Search results

This chapter focusses on food systems' vulnerability. In a rapidly and unpredictably changing world, vulnerability of farming and food systems becomes a key issue. The conceptual bases for food vulnerability analysis and food vulnerability assessment are discussed in a systemic perspective with an eye to the transition approach (Geels, 2004) as a perspective capable to analyze how novelties can develop and influence the system capability to fulfil societal functions, and food and nutrition security in particular. A framework for assessing people's food vulnerability is presented together with a simple vulnerability model based on the three dimensions of exposure (the degree to which a system is likely to experience environmental or sociopolitical stress), sensitivity (the degree to which a system is modified or affected by perturbations) and adaptive capacity (the ability to evolve in order to accommodate environmental hazards or change) (Adger, 2006). Then, other sections are dedicated to discuss the general questions that should be answered by a vulnerability assessment exercise, and the specific challenges emerging when the assessment concerns a food system. These elements are then used in the Annex to this chapter as a base for the development of a detailed method based on seven distinct steps for conducting participatory assessments of the vulnerability of food systems.

Developing countries such as the Philippines depend greatly on their natural resources and ecosystem services. However, the capacity to sustain these services is currently being pressured by various environmental hazards, mainly brought about by climate change. Thus, it is imperative to assess the vulnerability of the environment so that effective ecosystem-based management strategy can be developed to improve the sustainability of these services. This chapter presents a geospatial-based method in assessing the vulnerability of watersheds in the country to various environmental hazards. This model is called the Geospatial-Based Regional Environmental Vulnerability Index for Ecosystems and Watersheds, or, in short, the GeoREVIEW model. GeoREVIEW is composed of 21 indicators and each indicator is evaluated using a scale of 1 to 5. A scale of 1 indicates low vulnerability while a scale of 5 signifies high vulnerability. Finally, to determine the vulnerability level of the area, its overall vulnerability point (OVP) is calculated. This model is utilized to evaluate the vulnerability of two significant ecosystems near Metro Manila – the La Mesa Watershed (LMW) and the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR). Based on the assessment, it was found that both are already classified as “at risk” levels. However, MFR (OVP=55.24) is found to be less vulnerable than LMW (OVP=62.52). The results from this assessment can be used to improve the management of these areas and can also aid in targeting policy interventions associated with climate change.

Flood vulnerability is a complex concept involving the interactions between environment, social and economic dimensions. Indicator‐based vulnerability assessment is widely used in vulnerability studies to summarise complexity and multidimensionality issues to gauge the level of vulnerability. A set of 21 environmental and socio‐economic indicators is used to quantitatively assess the three factors of vulnerability, namely exposure, susceptibility and resilience to flood at the subnational level. The construction of the vulnerability index involved the selection of indicators, their normalisation, weightage and aggregation to a final index. In addition to the Flood Vulnerability Index, three sub‐indices namely Exposure Index, Susceptibility Index and Resilience Index were generated. Based on composite indicator approach, the vulnerability of the states in Malaysia was categorised from very low to very high. The source of vulnerability is due not only to the environmental exposure to flood hazard but also contributed by the internal status of the socio‐economic factors within the vulnerable systems.

Risk assessments are the very basis on which planning and implementation are carried out. In the context of urban risk management, the assessment processes are complex to understand as they involve multi-sectoral parameters. Many of the issues involved are of technical nature, but this also requires focus on the principles behind the assessment process including participatory assessment tools.

Action planning is a participatory, short-term, visible, output-oriented process that enables urban community groups to plan the development of risk reduction actions in their locality and to lead the implementation of the action plans.

There are three kinds of actions that emerge from an action planning process: (i) those that can be implemented by the community groups themselves, (ii) those that need some external help for implementation, and (iii) those that can only be implemented by specialized agencies from outside the community. Implementation management processes thus need to look at how internal systems can be established to operationalize self-action, and to coordinate external interventions.

In effort to understand and reduce flood consequences more effectively and strategically, flood risk assessment has been a cornerstone of a long-term flood management. One component of flood risk assessment is the estimation of a range of possible damage to an area exposed to flooding, that is, the vulnerability curve. The vulnerability curve can be depicted by a stage–damage relationship. This study attempts to investigate how vulnerability to flooding can be quantitatively assessed using a micro-scale approach in Malaysia’s vulnerable areas. A residential area in Kota Bharu was chosen as the case study area. Depth–damage relationships from a multiple regression function of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia and spatial variability of residential buildings were used for the micro-scale assessment. Final estimates of expected annual damage were then calculated for each building type at 1-, 3- and 5-day flood durations. Results show that the methodology adopted is feasible to be applied for local-scale assessment flood risk assessment in Malaysia. The results also suggest that applying the methodology is possible when given wider availability of resources and information. This is particularly important for a robust end-to-end flood risk assessment for long-term effective flood management in Malaysia.

