1. IAV: challenges and future steps
Workshop on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IAV) Community Coordination
January 8-9, 2009
NCAR
Paty Romero Lankao

2. Outline
How to
Go beyond RH & connect IAV (local) with WG1/ESM, WG3 (global)?
Make the best of a diverse IAV community?
Deal with North-South divide, research gap?
Wilhelmi (2007)

3. Pros & Cons of Risk Hazard (RH)
Well represented in IPCC
Emphasizes exposure, mostly to climate hazards
Relatively “simple”, fits with WG2 and WG3 approaches
Vulnerability as outcome of relatively linear analysis
Does not capture complexity & dynamics of vulnerability, adaptive capacity & adaptation
Risk-hazard framework has been well represented in IPCC, as it is a relatively linear analysis fitting with the approach of WGI and III to emissions and concentrations. Applications of this model generally emphasized exposure and sensitivity to perturbations and stressors and worked from the hazard to the impacts. Vulnerability is equated with an outcome of a relatively linear analysis that begins with the
Sources: Hibbard et al (2007), Turner et al (2003),

4. Implications of multi-scale nature of climate drivers and impacts
Selected scale can frame investigation and shape results
Selection of a single scale can frame a project to narrowly
Detailed scale Information contains more variance, but turns modeling more difficult
Full learning hence requires attention to a variety of scales & real collaboration between WG1, WG2 & WG1
Source: Wilbanks (2002)

5. Lineages of vulnerability research
Diverse approaches
A fully complex reality
Highly fragmentary
Competing paradigms
Fewer data
Results attached to particular approaches
Difficult to generalize
Make research-results compatible & comparable
Use quantitative tools (build bridges with ESM and WGII) & combine them with qualitative tools
Identify prototypic causal loops
Do not forget importance of context, multi-scales, and innovative concepts, frameworks (e.g. responsive capacity)
Include other communities (e.g., development, urban designers)

6. North-South divide, research gap
Initiatives to foster research and participation (IPCC, AIACC). Yet constraints persist:
a) Financial and institutional capacity
b) data, state of the art
c) language barriers
Source Rozensweig and Casassa et al Locations of significant changes in observations of physical systems (e.g. snow & ice) and biological systems (terrestrial, marine & freshwater), are shown together with surface air temperature changes over the period 1970 to 2004
North dominates agenda
Agenda biases, emphasis in
certain regions
themes (mitigation)
dimensions (physical, cost-analysis)
Source: De Sherbinin et al. (2007). The hazard risk of each city represents a cumulative score based on risk of cyclones, flooding, landslides & drought

7. Thank you !