Has the IPCC's revised vulnerability concept been well adopted?

In the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports (TAR and AR4, respectively) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vulnerability is conceived as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. However, in its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) and Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC redefined and separated exposure, and it reconceptualized vulnerability to be a function of sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt. In this review, we found that the IPCC's revised vulnerability concept has not been well adopted and that researchers' preference, possible misinterpretation, possible confusion, and possible unawareness are among the possible technical and practical reasons. Among the issues that need further clarification from the IPCC is whether or not such a reconceptualization of vulnerability in the SREX/AR5 necessarily implies nullification of the TAR/AR4 vulnerability concept as far as the IPCC is concerned.

IPCC's current conceptualization of 'vulnerability' needs more clarification for climate change vulnerability assessments.

In this Short Communication, we raise the concern that the existing conceptualization of 'vulnerability', introduced in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), is not facilitative for standalone vulnerability assessments and that this conceptualization has not been well accepted by the vulnerability researchers. We identify three key reasons for low adoption of the AR5 conceptualization in climate change vulnerability assessments, and urge the IPCC Working Group II to clarify how the current conceptualization of 'vulnerability' can facilitate standalone climate change vulnerability assessments. We propose treating 'exposure' not only as a precondition for vulnerability but also as a secondary driver of vulnerability to capture the influence of differential exposure.