Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability: A Conceptual and Theoretical Review
Abstract: The extensive scope of climate change research and the diversity of scientific traditions involved in vulnerability research have resulted in different conceptual definitions and theoretical conceptualizations of the climate vulnerability phenomenon. This diversity of interpretations has led to copious methods for operationalizing vulnerability as an analytical concept, i.e., frameworks and approaches for vulnerability assessments. This paper is intended to review literature on climate change vulnerability by exploring and synthesizing the various conceptual and analytical frameworks which is regarded to be important in the assessment of vulnerability to climate change. From the reviewed literature, several interpretation of the concept of climate change vulnerability as well as theoretical frameworks are brought to the fore. The paper further highlighted on the two well- known methodologies of estimating vulnerability in literature; the vulnerability variable assessment method and the indicator technique by espousing the merits and demerits of each approach. It is suggested that exploring integrated quantitative vulnerability assessment approach will enhance the understanding of climate change vulnerabilities.Danladi Yusuf Gumel
Department of Geography, School of Secondary Education, Arts & Social Science, Jigawa State College of Education, Gumel, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: danladiysf67@gmail.com
Abstract
The extensive scope of climate change research and the diversity of scientific traditions involved in vulnerability research have resulted in different conceptual definitions and theoretical conceptualizations of the climate vulnerability phenomenon. This diversity of interpretations has led to copious methods for operationalizing vulnerability as an analytical concept, i.e., frameworks and approaches for vulnerability assessments. This paper is intended to review literature on climate change vulnerability by exploring and synthesizing the various conceptual and analytical frameworks which is regarded to be important in the assessment of vulnerability to climate change. From the reviewed literature, several interpretation of the concept of climate change vulnerability as well as theoretical frameworks are brought to the fore. The paper further highlighted on the two well- known methodologies of estimating vulnerability in literature; the vulnerability variable assessment method and the indicator technique by espousing the merits and demerits of each approach. It is suggested that exploring integrated quantitative vulnerability assessment approach will enhance the understanding of climate change vulnerabilities.
Keywords: Assessment, Climate change, Indicator, Sustainable Livelihood, Vulnerability
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6206933
Conflicts of interest: None
Supporting agencies: None
Accepted 15 February 2022
Cite This Article: Gumel, D.Y. (2022). Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability: A Conceptual and Theoretical Review. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6206933
1. Introduction
The conceptual understanding of vulnerability emanated from discussions on development in the 1990’s (Cambers, 1994) and widely used in engineering research and projects as it relates to hazard preparedness (Adger, 2006). The concept was eventually used in numerous field of research, such as food insecurity(Borre, Ertle, & Graff, 2010); assessment of disaster (Wisner, 2004; Cutter et. al., 2003) and assessment of poverty and livelihood (Conway, 1992); vulnerability to climate change (Abson et al., 2012; Ericksen, et al., 2011). The wide scope of climate change research and the diversity of scientific traditions involved in vulnerability research have resulted in different definitions and theoretical conceptualizations of the climate vulnerability phenomenon. Furthermore, this diversity of interpretations has led to numerous methods for operationalizing vulnerability as an analytical concept, i.e., frameworks and approaches for vulnerability assessments. There is a consensus in literature on the need for greater clarity concerning vulnerability and related concepts. Numerous studies have, due to the prevailing confusion, attempted to assess the various definitions and conceptualizations in order to identify and create overarching frameworks. For better understanding of the different usage of vulnerability in climate change literature, this work intends to provide the numerous interpretations of the concept and theoretical frameworks used in literature.
2. Methods
This paper is purely based on the secondary literatures. Keywords such as “Climate Change, Sustainable Livelihood and Vulnerability” to search for relevant articles in journal databases.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Conceptual definitions of vulnerability
There are many definitions of vulnerability in literature
depending on the disciplines and their origin (Adger, 2006; Fellmann, 2012). In
the general sense the word vulnerability denotes the ability or the state of being
wounded, in other words it is the extent to which the system will possibly
suffer from harm as a result of its exposure to hazardous condition. The root
of the word owes its’ origin from geography and hazard literature but has now
became an integral concept in many disciplines. The concept of vulnerability
therefore, seems to have been defined differently by different scholars (Füssel
2007).
