|
On the Study of Vulnerability to Climate Change/Variability
III
Despite all the synergies and efforts, the integration of paradigms and worldviews from different disciplines and traditions in the study of vulnerability/adaptation to climate impacts proves to difficult as researchers from different disciples have long carved out a niche for their research. Notice also that though benefited from the rich methods that different disciplines and traditions have offered, exploring the dynamics of vulnerability at multiple spatial and temporal scales under interacting stressors remains challenging, and new methodologies are needed. The social-ecological system perspective is important, and is likely to flourish. But whether it is going to prevail depends on how well we will be able to address the complexity of such systems. Methodologies such as agent-based modeling may play a role. It also looks promising to integrate vulnerability analysis with development study especially in the context of climatic variability. Indeed, vulnerability study will be more useful if it is conducted for development and development will be more sustainable if it is less vulnerable to climatic variability. For both research and practice, it will be more fruitful to look at vulnerability analysis as part of development study. Sustainable development can be a larger framework with the potential of integrating various perspectives of vulnerability analysis and consolidating the confusing terminologies inherited from different traditions. In such a framework, adaptation or adaptive capacity building becomes part of sustainable development. Sustainable development can be further viewed in multiple dimensions: sustainable to climatic variability, sustainable to energy resources, sustainable to biodiversity, and sustainable to pollutions etc. Development can only be truly sustainable if all these dimensions are considered, though in each place or case, the relative importance of these dimensions may vary. This multiple dimensional view of sustainability facilitates concretizing the concept of sustainability, another nebulous concept that has been constantly doubted and debated. Such a larger sustainable development framework is also likely to have more influences on policies. When we study vulnerability to climatic variability for sustainable development from a social-ecological system perspective, it follows naturally that vulnerability is no more the most central concept. A concept (better positive) that takes a larger perspective is needed. Besides, the concept of vulnerability has been frequently contested. In my view, this is partly due to the diverse perspectives, and partly because it has been used to explain things more than it can explain. For instance, the question of "Is the rich or the poor more vulnerable?" is beyond the explanatory scope of vulnerability. Finally, the study of vulnerability to climate warming may be different from the study of vulnerability to climatic variability considering its evolutionary history, global scale and special funding sources for both research and practices. The concept of vulnerability is and will continue to be central for studying the impacts of climate warming. Still, in a local context, it seems to make sense to view it as part of development if climate warming is going to have an important impact in a place. |
||
|
|
||