Assessing Local Vulnerability to Climate Change and its ...resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/docs/Koh_C1.pdf · Bucheon-si Gwacheon-si Hig h • High

Assessing Local Vulnerability to Climate Change and its

Implications: the Case of Gyeonggi-Do

Jaekyung Koh

(Gyeonggi Research Institute)

Resilient Cities 2010

The concept of vulnerability

• Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a system

cannot cope with negative impact of climate change,

encompassing physical, social and economic aspects

• IPCC characterizes vulnerability as a function of three

componentsexposure

sensitivity

Potential impact

Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability

1. The concept of vulnerability

Vulnerability(V) =

f ｛ exposure(E),

sensitivity(S),

adaptive

capacity(AC) ｛

Components of vulnerability

• Exposure relates to the degree of climate stress upon a

particular unit analysis; it may be represented as either

long-term changes in climate conditions, or by changes

in climate variability, including the magnitude and

frequency of extreme events(IPCC, 2001)

• Sensitivity is the degree to which a system will be

affected by, or responsive to climate stimuli , either

positively or negatively

• Adaptive capacity refers to the potential or capability of

a system to adjust to climate change, including climate

variability and extremes, so as to moderate potential

damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to

cope with consequences


Vulnerability types by impact-adaptive capacity axis

• The greater the exposure or sensitivity, the greater is the vulnerability, while the greater the adaptive capacity, the lesser is the vulnerability.

• Reducing vulnerability would involve reducing impact, or increasing adaptive capacity

most vulnerable

resilient

Impact

Adaptive

Capacity


<Figure > Administrative Map

• Located in the central western part of Korea

• 11,549,091 residents

(23.3% of total

national population)

• 10.2% of gross

national area(17 times

larger than Seoul)

• 31 Municipalities

• 20.3% of Korea’s

total GDP

• More than 40% of

knowledge- based

industry

manufacturing and

50% of related R&D

spending in Korea

A Glance at Gyeonggi-Do

2. Climate trends in Gyeonggi-Do

Temperature

• Temperature Increase at the rate of

0.55℃/10years on average

SuwonYang pyung

Icheon Gyeonggi-Do(average)


Average precipitation in July (1971-2000)

• High in Pocheon, Yeoncheon, Gapyung,

Dongducheon

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛

양양양

｛｛｛｛｛｛

양양양

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛

양양양

｛｛｛

양양양

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛｛｛

｛｛｛

｛｛｛｛｛｛(7｛)

546mm

199mm


Precipitation intensity

• Precipitation intensity increase at the rate of

1.3/10 years on average

Precipitation intensity


3. Methodology

Objectives of vulnerability assessment

• Vulnerability assessment needs different information,

methodology, and spatial and temporal scale

depending its objective

• Objectives of vulnerability assessment

- Climate impact assessment to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions

- Identify vulnerable sectors and areas to allocate resources for

adaptation

- Analyze adaptation options to develop adaptation strategies

Determining vulnerability indicators and their weightings

• Vulnerability indicators were elicited by feedbacks from

two expert meetings and interviews with public officials

• Standardize data and measure skewness

• Analytic Hierachy Process was utilized to determine

weightings of the indicators

• Calculate sectoral indices(exposure, sensitivity, adaptive

capacity) by summation of weighted standardized scores

of indicators

• Vulnerability Index is the average of three sectoral indices

3. Methodology

sectors Indicators Proxy variables

Function of

vulnerabilit

y

Precipitatio

n

Heavy

Precipi-

tation

Heavy precipitation frequency

Number of Days with precipitation ≥ 80mm/day

+

Maximum one day precipitation

Maximum one day precipitation +

Precipitation intensityAnnual total precipitation/ no. of days with precipitation ≥1mm

+

Drought

Average consecutive dry days

Average of consecutive dry days +

Maximum consecutive dry days

Maximum no. of consecutive dry days +

Temperature

Tropical nightsNo of days with daily minimum temperature ≥ 25℃

+

Heat waveDays with daily maximum temperature ≥33℃

+

Heat wave duration index

Maximum period > 5 consecutive days with Tmax > 5℃ above the past 30 years daily Tmax normal

+

Sea level rise Sea level rise Presume 1m of sea level rise +

Exposure indicators

3. Methodology

Sensitivity indicators

sectors indicators Proxy variables

Function

of

Vulnerabilit

y

Geography

/land use

Ecologically sensitive area

Habitat of Endangered species +Tidal wetland areas

Drought vulnerable area

Agricultural land area/total land area+

Flood risk areaFlood risk area/total land area

+Utilized river bed area/total land area

Low-lying coastal area

Proportion of areas at altitude below 1m+

Demographi

c

Characteristi

cs

Population density population/total land area +Old age population Proportion of population aged over 65years +