Vulnerability literally is considered to mean the
tendency or susceptibility to be harmed, it has been considered as a composite
of adaptive capacity, sensitivity and exposure to hazards (Füssel 2007; Paavola
2008; Ghimire, Shivakoti, & Perret, 2010; IPCC, 2012). While adaptive
capacity is regarded as the capacity of the people to deal with or acclimatize
with the changing situation and is normally defined by socio-economic
indicators. Sensitivity is the responses of the system as it is been affected,
and exposure is the occurrences of events or stimulus (Paavola 2008).
Vulnerability therefore, comprises of risk situation or a series of risky
situations that households are faced with in trying to meet up with their means
of livelihood, the sensitivity of the livelihood to those risky situations, the
responses or choices that households have to make to manage those hazards and
eventually the circumstances that explain the loss in wellness (Turner et al.,
2003). It is generally regarded as the predisposition or susceptibility to
being affected, and has been considered as a function of adaptive capacity,
sensitivity and exposure to hazards (Kelly & Adger, 2000; McCarthy, 2001;
IPCC, 2012).
From the definition given by Chambers (1983),
vulnerability have two sides. These sides are the external consisting of risk,
or shock emanating from the changes in climate which individuals or households
are subjected to, while the inner dimension is the defenselessness, translated
into the lack of ability to manage this risk or shock without adverse effect.
The person’s or group’s characteristics to in respect of their ability to
predict, manage, and withstand, and resuscitate from the adverse effects of
environmental threats. It can be seen as a spectrum from being resilient to
susceptible (Blaikie, Cannon, David, & Wisner, 1994). It is the degree of
susceptibility to sustained injury from climate change by natural or social
system (Adger, 1999).
Generally speaking, vulnerability is understood to be a
function of two aspects. The effects of an event on the human being, called the
capacity or social vulnerability and the danger of the likely occurrence of the
event signifying the system’s exposure. According to Watson, Zinyowera, Marufu,
and Moss (1996) vulnerability is the degree of damages or harm caused by
climate change, this depend on the systems sensitivity and also the extent to which
the system adapt to new changes in the climate condition.
Kasperson, Kasperson, Turner, Hsieh, and Schiller (2003),
defined vulnerability as the extent whereby an exposure unit has the propensity
to be harmed as a result of disturbance or stress and the capacity or otherwise
to manage and recover or adjusting to new condition or become extinct.
Vulnerability is related to issues like “marginality,
resilience, adaptability, susceptibility, risk, fragility, coping, sensitivity,
exposure, criticality, robustness and coping capacity” (Füssel & Klein,
2006). Owing to this fact, the concept has a multiple dimension in its policy
context as a result of the wide ranging concepts and approaches in its
assessment (Füssel 2007). Recently the term symbolizes a “conceptual- cluster,”
a conglomeration of coupled human- environmental research (Newell et al., 2005;
Füssel 2007).
Moreover Füssel (2007), shows that the concept of
vulnerability could be meaningfully understood when it is attributed to a
particular system, to a particular hazard or variety of hazards and
differentiated base on time horizon, as current and/or future vulnerability. To
describe vulnerability appropriately, there should be four of the following
dimensions; firstly, there should be a system of analysis, e.g. the coupled
human- environment system, or a population group, an economic sector,
geographical area or region, or a natural system; secondly, it should also
indicate a particular attribute shown to be threatened through exposure to a
given hazard.
For instance, public life and health, income, community
cultural identity, biodiversity etc., thirdly, it should indicate the hazard
i.e. the potentials of being destroyed or damaged by a particular physical
event, or a phenomenon or human action that is capable of causing harm or loss
of life, or properties, disruption of other social or economic activity, or a
general environmental destruction; fourthly, it should have a temporal
dimension or reference (Singh , Bantilan, & Byjesh, 2014), this is needed
specifically when the amount of risk situation is expected to aggravate with
time (Luers, Lobell, Sklar, Addams, & Matson, 2003; Luers, 2005; Füssel
2007).
Recently, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) defines vulnerability 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. But in the context of climate change as put
forward by the IPCC, vulnerability therefore, is said to be a function of the
character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is
exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity”(IPCC, 2007; Singh et al., 2014).
