The need to stabilize global climate: Climate change will be the greatest threat to humanity and global ecosystems in the coming years, and there is a pressing need to understand and communicate the impacts of warming, across the perspectives of the natural and social sciences. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. review the climate change–impact literature, expanding on the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They provide evidence of the impacts of warming at 1°, 1.5°, and 2°C—and higher—for the physical system, ecosystems, agriculture, and human livelihoods. The benefits of limiting climate change to no more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels would outweigh the costs. Science , this issue p. eaaw6974

The world is under pressure from the novel COVID-19 pandemic. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world and predicted to be affected significantly over a longer time period. Our paper aims to provide detailed reporting and analyses of the present rapid responses to COVID-19, between January and March 2020, in Indonesia. We particularly highlight responses taken by the governments, non-government organisations and the community. We outline gaps and limitations in the responses, based on our rapid analysis of media contents, from government speeches and reports, social and mass media platforms. We present five recommendations toward more rapid, effective, and comprehensive responses.

Climate change is a severe global threat. Research on climate change and vulnerability to natural hazards has made significant progress over the last decades. Most of the research has been devoted to improving the quality of climate information and hazard data, including exposure to specific phenomena, such as flooding or sea-level rise. Less attention has been given to the assessment of vulnerability and embedded social, economic and historical conditions that foster vulnerability of societies. A number of global vulnerability assessments based on indicators have been developed over the past years. Yet an essential question remains how to validate those assessments at the global scale. This paper examines different options to validate global vulnerability assessments in terms of their internal and external validity, focusing on two global vulnerability indicator systems used in the WorldRiskIndex and the INFORM index. The paper reviews these global index systems as best practices and at the same time presents new analysis and global results that show linkages between the level of vulnerability and disaster outcomes. Both the review and new analysis support each other and help to communicate the validity and the uncertainty of vulnerability assessments. Next to statistical validation methods, we discuss the importance of the appropriate link between indicators, data and the indicandum. We found that mortality per hazard event from floods, drought and storms is 15 times higher for countries ranked as highly vulnerable compared to those classified as low vulnerable. These findings highlight the different starting points of countries in their move towards climate resilient development. Priority should be given not just to those regions that are likely to face more severe climate hazards in the future but also to those confronted with high vulnerability already.

The increasing frequency, intensity, and severity of natural hazards is one of the most pressing global environmental change problems. From the local to the global level, governments and civil society need to increase resilience to these hazards. Despite what is now a very sizeable literature on designing governance systems to produce resilience, a substantial gap in the natural hazards scholarship remains because most studies have lacked grounding in comparable theories on governing for resilience. This article contributes to interdisciplinary research on the conceptual understanding of the interlinkages of adaptive governance (AG), resilience, and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Through better understanding of diversity of terminology, terms, and characteristics, we take a step forward towards mutual learning and intellectual experimentation between the three concepts. Our review shows that there are four characteristics of AG that are important to help increase resilience to natural hazards. These are polycentric and multilayered institutions, participation and collaboration, self-organization and networks, and learning and innovation. The article examines the development, tradeoffs, and benefits that arise from the implementation of the AG characteristics, and reviews their influence on resilience. Hazard and disaster case studies are then examined to see how each AG characteristic is viewed and implemented in disaster contexts. Based on this analysis, the contributions of AG to the DRR literature are identified, before outlining the implications for theory and further research.

2020 has become the year of coping with COVID-19. This year was to be the “super year” for sustainability, a year of strengthening global actions to accelerate the transformations required for achieving the 2030 agenda. We argue that 2020 can and must be a year of both. Thus we call for more utilisation of the health-emergency disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) framework to complement current responses to COVID-19 and the patent risk of similar phenomena in the future. To make our case, we examine current responses to COVID-19 and their implications for the SFDRR. We argue that current mechanisms and strategies for disaster resilience, as outlined in the SFDRR, can enhance responses to epidemics or global pandemics such as COVID-19. In this regard, we make several general and DRR-specific recommendations. These recommendations concern knowledge and science provision in understanding disaster and health-related emergency risks, the extension of disaster risk governance to manage both disaster risks and potential health-emergencies, particularly for humanitarian coordination aspects; and the strengthening of community-level preparedness and response.