Socially vulnerable groups

Proportion of elderly living alone+Proportion of people in poverty

Climate related disease patients

Proportion of patients with respiratory diseases

+Proportion of patients with vector-borne diseases

Infrastructur

e

/industry

InfrastructureProportion of transportation and supply facilities area +

Industrial park Proportion of industrial park area +

buildingProportion of housing units older than 30 years +

3. Methodology

Adaptive capacity indicators

sectors indicators Proxy variables

Function

of

vulnerabili

ty

Economic

capability

GRDP GRDP -Economic growth GRDP growth rate for five years -

Fiscal independence

Local tax+non tax revenue/general account budget

-

Physical

infrastructure

Open space Park area per capita -River

improvementRiver improvement length(km)/improvement needed(km) -

Medical facility

Population/hospital beds

-Medical employees/total populationPublic health center employees/total populationNumber of general hospitals

Access to clean water

Drinking water supply -Sewage treatment systems -Use of groundwater/available groundwater +

telecommunications

Cellular phones per household-Ratio of PC supply and use

Internet subscription rate

3. Methodology

Adaptive capacity indicators

sectors indicators Proxy vairables

Function

of

vulnerabili

ty

Social

capital

Public-private partnership Climate change related partnership -

Citizen’s capacity on climate change

Citizen’s actions on climate change

-Education and campaign for disaster management Proportion of people took health education

Sense of communityProportion of volunteers

-Local voluntary commitment for disaster management

Institution

al capacity

Political leadershipPolitical leader’s concern in disaster management -Political leader’s concern in climate change

Prevention systemDelivery system for disaster relief

-Warning system managementDisaster prevention system management

Staff for adaptation measures

Public officials per capita -Convalescence care +

Policy levelLevel of Climate change policyClimate change policy systemLevel of disastem management policy