This definition, illustrate the fact that Vulnerability comprises of three components in the system. System’s exposure as an external component in form of climatic variability, the internal component or dimension in form of system’s sensitivity, as well as system’s adaptive capacity to that particular exposure and sensitivity (O’Brien et al., 2004; Füssel & Klein, 2006; Bryan, Deressa, Gbetibouo, & Ringler, 2009; Gbetibouo & Ringler, 2009; Gbetibouo , Ringler , & Hassan 2010;). Exposure portrays the magnitude within which a system is approaching harm, while system’s sensitivity is the magnitude of been affected after exposure to the stress(Luers et al., 2003; Luers, 2005). The capacity or system’s ability to get prepared and modify the stress, so as to minimize the deleterious impact and or taking the advantage from the opportunities offered. Adaptive capacity modifies vulnerability with its moderating effects on exposure and sensitivity (Adger et al., 2007; Engle, 2011).
This means that a given system is said to be vulnerable
when it is exposed and show sensitivity to climatic changes with low adaptive
capacity. A system is less vulnerable when it’s exposure and sensitivity to
climate changes is low, and or its adaptive capacity is high (Smit &
Wandel, 2006; Engle, 2011; Fellmann, 2012).
From climate change perspectives, exposure therefore,
refers to the extent and intensity of system’s exposure to great climatic
changes (Griggs & Noguer, 2002). It denotes the contextual climate settings
and stimulus determining system’s responses against those settings. Exposure as
an element of vulnerability encompasses not only the extent but also how
enormous a system face serious changes in climatic conditions (Adger, 2006). In
vulnerability assessment, the climatic changes could be summed up as climatic
variability or distinct changes in the climatic system such as rising
temperatures, variation and changes in rainfall, etc.
Collectively, exposure level and sensitivity of the
system expresses the possible impact a system might experience but these alone
did not in any way make system vulnerable
no matter how exposed or how sensitive that system is. Both exposure and
sensitivity do not explain the ability of the system to adjust to the climatic
changes, rather vulnerability is the residual impact after adaptation has taken
place as indicated in Figure 2.4. It is the adaptive capacity that influences
vulnerability through modifying exposure and sensitivity (Yohe & Tol, 2002;
Adger et al., 2007; Fellmann, 2012).
Engle (2011), describes adaptive capacity as an essential substance or positive trait of a system needed to ameliorates vulnerability. The higher the adaptive capacity of a system, the more is the possibility of system to adjust and the less the vulnerability to climate change and variability. The role of adaptive capacity is shown pictorially in figure 2 below;
Fig 2: The Vital Function of Adaptive Capacity towards
Vulnerability
Source: Engle (2011)
Generally speaking, vulnerability, together with its
three surfaces i.e. exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, and their
determining factors have both temporal and spatial variation, they vary with
type and climate stimulus as well (Smit & Wandel, 2006; Adger et al., 2007;
Fellmann, 2012; Singh et al., 2014).
Therefore, vulnerability is relative to the specific context, and the factors
that influence system’s vulnerability to climatic changes depend on the nature
of the system and the impacts (Brooks, Adger, & Kelly, 2005).
3.2. Contending
Interpretations of Vulnerability Assessment
There are a
number of alternative concepts in literature as there are various definitions
of vulnerability. Each of these concepts emanates from various academic areas
and professional background and the unit of analysis (Füssel 2007; Hinkel,
2011). Yet, in the context of climate change two well-known concept of
vulnerability abound in literature; these are outcome vulnerability and
contextual vulnerability. The outcome vulnerability is the “end-point” while
the contextual vulnerability is the “starting point” vulnerability.
The Outcome
vulnerability is called the end-point vulnerability analysis considers
vulnerability to be the possible final impact of climate changes on a
particular unit of exposure such as biophysical or social when possible
adaptation is being considered. Therefore, the outcome method takes into
account information on possible biophysical impact of climate change along with
information regarding socio- economic ability to withstand and adapt
appropriately (Füssel 2007; O'Brien, Eriksen, Nygaard, & Schjolden, 2007;
Fellmann, 2012).
On the basis of
natural science orientation and climate change model scenario prediction, the
outcome vulnerability methods typically cantered on biophysical changes within
a given system. With a clear demarcation between physical and social components
and consider vulnerability as outcome that can be estimated and measured. In
this approach, vulnerability outcome is measured by the levels of system’s
adaptive capacity, with a greater emphasis on biophysical components while the
function of socio- economic component on the effects of climate change is often
neglected. It is therefore, assumed that highly vulnerable system is the one to
have a serious physical change. Studies that follow this tradition consider
technological solution in adaptation and mitigation strategy in minimizing a
given climate change impact (Eriksen & Kelly, 2007; Füssel 2007; O'Brien et
al., 2007). Studies that focus on the vulnerability of agricultural yields to
climate change in the future usually follow the tradition of outcome vulnerability
approach.
