Download Urban vulnerability and the contribution of socio

Article
Urban vulnerability
and the contribution
of socio-environmental
fragmentation: Theoretical
and methodological pathways
Progress in Human Geography
1–24
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309132516645959
phg.sagepub.com
Kerstin Krellenberg
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany
Juliane Welz
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany
Felipe Link
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Katrin Barth
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Abstract
As ongoing parallel processes, urbanization and climate change call for overarching context-specific responses
that tackle the complex challenges involved and include a comprehensive data base to identify the most pressing
action needs. We argue that urban vulnerabilities must take centre stage in this regard. What comes to the fore in
the context of urban vulnerability to climate-related hazards is the interaction of human systems with the
environment. Understanding the impact of changes in temperature and precipitation on socio-ecological systems is therefore not enough. Insights into the complexity of urban development, social inequalities, economics
and politics are needed. To address this complexity, the article focuses on the challenges associated with socioenvironmental fragmentation patterns and residential vulnerability, since the interlinkages between them contribute substantially to furthering insights into the specifics of ‘urban’ vulnerabilities to climate-related hazards.
An approach that combines socio-environmental fragmentation and residential vulnerability is presented. This
approach explores socio-environmental urban developments as well as individual perceptions and capacities.
Keywords
socio-environmental fragmentation, theoretical and methodological approach, urban vulnerability
Corresponding author:
Kerstin Krellenberg, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Permoser Str. 15, Leipzig, 04318,
Germany.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
2
Progress in Human Geography
I Urban vulnerability in the context the concept of fragmentation with that of vulnerability helps to gain further insights into the speof climate change
Urbanization and climate change are among the
major challenges of ongoing global change. The
two phenomena are closely interlinked and
show evidence of interrelations with other processes such as demographic, economic and
land-use change. It is common knowledge that
climate change has a direct effect on the living
conditions of countless people, and by no means
in developing countries only (IPCC, 2014).
Hence the impacts of climate change, culminating for example in flooding, droughts and
storms, are neither felt nor distributed equally,
and human social interaction with those
climate-related hazards calls for more implicit
consideration (Pelling, 2003, 2011a). In this
context, vulnerability has been widely accepted
as the result of socio-economic systems that put
people at risk (e.g. Bankoff et al., 2004; Blaikie
et al., 1994; Cannon, 2008; Hewitt, 1983;
Wisner et al., 2004). This touches on the question of why people are exposed differently to
climate-related hazards, acknowledges their
susceptibility to suffer harm and considers their
coping capacities to address, manage and overcome the negative impacts of climate change.
The aim of this article is to contribute to the
evolving concept of ‘urban vulnerability’. It
explicitly addresses socio-environmental interaction in cities in the context of climate-related
hazards. Firstly, it considers the specifics of
‘urban’ vulnerability and argues that particularly
the existing urban vulnerability definitions
would benefit from a more systemic perspective
on the complexity of urban areas, allowing for
identification of the causes of uneven exposure
and susceptibility, and of the coping strategies
available. When applied in urban areas, the concept of fragmentation is often seen as the opposite of compactness in spatial or morphological
terms and thus as the separation of areas into
fragments, pieces or parts (Irwin and Bockstael,
2007; Landman, 2011). We argue that combining
cific urban characteristic of vulnerability in the
context of climate-related hazards. This idea goes
beyond more traditional thinking on the analysis
of vulnerability in cities. Up until now, research
has primarily focused on analysing hazard exposure but has failed to see that the process of urbanization itself shapes susceptibility, coping
capacities and local actions (cf. Garschagen and
Romero-Lankao, 2013). Our approach acknowledges the twofold effect of urbanization on urban
vulnerability – negative and positive – and develops a new ‘socio-environmental’ dimension of
fragmentation, interpreting it as a precondition
for vulnerability. Secondly, this article operationalizes the theoretical thinking by introducing an
approach that combines socio-environmental
fragmentation with residential vulnerability, and
allows for its practical application.
Against this backdrop, we use the concepts of
fragmentation and vulnerability to reveal the
interface between fragmented areas and residential vulnerability to climate-related hazards. We
operationalize this by focusing specifically on
flood and heat hazard in an urban area of Latin
America, here Santiago de Chile. Our epistemic
research interest is driven by the assumption that
urban fragmented areas in terms of environmental and/or socio-spatial elements impact
significantly on residential vulnerability to
climate-related hazards in the sense that innerurban fragmentation patterns contribute to a
specific urban form of vulnerability. One could
also argue that vulnerability is a precondition for
fragmentation or that there is at least interactive
feedback between the two. Thus taking into
account that climate change research has largely
concentrated on vulnerability analysis and paid
no attention to fragmentation, it seems more
adequate to add this aspect to the debate than
vice versa. In this respect, the article emphasizes
the gap in urban vulnerability research in terms
of theory, indicators and conceptualization by
considering the following research questions:
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
1.
2.
3
To what extent are theoretical considerations of socio-environmental fragmentation
and residential vulnerability interlinked
and how can they help to gain a more
thorough understanding of specific urban
vulnerabilities to climate-related hazards?
How can socio-environmental fragmentation and residential vulnerability be operationalized so as to support a more systemic
perspective on the complexity of urban
areas in a holistic approach?
In answering these questions, we aim to contribute further insights to the nascent concept of
urban vulnerability. We follow Birkenholtz
(2011), for example, who argues that understanding causality in vulnerability at local
level demands an approach that concentrates
on local particularity and is capable of extensifying. Once performed, extensive approaches
aimed at generalizable insights can draw on
local (intensive) knowledge (Birkenholtz,
2011). We adopt this approach, beginning
with fragmented areas within the city as a
pre-analytical step of the vulnerability assessment. In this way we produce conceptual and
generalizable insights on a smaller scale (whole
city) and context-specific insights on a larger
scale (neighbourhoods and individuals). Theoretical premises of vulnerability are first presented, before developing a specific lens on
‘urban vulnerability’. We then present the fragmentation concept as a methodological pathway
for structuring the city. In the following, an
approach to address the interrelations between
fragmentation and vulnerability is introduced.
This is followed by a discussion of the merits
achieved in terms of urban vulnerability and
then a concluding section.
II Theoretical premises
of vulnerability
The debates of several disciplines have made
numerous attempts to conceptualize the term
‘vulnerability’ (Hufschmidt, 2011; Kasperson
et al., 2005). This notwithstanding, vulnerability as a term remains fuzzy. This is largely
due to the epistemological directions and theoretical insights of multiple disciplines, which
have led to a range of perspectives on vulnerability and the attendant methodological practices (Eakin and Luers, 2006; Miller et al., 2010;
Weichselgartner, 2001). The vulnerability concept has entered into a variety of research contexts, such as ecology, public health, poverty
and development (Chambers, 1989; Chambers
and Conway, 1992; Moser, 1998; Rodrı́guez,
2001), secure livelihoods and famine (Bohle
et al., 1994; Watts and Bohle, 1993), disaster
risk and hazard research (Blaikie et al., 1994;
Clark et al., 1998; Cutter, 1996; Hewitt, 1997;
Weichselgartner, 2001; Wisner et al., 2004),
land-use change, and climate change impacts
and adaptation (Downing et al., 2001; Füssel,
2007; Kelly and Adger, 2000). The concept is
likewise prominent in physical and human
geography and natural hazards research and
has been used extensively since the 1990s
(Weichselgarnter, 2001).
The development of vulnerability research
was shaped profoundly by human ecologists of
the Chicago School, where human adjustment
of physical systems to natural hazards constituted a core element (Borrows, 1923; White,
1974). Beginning in the 1970s, which saw the
question of what makes the human system less
vulnerable addressed (e.g. Kates, 1970), the
concept became more prominent when social
scientists began to question the assumption that
the increased incidence of disasters is a purely
natural physical phenomenon (Burton et al.,
1978; Hewitt, 1983; Lewis, 1982). With the aim
of advancing the risk-hazard perspective,
human ecology and human geography theorized
vulnerability to environmental change by relating the concept to the complexity of socioecological systems, interpreting human action
and social structures as integral to nature
(Burton et al., 1968; Cutter, 1993). As pointed
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
4
Progress in Human Geography
out by Pelling (2002), the ‘humanistic turn’ was
then introduced to vulnerability research.
Today, vulnerability analysis is used to bridge
disaster and development research in an
attempt to understand the shaping of human
exposure, susceptibility and coping capacity
(e.g. Birkmann, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2011;
Kuhlicke and Steinführer, 2015).
What distinguishes the use of vulnerability in
the various disciplines is how they address vulnerable elements. As stated by Füssel (2007),
vulnerability in natural hazard research tends
to pursue a descriptive approach and is characterized as the negative outcome of biophysical
risk factors combined with the potential for loss
of a specific exposed population (Blaikie et al.,
1994; Cannon, 1994; Cutter et al., 2003; Eakin
and Luers, 2006; White, 1974). The focus lies
on the distribution of hazardous conditions, the
impact on different social groups living in
hazard-prone areas and the degree of loss associated with the occurrence of a particular event
(Adger, 2006; Weichselgartner, 2001). Key
questions refer to the category of people and
assets that are vulnerable, the consequences and
where risk situations can occur (Cannon, 1993).
Approaches that come from human ecology and
political economy, in contrast, emphasize the
structural causes of vulnerability in society and
concentrate on the analysis of social and economic processes with interacting scales of causation and social difference (Adger, 2006;
Bohle et al., 1994; Watts and Bohle, 1993).
