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 impact of climate change and related hazards such as floods, heatwaves, and sea level rise on human lives, cities, and their hinterlands depends not only on the nature of the hazard, but also on urban development, adaptation, and other socioeconomic processes that determine vulnerability and exposure. Spatial planning can reduce climate risk not just by influencing the exposure, but also by addressing social vulnerability. This requires that relevant information is available to planners and that plans are implemented and coordinated between sectors. This article is based on a research project in Thailand, particularly on the results of multi-sectoral workshops in the case study region of the Andaman Coast in southern Thailand, and draws upon climate risk, spatial planning, and systems thinking discourses. The article formulates recommendations for planning in the context of Thailand that are relevant for other rapidly growing and urbanizing regions. Among other conclusions, it suggests that systems thinking approaches and cross-sectoral strategies are ways to grasp the interdependencies between and within climate risk and spatial development challenges.

Urbanization has resulted in increasing the pace of informality, specifically in developing countries like India. Informality is taking place at locations that are exposed to various hazards, and therefore, resilience building of both informal and formal settlements is needed to achieve sustainable development. Resilience assessment is key in defining appropriate area-specific resilience measures. Given that, this research assesses the resilience of formal and informal settlements of Surat city in India and presents implications for sustainable development. To assess resilience, an indicator-based approach was taken, using a household survey to collect the data. Analysis suggests that the resilience of formal and informal settlements is significantly different. Key differences were found in physical and institutional resilience, where informal settlements were found to be significantly less resilient than formal settlements. Several measures, such as gender-sensitive education and livelihood programs, as well as mobile water and sanitation, have positive implications for sustainable development. Overall, the study can guide disaster managers and policy makers to adopt a strategic and more targeted approach to strengthen resilience and achieve sustainable development.

The Stuttgart region in southwest Germany already experiences heat stress and extreme precipitation events. According to German law, spatial planning at the municipal and regional levels has an important role in adapting to such events. However, this is a challenge to achieve alongside other demands on land use. One important resource to support adaptive planning is spatial risk analyses, which can provide justification for prioritising adaptation and information about where and how to prioritise different measures. Such maps should not just consider information on the nature of the hazards but also on the vulnerability of people and exposed areas. While in theory this has been recognised and vulnerability analysis methods have been developed, there is a significant gap in linking this research to planning practice in the German context. In this paper, we use a GIS-based method for mapping quantitative indicators of social vulnerability to heat and pluvial flooding for the region of Stuttgart. We share insights from the process of developing these maps based on the needs of spatial planning and discuss how such information can be used in planning practice. We propose solutions regarding issues such as spatial resolution, indicator selection, aggregation, and complexity; report initial feedback from planners; and make recommendations for further bridging the gap between risk and vulnerability research and planning practice.