-

3. Methodology

Data collection

• Temperature and precipitation data during 1999~2008

• Statistical data and survey data were utilized together

3. Methodology

Weather observations Precipitation observations

Meteorological Observatory

Meteorological AWS

Agricultural AWS

Meteorological Observatory

Meteorological AWS

Agricultural AWS

Precipitation Observatory

Results of AHP

exposure

sensitivityAdaptivecapacity

geography/land use

populationcharacteristics

infrastructure/industry

sea level rise drought

rainfall/flood

heatwave

economy

institutionalcapacity

physicalinfrastructure

social capital

3. Methodology

Top 10 Indicators by priority of AHP

rank indicators priority category

1 Prevention system against disasters 0.06326 Adaptive capacity

2 flood risk area 0.05868 Sensitivity

3 Political leadership 0.05384 Adaptive capacity

4 Local fiscal independence 0.04708 Adaptive capacity

5 GRDP 0.04708 Adaptive capacity

6 Infrastructure 0.04083 sensitivity

7 Access to clean water 0.03828 Adaptive capacity

8 Policy responses to climate change 0.03826 Adaptive capacity

9 Citizen engagement and action 0.03662 Adaptive capacity

10 Public-private partnership 0.03662 Adaptive capacity

10 Community solidarity 0.03662 Adaptive capacity

3. Methodology

4. Results

Mapping Vulnerability to Climate Change

Exposure Map Sensitivity Map

P a ju - si

S e o u l- s i

P o c h e o n - s i

Yo n g in - s i

Ya n g p y e o n g - g u n

A n se o n g - s i

Ye o ju - g u n

G ap y e o n g - g u n

H w a se o n g - s iIc h e o n - s i

Ye o n c h e o n - g u n

G w a n g ju - s i

P y e o n g ta e k- s i

Ya n g ju - si

N a m y a n g ju - s iG im p o - s i

In c h e o n - s i

G o y a n g - s i

S u w o n - s i

S ih e u n g - s i

A n sa n - si

S e o n g n a m - s i

H a n a m - s i

U ije o n g b u - s i

A n y a n g - s i

D o n g d u c h e o n - s i

O sa n - s i

U iw a n g - si

G u r i- s i

B u c h e o n - si

G w a ch e o n - s i

High

Paju-si

Seoul-si

Pocheon-si

Yongin-si

Yangpyeong-gun

Anseong-si

Yeoju-gun

Gapyeong-gun

Hwaseong-siIcheon-si

Yeoncheon-gun

Gwangju-si

Pyeongtaek-si

Yangju-si

Namyangju-siGimpo-si

Incheon-si

Goyang-si

Suwon-si

Siheung-si

Ansan-si

Seongnam-si

Hanam-si

Uijeongbu-si

Anyang-si

Dongducheon-si

Osan-si

Uiwang-si

Guri-si

Bucheon-si

Gwacheon-si

Paju-si

Seoul- si

Pocheon-si

Yongin-si

Yangpyeong-gun

Anseong-si

Yeo ju-gun

Gapyeong-gun

H waseong-siIcheon-si

Yeoncheon-gun

Gwangju-si

Pyeongtaek-si

Yangju-si

N am yangju-siGim po-si

Incheon-si

Goyang-si

Suwon-si

Siheung-si

Ansan-si

Seongnam -si

Hanam -si

Uijeongbu-si

Anyang-si

D ongducheon-si

O san-si

U iwang-si

Guri- si

Bucheon-si

Gwacheon-si

4. Results

Mapping Vulnerability to Climate Change

Impact(Exposure-Sensitivity) Map

Adaptive Capacity Map

High

Paju-si

Seoul-si

Pocheon-si

Yongin-si

Yangpyeong-gun

Anseong-si

Yeoju-gun

Gapyeong-gun

Hwaseong-siIcheon-si

Yeoncheon-gun

Gwangju-si

Pyeongtaek-si

Yangju-si

Namyangju-siGimpo-si

Incheon-si

Goyang-si

Suwon-si

Siheung-si

Ansan-si

Seongnam-si

Hanam-si

Uijeongbu-si

Anyang-si

Dongducheon-si

Osan-si

Uiwang-si

Guri-si

Bucheon-si

Gwacheon-si

High

• High vulnerability group

- Yeoju, Yangpyung,

Gimpo, Pocheon,

Yeoncheon, Goyang

• Low vulnerability group

- Gwacheon, Suwon, Anyang,

Yongin, Sungnam, Ansan

• Nothern area is more

vulnerable than southern

area

4. Results

Overall Vulnerability Map

Higher

Mid-highMiddleLow-midLower

Relationship between vulnerability Index and disaster damage

• Positive relationship between disaster damage and

vulnerability index(VI)

4. Results

VI

Damage

VI

Damage rank

VI

Disaster index

Relationship between vulnerability Index and economic capacity

• Negative relationship between economic

capacity and vulnerability index

4. Results

VI

Economic capacity

Vulnerability types and characteristics

• Type I : High Impact,

Low AC

• Type II : Low Impact, Low

AC

• Type III : High Impact, High

AC

• Type IV : Low Impact, High

AC

5. Discussions and Implications

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3 Impact

Adaptive Capacity

Type I Type III

Type IV Type II

high

high

low

low

Vulnerability Types and Characteristics

• Type I : High Impact, Low AC

- most vulnerable, higher priority for adaptation measures

- differential adaption measures dependent on vulnerability

characteristics

ex) Yeoncheon and Pocheon have high exposure index and high ratio of

vulnerable population, while Gimpo and Yeoju high sensitivity

index(flood risk area)

- governance, education and non structural measures in the short term

are needed

• Type II : Low Impact, Low AC

- exposure to potential risk, little concern in climate change

- awareness raising and capacity building needed

- in common, lack of economic resources and social capital such as public-

private partnership

- physical infra and institutional capacity are uneven across

municipalities


Vulnerability Types and Characteristics

• Type III : High Impact, High AC

- capacity to reduce high risk

- prevention system for effective adaptation

- differential adaptive capacity building dependent on its composing

elements

ex) Goyang : high economic resources, lack of social and institutional

capital

Gapyung : high social and institutional capital, lack of economic

resources

• Type IV : Low Impact, High AC

- high resilience to climate change, but the magnitude of impact could be

huge

- most urbanized and densely populated area, higher GRDP

- need climate friendly land use to limit development in flood risk area and

integration of climate impact into urban planning



Implications of vulnerability indicators

• Identify adaptation priorities

- compare relative vulnerability across cities

- identify adaptation priorities on the area with high potential impact by

climate change but low adaptive capacity

• Differential approaches by vulnerability types

- identify and decompose elements of local vulnerability

- take adaptation actions in urgent need depending on

local characteristics

• Adaptive capacity building

- AHP shows higher priority on adaptive

- develop human resources and social capital, and build

institutional capacity

- maximize synergy effect by integrating adaptation into

existing policies and long-term planning


Implications of vulnerability indicators

• Tools for monitoring adaptation policies and education

- some indicators are useful for monitoring mitigation policies as well as

adaptation measures

ex) open spaces and sustainable drainage etc.

- vulnerability map as tools for awareness raising and for promoting

participation by stakeholders in vulnerability assessment

• Vulnerability assessment based on past climate

observations

- lack of a reliable climate model at the local level

- high uncertainty involved

- vulnerability assessment needed based on projections of future

changes in climate

Limitations and further study


• Further study is needed to explore the relationship between quantified assessment and actual local vulnerability

- complementary qualitative assessment and case studies are necessary

• Development of sectoral vulnerability indicators linked

with adaptation policies

- develop sector-specified vulnerability indicators for monitoring

adaptation strategies

- use of integrated indicators linking adaptation with mitigation

Limitations and further study

Thank You !

Documents

Assessing Local Vulnerability to Climate Change and its ...resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/docs/Koh_C1.pdf · Bucheon-si Gwacheon-si Hig h • High