Combining the internal factors of a vulnerable
system (e.g. socio-political, cultural, and economic factors) with its exposure to natural
hazards is key. Together they explain differential
impacts and abilities to cope with, adapt to and
recuperate from past impacts and/or future
threats. Important questions in this context refer
to who is most vulnerable and why, and to what
extent populations are vulnerable in terms of susceptibility and coping capacities (Füssel, 2007).
The Pressure and Release (PAR) Model of
Blaikie et al. (1994) is a prominent example of
synthesizing the human ecology and political
economy perspectives into a more structural
perspective on the social, economic, cultural
and political context of people’s lives. The
model interprets physical hazards as producing
pressure on the socio-ecological system. Pressure can occur at different levels, from the global to the local, and impact on vulnerability
conditions. At the global level so-called ‘root
causes’ related to social, political and economic
structures put pressure on the socio-ecological
system in terms of, for example, demographic,
land-use and economic change. The intermediate level refers to ‘dynamic pressures’ that stem
from pollution, population growth, urban development and environmental degradation, while
at the local level ‘unsafe conditions’ manifest
themselves in social fragility, potential harm or
poverty (Blaikie et al., 1994; Cardona, 2004;
Weichselgartner, 2001). Although the comprehensive PAR model takes hazard and vulnerability as well as the spatial and temporal
remoteness of the factors that render people vulnerable into account, the analyses fail to provide
a systemic view of the mechanisms and processes of vulnerability, and operationalizing it
is not an easy task (Adger, 2006).
Vulnerability in climate change research is
conceived in terms of how climate change either
alters the exposure of people and assets to
climate-related risks or heralds new forms of
risk (Hanson et al., 2011). Vulnerability to climate change cannot, however, be divorced from
the social, economic and environmental challenges that, for example, cities face. This
acknowledges vulnerability and the capacity to
adapt as a product of the processes through
which climate risks coalesce ‘with other stresses, such as scarcity of water or governance
structures that are inadequate even in the
absence of climate change’ (Wilbanks et al.,
2007: 373). The definition of vulnerability
taken from the IPCC (2007: 6) sees it as the
‘degree to which a system is susceptible to, and
unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
5
change including climate variability and
extremes’ and ‘as a function of the character,
magnitude and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its adaptive capacity’. This draws
attention to vulnerability as a product of the
interaction between physical and social processes and to the importance of ‘adaptive capacity’ in determining it. The adaptive capacity (of
systems, people, groups) is highly varied in and
between urban areas, and shaped by a range of
social and physical attributes (Adger et al.,
2005).
In the climate change debate, two opposing
research focuses have emerged: (1) ‘vulnerability as outcome’ and (2) ‘contextual vulnerability’ (Adger, 2006). Adger and Kelly
(1999) conceptualize vulnerability as the outcome of environmental, social, cultural, institutional and economic structures and processes
that generate the uneven distribution of exposure, capacities and resources. Here, vulnerability to climate change is characteristic of a
specific system and a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006).
Consequently, the aim of reducing outcome
vulnerability with climate change mitigation
or adaptation is to diminish exposure (O’Brien
et al., 2007). Contextual vulnerability, in
contrast, takes the multidimensional view of
climate-society interaction into account and is
influenced by contextual conditions such as
dynamic social, economic, political, institutional and technological structures and processes (O’Brien et al., 2007). In this context,
vulnerability related to climate change adds to
existing vulnerabilities that are structural in
nature and often linked to poverty and inequality (e.g. Heinrichs et al., 2013; Bull-Kamanga
et al., 2003). This ‘contextual’ vulnerability
framing sets wider boundaries around the issue
of climate change, bringing it into the equity
context (cf. Heinrichs et al., 2013). Hence it
refers to the interaction of social and environmental systems (Pelling, 2011a) and, according
to Newell et al. (2005), represents a conceptual
cluster for integrative human environment
research. Against this backdrop, reducing vulnerability means ‘adjustments’ to the context in
which climate change occurs so that individuals
and groups can respond more adequately to
changing contextual conditions.
All of the theoretical vulnerability approaches
discussed have key parameters in common that
refer to the stress to which a system (assets, people) is exposed, its sensitivity, and its coping and
adaptive capacity (Miller et al., 2010). Although
there appears to be some consensus on these
parameters, at least in climate change and disaster risk communities (Pelling, 2011a), how they
are framed and contextualized differs. The
degree of vulnerability and its characteristics
depend on the specific context and are a matter
of perception (Weichselgartner and Kelman,
2015). Thus, a comprehensive conceptualization
of vulnerability needs to take into account a variety of risks, thresholds and adaptive responses
and resources, given that vulnerability manifests
itself differently at different scales (Kasperson
and Kasperson, 2001).
In the urban context, adaptation and resilience to climate vulnerability are emerging as
responses. In the early 1990s, when the international community began to develop policy frameworks, targets and mechanisms to address
climate-change mitigation, municipalities likewise sought to establish their own responses to
the climate change agenda (Bulkeley and Tuts,
2013). This suggests the historical and contemporary production of urbanization rather than
urban climate vulnerability as a discrete phenomenon (Bulkeley and Tuts, 2013). Understanding vulnerability under conditions of
climate change in urban areas is therefore not
only a matter of enhancing knowledge on the
potential risks posed by a changing climate
system and their impact, but of engaging with
the often historically complex and politically
contentious factors that structure vulnerability
more broadly, and the complex trajectories of
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
6
Progress in Human Geography
development. At the same time, the socially differentiated occurrence of vulnerability within
and between cities needs to be considered
(Bulkeley and Tuts, 2013; Button et al., 2013).
Set against this backdrop, we explore the structural conditions of urban areas and argue for ‘the
urban’ in conceptualizing vulnerability.
III The ‘urban’ in the
conceptualization of vulnerability
Our interest in urban vulnerability is primarily
driven by the fact that today more than 50 per
cent of the world’s population lives in urban
areas (UN, 2014), with a tendency to increase,
and that urban systems and their individual
characteristics are key to high complexity and
interdependencies. Processes of climate, landuse and demographic change are interlinked and
take place parallel to urban developments of
varying degrees. As both culprits and victims
of climate change, cities are advancing into the
limelight. Climate change is viewed as additional pressure, compounding the ‘bundles’ of
stress cities already face. It is also expected that
climate change will affect frequency, variability
and intensity of extreme weather events (e.g.
extremes in temperature, precipitation, wind)
and aggravate climate-related hazards, although
some parameters will increase, others will
decrease and some may not be affected. There
is, for example, low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency
and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global
scale (IPCC, 2014). As a result, vulnerability
research is now tackling climate change in cities
to a greater extent and calls for innovative methodological approaches and indicators that allow
for comprehensive analysis and appropriate
responses. Specific research on the vulnerability
of cities has therefore become a focal point
(Weichselgartner, 2001). This notwithstanding,
concrete conceptualization of ‘urban vulnerability’ to climate change remains vague, not
least as a result of the diverse interpretations
and paradigms of the core attribute at risk – the
urban area (Pelling, 2006; Romero Lankao and
Qin, 2011). Given the focus on the simultaneity
of time and space, as well as of society and
environment, questions such as ‘vulnerability
of what, to what and on what scale’ are crucial,
especially in the field of geography (Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015). Bearing this in
mind, we are particularly interested in the characteristic features of the ‘urban’ in the vulnerability debate. These are not still only vague but
also contested in the literature.
Urban areas are seen for the most part as the
aggregation of multiple components (Pelling,
2011a) dynamically connected in terms of
speed, scale, scope and complexity, each generating interactive effects (Ascher, 1995; Graham
and Marvin, 2001; Heinrichs et al., 2012; Moor,
2001; Wirth, 1938). This frustrates a uniform
definition of the term ‘urban’ (ARL, 1994),
which is the subject of a wide range of discourses, theories and concepts, and often used
as a buzz word, albeit without a clear definition.
Perhaps the term is assumed to be understood
without further clarification or that its definition
will emerge in the specific context or as the
objective of research. The latter would entail a
spatial-temporal contextualization. Hence the
‘urban’ is frequently used as a contrast to the
‘rural’, although the urban-rural divide no longer exists (Häußermann and Siebel, 1997; Hiddinga, 2000; Pahl, 1966). Boundaries are
becoming more diffuse and debates centre on
the ‘urban hinterland’ and on ‘sub-’, ‘counter-’
and ‘re-urbanization’ (Häußermann and Siebel,
1997). In general terms, urban areas have large
settlements, high population densities, mostly
non-agricultural activities and high mobility
(Heineberg, 2001). They are characterized by
physical building structures and the associated
patterns in conjunction with environmental conditions (e.g. vegetation, water), climatic patterns and their specific functions.
Depending on the concerns or development
goals addressed, different factors are used to
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
7
describe urban attributes (ARL, 1994). In the
same vein we found that Pelling (2002) highlights social, physical, economic, ecological,
political, cultural and historical factors as key
determinants of vulnerability in cities. A closer
look at these factors, particularly in terms of
their impact on vulnerability, shows that cities
are first of all seen as a social product. The
diversity and composition of social structures
in cities shapes the access to all kind of
resources. Accordingly, lack of social power
has an immediate impact on physical vulnerability (Pelling, 2002). Social factors such as
age, household structure, economic means, educational and occupational opportunities, the
existence of basic social utilities, and the access
to property and credit determine the complex
nature of risks and opportunities of the urban
environment. In the context of climate change
and its related hazards, these factors affect the
level of support and ability to respond when it
comes to hazard occurrence (Cardona, 2004;
Cutter et al., 2000; Morrow, 1999).
