light the linkages between geography, the built environment and poverty and identify the underlying characteristics that produce vulnerability in a range of different groups. Hardoy and Pandiella (2009, p. 206) propose the following questions to unpack these issues: • Who lives or works in the locations most exposed to hazards related to the direct or indirect impacts of climate change? • Who lives or works in locations lacking the infrastructure that reduces risk? • Whose homes and neighbourhoods face greatest risks when impacts occur? The answer to all of these questions are those who live and work in illegal or informal settlements that lack provision for infrastructure and services—with no sewers, no drains, poor quality housing and no emergency services. They are people without a safe place to move to, who cannot rely on their homes being protected from looting if they do move and who have no certainty that they will be able to move back to their homes because of their lack of security of tenure. Although characteristic of many lowand middle-income countries, these factors also play an important role within wealthier economies: For example, significant numbers of London’s poorest residents live in locations with particularly high levels of flood risk (Mayor of London, 2010).
Assessing exposure: population dynamics to bridge geography, the built environment and the social context Exposure is generally assessed at the intersection of climate projections, geography and the built environment, which, as noted, leaves a clear gap both conceptually and with regard to policies to address exposure. Exposure must incorporate people in the context of both their social and physical environments. The questions presented above help to make this shift in two ways: by focusing attention on the question of “who is exposed?” (as opposed to “what place?”) and on the question of “why them?”, or the mechanisms—livelihoods, work, dwellings, networks—of that exposure. Geography is the literal terrain of climate impacts; the built environment is an essential mediator, with housing stock, infrastructure and access to services determining how hazards will play out in given spaces. Yet, a third component remains: how people live in, operate in and move across geography and the built environment. Population dynamics can create a bridge between these factors, in particular through the spatial distribution and mobility of the population.
Spatial distribution, urbanization and urban population characteristics Urbanization, or the changing proportion of the population living in urban areas, has significant impacts on access to services, dwelling type and distribution of aid during and after crises. While urbanization overall assists in poverty reduction, it can also bring about higher concentrations of poverty (Satterthwaite, 2004; Montgomery, 2009). Urbanization can, therefore, have contradictory consequences for exposure, depending on the nature of the built environment and growth rates in geographically vulnerable areas. The nature of urbanization matters: whether it is unplanned and fast-paced or Po pul at i ng Adap tat i o n I nco rp o rat i ng P o p ul at i o n Dy nam i c s i n C li m at e Ch ange Adap tat i o n P o li c y an d P ract i c e
Demography and Climate Change-text.indd 11
11
1/25/13 1:59 PM