Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-02T12:43:39.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Assessing Vulnerability and Risk in the Anthropocene Epoch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

Andy Haines  and
Howard Frumkin
Andy Haines
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Howard Frumkin
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access

Summary

Throughout human history, communities and individuals have adapted more or less successfully to changes in their local environments. The Anthropocene Epoch poses adaptation challenges that are new and different, both quantitatively and qualitatively, from those experienced during human history, because of both the scale and pace of the changes and the sheer numbers of humans who will need to adapt. At the same time, humanity has access – albeit inequitably – to the fruits of scientific and technological progress unavailable to previous generations, which facilitate at least some successful adaptation.

Type
Chapter
Information
Planetary Health
Safeguarding Human Health and the Environment in the Anthropocene
 , pp. 125 - 147
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1983.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
EPA. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1998.Google Scholar
Harwell, MA, Gentile, JH, McKinney, LD, et al. Conceptual framework for assessing ecosystem health. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2019;15(4):544–64. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4152.Google Scholar
Forbes, VE, Galic, N. Next-generation ecological risk assessment: predicting risk from molecular initiation to ecosystem service delivery. Environment International. 2016;91:215–19. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.002.Google Scholar
Suter, GW, Vermeire, T, Munns, WR, Sekizawa, J. An integrated framework for health and ecological risk assessment. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2005;207(2, Supplement):611–16. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2005.01.051.Google Scholar
Forbes, VE, Calow, P. Use of the ecosystem services concept in ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2013;9(2):269–75. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1368.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, M, Campos, M, Warren, R, et al. Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities. In Field, CB, Barros, VR, Dokken, DJ, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 1039–99.Google Scholar
Kelly, PM, Adger, WN. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change. 2000;47(4):325–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1005627828199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Füssel, H-M. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change. 2007;17(2):155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, RK and Meyer, LA (editors)]. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014.Google Scholar
Miola, A, Simonet, C. Concepts and Metrics for Climate Change Risk and Development. Towards an Index for Climate Resilient Development. Ispra, Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre; 2014. Report EUR 26587EN.Google Scholar
Eckstein, D, Künzel, V, Schäfer, L. Global Climate Risk Index 2018: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2016 and 1997 to 2016. Bonn: GermanWatch.Google Scholar
Welle, T, Birkmann, J. The World Risk Index: an approach to assess risk and vulnerability on a global scale. Journal of Extreme Events. 2015;02(01):1550003. doi: 10.1142/S2345737615500037.Google Scholar
Chen, C, Noble, I, Hellmann, J, et al. University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. Country Index Technical Report. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame; 2015.Google Scholar
Wheeler, D. Quantifying Vulnerability to Climate Change: Implications for Adaptation Assistance. Working Paper 240. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2011.Google Scholar
DARA, Climate Vulnerable Forum. Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd Edition: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet. Madrid: Fundación DARA Internacional; 2012.Google Scholar
Miola, A, Simonet, C. Indicators and maps comparing countries’ vulnerability to climate change: fit for purpose metrics to guide global action for climate resilient development within the context of the new Sustainable Development Goals. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre; 2014.Google Scholar
World Bank. Ease of Doing Business rankings 2020. Available from www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings.Google Scholar
Kleiman, G, Bouley, T, Meiro-Lorenzo, M, Wang, H. Geographic Hotspots for World Bank Action on Climate Change and Health. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2017. Contract No. 113571.Google Scholar
Forouzanfar, MH, Alexander, L, Anderson, HR, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2287–323. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00128-2.Google Scholar
Lenton, TM, Rockström, J, Gaffney, O, et al. Climate tipping points – too risky to bet against. Nature. 2019;575:592–5. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, C, Kohler, TA, Lenton, TM, Svenning, J-C, Scheffer, M. Future of the human climate niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020:201910114. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910114117.Google Scholar
EEA. National Climate Change Vulnerability and Risk Assessments in Europe, 2018. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2018. EEA Report 1/2018.Google Scholar