Secondly, cities are characterized by a concentration of physical assets such as housing,
technical, ecological and social infrastructure,
transport and communication networks, potable
water, sanitation, and drainage (Pelling, 2003),
all of which are crucial to the citizens concerned. With regard to the vulnerability of urban
inhabitants and urban assets, the existence,
accessibility and affordability of basic technical
infrastructure, the quality of housing conditions
and the geography of opportunity (Galster and
Killen, 1995) are vital sources of information in
terms of preparedness and resilience, and possible resistance to damage during a hazardous
incident (Jean-Baptiste et al., 2011; Müller,
2012).
Cities are, thirdly, seen as an engine of economic growth, representing a financial or business system or an integrated system of
consumption and production (Pelling, 2002).
In the current form of globalization, cities have
become strategic nodes in globalized economic
networks and flows of capital (Parnreiter, 2012;
Vale and Campanella, 2005). As a result, local
economic vulnerability becomes a global concern, since globalization itself is seen as a
hazard and cities around the world are moving
closer together into a new and hazardous environment (Moor, 2001).
Cities are, fourthly, centres of political power
and representation, institutional practice and
custom. Urban governance in particular and the
role of local or municipal government rule
affect the diversity and intensity of sectors,
scales, and areas of responsibility. The city’s
institutional and political context is therefore
seen as the major determinant of the urban system (Eakin and Luers, 2006) and one of the
biggest challenges in confronting vulnerability
in urban areas (Pelling, 2011a). In this regard,
the adaptive capacity of the city to climate
change refers to a broad set of resources (skills,
competences and social relations), e.g. the
degree to which local authorities have integrated (or are in the process of doing so) climate
change considerations into their long-term planning and development processes in order to
facilitate evacuation activities. This contributes
to preventive, mitigation and adaptation initiatives and consequently to the capacity to tackle
and lower vulnerabilities (Smit and Wandel,
2006).
Fifthly, cities are consumers of ecological
resources such as land/soil, energy, water, air,
biodiversity and food. At the same time, they
are producers of contaminants such as air pollution, waste water and waste, factors strongly
associated with urbanization processes and for
the most part the result of changes in land use
and land cover, and the growth of populations in
cities. The availability of services provided by
ecological resources (ecosystem services)
impacts on the well-being of urban residents.
The loss of important ecosystem functions such
as cooling and water retention through destruction of green areas is often directly linked to the
increased risk of floods, heat and landslides,
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
8
Progress in Human Geography
which is exacerbated by climate change (Depietri et al., 2012). This in turn points to the issue of
vulnerability in cities, notably in the context of
climate-related hazards.
The sixth determinant refers to cities as hubs
of cultural diversity and resources. According to
Bourdieu (1983), the level of cultural capital of
urban residents indicates their educational
progress and capacity, both based on the management of embodied, objectified and institutionalized cultural capital and its advancement. By
making the urban environment attractive,
cultural diversity in cities is perceived as stimulating new economic markets and opportunities
for development (Florida, 2005), it is a place in
which cultural change takes place (Redfield and
Singer, 1954). In the context of climate change,
cultural diversity is embedded in modes of production, consumption, lifestyles and social
organization. Risk identification, response decisions and the means of implementation are
mediated by urban culture (Adger et al.,
2013). In any case, climate change can transform cultures and communities in ways that
people may find undesirable and perceive as the
loss of cultural resources (Adger et al., 2013;
Kirsch, 2001), and the relationship between
people’s vulnerability and the adaptation of its
culture still needs further investigation (Bankoff, 2001). In this sense, cultural adaptability
can play a key role in determining exposure to
risk (Bankoff, 2001), thus also their susceptibility and coping capacity.
Finally, cities are the outcome of the historical aggregation of physical assets seen as a
social product (Lippuner, 2005; Löw, 2001;
Schroer, 2006; Soja, 2000; Werlen, 1987).
Society and space (e.g. urban areas) produce
each other and are interrelated. Consequently
the production of space has the same societal
roots as the making of history and is in fact a
historical product (Parnreiter, 2007). Space, on
the other hand, cannot be understood without
the ‘time’ that generates it and arises from it.
Set against this backdrop, cities represent a
certain historic configuration of space and/or
degree of spatio-temporal reality, which in turn
produces a specific urban area, depending on its
historical condition (Featherstone, 1999;
Schmid, 2005). Cities – and their vulnerability –
should therefore be understood as a dynamic
entity rather than a static outcome, a container
where urban processes take place.
These key components shape the ‘urban’,
while their interrelation defines the mode of
everyday urban life. This underpins the overall
complexity cities face and leads to both risks
and opportunities in the urban environment
(Heinrichs et al., 2012; Pantuliano et al.,
2012), highlighting the view of urban vulnerability as a dynamic social process (Lewis,
1999; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015). Part
of the challenge of understanding urban vulnerability is exploring the ways in which these
components interact in space, time and scale.
Although research on urban vulnerability has
gained substantial currency in recent years, it
still shows evidence of inconsistency in terms
of focus, definition of key terms, methods and
the policy implications of its findings (Romero
Lankao and Qin, 2011). According to Pelling
(2011a), this may be a result of the challenges
posed by the holistic view of the ‘urban’. We
agree with this statement and argue that the
specific urban vulnerability concept would
benefit from a more systemic perspective on the
complexity of urban areas, allowing for analysis
of people’s uneven exposure, susceptibility and
coping capacities. Identifying a specific set of
vulnerable objects, their complex drivers and
their heterogeneity in spatial units of the city
is thus fundamental to recognizing patterns of
urban vulnerability (Pelling, 2002).
Having screened several theories in human
geography, we consider the concept of fragmentation as a methodological pathway to operationalizing the ‘urban’ in the vulnerability
concept, according to the urban specifics stated
before. We thereby acknowledge that fragmentation structures the urban environment into
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
9
heterogeneous or homogeneous fragments
along a set of predefined elements, in our case
socio-environmental aspects that are key to
urban areas. We recognize that urbanization and
the numerous processes involved could have a
positive effect on risk reduction and accordingly
on urban vulnerability (Garschagen and
Romero-Lankao, 2013). Up to now, however,
the specifics of the ‘urban’ have rarely been
investigated. Nor has there been an attempt to
combine the concept of vulnerability with that
of fragmentation.
IV Fragmentation
as a methodological pathway
to structuring cities
Analysing urban spatial structure as an integrative socio-ecological system first emerged as a
research strand of human geography and urban
sociology. It examines urban morphology and
the cultural, economic, social and political processes behind its development (Kuhlke, 2007).
Fragmentation has its roots in landscape ecology, where fragmentation relates to morphological and often spatial or structural properties
of patches in terms of habitat composition
(Inostroza et al., 2013). Here, fragmentation has
the negative connotation of population decline
and lower densities as a result of the ineffective
distribution of individuals across habitat networks, especially when human land use is the
cause (Li et al., 2010; Opdam and Wascher,
2004). A prominent example of structuring the
urban environment in spatial terms is the work
of the Chicago School of Social Ecology in the
1920s. Two of its representatives, Park (1915)
and Burgess (1926), for example, highlighted
the dynamic spatial arrangement of homogeneous urban structures, characterizing it in
terms of density as well as sociological and
functional features. They detected patterns of
social differentiation in cities and offered explanations for the underlying processes, but were
widely criticized. The Chicago approach was
refined within the framework of neo-classical
economy (e.g. Alonso, 1975), behavioural theory (Brown and Moore, 1970; Roseman, 1971;
Wolpert, 1965), institutional analysis (Pahl,
1977; Rex and Moore, 1967), and political economy (Castells, 1977; Harvey, 1973; Marcuse,
1989).
Theoretical considerations led to various
lines of approaching the structural-spatial
analysis of urban areas, based on such criteria
as ‘social area analysis’ (e.g. Bähr, 1978;
Friedrichs, 1983; Shevky and Bell, 1955),
‘functional structuring of the city’ (e.g. Bähr
and Mertins, 1995; Borsdorf, 1982) and ‘ecological structuring of the city’ (e.g. Breuste,
1989). Social area analysis, as an early concept,
adopted a statistical procedure to depict social
structure in terms of social rank or economic
status, urbanization or family status, segregation or ethnic status. It was applied to several
contexts but also contested, particularly in terms
of a precise definition of social area (Hawley
and Duncan, 1957). Urban morphological
structures were analysed, for example, in Latin
American cities. Models featuring the rightangled form of the colonial city and its structural fragmentation were designed (Borsdorf
et al., 2002). Satellite images and aerial photographs entered the research arena and were used
for area-wide classifications of land use and
land cover, according to the spatial, spectral and
temporal resolutions of the images. Biotope
type mapping is slightly different, as it classifies
(urban areas) into habitats or biotopes in line
with their importance for the balance of nature
and is used, for example, as a data base for
nature conservation and sustainable urban planning (Sukopp and Weiler 1988; Wittig et al.,
1998).
