Gibberish

On the Study of Vulnerability to Climate Change/Variability

Various approaches have been used by researchers to achieve these goals. The major approaches in the literature can be categorized as: Natural hazard tradition, political-ecology approach, social-ecological system approach, IPCC adaptation approach, sustainable livelihood approach, and participatory approach. All of them attempt to integrate both bio-physical and social-economic-political perspectives though giving them different weights. Some of them also include the resilience perspective. Each of them can be represented and better explained by a conceptual framework. The frameworks share a set of basic "building blocks". Each framework can be seen as a combination of some of the "building blocks" from different or same perspective (s) for different or same purpose (s). The later frameworks have fed on the earlier ones.

Natural hazard tradition (approach)

Natural hazard research has influenced the later approaches in a significant way. This approach is highlighted in Burton et al.'s book, The Environment as Hazard, published in 1978. Based on their model (Fig 0.1), the interaction of nature and human system can create both useful resources for humans and hazards. To reduce the impacts of hazards, humans can choose to modify natural events and processes, and change human use system of locations, livelihoods, and social organization (Fig 0.2), and exclusive dependence on any single coping strategy reduces the resilience of both natural and human systems. They have demonstrated how individuals, collective actions, national policies, and international actions can help mitigate impacts. They have emphasized that nature-science perspective, technology perspective, or social-science perspective, each alone, is not adequate for understanding and mitigating vulnerability. Their work has initiated a new trend of disaster management from technology-oriented controls to comprehensive strategies that involve human behavior change as well. Notice that earlier natural hazard research adopted mostly natural-science and technology views.

Fig 0.1 Resources and hazards from nature and man interactions

Fig 0.2 Human responses to hazards

We shall see that all the elements in the later frameworks were already present here, from bio-physical perspective to social perspective, from adaptation to resilience, from hazard appraisal to actions and choices at various levels.

Political ecology approach (PAR model)

The Pressure and Release/Access model proposed by Blaikie et al. (Fig1.1 and Fig1.2) synthesizes social and physical vulnerability. It reflects a political-ecology approach, and has been influenced by political economy and natural hazard research. In this approach, hazards are placed within the broader context of society, and vulnerability is explained as a result of both biophysical dynamics and social, political and economic processes. The PAR model recognizes that a disaster is the intersection of two forces: the process generating vulnerability and the physical exposure to hazards. Increasing pressure can come from either side, but to relieve the pressure, vulnerability has to be reduced. Though both social and biophysical perspectives are included, it emphasizes social processes more than bio-physical dynamics. It is intended to explain vulnerability by attributes and processes in human systems. As it is rooted in political economy/ecology, it is supposed to have influences on policies.

Fig1.1 The Pressure and Release/Access model

Fig1.2 Access to resources to maintain livelihoods

IPCC adaptation approach

Fig 2 The IPCC conceptual framework for vulnerability assessment

According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conceptual framework for vulnerability assessment (Fig 2), vulnerability is a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Exposure is the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climate variations. Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected by climate-related stimuli. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. The IPCC framework has evolved from earlier generations that focus on impact assessment (which is influenced more by natural hazards research) to a more comprehensive vulnerability assessment including both impacts and adaptive capacity. It also includes both bio-physical and social perspectives. Compared to political-ecology approach and social-ecological approach, the IPCC framework is more intended for assessing vulnerability/adaptive capacity than understanding causal processes and dynamics. The late version of this framework (called adaptation policy framework) focuses more on adaptive capacity building, and has a strong intention and potential to influence climate policies. Indeed, this adaptation approach is largely driven by climate change research.