Hinkel, J, Bharwani, S, Bisaro, A, et al. PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change: Consultation Document. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, Global Programme of Research on Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation (PROVIA); 2013.Google Scholar
Reidmiller, DR, Avery, CW, Easterling, DR, et al. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Washington, DC: US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP); 2018.Google Scholar
Suweis, S, Rinaldo, A, Maritan, A, D’Odorico, P. Water-controlled wealth of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(11):4230–3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222452110.Google Scholar
Fellmann, T, Hélaine, S, Nekhay, O. Harvest failures, temporary export restrictions and global food security: the example of limited grain exports from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Food Security. 2014;6(5):727–42. doi: 10.1007/s12571-014-0372-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suweis, S, Carr, JA, Maritan, A, Rinaldo, A, D’Odorico, P. Resilience and reactivity of global food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(22):6902–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507366112.Google Scholar
Elliott, J, Deryng, D, Müller, C, et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(9):3239–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222474110.Google Scholar
Trærup, S, Olhoff, A. Climate Risk Screening Tools and Their Application: A Guide to the Guidance. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2011.Google Scholar
IISD. CRiSTAL User’s Manual Version 5. Community-Based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2012.Google Scholar
Bambrick, H, Moncada, S, Briguglio, M. Climate change and health vulnerability in informal urban settlements in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. Environmental Research Letters. 2015;10(5):054014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, M, Rosendo, S, Brown, K. Perceptions of climate change, multiple stressors and livelihoods on marginal African coasts. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2010;12(3):407–40. doi: 10.1007/s10668-009-9203-6.Google Scholar
Pullin, A, Bangpan, M, Dalrymple, S, et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environmental Evidence. 2013;2(1):19. doi: 10.1186/2047-2382-2-19.Google Scholar
O’Neill, BC, Kriegler, E, Riahi, K, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change. 2014;122(3):387–400. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.Google Scholar
, KC S, Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Global Environmental Change. 2017;42:181–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.004.Google Scholar
Harrington, LJ, Otto, FEL. Changing population dynamics and uneven temperature emergence combine to exacerbate regional exposure to heat extremes under 1.5 °C and 2 °C of warming. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13(3):034011.Google Scholar
Byers, E, Gidden, M, Leclère, D, et al. Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13(5):055012. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landrigan, PJ, Fuller, R, Acosta, NJR, et al. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health. The Lancet. 2018;391:462–512. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landrigan, PJ, Fuller, R, Fisher, S, et al. Pollution and children’s health. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;650(Pt 2):2389–94. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.375.Google Scholar
Kenny, GP, Yardley, J, Brown, C, Sigal, RJ, Jay, O. Heat stress in older individuals and patients with common chronic diseases. Canadian Medical Association Journal/Journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 2010;182(10):1053–60. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081050.Google Scholar
Dewey, KG, Begum, K. Long-term consequences of stunting in early life. Maternal and Child Nutrition. 2011;7(Suppl. 3):5–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2011.00349.x.Google Scholar
Berti, C, Agostoni, C, Davanzo, R, et al. Early-life nutritional exposures and lifelong health: immediate and long-lasting impacts of probiotics, vitamin D, and breastfeeding. Nutrition Reviews. 2017;75(2):83–97. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuw056.Google Scholar
Wagnew, F, Worku, W, Dejenu, G, Alebel, A, Eshetie, S. An overview of the case fatality of inpatient severe acute malnutrition in Ethiopia and its association with human immunodeficiency virus/tuberculosis comorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Health. 2018;10(6):405–11. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihy043.Google Scholar
Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Peterson, GD, Tengö, M, et al. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience. 2010;60(8):576–89. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4.Google Scholar
Filippelli, GM. Exploring the paradox of increased global health and degraded global environment: how much borrowed time is humanity living on? GeoHealth. 2018;2(8):226–8. doi: 10.1029/2018GH000155.Google Scholar
Whitmee, S, Haines, A, Beyrer, C, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene Epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health. The Lancet. 2015;386(10007):1973–2028. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1.Google Scholar
Watts, N, Amann, M, Arnell, N, et al. The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. The Lancet. 2019;394(10211):1836–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNEP. Adaptation Gap Report 2018. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2018.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×