22
A. Triyanti et al.
storms, which have a direct influence on economy and are expected to occur more
frequently in terms of climate change, raising the need to estimate economic vulnerability especially in agricultural sector. One of the most important sectors in Armenia,
which possess 21% share in the GDP is the agricultural sector. The agricultural
resources are vulnerable to the current and future climate change impact. The study
assesses the economic loss of the crop production due to the climate variability
and elements, including temperature, radiation, precipitation and wind field. Future
climate projections in the region are used for the time period of 2011–2040. The
research revealed that temperature increase causes a significant shift, and predicted
that the economic loss in the drier condition in the future climate within the period
2011–2040 will be more than doubled.
Another study conducted in the field of flood disaster insurance in Austria
(Mochizuki et al. 2018) uses the SSPs scenario to calculate the public cost of demography and expenditures in climate-related events. The study concluded that in the
SSP2 scenario or intermediate scenario (see Fig. 2.1), the population in Austria will
be increasing from 8.6 million in 2015 to 9.2 million in 2050 with increasing flood
risk due to socio-economic development and climate change. It revealed that this
will cause increasing public debt and insufficient current budgetary arrangement to
deal with the rising risk of extreme floods in the future.
The analysis in Patt et al. (2010) suggests that climatic disaster risk (as measured
by the number of persons affected by a climate disaster) is highest in the countries
with Human Development Index (HDI) levels of around 0.5, after controlling for
other determinants of vulnerability. The number of affected individuals starts to
decline only after countries reach this level of development (Cuaresma and Lutz
2016). Through a set of 50-year scenarios of human losses due to climate change in
Mozambique, which later extended to a sample of 23 least-developed countries, Patt
et al. (2010) suggested the relationship between an increase in income and adaptive
capacity. The results of their research suggested that in the second quarter of the
century, the effects of socio-economic development trends may begin to offset rising
climate exposure. This implies that vulnerability will be increasing rapidly in the
period between now and then, which will be desperately in need of international
assistance to finance adaptation.
In terms of the interlinkages between mitigation and adaptation, the concept and
case studies of Ecosystem function have served as co-benefits. McVittie et al. (2018)
in their paper on EbA for DRR and CCA, particularly in Europe emphasized the
need for lessons learnt from implementing EbA across a range of land uses. The
research evidence indicates that adaptation and DRR are achievable, cost-effective
and would attract acceptability and funding when these co-benefits are demonstrated
clearly. In Asia, a study regarding the application of EbA for DRR and CCA has
been conducted in Indonesia (Triyanti et al. 2017). They conclude that the key to
the success of EbA is the involvement and participation of stakeholders. However,
the gaps in the EbA for DRR and adaptation are still existing, especially in terms of
knowledge of the biophysical and economic benefits, or negative impacts of EbA.
The review revealed that the approach which considers both potential changes
in countries’ exposure to climatic extreme events and socio-economic development
A. Triyanti et al.
storms, which have a direct influence on economy and are expected to occur more
frequently in terms of climate change, raising the need to estimate economic vulnerability especially in agricultural sector. One of the most important sectors in Armenia,
which possess 21% share in the GDP is the agricultural sector. The agricultural
resources are vulnerable to the current and future climate change impact. The study
assesses the economic loss of the crop production due to the climate variability
and elements, including temperature, radiation, precipitation and wind field. Future
climate projections in the region are used for the time period of 2011–2040. The
research revealed that temperature increase causes a significant shift, and predicted
that the economic loss in the drier condition in the future climate within the period
2011–2040 will be more than doubled.
Another study conducted in the field of flood disaster insurance in Austria
(Mochizuki et al. 2018) uses the SSPs scenario to calculate the public cost of demography and expenditures in climate-related events. The study concluded that in the
SSP2 scenario or intermediate scenario (see Fig. 2.1), the population in Austria will
be increasing from 8.6 million in 2015 to 9.2 million in 2050 with increasing flood
risk due to socio-economic development and climate change. It revealed that this
will cause increasing public debt and insufficient current budgetary arrangement to
deal with the rising risk of extreme floods in the future.
The analysis in Patt et al. (2010) suggests that climatic disaster risk (as measured
by the number of persons affected by a climate disaster) is highest in the countries
with Human Development Index (HDI) levels of around 0.5, after controlling for
other determinants of vulnerability. The number of affected individuals starts to
decline only after countries reach this level of development (Cuaresma and Lutz
2016). Through a set of 50-year scenarios of human losses due to climate change in
Mozambique, which later extended to a sample of 23 least-developed countries, Patt
et al. (2010) suggested the relationship between an increase in income and adaptive
capacity. The results of their research suggested that in the second quarter of the
century, the effects of socio-economic development trends may begin to offset rising
climate exposure. This implies that vulnerability will be increasing rapidly in the
period between now and then, which will be desperately in need of international
assistance to finance adaptation.
In terms of the interlinkages between mitigation and adaptation, the concept and
case studies of Ecosystem function have served as co-benefits. McVittie et al. (2018)
in their paper on EbA for DRR and CCA, particularly in Europe emphasized the
need for lessons learnt from implementing EbA across a range of land uses. The
research evidence indicates that adaptation and DRR are achievable, cost-effective
and would attract acceptability and funding when these co-benefits are demonstrated
clearly. In Asia, a study regarding the application of EbA for DRR and CCA has
been conducted in Indonesia (Triyanti et al. 2017). They conclude that the key to
the success of EbA is the involvement and participation of stakeholders. However,
the gaps in the EbA for DRR and adaptation are still existing, especially in terms of
knowledge of the biophysical and economic benefits, or negative impacts of EbA.
The review revealed that the approach which considers both potential changes
in countries’ exposure to climatic extreme events and socio-economic development