Socioeconomic vulnerability and exposure

Results show that the individual determinants of socioeconomic vulnerability – and thus the composite vulnerability index – are significantly affected by the varying levels of socioeconomic development depicted under the four SSPsEU, while population exposure at the grid-cell level (expressed here in terms of population density) only shows minor changes compared to the baseline condition (Figure 4.2; full results available in Figure S4.6 and Table S4.4). At the European level however, the global population of the 25 investigated countries shows substantial changes, rising from 493 million in 2015 up to 536 million and 602 million in 2050 under SSP1EU and SSP5EU respectively, stabilizing under SSP4EU, and declining to 446 million under SSP3EU, mainly due to unfavorable economic conditions and low immigration. The fairly high population growth under SSP5EU (+18.2% compared to baseline) leads to both higher population density and increased proportion of artificial surfaces, also enabled by the lack of restrictive planning regulations. Under SSP1EU, lower population growth (+8.1%) and efficient planning both limit further expansion of artificial surfaces.

99 The European population ages under all SSPsEU, with the highest ageing rate occurring under SSP1EU and SSP4EU, mainly due to limited immigration. The proportion of elderly people under all SSPsEU (except SSP5EU) rises up to 60-65% in the Mediterranean region, in the Iberian Peninsula, and in the Southern part of Eastern Europe, whereas the current proportion in these regions is less than 30%. In addition to ageing, the elderly’s living arrangements also change significantly. While the proportion of elderly people living alone decreases under SSP3EU and SSP4EU – with an average of 23.5%

and 26.4% respectively, compared to 27.8% currently –, it rises under the two other scenarios. The highest increase occurs under SSP5EU, in which on average 35.8% of the elderly are living alone, a proportion which increases to 50-60% in Scandinavia.

Based on a continuous economic growth, GDP per capita increases under all SSPsEU, with the highest increase taking place under SSP5EU. In the case of the latter, GDP per capita rises up to 54’900 US$ on average (meaning an increase of +58% compared to the current economic situation), with major cities of the British Isles, of France, and of Mid-Europe having a GDP per capita higher than 100’000 US$. In contrast, economic growth is fairly limited under SSP3EU, with a growth in mean GDP per capita of +37%

compared to the baseline. Due to assumptions of strong economic divergence under SSP3EU and SSP4EU, the poorest regions at the present time (e.g. rural regions in Eastern Europe) are expected to experience economic stagnation under these scenarios. The significant inequalities depicted under SSP4EU are reflected in the very large spread of GDP per capita, ranging from less than 8’000 US$ in several regions of Eastern Europe to more than 110’000 US$ in wealthy centers of the British Isles and of Mid-Europe. In contrast, assumptions of economic convergence under SSP1EU lead to a smaller range between extreme values of GDP per capita (minimum of 24’000 US$ and maximum of 103’000 US$).

In relation to education level, SSP1EU and SSP5EU both lead to a very high increase – due to considerable investment in education –, with 57.3% and 57.4% respectively of European adults having completed their tertiary education. In several urbanized regions of France and of the British Isles, this rate exceeds 90%. In contrast, SSP3EU and SSP4EU

do not lead to a significant increase in education, with 32.7% and 28.1% respectively of adults having completed tertiary education, compared to 28.8% currently. The slight decrease observed under SSP4EU is primarily due to significant inequalities in terms of investments and access to education, with only small political and business elites benefitting.

In contrast to education, the prevalence of overweight increases considerably under SSP3EU and SSP4EU, with 68.5% and 60.8% respectively of the European adult population being overweight in 2050, compared to 51.9% currently. A slightly lower increase is expected under SSP5EU (54.7% on average), while overweight prevalence decreases under SSP1EU (48.9% on average) and reaches less than 35% in certain parts of Scandinavia.

100 Fig. 4.2 – Spatial distribution of the six drivers of vulnerability, the vulnerability index, and population exposure at the grid-cell level, for baseline socioeconomic conditions and for the year 2050 under the four SSPsEU.

As a result of all the trends discussed above, the vulnerability index increases under SSP3EU and SSP4EU, but decreases under SSP1EU and SSP5EU. The high vulnerability area – computed as the proportion of grid cells within the 8^th-10^th deciles – increases from 22.4% (in 2015) to 46.7% and 54.5% in 2050 under SSP4EU and SSP3EU

respectively, while the low vulnerability area – computed as the proportion of grid cells within the 1^st-3^rd deciles – increases from 28.4% currently to 43.2% and 53.8% in 2050 under SSP5EU and SSP1EU respectively. The highest vulnerability levels are found in certain parts of Eastern Europe, under SSP4EU (Figure 4.3). These regions, together with certain parts of Mid-Europe, display very high vulnerability (9^th-10^th deciles) under all scenarios as well as in the baseline situation. Similarly, most of the investigated regions of Scandinavia and of the North of the British Isles show very low vulnerability (1^st-2^nd deciles) in most cases. In contrast, the Mediterranean region and the Iberian Peninsula are highly scenario-sensitive, showing very high vulnerability under SSP3EU and SSP4EU

and very low vulnerability under SSP1EU and SSP5EU.

101 Fig. 4.3 – Vulnerability index in Europe for the baseline socioeconomic conditions (2015) and for the year 2050 under the four SSPsEU. Classification by deciles – over all scenarios and time-periods.