The global financial crisis has magnified the role of Financial Sector Surveillance (FSS) in the International Monetary Fund's activities. This chapter surveys the various steps and initiatives through which the Fund has increasingly deepened its involvement in FSS. Overall, this process can be characterised by a preliminary stage and two main phases. The preliminary stage dates back to the 1980s and early 1990s, and was mainly related to the Fund's research and technical assistance activities within the process of monetary and financial deregulation embraced by several member countries. The first ‘official’ phase of the Fund's involvement in FSS started in the aftermath of the Mexican crisis, and relates to the international call to include financial sector issues among the core areas of Fund surveillance. The second phase focuses on the objectives of bringing the coverage of financial sector issues ‘up-to-par’ with the coverage of other traditional core areas of surveillance, and of integrating financial analysis into the Fund's analytical macroeconomic framework. By urging the Fund to give greater attention to its member countries' financial systems, the international community's response to the global crisis may mark the beginning of a new phase of FSS. The Fund's financial sector surveillance, particularly on advanced economies, is of paramount importance for emerging market and developing countries, as they are vulnerable to spillover effects from crises originated in advanced economies. Emerging market and developing economies, which constitute the majority of the Fund's 187 members, are currently the recipients of over 50 programmes of financial support from the Fund (including those of a precautionary nature), totalling over $250 billion.

Purpose – This chapter investigates vulnerability to poverty in the Republic of Haiti.

Methodology – We use a hierarchical modeling technique to allow the assessment and decomposition of vulnerability to poverty by exploiting the short-panel structure of nested data in a cross section.

Originality – Specifically, a three-level hierarchical model with a partially Bayesian restricted maximum likelihood is used in the estimation procedure. This is novel in this literature.

Findings – The decomposition method adopted in this chapter reveals that vulnerability in the Republic of Haiti is largely a rural phenomenon and is correlated negatively with schooling. The results also disclose the lack of equality in various aspects of circumstances or opportunities, including education, as the salient factor determining the status and level of vulnerability of households. Most importantly, among the different shocks affecting household's income, it is found that meso-level shocks are in general far more important than covariate shocks. This finding points to some interesting policy implications in terms of decentralizing policies and delegating more powers and providing better means to local governments to enhance household resilience to shocks and to alleviate their vulnerability to poverty.

This chapter is set within global public sector reform processes, as policing is part of public service delivery. It explores the question of who is “vulnerable”, how vulnerability is assessed, and why? It considers the measurement of vulnerability, and how this influences policing practice and the role of the Police in contemporary policing.

The research is qualitative in nature and reliant on interview and documentary source data. It draws on concepts such as resilience, co-production, professionalisation and training as organising themes in which to make sense of how we reimagine the management of Vulnerability and the demands they place at the “core, the heart and the centre” of policing today.

Police management in the UK are attempting to stay true to the Peelian Principle of police efficiency alongside balancing the changing remit of what they have to contend with on a day-to-day basis – this is the paradox. Both Vulnerability and Risk are demonstrated to be increasingly interconnected alongside the developments of public health policing in the UK and elsewhere. Collectively, these concepts help to examine an increasingly complex landscape for the police to manoeuvre within, as they respond to a myriad of competing demands on services.

Vulnerability is the core, the heart and the centre of meaningful human experiences. With increasing pressures on resources, political scrutiny and changing roles and responsibilities, the police as an organisation (both in the UK and internationally) are increasingly responding to competing demands for their service. These demands are represented in this chapter as a paradox of change.

Cities have been exposed to a variety of natural disasters such as flooding, extreme temperatures, storms, earthquakes, and other natural shocks, and have had to respond and adapt to such pressures over time. In the context of global climate change, natural disasters have increased across the globe. Apart from climate change, many urban environments in Latin America are experiencing significant transformations in land use patterns, socio-demographic change, changing labor markets, and economic growth, resulting from recent decades of globalization. Such transformations have resulted in the internal fragmentation of cities. In this context, the purpose of the present chapter is to demonstrate the importance in both theoretical and methodological terms, of integrating the concept of socio-environmental fragmentation into urban vulnerability research in order to make progress toward higher degrees of local sustainability in those areas of the city that suffer natural disasters and fragmentation.

A mixed methods approach is used in order to combine different technical issues from urban and climate change studies.

The findings are related to the importance of an integrated approach, regarding the complexity of urban life, and the relationship between the urban, the social, and the environmental phenomenon.

This chapter relates to the revisit of the current state of preparedness and to determine whether further adaptations are required. The authors understood that these kinds of mixed approaches are necessary in order to understand the new complexity of urban processes.

Climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic are complex and have multifaceted effects on countries in an unpredictable and unprecedented manner. While both COVID-19 and the climate crisis share similarities, they also have some notable differences. Being both systemic in nature with knock-on and cascading effects that propagate due to high connectedness of countries, COVID-19, however, presents imminent and directly visible dangers, while the risks from climate change are gradual, cumulative and often distributed dangers. Climate change has more significant medium and long-term impacts which are likely to worsen over time. There is no vaccine for climate change compared to COVID-19. In addition, those most affected by extreme climatic conditions have usually contributed the least to the root causes of the crisis. This is in fact the case of island economies. The chapter thus investigates into the vulnerability and resilience of 38 Small Islands Developing States (SIDs) to both shocks. Adopting a comprehensive conceptual framework and data on various indices from the literature and global databases, we assess the COVID-19 and climate change vulnerabilities of SIDs on multiple fronts. The results first reveal a higher vulnerability across all dimensions for the Pacific islands compared to the other islands in the sample. There is also evidence of a weak correlation between climate change risk and the COVID-19 pandemic confirming our premise that there are marked differences between these two shocks and their impacts on island communities.