A methodology for quantifying

patterns of vulnerability

A collaborative project between the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK)

PIK: Matthias Lüdeke Till Sterzel Carsten Walther

MNP: Marcel Kok Paul Lucas

December 2007

1. Aim of the project

The aim of this pilot-project is to explore the possibilities to develop a methodology for the quantitative analysis of archetypes of vulnerability (ATs). Quantification is done by using indicators from the MNP GISMO model (Hilderink and Lucas, forthcoming) and the IMAGE framework (Bouwman et al., 2007). This paper reports on:

1. A methodology that is elaborated for the quantitative analysis of current and possible future situations of patterns of vulnerability.
2. The application of this methodology on two archetypes to test the feasibility and practicability of this approach to quantification.

With this methodology archetypes can be fully analyzed, opening the option of a comprehensive Global Change vulnerability assessment. It needs however to be realized that a full analysis of ATs will require both quantitative and qualitative methods. In the next phase of the project, some further methodology development will be carried out to be able to also analyze the impacts of different policy interventions on the vulnerability of people.

As the main aim of this project was to develop the methodology, a caveat has to be placed on the outcomes of the analysis of two archetypes in this report. These are analyzed to test the methodology and will be revisited in the next phase of the project.

2. Archetype approach

The archetype (AT)-approach was developed and applied within the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook process (GEO-IV; UNEP, 2007), with essential contributions of MNP and PIK (Jäger, Kok et al., 2007; Kok, Lüdeke et al., forthcoming). The AT approach was used in GEO-4 to analyse and highlight the vulnerability of people and the environment to multiple stressors resulting from environmental and socio-economic changes. With the recognition of the relevance of multiple stressors and close inter-linkages between local, regional and global scales adequate vulnerability analyses become increasingly complex.

On the one hand detailed, local vulnerability case studies face the question, to what extent the outcomes of such studies are relevant for similar cases elsewhere. As important policy decisions with a wider impact have to be made above the local level, this is a real challenge. On the other hand, global vulnerability assessments, even when dealing with a fine spatial resolution, are necessarily based on aggregated data and rather crude assumptions of the underlying mechanisms. The question is whether local specifics can be adequately represented and understood at this scale - a prerequisite for successful policy to influence the local level.

During the GEO-process the observation made was that recurring patterns of vulnerability can be found in numerous different places around the world. These patterns of vulnerability were coined “archetypes of vulnerability”. This approach was inspired by the “syndrome approach”, which looks at non-sustainable patterns of interaction between people and the environment, and unveils the dynamics behind them. The “syndrome approach” was introduced in the 1990s to obtain a global overview of current non-sustainable dynamics and mechanisms of Global Change (WBGU, 1995; Schellnhuber et al., 1997; Petschel-Held et al. 1999; Lüdeke et al., 2004). An “archetype of vulnerability” is defined as “a specific, representative pattern of the interactions between environmental change and human well-being”. It does not describe one specific situation, but rather focuses on the most important common properties of a multitude of cases that are in that sense “archetypical”. Within the diversity of human-environment systems throughout the world, some situations share certain vulnerability-creating conditions. Archetypes are simplifications of real cases, in order to show the basic processes whereby vulnerability is produced within a context of multiple stressors. In GEO-IV a number of such typical patterns of vulnerability were identified and analyzed. The archetypes illustrate the basic processes whereby vulnerability is produced. Analyzing such archetypical patterns of vulnerability would help to overcome the scale problems of local and global vulnerability analysis, as it can be positioned on the intermediate level. The addition to the syndrome approach was that the archetype approach more explicitly addresses the impacts for people and also includes opportunities offered by the environment to reduce vulnerability and improve human well-being (Wonink et al., 2005; Kok, Lüdeke et al., 2007).

It is hoped for that the archetype approach allows policymakers to recognize their particular situations within a broader context – providing regional perspectives and important connections between regions and the global context and insights into possible solutions. Although analysed individually, many different patterns of vulnerability exist. A set of archetypes of vulnerability have been identified as part of the GEO-4 assessment process, ensuring regional relevance and global balance of the patterns. These archetypes are also not mutually exclusive – in some ecosystems, countries, sub-regions, regions and globally, a mosaic of patterns of vulnerability may exist. This makes the development of policy responses a complex challenge that requires further attention in our work when it comes to policy analysis.

By analysing the vulnerability of human-environment systems to multiple stresses (drivers and pressures) challenges and opportunities within and beyond the environmental policy domain can be identified. The analysis also shows how vulnerabilities are affected by actions elsewhere and indicates worldwide inter-dependencies. The archetype analysis reflects the different components of vulnerability analysis (see for example Turner et al., 2003) and answers the following questions:

1. What defines the archetype of vulnerability? What are the main exposures and sensitivities of the human-environment system and what basic mechanisms constitute the archetype?

2. What is the global relevance, i.e. where is the archetype occurring?

3. What are the key vulnerable groups?

4. How can (future) changes of the human-environment system affect human well-being for these communities and what are the environmental consequences?

5. What are the opportunities for individual and policy responses in and beyond the environmental policy domain on the local, sub-national, national and supra-national scale?

3. Methodology for analyzing archetypes

The archetype approach proved to be a useful concept for a qualitative identification and evaluation of policy options for the reduction of vulnerability. Already during GEO it turned out to be feasible to expand this approach further by including more quantitative tools for policy development and evaluation (see dryland cluster analysis in GEO-IV; p. 323). The natural approach to do this is the usage of a data based indication of the occurrence and characteristic of the ATs. By basing this on dynamic quantitative model outputs, the occurrence and characteristic of the ATs could be analyzed dynamic in time. If this is feasible potentially vulnerability-reducing options could be evaluated more systematically. The GISMO and IMAGE models at MNP do provide such dynamic quantitative model outputs. This paper reports on the development of a methodology for quantitative analysis and some first lessons learned by applying the methodology.

We put forward that the full (qualitative and quantitative) analysis of an archetype would at least include the following seven steps:

1. Identification and qualitative description of the archetype: the project builds on archetypes identified and described as part of the GEO-IV process. The description includes the answers to the questions 1-3 raised in the previous section on core mechanisms, global relevance and vulnerable communities.
2. Formalization of archetype: from the qualitative archetype description the most important interactions that constitute the archetypical pattern need to be distillated and presented in the form of influence diagrams.
3. Selection of indicators: selection of indicators (or proxies) for the most important determinants/interactions of the archetype as determined in the formalization step (influence diagram) and quantify these indicators using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs).
4. Applying cluster analysis for the current situation: for the selected indicators to identify typical indicator-combinations, either pointing to hot-spot areas where the archetype is present or to areas suggesting ways out.
5. Applying scenario analysis: extend the cluster analysis into the future using scenario data from the IAMs (in casu from the GISMO/IMAGE models) to analyze how the clusters and hot-spots transform in time.
6. Analysis of policy interventions: IAMs (in casu GISMO/IMAGE) can also be used to see if specific policy interventions can help to reduce vulnerability. Methodological exploration of this step is not yet performed in this project and will be done in the next phase of the project. In addition to quantitative analysis also a more qualitative analysis is needed.
7. Full analysis of the archetype: bringing together quantitative and qualitative analysis of the archetype, answering all questions raised and including all steps.

Figure 1.1 shows how the quantitative and qualitative analyses in this approach complement each other.

Figure 1.1 Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of analysis (Source: Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000).

EXEMPLARY RESULTS: