How do geographic location and environmental factors, such as proximity to coastlines or arid regions, exacerbate the vulnerability of certain populations to climate change in marginalized areas?
Short answer
Key finding
Understanding climate risk is essential for effective adaptation efforts, and various assessment methodologies have been developed. Despite the increasing recognition of climate vulnerability, the dynamic interplay between exposure and vulnerability remains insufficiently explored in assessments.
Short summary
Climate risk extends beyond physical hazards, encompassing institutional, attitudinal, asset-based, and social vulnerabilities. However, exposure is often overlooked as a dynamic factor, with limited consideration of how land-use changes, urbanization, and socio-economic shifts shape future risks. While some assessments model sea level rise (SLR) and flood inundation, most fail to integrate evolving spatial and economic conditions. Addressing climate vulnerability effectively requires a more dynamic approach that accounts for both environmental and socio-economic transformations over time.
Long answer
Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary presents evidence on how geographical factors exacerbate the vulnerability of certain populations to climate change by analyzing the interplay between climate risk components—exposure, vulnerability, and hazards.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on one systematic review:
Jurgilevich, A., Räsänen, A., Groundstroem, F., & Juhola, S. (2017). A systematic review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability assessments. Environmental Research Letters, 12(1), 013002. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5508/pdf
What are the main findings?
The review examines how geographic location and environmental factors shape climate vulnerability, particularly in marginalized areas. It highlights the extent to which climate risk assessments consider exposure to hazards like sea level rise, extreme heat, and changing precipitation patterns. While some studies acknowledge the role of spatial and socio-economic factors, many fail to integrate dynamic changes such as urbanization, land-use shifts, and population movements, limiting their ability to capture long-term vulnerabilities.
Among the 42 studies analyzed, 26 assessed future risks, yet only five treated exposure as a ‘geographical location,’ and just one incorporated land-use projections. This suggests that assessments often overlook how changing environments and human activities influence climate risk. Most studies categorized vulnerability into institutional, attitudinal, asset-based, and social subtypes, recognizing that risk extends beyond physical exposure. However, the emphasis on biophysical risks over socio-economic factors reduces the effectiveness of these assessments in addressing long-term climate adaptation needs. To improve accuracy, climate risk assessments must integrate spatial, temporal, and socio-economic dynamics rather than relying on static models that fail to reflect future realities.
Review summaries
A systematic review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability assessments
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
1. Key finding
Overall
Understanding climate risk is essential for implementing effective adaptation strategies, and multiple assessment methodologies have been developed.
Women and girls-related No data
2. Short summary
Among the 42 studies analyzed, 26 focused on assessing future risks and vulnerabilities, while only five considered exposure in terms of a ‘geographical location.’ Two studies incorporated simulations of different sea level rise (SLR) scenarios and flood inundation levels. Only one study integrated land-use projections into climate scenarios.
For studies that examined exposure as a ‘geographical location’ in future-oriented assessments, the predominant approach involved modeling land-use, land-use scenarios, and urban development plans. Vulnerability was classified into various categories, including institutional, attitudinal, asset-based, social, and other subtypes.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
The review focused on studies analyzing populations and built environments as at-risk elements, given their susceptibility to both internal and external influences. No time frame restrictions were applied, although the earliest study included in the review dates back to 2006.
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
The studies reviewed covered a broad geographic range, representing all continents. The USA, UK, and Canada had the highest representation, with four assessments each, followed by other European nations and India.
Among the 42 studies analyzed, 26 focused on future risks and vulnerabilities.
Out of the 16 studies that employed dynamic assessment approaches, only five framed exposure as a ‘geographical location.’
Two studies did not specify an explicit timeframe for their assessments but simulated sea level rise (SLR) and flood inundation levels across various return periods.
Only one study incorporated land-use projections into climate scenario modeling. In future-oriented studies assessing exposure as a ‘geographical location,’ the primary methodology involved simulating land-use patterns, land-use scenarios, and urban development plans.
Several studies categorized vulnerability into subtypes such as institutional, attitudinal, asset-based, social, and others.
This highlights the recognition that climate vulnerability and risk extend beyond physical phenomena, encompassing socio-economic dimensions that evolve within broader macro-structural conditions.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | No | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | No | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | No | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Na | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | No | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | No | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | No | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Low |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 0 |
| Women | 0 |
| Intra-household | 0 |