4.6 Article

How Land Use, Climate Change, and an Ageing Demographic Intersect to Create New Vulnerabilities in Hong Kong

期刊

LAND
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10040391

关键词

vulnerability; extreme weather; climate change; resilience; ageing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As extreme weather events become more frequent, vulnerabilities in urban areas are heightened by the intersection of various factors, such as aging populations and coastal development. Hong Kong serves as a prime example of these intersecting risks, where the elderly living on reclaimed land are increasingly exposed to coastal flooding. Efforts in major cities to identify and address these vulnerabilities are lacking, indicating a need for future research to analyze these intersectionalities.
As extreme weather events seemingly increase in frequency and magnitude, we are accumulating evidence about how the intersection of circumstances creates vulnerability. The specter of elderly residents in Brooklyn, New York, trapped in their apartments for days due to flooding from the storm surge brought by Hurricane Sandy, provides us a troubling lesson. As vulnerability emerges from the confluence of multiple factors, changing social, natural, and other factors combine to create unimagined problems. Hong Kong is a case in point. The city has seen much of its new development occurring on reclaimed coastal land. At the same time, there has been a significant demographic shift as the city's elderly population has been its fastest growing demographic. The social transition also means more elderly persons living alone. All of these produce conditions that render the population increasingly vulnerable to coastal flooding. Yet, there is not enough systematic effort, in major cities, at identifying these vulnerabilities. Hong Kong is emblematic of coastal cities the world over, in that it has yet to come to a full realization of such emerging risks. Future research must be able to analyze intersectionalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据