Social-ecological system approach

Fig 3 The framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science

The social-logical system approach is represented by the framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science (SUST framework) proposed by B.L. Turner et al. (Fig 3). This approach takes social-logical systems (human-environment systems) as analysis units. It explains vulnerability as exposure, sensitivity and resilience of the system operating at multiple spatial, functional and temporal scales under multiple interacting perturbations. It integrates all three perspectives and has been influenced by risk/hazard tradition, political economy/ecology and ecological resilience theory. Like the PAR model, the social-logical system approach is also intended to explain vulnerability by processes, but it weights human systems and natural systems more equally and places more emphasis on the dynamics of the system. Due to its complexity, it can be difficult to carry out such a comprehensive analysis. Resilience and complexity are themselves challenging to deal with, and we still do not have a good understanding about the dynamics of human-environment systems yet. Its influences on policies are, therefore, limited. At least at the current stage, it is more an intellectual movement, and it is still too early to see its influences on policies. The SUST framework essentially synthesizes some elements of the IPCC adaptation framework and the resilience perspective.

Sustainable livelihood approach

Fig 4 Sustainable livelihood framework

Sustainable livelihood approach is used to study the well-being of a person or household in the context of development assistance and poverty alleviation. It is represented by the sustainable livelihood framework (Fig 4) promoted by DFID (the Department for International Development). Several variations of this framework can be found in the literature. Vulnerability in this context refers to the susceptibility to circumstances of not being able to sustain a livelihood. A livelihood is sustainable if it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capacities and assets both now and in the future while not undermining the natural resources base. The sustainable livelihood approach recognizes the multiple factors and influences on livelihoods and they are dynamic. It tries to bridge the gap between micro- and macro-level factors. With its root in development study, the sustainable livelihood approach is intended to understand the attributes and processes that make individuals vulnerable so to identify sustainable livelihood options to achieve increased well-being. It incorporates both bio-physical and social perspectives. The definition of sustainable livelihood reflects the resilience view. The sustainable livelihood approach is very similar to the PAR model, but focuses more on individuals than larger political-economic settings though it recognizes the impacts of larger settings. Because of its focus on individuals, it is probably not likely to influence policies very much.

Participatory approach

Participatory approach involves in local people, decision makers and experts in the vulnerability study, and can be well illustrated by the eight-step framework (Fig 5) proposed by Schroter et al. Participatory approach, in general, can be used for both assessing vulnerability and understanding factors and processes underlying vulnerability. It is useful for experimenting with future scenarios associated with vulnerability, and identifying effective pathways to reduce vulnerability. Because it directly engages in policy makers throughout the process of identifying problems and locating solutions, it has a strong potential for influencing policy making. Participatory approach has been influenced by anthropology and development study. Both participatory approach and sustainable livelihood approach are bottom-up approach, and aim for identifying options to reduce vulnerability. The sustainable livelihood approach is, in fact, emphatically participatory. One step of the eight-step approach is to identify drivers for vulnerability and develop causal models of vulnerability. Sustainable livelihood framework, the PAR model or social-ecological system approach can be used in participatory research for this purpose. Another step is finding indicators of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which is apparently taken from the IPCC adaptation approach. Applying models to project future vulnerability in different scenarios is aligned with the idea of resilience.

Fig 5 The Eight-Step Approach

Compared to the natural hazard approach, Blaikie et al.'s PAR model focuses more on understanding the social-economic-political processes that make people more or less vulnerable while the social-ecological approach explicitly takes social-ecological systems as basic study units, and thus focuses more on the complex interaction and dynamics of coupled human-environment systems. Bottom-up approaches (such as sustainable livelihood approach and participatory approach) focus more on actions and choices at individual level or community level. The IPCC adaptation approach focuses on impact assessment and adaptation to future changes.

Researchers from different disciplines have increasingly realized the importance of integrating various perspectives and approaches for the study of vulnerability/adaptation to climate impacts. For instance, all the main approaches integrate a bio-physical and a social view, and the relatively new resilience view has been more and more incorporated into vulnerability analysis and adaptation work. There has been a synergy between development study and adaptation to climate change. Bottom-up approaches, such as sustainable livelihood approach and participatory approach, have been more frequently used with other approaches in vulnerability/adaptation research.

To facilitate vulnerability comparison, recently Polsky et al. have proposed an indicator structuring technique called the VSD (Fig 6). The VSD is essentially a further elaboration of the IPCC framework. They have illustrated how to use the VSD with the eight-step approach for vulnerability assessment.

Fig 6 The VSD

Note: all the figures are copied from the original papers or books by the authors mentioned in the text.