Despite these and other approaches, urban
fragmentation is the concept that has attracted
most attention in international urban studies
since the 1990s (see, e.g., Graham and Marvin,
2001; Soja, 2000). The fragmentation of urban
areas is perceived as an urban phenomenon that
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
10
Progress in Human Geography
impacts heavily on contemporary cities, notably
in Latin America (Jirón and Mansilla, 2014;
Prévot-Shapira, 2001). The multidimensional
concept seeks to address ruptures in the comprehensive structure of the city (Caprón and Gonzalez, 2006), uncovering segmented urban
territories that generate spatial discontinuities
(Jirón and Mansilla, 2014). It distinguishes
between ‘city of fragments’ and ‘fragmented
city’. The former refers to a constructive process of incorporating separate structural fragments, while the latter describes the process of
disintegration of socio-spatial fragments within
the city itself (Borsdorf, 2003). The concept
contains a highly diverse range of values regarding the connection between different parts of the
city and certain isolated fragments. Since fragmentation alludes to the structure and functioning of the city as an unequal setting, it is often
used as a synonym for terms such as ‘spatial
segregation’, ‘spatial separation’, ‘spatial polarization’, ‘social exclusion’ and ‘disconnected
cities’ (Borsdorf, 2003; Hidalgo and Borsdorf,
2005; Link, 2008; Prévot-Shapira and Cattaneo,
2008; Trufello and Hidalgo, 2015). Given the
difficulty of clearly identifying which of these
features contributes to the different forms of
urban fragmentation and which are the result
of it (Landman, 2011), fragmentation has
the reputation of being a ‘slippery concept’
(Harrison, 2003: 15). Hence, we need to ask –
not least with respect to the vulnerability debate
– what forms of fragmentation are important,
how much they matter and why. As Landman
(2011) states, analysis of urban fragmentation
calls for a thorough understanding of the internal lines of influence and the attendant relationships, and therefore a systemic approach.
The literature discusses six complementary
dimensions of fragmentation in cities: morphological, social, economic, socio-cultural,
political-administrative, and environmental.
Each can be related to key determinants of
the ‘urban’ environment, presented in Section
III. The morphological dimension of
fragmentation refers to ‘urban fabric’ and
‘building morphology’ features and describes
the physical dimensions of the urban. It
explores, for instance, issues of physical accessibility and connectivity between territories, the
presence of physical barriers and homogeneity
of land use (Rodrı́guez and Winchester, 2004;
Salinas, 2010; Salingaros, 2005; Tella, 2005).
The economic dimension examines the spatial
distribution of economic ‘goods’ such as economic command centres, the location of labour,
the dispersion and relocation of industry and the
functional specialization of districts (Janoschka,
2002; Rodrı́guez and Winchester, 2004;
Sánchez, 2007). The socio-cultural dimension
includes both physical and symbolic aspects,
and considers elements such as social inequality, symbolic barriers, as well as levels of social
cohesion and victimization (Dammert, 2004;
Link, 2008; Prévot-Shapira, 2001; Sánchez,
2007; Schteingart, 2001; Veiga, 2004; Villela
et al., 2010). The diversity of administrative
units and their potential for articulation within
an urban management scheme connects to the
political-administrative dimension, which
reflects on issues of social organization, such
as community boards, as well as on variables
of metropolitan urban governance (Marcuse,
1989; Michelutti, 2010; Rodrı́guez and Winchester, 2004; Sánchez, 2007; Salinas, 2010). It
also refers to independent local jurisdictions,
which are rarely coordinated and thus proceed
in isolation (Harrison and Hoyler, 2014). The
environmental dimension looks at the distribution of ‘ecological services’, green spaces and
public spaces. This implies ‘environmental’
fragmentation of the city, understood as access
to and availability of these components. It refers
to the constitution of borders and the territorial
limits of environmental elements within an
urban area (Bizama et al., 2011). Finally, the
historical dimension – a key feature of the
‘urban’ – is rarely taken into account in concepts of fragmentation, revealing their lack of
temporality and giving cities the appearance of
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
11
being atemporal in nature. Jirón and Mansilla
(2014) claim that the absence of a temporal
dimension is the principal weakness of the
fragmentation concept. In the context of urban
studies, authors have referred to the idea of fragmentation in at least one of these dimensions,
making it difficult to formulate a general and
operational definition of the concept (Borsdorf,
2003; Link, 2008; Low, 2006; Michelutti, 2010;
Vidal, 1999).
V Unravelling the theoretical
linkages of fragmentation
and vulnerability in cities – How
can they be operationalized?
This section unravels an approach to operationalize our theoretical interlinkages between
spatial-structural fragmentation and residential
vulnerability. As a case in hand we take a contemporary city in Latin America affected by
flood and heat hazards – Santiago de Chile. The
main link between the concepts we worked out
in the previous section is the ‘urban’ dimension
and its specifics. Given the definition of fragmentation that comprises the organization of a
city’s environmental and/or socio-spatial elements by differentiating and disintegrating
space into internally homogeneous or heterogeneous spatial fragments in line with selected
characteristics (Link, 2010), we argue that combining it with the concept of vulnerability gives
us an added tool with which to gain further
insights into the urban characteristic of vulnerability in the context of climate-related hazards.
We thus assume that the spatial-structural
homogeneity or heterogeneity of a specific
urban area is a precondition – whether positive
or negative remains to be seen – for the occurrence of hazards and the vulnerability of populations to them. This idea goes beyond the more
traditional vulnerability thinking, which has so
far focused on analysing exposure to hazards in
cities, and for the most part neglecting that the
process of urbanization itself shapes
susceptibility, coping capacities and local
actions (cf. Garschagen and Romero-Lankao,
2013). Acknowledging that there is no one correct or best conceptualization of vulnerability,
our approach (see Figure 1) follows Füssel’s
(2007) four dimensions vital to the description
of a vulnerable situation: (a) the system of analysis; (b) the hazard with a potentially damaging
influence on the system of analysis; (c) the
exposed attribute(s) of concern that is/are
threatened by exposure to hazard; and finally,
(d) the temporal reference alluding to the point
in time or time period of interest. Furthermore,
we argue that the specifics of ‘urban vulnerability’ can be enhanced by integration of the
fragmentation concept, thereby acknowledging
the complexity of urban processes. This allows
for joint analysis and the superposing of urban
characteristics to achieve a complementary
interpretation of the specific aspects of ‘urban
vulnerability’.
1 The system of analysis – Cities
and their level of fragmentation
As discussed in Section IV, the concept of fragmentation is a methodological approach to
structuring cities into specific urban clusters. It
helps us to pre-structure the system of analysis,
which in our case is the city, and allows us to
analyse residential vulnerability in the context
of climate-related hazards. Unlike other vulnerability analyses, our point of departure is the
socio-environmental structure of the city, which
in our estimation impacts on vulnerability to
hazards such as flood and heat (see the following subsection for details).
Following this direction, the first step in
operationalizing the concept of fragmentation
is to identify the key dimensions associated with
climate change. Contrary to other, onedimensional analyses, we consider four of
the six complementary dimensions: the
morphological, environmental, social and economic dimensions. Combining these in an
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
12
Progress in Human Geography
Figure 1. Approach to combining fragmentation and vulnerability in the urban area. Source: authors,
following Füssel (2007). (a) represents the system of analysis – cities and their level of fragmentation,
(b) indicates the hazard that is external to the system – flood and heat, (c) relates to the exposed attribute
of concern – vulnerability assessment of socio-environmentally fragmented areas, and the arrows point
to the temporal reference, alluding to the point in time or time period of interest.
iterative process, a new ‘socio-environmental’
dimension evolves. It considers criteria such as
accessibility to basic services, physical housing
conditions, population density, vegetation cover
and degree of impermeability, all of which
determine the socio-environmental fragmentation of the city in the context of climate change
and its related hazards. To assess socioenvironmental fragmentation we suggest a
deductive approach based primarily on secondary data, e.g. the national census. The analysis
can be conducted on different scales. An
intermediate scale (e.g. census zone) is recommended in view of the subsequent vulnerability
assessment, since it bears most resemblance to
the ‘neighbourhood’ level. This in turn is of
benefit when it comes to evaluating the distribution of variables to determine the degrees/
levels of fragmentation. The fragmentation
analysis is based on indicators that explain the
socio-environmental criteria already defined.
The results show spatial ‘fragments’ that represent geographical units with identical or very
similar socio-environmental values. Based on
the socio-environmental conditions of each
urban ‘fragment’, clusters that are internally
homogeneous and heterogeneous to one another
are defined. The idea is to determine the patterns
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
13
of concentration or isolation of each ‘fragment’
by establishing whether neighbouring ‘fragments’ show evidence of the same socioenvironmental conditions (Krellenberg et al.,
2014).
Taking this background information into
account, the lens of socio-environmental fragmentation provides a contextual and analytical
framework for analysis of the spatial patterns of
urban areas, and is thus a tool for understanding
the network of complexities and interdependencies that characterize urban areas. These
fragmentation patterns are per se neither positive nor negative.
2 The hazard with a potentially
damaging influence on the system
of analysis – Flood and heat
Seasonal hydro-meteorological hazards such as
heat and flood are context-specific in cities,
being partly reinforced by urban development
and changing climate conditions, and vary in
terms of their distribution, severity and frequency. Hazards can overlap and result in multiple risks. It is therefore important to specify
both, how the hazard threatens the specific
urban context and how far the urban system
itself shapes hazardous conditions. In the specific case of Santiago de Chile, flood and heat
are among the hazards associated with ongoing
urban expansion and climate change, with an
expected increase in frequency and intensity
of extreme weather events (temperature and
precipitation) (Krellenberg et al., 2013). Here,
flood hazard is defined as the likelihood of a
potentially damaging flood event resulting in
areas that are flooded at least once every two
years resulting from natural stream and canal
overflow, and the accumulation of storm water
on the streets, all of which occurred biannually,
while heat hazard is a surface temperature of
one or more standard deviations above the mean
surface temperature in the urban built-up area at
a certain point in time (see Krellenberg et al.,
2013).
We operationalize urban vulnerability by
superimposing flood and heat hazard maps on
the image of the fragmented city. Fragmented
and non-fragmented hotspots are identified and
show either flood or heat hazards or both. This
produces hotspot areas for subsequent vulnerability analysis within the system of concern
and according to external hazards (Krellenberg
et al., 2014).
3 The exposed attribute of concern –
Vulnerability assessment of socioenvironmentally fragmented areas
Coming back to the overall purpose of assessing
urban vulnerability and establishing who is
vulnerable to climate change in a city and why,
the exposed attributes of concern need to
be defined. We therefore focus on assessing the
many reasons why certain individuals or
communities within a socio-environmentally
(non-)fragmented urban area are vulnerable and
argue that this demands a thorough evaluation
of the key dimensions – exposure, susceptibility
and coping capacity (see Figure 1). Following
Wisner et al. (2004: 11), we understand vulnerability as the ‘characteristics of a person or
group and their situation that influence their
capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and
recover from the impact of a natural hazard’.
This refers to a contextual perspective on
vulnerability.
We follow an inductive approach to operationalizing vulnerability. Field data derived from
field mapping, household surveys and expert
interviews plays a major role, since data availability can be a constraint. We agree in this
context with Pelling (2006), who argues that
social surveys are highly useful in understanding society-wide vulnerabilities to vast threats
and particularly vital where the respective
hazard has not yet been experienced by the community. Furthermore, this approach
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
14
Progress in Human Geography
Figure 2. Vulnerability assessment – components, indicators and methodology. Source: authors.
acknowledges that vulnerability cannot simply
be reduced to a single quantifiable metric and
that translating a complex set of parameters into
a quantitative metric in many ways reduces its
impact and hides its complexity (Alwang et al.,
2001). The assessment itself is based on a wide
range of vulnerability indicators that describe
the three key dimensions. It takes into account
that working with indicators is common practice
in vulnerability assessments but remains challenging because it calls for unambiguous definition of the vulnerability ‘entity’, transparency
of the methodologies used to develop vulnerability indicators, and appropriateness at the
local scale, where the entity can be clearly
defined (cf. Hinkel, 2011). In line with these
challenges, our vulnerability entity consists of
households located in hotspots predefined by
fragmentation and hazard exposure. For application in these hotspots, we suggest overall
indices that include the weighting of variables
in each vulnerability indicator along an axis of
low to high exposure, susceptibility and coping
capacity. The indicators applied are presented in
Figure 2. Variable weighting is based on a
review of the literature and expert knowledge,
and reflects assumptions made. Normalization
of each indicator according to the respective
accumulated frequencies (ordinal scale) or
equal points (nominal scale) represents the
degrees of exposure, susceptibility and coping
capacity. Applying this approach assumes that
each indicator is of equal value for the overall
vulnerability assessment. The result is a single
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
15
vulnerability score for each household, which
can be mapped spatially and used as a basis for
discussion of the necessary interventions to
reduce vulnerability (cf. Krellenberg and Welz,
2016), e.g. in terms of adaptation measures.
4 The temporal reference alluding to
the point in time or time period of interest
Since cities are a spatial-temporal product, the
core concepts – fragmentation and vulnerability –
should reflect this dynamic phenomenon, which
is in a continuous state of flux and includes
ongoing processes such as environmental,
economic and demographic change.
For operationalizing vulnerability, this can
be evidenced to some extent by looking at past,
current and future conditions in terms of the
exposure dimension. Predicting susceptibility
and coping capacities through explorative scenarios or modelling thus poses a major challenge and holds high uncertainties, since
appealing to people’s imagination to envisage
how they would act in the future leads to a variety of new circumstances. However, the
dynamic aspects of vulnerability – in particular
when contextual vulnerability is the core framing – should be represented by means of
dynamic indicators that reflect patterns of
change (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002; O’Brien
et al., 2007). Our approach acknowledges this
and takes dynamic indicators such as former
experience and changed perception of hazardous events into account (see Figure 2).
VI Discussion
The overall objective of this paper was to detect
theoretical and methodological pathways of
‘urban vulnerability’, still a recent field in the
literature. Guided by our first research question
we emphasized the theoretical context of vulnerability and fragmentation by focusing on one
common dimension – the ‘urban’.
Applying the concept of socio-environmental
fragmentation to a city allows for a better understanding of how separate urban fragments are
characterized in terms of socio-environmental
conditions, a crucial aspect when considering
human interaction with the environment in the
context of climate-related hazards. This is particularly important in the context of hazards
such as flood and heat and likely to be a precondition for the uneven occurrence and distribution of hazards in a city. The analysis of
socio-environmentally fragmented city areas
alone, however, does not allow for conclusions
as to whether the respective urban conditions
affect vulnerability to the impacts of climate
change positively or negatively. We therefore
suggest an in-depth vulnerability assessment
in these urban areas with pre-analysed socioenvironmental conditions. The joint fragmentation and vulnerability assessments will
contribute substantially to the understanding
of urban vulnerability. The presented approach
underpins the multidimensional character of
cities and should be seen as a step forward in
clarifying the specific meaning of the ‘urban’ in
vulnerability research. This aspect distinguishes
it from other approaches that, in our understanding, look at ‘vulnerabilities in cities’ rather than
at the specifics of ‘urban vulnerability’. Hence
we argue with a new and more precise definition
of urban vulnerability in the context of climaterelated hazards.
For us, urban vulnerability in the context of
climate-related hazards thought to be aggravated by climate change, continuous land-use
change and other ongoing pressures, is predefined by the socio-environmental conditions of
a fragmented urban area, since this is considered
a precondition for the degree of exposure and
susceptibility of populations to a specific natural hazard at a certain point of time and their
ability to cope with the consequences. We
understand urban vulnerability as the interrelation between the spatial-structural (socioenvironmental) conditions of an urban area
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
16
Progress in Human Geography
exposed to a discrete and identifiable event in
nature (or in society) with the underlying susceptibility and response profile of its inhabitants.
This definition includes two main aspects
inherent to both the fragmentation and the
vulnerability concept: 1) spatial connectedness
and 2) the accessibility of urban assets. The
spatial discontinuity of an urban area and its
disintegration are characteristic features when
it comes to determining an urban fragment. At
the same time, this spatial disconnectedness
may impact on the individual access (in terms
of distance, time or financial means) to goods,
services and resources crucial to coping before,
during and after a hazardous event. These
aspects are particularly evident when defining
a specific socio-environmental dimension that
goes beyond traditional fragmentation characteristics. This new dimension acknowledges the
interlinkage between climate change, land
cover altered by land use, and socio-economic
characteristics such as density, accessibility to
basic services and physical housing conditions.
In contrast, the residential vulnerability analysis
along the dimensions of exposure, susceptibility
and coping capacities that considers specific
information on housing and people does not
allow for conclusions on the structure of a city.
Insights into both aspects calls for a more thorough observation of the urban structure and an
assessment of residential vulnerabilities, a procedure that enables the two concepts to complement each other. The latter considers that
vulnerability and fragmentation both have specific urban implications, although so far the
fragmentation concept has not been addressed
by vulnerability studies in cities or vice versa.
Based on the theoretical pathway developed
in this article, we provided an approach for
operationalizing our understanding of ‘urban
vulnerability’. Here we were guided by the second research question of how to operationalize
fragmentation and vulnerability in the interests
of a more systemic perspective on the complexity of urban areas in a holistic approach.
This assessment approach includes in a first step
a socio-environmental fragmentation analysis
of a city with a deductive approach that differentiates the city in urban fragments along specific socio-environmental conditions. This
approach is innovative per se as it uses a set of
variables that combines social, economic,
morphological and environmental aspects,
rather than working with a single dimension
or, as was often the case in fragmentation analyses of urban areas, solely with traditional
socio-economic variables. The second step in
this methodological approach includes a definition of the hazard in place. It allows for the
selection of hotspot areas that are a) characterized by certain socio-environmental conditions,
and b) potentially exposed in the case of a hazardous flood and/or heat event. Hence, unlike
many other vulnerability analyses, the starting
point of this methodological approach is not
the unequal access to resources and distribution
of risks, nor does it take as read that poorer
people are more vulnerable (Garschagen and
Romero-Lankao, 2013). Instead, we take
socio-environmental fragmentation and spatial
hazard occurrence as the point of departure for
our analysis. The hotspot areas are analysed
further in light of the residential susceptibility
to suffer harm when exposed to hazard and the
capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and
recover from the impact of the natural hazard
along a place-based set of indicators. Data
analysis includes the weighting and combining
of selected indicators into composed indices
with empirical data obtained by techniques such
as field mapping or household surveys. Application of this methodology allows for evaluation of the prevailing degree of vulnerability to
climate-related hazards in selected areas of
socio-environmental fragmentation.
The proposed approach poses nonetheless
a number of challenges. First of all, working
with different data sources such as general
statistics, field mapping and household surveys
is challenged by the issue of scale when
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
17
methodologically combined in a comprehensive
manner. The approach considers three different
spatial scales: household, neighbourhood and
municipal. Whereas (deductive) fragmentation
analysis is linked to the neighbourhood scale
across the city, a comprehensive (inductive)
vulnerability assessment is only feasible on
block scale across selected neighbourhoods due
to time and resource constraints. As a result, the
inductive approach to vulnerability shows a first
approximation of the complex nature of the
risks, opportunities and capacities of individuals
and households affected by natural hazards.
In order to operationalize both concepts –
fragmentation and vulnerability – a contextspecific set of indicators was proposed and
tested. The clustering, aggregating and weighting of indicators was based on a review of the
literature and expert knowledge, and reflects
assumptions made. Fragmentation and vulnerability were translated into quantitative metrics
and obtained generalized results by reducing
impact and concealing complexity (see also
Alwang et al., 2001). Consequently, indicator
verification proved to be a highly useful pathway to a better understanding of the suitability
of the selected indicators (Eriksen and Kelly,
2007; Weiland et al., 2011).
To sum up, the approach presented here is
both innovative and comprehensive, and its
practical application, feasible. Given the wide
range of methodologies and analytical steps
involved, it will be crucial to test to what extent
it can be transferred to other cities. We argue
that while its potential transferability is high,
much depends on the availability of existing
data bases. If more up-to-date census data were
available in other cities, the analysis itself
would be less time-consuming and field mapping and household surveys less important.
VII Conclusions
This article considered theoretical considerations of fragmentation and vulnerability and
worked out their interlinkages with a view to
advancing our understanding of specific urban
vulnerabilities to climate-related hazards. It
presented a conceptual framework and discussed benefits, challenges and limitations
of the proposed methodological approach.
We acknowledged the twofold effect of
urbanization on vulnerability – negative and
positive – by introducing a ‘socio-environmental’ dimension to fragmentation. Here we
argued that the fragmentation concept allows
us to analyse an entire city and structure it into
spatial socio-environmental fragments. This
wealth of overarching information must, however, be reduced again, since the vulnerability
assessment, with its in-depth information on
people’s perceptions, can only be undertaken
on a large scale as a result of data assessment
constraints in terms of time and resources.
Analysis of the temporal dynamics involved
is only partly included in the approach in the
form of dynamic vulnerability indicators. In this
sense, the approach has its limits, primarily in
assessing the dynamics of fragmentation and
vulnerability. Enhancement of the approach in
this respect would also contribute to a more
thorough understanding of how adaptation to
climate change can help to reduce vulnerability
over time. Looking to a greater extent at less
visible roots of vulnerability, such as social,
cultural, economic and political factors that
often overlap and interact (Pelling, 2011b) can
further strengthen the urban vulnerability
approach. It is particularly the temporal dimension of vulnerability that is crucial in order to
understand the underlying processes of fundamental changes in urban areas, being itself an
important driver of change (see Kabisch and
Kuhlicke, 2014). This follows O’Brien (2012),
who argues that a broader and more holistic
approach to adaptation involves viewing the
vulnerability context from different spatial and
temporal perspectives. The next vital step and
possibly the most challenging would be to
enlarge the approach to the temporal dimension
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
18
Progress in Human Geography
and test its applicability or transferability to
other cities.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful and very constructive comments on earlier versions of the article
that greatly contributed to improving this final
version.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following
financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the ‘Initiative and Networking Fund’ of
the Helmholtz Association (Germany) and the Chilean National Commission for Scientific
and Technological Research – CONICYT, through
the project CONICYT – DRI 12120003.
References
Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change 16: 268–281.
Adger N and Kelly M (1999) Social vulnerability to
climate change and the architecture of entitlements.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 4: 253–266.
Adger N, Barnett J, Brown K, Marshall N and O’Brien K
(2013) Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts
and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3: 112–117.
Adger WN, Arnell NW and Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global
Environmental Change 15: 77–86.
Alonso W (1975) Eine Theorie des städtischen Grund- und
Bodenmarktes. In: Barnbrock J (ed.) Materialien zur
O¨konomie der Stadtplanung. Braunschweig: Vieweg,
55–65.
Alwang J, Siegel PB and Jorgensen SL (2001) Vulnerability: A view from different disciplines. Discussion Paper
Series 0115, Social Protection Unit, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung
(1994) Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. Hannover:
Verlag der ARL.
Ascher F (1995) Me´tapolis ou l’avenir des villes. Paris:
Odile Jacob.
Bähr J (1978) Santiago de Chile: Eine faktorenanalytische
Untersuchung zur inneren Differenzierung einer lateinamerikanischen Millionenstadt. Mannheimer Geographische Arbeiten 4.
Bähr J and Mertins G (1995) Die lateinamerikanische
Großstadt. Verstädterungsprozesse und Stadtstrukturen. Erträge der Forschung 288, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
Bankoff G (2001) Rendering the world unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as western discourse. Disasters 25: 19–35.
Bankoff G, Frerk G and Hilhorst D (eds) (2004) Mapping
Vulnerability: Disasters, Development & People.
London: Earthscan, 37–51.
Birkenholtz T (2011) Network political ecology: Method
and theory in climate change vulnerability and adaptation research. Progress in Human Geography 36:
295–315.
Birkmann J (ed.) (2006) Measuring Vulnerability to
Natural Hazards. New York: United Nations
University Press.
Bizama G, Torrejón F, Aguayo M, Muñoz M, Echeverrı́a C
and Urrutia R (2011) Pérdida y fragmentación del bosque nativo en la cuenca del rı́o Aysén (Patagonia-Chile)
durante el siglo XX. Revista de Geografı´a Norte
Grande 49: 125–138.
Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I and Wisner B (1994) At Risk:
Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Bohle HG, Downing TE and Watts M (1994) Climate
change and social vulnerability: The sociology and
geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental
Change 4: 37–48.
Borrows HH (1923) Geography as human ecology. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 13(1):
1–14.
Borsdorf A (1982) Die lateinamerikanische Großstadt.
Zwischenbericht zur Diskussion um ein Modell. Geographische Rundschau 34: 498–501.
Borsdorf A (2003) Cómo modelar el desarrollo y la
dinámica de la ciudad latinoamericana. EURE 29:
37–49.
Borsdorf A, Bähr J and Janoschka M (2002) Die Dynamik
stadtstrukturellen Wandels in Lateinamerika im Modell
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
19
der lateinamerikanischen Stadt. Geographica Helvetica 57: 300–310.
Bourdieu P (1983) Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles
Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel R (ed.) Soziale
Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt, Special Edition 2,
183–198.
Breuste J (1989) Landschaftsökologische Struktur und
Bewertung von Stadtgebieten. Geographische Berichte
131: 105–116.
Brown LA and Moore EG (1970) The intra-urban migration process: A perspective. Geografiska Annaler 52B:
1–13.
Bulkeley H and Tuts R (2013) Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in the context of
climate change. Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability 18: 646–662.
Bull-Kamanga L, Diagne K, Lavell A, Leon E, Lerise F,
MacGregor H, Maskrey A, Meshack M, Pelling M,
Reid H, Satterthwaite D, Songsore J, Westgate K and
Yitambe A (2003) From everyday hazards to disasters:
The accumulation of risk in urban areas. Environment
and Urbanization 15: 193–204.
Burgess E (1926) The Urban Community. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Burton I, Kates RW and White GF (1968) The human
ecology of extreme geophysical events. Natural Hazard
Research, Working Paper 1, Department of Geography,
University of Toronto, Canada.
Burton I, Kates RW and White GF (1978) The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.
Button C, Mias-Mamonong MAA, Barth B and Rigg J
(2013) Vulnerability and resilience to climate change
in Sorsogon City, the Philippines: Learning from an
ordinary city? Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability 18: 705–722.
Cannon T (1993) A hazard need not a disaster make: Vulnerability and the causes of ‘natural’ disasters. In: Merriman PA and Browitt CWA (eds) Natural Disasters:
Protecting Vulnerable Communities. London: Thomas
Telford, 92–105.
Cannon T (1994) Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of ‘natural’ disasters. In: Varley A (ed.) Disasters,
Development and Environment. Chichester: Wiley,
13–30.
Cannon T (2008) Reducing People’s Vulnerability to
Natural Hazards: Communities and Resilience. Bonn:
United Nations University – World Institute for
Development Economics Research.
Caprón G and Gonzalez S (2006) Las escalas de la segregación y de la fragmentación urbana. TRACE 49:
65–75.
Cardona O (2004) The need for rethinking the concepts of
vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A
necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G and Hilhorst D (eds)
Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and
People. London: Earthscan, 37–51.
Castells M (1977) Die kapitalistische Stadt. O¨konomie und
Politik der Stadtentwicklung. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
Chambers R (1989) Editorial introduction: Vulnerability,
coping and policy. Institute of Development Studies
Bulletin 20: 1–7.
Chambers R and Conway GR (1992) Sustainable rural
livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century.
IDS Discussion Paper 296, Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Clark GE, Moser SC, Ratick SJ, Dow K, Meyer WB,
Emani S, Jin W, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE and
Schwarz HE (1998) Assessing the vulnerability of
coastal communities to extreme storms: The case of
Revere, MA, USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3: 59–82.
