* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Urban vulnerability and the contribution of socio
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Urban heat island wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
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