Figure 1 is the result of a 2011 academic research paper by Samson et al. The map represents their calculation of a global climate–demography vulnerability index based on climate models projections for 2050 (Samson et al., 2011). They combine climate models with bioeconomic models of population density, thus making a value-based claim that regions are more vulnerable when they exceed their “climate-consistent population growth” (Samson et al., 2011, p. 538). Image source.
Figure 2 is from a private advisory firm called
Maplecroft, and represents the results of their 2011 Climate Change
Vulnerability Index (Maplecroft, 2010). Their methodology was unavailable, but
they rank Bangladesh as the most vulnerable to climate change impacts in 2011.
According to their website, this is “due to extreme levels of poverty and a
high dependency on agriculture, whilst its government has the lowest capacity
of all countries to adapt to predicted changes in the climate. In addition,
Bangladesh has a high risk of drought and the highest risk of flooding”
(Maplecroft, 2010). Their timeframe is based on current vulnerability as well as
future adaptive capacity. Image source.
Figure 3 is based on results from a report
prepared for the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
in collaboration with Maplecroft and CARE International (UNOCHA, 2008). While
the entire report has multiple maps of different human and environmental
indicators, this particular map is of the “overall human vulnerability index”
with regards to climate risks in the next 20-30 years. This combined their
assessment of natural vulnerability, human vulnerability, social vulnerability,
financial vulnerability, and physical vulnerability. Interestingly, while the
other maps in this report include developed countries, the maps related to
vulnerability only include the Global South. Image source.
The diversity of results in these
three maps represents the variability of climate change vulnerability, some
of the value-laden assumptions about climate vulnerability and choice of
timescale, and the overall difficulties in defining and assessing
vulnerability.
Sources
Samson, J.,
Berteaux, D., McGill, B.J., & Humphries, M.M. (2011). Geographic
disparities and moral hazards in the predicted impacts of climate change on
human populations. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 20, 532–544.
United Nations
Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2008). Climate change and
human vulnerability: Mapping emerging trends and risk hotspots for humanitarian
actors. Discussion Paper. Geneva:
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE).
I like these maps, very much. I'd like to share it in my blog.
ReplyDeleteGreat, I'm glad you liked them!
ReplyDelete