Cutter SL (1993) Living with Risk: The Geography of
Technological Hazards. London: Arnold.
Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Progress in Human Geography 20: 529–539.
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ and Shirley WL (2003) Social
vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science
Quarterly 84: 242–261.
Cutter SL, Mitchell JT and Scott MS (2000) Revealing the
vulnerability of people and places: A case study of
Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 90: 713–737.
Dammert L (2004) ¿Ciudad sin ciudadanos? Fragmentación, segregación y temor en Santiago. EURE 30:
87–96.
Depietri Y, Renaud FG and Kallis G (2012) Heat waves
and floods in urban areas: A policy-oriented review
of ecosystem services. Sustainability Science 7:
95–107.
Downing TE, Butterfield R, Cohen S, Huq S, Moss R,
Rahman A, Sokona Y and Stephen L (2001) Climate
change vulnerability: Linking impacts and adaptation. The Governing Council of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), University of
Oxford, UK.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
20
Progress in Human Geography
Eakin H and Luers AL (2006) Assessing the vulnerability
of social-environmental systems. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 31: 365–394.
Eriksen SH and Kelly PM (2007) Developing credible
vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy
assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 12: 495–524.
Featherstone M (1999) Globale Stadt, Informationstechnologie und Öffentlichkeit. In: Rademacher C,
Schroer M and Wiechens P (eds) Spiel ohne Grenzen?
Ambivalenzen der Globalisierung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 169–201.
Florida R (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. London:
Routledge.
Friedrichs J (1983) Stadtanalyse. Soziale und ra¨umliche
Organisation der Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C and Meyer V (2011) Editorial for the
special issue: Vulnerability to natural hazards – the
challenge of integration. Natural Hazards 58: 609–619.
Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: A generally applicable
conceptual framework for climate change research.
Global Environmental Change 17: 155–167.
Galster GC and Killen SP (1995) The geography of
metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate 6: 7–43.
Garschagen M and Romero-Lankao P (2013) Exploring
the relationships between urbanization trends and
climate change vulnerability. Climatic Change 133:
37–52.
Graham S and Marvin S (2001) Splintering Urbanism:
Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities
and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Hanson S, Nicholls R, Ranger N, Hallegatte S, CorfeeMorlot J, Herweijer C and Chateau J (2011) A global
ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate
extremes. Climatic Change 104: 89–111.
Harrison J and Hoyler M (2014) Governing the new metropolis. Urban Studies 51(11): 2249–2266.
Harrison P (2003) Fragmentation and globalisation as the
new meta-narrative. In: Harrison P, Huchzermeyer M
and Mayekiso M (eds) Confronting Fragmentation:
Housing and Urban Development in a Democratising
Society. Lansdowne: University of Cape Town Press,
13–25.
Harvey D (1973) Social Justice in the City. London:
Edward Arnold.
Häußermann H and Siebel W (1997) Stadt und Urbanität.
Merkur 51: 283–292.
Hawley A and Duncan OD (1957) Social area analysis: A
critical appraisal. Land Economics 33: 337–345.
Heineberg H (2001) Grundriss Allgemeine Geographie:
Stadtgeographie. München: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Heinrichs D, Krellenberg K, Hansjürgens B and Martı́nez
F (eds) (2012) Risk Habitat Megacity. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Heinrichs D, Krellenberg K and Fragkias M (2013) Urban
responses to climate change: Theories and governance
practice in cities of the Global South. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(6):
1865–1878.
Hewitt K (1983) Interpretations of Calamity: From the
Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Hewitt K (1997) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Harlow: Longman.
Hidalgo R and Borsdorf A (2005) Barrios cerrados y
fragmentación urbana en América Latina: estudio de
las transformaciones socioespaciales en Santiago de
Chile (1990–2000). Transformaciones urbanas y procesos territoriales. Lecturas del nuevo dibujo de la
ciudad latinoamericana. Santiago: Geolibros–Academia de Ciencias Austriaca y Okanagan University College, Santiago.
Hiddinga M, Needham B and Wisserhof J (2000)
Discourses of town and country. Landscape and Urban
Planning 48: 121–130.
Hinkel J (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity: Towards a clarification of the sciencepolicy interface. Global Environmental Change 21:
198–208.
Hufschmidt G (2011) A comparative analysis of several
vulnerability concepts. Natural Hazards 58: 621–643.
Inostroza L, Baur R and Csaplovics E (2013) Urban
sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: A
dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial
patterns. Journal of Environmental Management 115:
87–97.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, eds Parry ML, Canziani
OF, Palutikof JP, Van der Linden PJ and Hanson CE.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
21
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, eds Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi
KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES,
Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR and White
LL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irwin EG and Bockstael NE (2007) The evolution of urban
sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 104: 20672–20677.
Janoschka M (2002) El nuevo modelo de la ciudad latinoamericana: Fragmentación y privatización. EURE 28:
11–29.
Jean-Baptiste N, Kuhlicke C, Kunath A and Kabisch S
(2011) Review and evaluation of existing vulnerability
indicators in order to obtain an appropriate set of indicators for assessing climate related vulnerability.
CLUVA Deliverable D2.11.
Jiron P and Mansilla P (2014) Las consecuencias del urbanismo fragmentador en la vida cotidiana de habitantes
de la ciudad de Santiago. EURE 40: 5–28.
Kabisch S and Kuhlicke C (2014) Urban transformations
and the idea of resource efficiency, quality of life and
resilience. Built Environment 40: 475–485.
Kasperson JX and Kasperson RE (eds) (2001) Global
Environmental Risk. Tokyo: United Nations University
Press and Earthscan.
Kasperson RE, Dow K, Archer ERM, Cáceres D, Downing
TE, Elmqvist T, Eriksen S, Folke C, Han G, Iyengar K,
Vogel C, Wilson KA and Ziervogel G (2005) Vulnerable
people and places. In: Hassan R, Scholes R and Ash N
(eds) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State
and Trends Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, 143–164.
Kates RW (1970) Natural hazard in human ecology perspective: Hypothesis and models. Working Paper 14,
Department of Geography, University of Toronto,
Canada.
Kelly PM and Adger WM (2000) Theory and practice in
assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change 47: 325–352.
Kirsch S (2001) Lost worlds: Environmental disaster,
‘culture loss’, and the law. Current Anthropology 42:
167–198.
Krellenberg K, Link F, Welz J, Harris J, Barth K and
Irarrazaval F (2014) Supporting local adaptation:
The contribution of socio-environmental fragmentation to urban vulnerability. Applied Geography
55: 61–70.
Krellenberg K, Müller A, Schwarz A, Höfer R and Welz J
(2013) Flood and heat hazards in the Metropolitan
Region of Santiago de Chile and the socio-economics
of exposure. Applied Geography 38: 86–95.
Kuhlicke C and Steinführer A (2015) Preface: Building
social capacities for natural hazards: An emerging field
for research and practice in Europe. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 15: 2359–2367.
Kuhlke O (2007) Urban spatial structure. In: Warf B (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, 525–528.
Landman K (2011) Urban fragmentation: Different views
on its causes and consequences. In: Geyer HS (ed.)
International Handbook of Urban Policy, Volume 3,
Issues in the Developing World. Cheltenham: Edgar
Elgar Publishing, 39–61.
Leichenko RM and O’Brien KL (2002) The dynamics of
rural vulnerability to global change: The case of
southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change 7: 1–18.
Lewis J (1982) Natural disaster mitigation: Environmental
approaches in Tonga and Algeria. The Environmentalist 2: 233–246.
Lewis J (1999) Development in Disaster-Prone Places:
Studies of Vulnerability. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Li T, Shilling F, Thorne J, Li F, Schott H, Boynton R and
Berry AM (2010) Fragmentation of China’s landscape
by roads and urban areas. Landscape Ecology 25:
839–853.
Link F (2008) Fragmentación urbana y consecuencias
sociales. Revista CIUDADES 77: 28–37.
Link F (2010) Globalizacio´n, vulnerabilidad y riesgo en la
nueva configuracio´n socio-territorial del trabajo en el
A´rea Metropolitana de Santiago. Dissertation,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Lippuner R (2005) Raum, Systeme, Praktiken: Zum Verhältnis von Alltag, Wissenschaft und Geographie.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Löw M (2001) Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp.
Low S (2006) Towards a theory of urban fragmentation: A
cross-cultural analysis of fear, privatization, and the
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
22
Progress in Human Geography
state. Cyberge´o: European Journal of Geography.
Available at: http://cybergeo.revues.org/3207
Marcuse P (1989) ‘Dual city’: A muddy metaphor for a
quartered city. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 13: 697–708.
Michelutti E (2010) An analytical framework for urban
fragmentation analysis in the Global South city:
Questioning urban planning practices through an
institutional approach. Paper presented at the 11th
N-AERUS Conference, Brussels, 28–30 October.
Miller F, Osbahr H, Boyd E, Thomalla F, Bharwani S,
Ziervogel G, Walker B, Birkmann J, Van der Leeuw
SE, Rockström J, Hinkel J, Downing TE, Folke C and
Nelson DR (2010) Resilience and vulnerability:
Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and
Society 15: 1–25.
Moor J (2001) Cities at risk. Habitat Debate 7: 1–4.
Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community
vulnerability. Disasters 24: 1–18.
Moser C (1998) The asset vulnerability framework:
Re-assessing ultra poverty reduction strategies. World
Development 26: 1–19.
Müller A (2012) Areas at Risk: Concept and Methods for
Urban Flood Risk Assessment. A Case Study of Santiago de Chile. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Newell B, Crumleyb CL, Hassanc N, Lambind EF, PahlWostle C, Underdalf A and Wassona R (2005) A conceptual template for integrative human–environment
research. Global Environmental Change 15: 299–307.
O’Brien KL (2012) Global environmental change (2):
From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress
in Human Geography 36: 667–676.
O’Brien KL, Eriksen S, Nygaard L and Schjolden A
(2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability
matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy 7:
73–88.
Opdam P and Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets
habitat fragmentation: Linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation.
Biological Conservation 117: 285–297.
Pahl RE (1966) The rural-urban continuum. Sociologia
Ruralis 3: 299–329.
Pahl R (1977) Managers, technical experts and the state.
In: Harloe M (ed.) Captive Cities. London: Wiley,
49–60.
Pantuliano S, Metcalfe V, Haysom S and Davey E (2012)
Urban vulnerability and displacement: A review of current issues. Disasters 36: 1–22.
Park RE (1915) The city: Suggestions for the investigation
of human behavior in the city environment. American
Journal of Sociology 20: 577–612.
Parnreiter C (2007) Historische Geographien, Verräumlichte Geschichte. Mexico City und das mexikanische
Städtenetz von der Industrialisierung bis zur Globalisierung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Parnreiter C (2012) Conceptualizing transnational urban
spaces: Multicentered agency, placeless organizational
logics, and the built environment. In: Krätke S, Wildner
K and Lanz S (eds) Transnationalism and Urbanism.
London: Routledge, 91–111.
Pelling M (2002) Assessing urban vulnerability and social
adaptation to risk: Evidence from Santo Domingo.
International Development Planning Review 24:
59–76.
Pelling M (2003) The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resiliences. London: Earthscan
Publications.
Pelling M (2006) Measuring urban vulnerability to natural
disaster risk: Benchmarks for sustainability. Open
House International 31: 125–132.
Pelling M (2011a) The vulnerability of cities to disasters
and climate change: A conceptual framework. In:
Brauch HG, Oswald Spring Ú, Mesjasz C, Grin J,
Kameri-Mbote P, Chourou B, Dunay P and Birkmann
J (eds) Coping with Global Environmental Change,
Disasters and Security. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
549–558.
Pelling M (2011b) Adaptation to Climate Change: From
Resilience to Transformation. London: Routledge.
Prévot-Schapira M and Cattaneo P R (2008) Buenos Aires:
La fragmentación en los intersticios de una sociedad
polarizada. EURE 34: 73–92.
Prévot-Shapira MF (2001) Fragmentación social y espacial. Conceptos y realidades. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 19: 33–56.
Redfield R and Singer MB (1954) The cultural role of cities.
Economic Development and Cultural Change 3: 53–73.
Rex J and Moore R (1967) Race, Community and Conflict:
A Study of Sparkbrook. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rodrı́guez J (2001) Vulnerabilidad y grupos vulnerables:
Un marco de referencia conceptual mirando a los
jóvenes. Serie Población y Desarrollo 17, CEPAL,
Santiago.
Rodrı́guez A and Winchester L (2004) Santiago de Chile:
Una ciudad fragmentada. In: De Mattos C, Ducci M,
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
Krellenberg et al.
23
Rodrı́guez A and Yañez G (eds) Santiago en la globalización ¿Una nueva ciudad? Santiago: Ediciones
SUR-EURE Libros.
Romero-Lankao P and Quin H (2011) Conceptualizing
urban vulnerability to global climate and environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3: 113–120.
Roseman CC (1971) Migration as a spatial and temporal
process. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61: 589–598.
Salinas E (2010) Fragmentación urbana y su relevancia en
la planificación urbana y territorial actual. Discusiones
Públicas 1: 49–58.
Salingaros NA (2005) Principles of Urban Structure.
Amsterdam: Techne Press.
Sánchez LM (2007) Fragmentación social y planeación
territorial. Bitacora 11: 28–39.
Schmid C (2005) Stadt, Raum und Gesellschaft. Henri
Lefebvre und die Produktion des Raumes. Stuttgart:
Steiner Franz Verlag.
Schroer M (2006) Ra¨ume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu
einer Soziologie des Raums. Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp.
Schteingart M (2001) La división social del espacio en las
ciudades. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 10: 13–31.
Shevky E and Bell W (1955) Social Area Analysis: Theory,
Illustrative Application and Computational Procedures.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Smit B and Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity
and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:
282–292.
Soja E (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities
and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sukopp H and Weiler S (1988) Biotope mapping and
nature conservation strategies in urban areas of the
Federal Republic of Germany. Landscape and Urban
Planning 15: 39–58.
Tella G (2005) Ínsulas de riqueza en océanos de pobreza o
el proceso de fragmentación territorial de Buenos
Aires. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografı´a
y Ciencias Sociales 9: 50.
Truffello R and Hidalgo R (2015) Policentrismo en el Área
Metropolitana de Santiago de Chile: Reestructuración
comercial, movilidad y tipificación de subcentros.
EURE 41: 49–73.
Vale L and Campanella T (2005) The Resilient City: How
Modern Cities Recover from Disaster. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Veiga D (2004) Desigualdades sociales y fragmentación
urbana. In: Ribeiro AC (ed.) El rostro urbano de
Ame´rica Latina. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 51–61.
Vidal R (1999) Fragmentos en tensión: Elementos para una
teorı́a de la fragmentación urbana. Revista Geográfica
de Valparaı´so 29/30: 149–180.
Villela H, Costamagna S and Garcés M (2010) La Legua,
desde el ‘reverso de la historia’ en el proceso de construccio´n de identidad ciudadana. Santiago de Chile:
ECO Educación y Comunicaciones.
Watts MJ and Bohle HG (1993) The space of vulnerability:
The causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in
Human Geography 17: 43–67.
Weichselgarnter J (2001) Disaster mitigation: The concept
of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal 10: 85–95.
Weichselgartner J and Kelman I (2015) Challenges and
opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in
Human Geography 39: 249–267.
Weiland U, Kindler A, Banzhaf E, Ebert A and ReyesPaecke S (2011) Indicators for sustainable land use
management in Santiago de Chile. Ecological Indicators 11: 1074–1083.
Werlen B (1987) Gesellschaft, Handlung und Raum.
Grundlagen handlungstheoretischer Sozialgeographie.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
White GF (1974) Natural hazards research: Concepts,
methods, and policy implications. In: White GF (ed.)
Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global. New York:
Oxford University Press, 3–16.
Wilbanks TJ, Romero Lankao P, Bao M, Berkhout F,
Cairncross S, Ceron JP, Kapshe M, Muir-Wood R and
Zapata-Marti R (2007) Industry, settlement and
society. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van
der Linden PJ and Hanson CE (eds) Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
357–390.
Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of live. American Journal of Sociology 44: 1–24.
Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T and Davis I (2004) At Risk:
Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Wittig R, Sukopp H, Klaunitzer B and Brande A (1998)
Die ökologische Gliederung der Stadt. In: Sukopp H
and Wittig R (eds) Stadtökologie. Ein Fachbuch für
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016
24
Progress in Human Geography
Studium und Praxis. Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag,
316–372.
Wolpert J (1965) Behavioral aspects of the decision to
migrate. Papers in Regional Science 15: 159–169.
Author biographies
Kerstin Krellenberg is senior scientist at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (Leipzig,
Germany), Department of Urban and Environmental
Sociology. Her research interest lies in urban development and transformations, urban risks and vulnerability, climate change adaptation of cities and
transdisciplinary approaches. Most recent publication: Krellenberg K and Welz J (2016) Assessing
Urban Vulnerability in the Context of Flood and Heat
Hazard: Pathways and Challenges for Indicator-Based
Analysis. Social Indicators Research, 1-23.
Juliane Welz is researcher at the Department of
Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz
Centre for Environmental Research (Leipzig, Germany). Drawing on long-standing years of experience on megacity development in Latin America,
she provides in-depth knowledge on climate change
adaptation, social segregation, urban vulnerability
and socio-spatial fragmentation. Most recent publication: Welz J and Krellenberg K (2016) Vulnerability against the climatic change in the Metropolitan
Region of Santiago de Chile: theoretical positions
versus empirical evidences. EURE-Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Urbano Regionales, 42(125),
251–272.
Felipe Link is professor in Urban Sociology at the
Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and researcher
at Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable
CEDEUS (FONDAP 15110020) and Center for
Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies - COES (FONDAP 15130009). His work involves sociability
networks, urban fragmentation, neighborhood
consolidation, and urban politics. Most recent publication: Krellenberg K, Link F, Welz J, Harris J, Barth
K and Irarrazaval F (2014) Supporting local adaptation: The contribution of socio-environmental fragmentation to urban vulnerability. Applied
Geography, 55, 61-70.
Katrin Barth is a Sociologist affiliated at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Germany). Her research
interests cover the knowledge transfer between science and practice, working with questionnaires and
statistical analysis methods. Most recent publication:
Krellenberg K. and Barth K. (2014) Planning collaborative climate change adaptation responses in the
Metropolitan Region of Santiago de Chile. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 39(4).
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on May 23, 2016