The session recording will be archived on the site until June 25th, 2023

This session was streamed but not recorded

Curated Track: 

Description:

Composite vulnerability indices have become increasingly popular to examine, describe, and identify vulnerability drivers and to support decision making processes. Despite their popularity, several methodological and actionability challenges have been raised that limit their use for scientific and policy applications. A rich and ongoing dialog has emerged as a result, seeking to examine and address these issues. Contributions have analyzed how different methodological choices affect index results (e.g., Bucherie et al. 2022; Reckein 2018; Tate 2012), linked methodological and decision risk strategies (e.g., Machado & Ratick 2018), exposed scale issues (Fekete 2010; Frazier 2012), examined and proposed mapping guidelines (Preston 2011; de Sherbinin et al. 2019), integrated multiple stressors and hazards (O’Brien et al. 2004; Tate et al. 2010), and addressed validation needs (e.g., Bakkensen et al. 2016; Rufat et al. 2019), among others.

This session seeks to highlight advances in the development of composite vulnerability indices using a broad range of methodologies. Papers focusing on examining or addressing challenges in the construction, visualization, and policy use of composite vulnerability indices are welcome.

Potential themes include, but are not limited to:

- Capturing spatio-temporal cross-scalar vulnerability dynamics
- Selecting and deriving appropriate indicators
- Integrating quantitative and qualitative data
- Validation and sensitivity analysis
- Effective engagement of stakeholders
- Strategies bridging science and policy
- Innovative communication and outreach efforts
- Visualization techniques
- Addressing inequality and injustice
- Innovative aggregation techniques

If interested, please email your abstract (250 words max), AAG PIN, and any questions you may have to elia.machado@lehman.cuny.edu no later than November 8, 2022. I will reply with the participation decision by November 10, 2022. Thank you!

References:
Bakkensen, L. A., Fox‐Lent, C., Read, L. K., & Linkov, I. (2017). Validating resilience and vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters. Risk analysis, 37(5), 982-1004.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12677

Bucherie, A., Hultquist, C., Adamo, S., Neely, C., Ayala, F., Bazo, J., & Kruczkiewicz, A. (2022). A comparison of social vulnerability indices specific to flooding in Ecuador: Principal component analysis (PCA) and expert knowledge. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 73, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102897

De Sherbinin, A., Bukvic, A., Rohat, G., Gall, M., McCusker, B., Preston, B., Apotsos, A., Fish, C., Kienberger, S., Muhonda, P., Wilhelmi, O., & Zhang, S. (2019). Climate vulnerability mapping: A systematic review and future prospects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(5), e600. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.600

Fekete, A., Damm, M., & Birkmann, J. (2010). Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 729-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9445-5

Frazier, T. G. (2012). Selection of scale in vulnerability and resilience assessments. J Geogr Nat Disasters, 2, 108. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0587.1000e108

Machado, E. A., & Ratick, S. (2018). Implications of indicator aggregation methods for global change vulnerability reduction efforts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23(7), 1109-1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9775-7

O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H.,
Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L., & West, J. (2004). Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global environmental change, 14(4), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.01.001

Preston, B. L., Yuen, E. J., & Westaway, R. M. (2011). Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustainability science, 6(2), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0129-1

Reckien, D. (2018). What is in an index? Construction method, data metric, and weighting scheme determine the outcome of composite social vulnerability indices in New York City. Regional environmental change, 18(5), 1439-1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1273-7

Rufat, S., Tate, E., Emrich, C. T., & Antolini, F. (2019). How valid are social vulnerability models?. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(4), 1131-1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887

Tate, E., Cutter, S. L., & Berry, M. (2010). Integrated multihazard mapping. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 646-663. https://doi.org/10.1068/b351

Tate, E. (2012). Social vulnerability indices: a comparative assessment using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Natural Hazards, 63(2), 325-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0152-2

Non-Presenting Participants