Confronting disaster losses. Science 318:753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton I, Kates R, White G (1978) Environment as hazard. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. CRED (2013) EM-DAT: International Disaster Database, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Université Catholique de Louvain, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  12. Crompton RP, McAneney KJ (2008) Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967–2006. Environmental Science and Policy 11:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ECLAC (2003) Handbook for Estimating the Socio-economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters. ECLAC, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  14. Füssel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 75(3):301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gall M, Borden KA, Cutter SL (2009) When do losses count? Six fallacies of natural hazards loss data. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossi P, Kunreuther H (eds) (2005) Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Handmer, J., Y. Honda, Z.W. Kundzewicz, N. Arnell, G. Benito, J. Hatfield, I.F. Mohamed, P. Peduzzi, S. Wu, B. Sherstyukov, K. Takahashi, and Z. Yan (2012). Changes in impacts of climate extremes: human systems and ecosystems. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., et al. (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 231–290.Google Scholar
  18. Hinkel J (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity” Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huggel C, Stone D, Aufhammer M, Hansen G (2013) Loss and damage attribution. Nature Climate Change 3:694–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Field C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. et al. 2013).Google Scholar
  22. Jonkman SN (2005) Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Natural Hazards 34:151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellenberg D, Mobarak A (2011) The Economics of Natural Disasters. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3(1):297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavell, A., M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-Wood, and S. Myeong (2012). Climate change: new dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 25–64Google Scholar
  25. Nicholls N (2011) Comment on “Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92:791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicholls, N., and S.I. Seneviratne (2013). Comparing IPCC Assessments: How do the AR4 and SREX assessments of changes in extremes differ? Climatic Change, in press.Google Scholar
  27. Pielke RA Jr, Landsea CW (1999) La Niña, El Niño, and Atlantic hurricane damages in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80:2027–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pielke RA Jr, Sarewitz D (2005) Bringing Society Back into the Climate Debate. Population and Environment 26(3):255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pielke RA Jr, Agrawala S, Bouwer LM, Burton I, Changnon S, Glantz MH, Hooke WH, Klein RJT, Kunkel K, Mileti D, Sarewitz D, Tompkins EL, Stehr N, Von Storch H (2005) Clarifying the attribution of recent disaster losses: a response to Epstein and McCarthy. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(10):1481–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pielke RA Jr, Gratz J, Landsea CW, Collins D, Saunders M, Musulin R (2008) Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1900–2005. Natural Hazards Review 9:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Re M (2011) TOPICS GEO, Natural catastrophes 2010, Analyses, assessments, positions. Munich Reinsurance Company, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  32. Re M (2012) TOPICS GEO, Natural catastrophes 2011, Analyses, assessments, positions. Munich Reinsurance Company, MunichGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig C, Karoly D, Vicarelli M, Neofotis P, Wu Q, Casassa G, Menzel A, Root TL, Estrella N, Seguin B, Tryjanowski P, Liu C, Rawlins S, Imeson A (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tanner TM, Hassan A, Islam KMN, Conway D, Mechler R, Ahmed AU, Alam M (2007) ORCHID: Piloting Climate Risk Screening in DFID Bangladesh. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, Detailed Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  35. UNESCAP and UNISDR (2012). Reducing Vulnerability and Exposure to Disasters. The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012. UNESCAP and UNISDR, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  36. UNISDR (2009) Applying disaster risk reduction for climate change adaptation: country practices and lessons. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. UNISDR (2011) Revealing risk, redefining development. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR). United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva.Google Scholar
  38. Visser H, Petersen AC (2012) Inferences on weather extremes and weather-related disasters: a review of statistical methods. Climate of the Past 8:265–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World B (2010) Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change. Synthesis report. World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  2. 2.DeltaresDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations