This is a really interesting point Lorenzo. It has been a source of frustration when working within the IPCC Working Group 2 - where vulnerabilities, and in particular ‘key’ vulnerabilities, are discussed and are an important element of the ‘reasons for concern’ framework that is often used to communicate with policymakers about climate change. On the other hand, there is discussion of the dynamic nature of vulnerability (for example in the SREX Chapter 2) and that, in my view, contradicts the idea of vulnerability as something that can be categorised (ie key vulnerabilities). It was difficult for me to wrap my head around this also as Co-editor of the glossary for the last assessment report, because we were faced with these two uses - which both have literatures of course.

But IPCC aside, I also struggle with plural vulnerabilities and always remove it and change it to vulnerability, unless it refers specifically to the IPCC framework.

Lisa

On 26 Apr 2018, at 12:07, Lorenzo Guadagno <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear RADIXers,

I am a bit puzzled every time I read "vulnerabilities" (plural) in disaster-related documents and publications - which I have the impression it is happening more and more, especially in non-strictly-DRR policy documents, reports and grey literature.

Beyond the synctactical issue (whether the use of the plural is correct or not depends on the definition of "vulnerability"), I have the impression that the use of the plural conveys vulnerability as an immediate condition of need (likely the consequence of a disaster), and overlooks or even undermines the discourse and analysis of pre-disaster drivers/causes.

I wonder whether any of you have noticed this (and have written on it), and how you address it in practice (e.g. editing, feedback to authors).

Thanks in advance for the feedback!
Lorenzo