The concept of
contextual vulnerability otherwise referred to as the starting- point
interpretation viewed vulnerability as a current lack of capacity of a given
system to deal with the changing climate conditions. Therefore, vulnerability
is seen to be affected by both biophysical conditions and the changing social,
economic political, institutional and technological structures and processes.
This approach considers vulnerability to be a function of the character of
ecological and social systems which are shaped by multiple factors and
processes (Adger, 2006; O'Brien et al., 2007).
From the social
science tradition, contextual vulnerability methods cheaply give emphasis on
the current socio-economic determinants or drivers of vulnerability, i.e.
social, economic and institutional conditions. Those determining factors that
influences the vulnerability of a system comprises of “marginalization, inequity,
food and resource entitlements, presence and strength of institutions,
economics and politics” (Adger, 2006; Fellmann, 2012).
Hence, the
contextual explanation of vulnerability clearly identifies that vulnerability
to climate change is not only a function of biophysical components of the
environment, but is essentially controlled by the extent of socio-economic
circumstances in which climate changes occur. Both natural and social milieu
are normally viewed “as the two sides of the same coin”, i.e. a strong
human-environment interrelationship is assumed and the boundaries between
nature and society are not firmly drawn” (Fellmann, 2012). This approach holds
that the present vulnerability to climatic perturbation defines the system’s
adaptive capacity, and the changing climate modulates both the biophysical
settings and also the circumstances of climate change occurrence (Turner et
al., 2003).
From the
contextual perspectives, vulnerability can be reduced by changing the
conditions where climate change take place so that the affected population both
individuals and groups can be supported to
appropriately manage and adjust to the changing climatic perturbations(Adger,
2006; Eriksen & Kelly, 2007). Therefore, studies along the perspectives of
contextual methods normally consider sustainable development approaches to
strengthen people responses and adaptive capacities to tackle the issue of
vulnerability to climate changes. One vital element of contextual methods is
the involvement of the people and other stakeholders in the identification of
the stressors, impacts and the adaptive options (Fellmann, 2012). The various
concepts and explanations of vulnerability make its study to be context,
purpose, place and time specifics, as well as the perception of its assessors
(Adger, 2006; Fellmann, 2012; IPCC, 2012a).
In practice,
Fellmann (2012), opines that the question of “who is vulnerable to climate
change?” can usually be explained in both the two perspectives of vulnerability. Fellmann, further explain that
endpoint vulnerability usually addresses questions like “what are the expected
net impacts of climate change in different regions?” or “which sector is more
vulnerable to climate change?” He
pointed out that same question can equally be addressed through contextual
methods, much as the study is dealing with an economy that is characterized by
sensitivity to climate changes. Hence, contextual vulnerability approach deals
with the question of “why are some regions or social groups more vulnerable
than others?” (Fellmann, 2012).
Nonetheless,
vulnerability is seen as context- and purpose-specific; neither of the two
approaches could be seen as superior to the other. Rather the two approaches
should be seen as complementary to each other in climate change studies. As
highlighted in O'Brien et al. (2007), the outcome and contextual
interpretations of vulnerability should be recognized as being two
complementary approaches to the climate change issue. The two approaches assess
vulnerability from different perspectives and both are important to understand
the relevance of climate change and corresponding responses (Kelly & Adger,
2000; Adger, 2006; O'Brien et al., 2007). Additionally, in recognizing that any
complex system commonly involves multiple variables such as physical,
environmental, social, cultural and economic, it is better to assess the vulnerability
of that system through an integrated or multidimensional approach in order to
capture and comprehend the whole picture of vulnerability within the
perspective of climate change(Cardona et al., 2012).
In a nutshell,
climate change vulnerability as shown above is considered as a construction of
both biophysical and socio-economic vulnerabilities, and each of these is
influenced by the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity components. On
the basis of timeframe vulnerability assessment could be current or future. For
instance, outcome vulnerability is conceptualized as future vulnerability,
while contextual vulnerability is cantered on assessing current vulnerability.
This difference is attributable to the differences in the fields that are concern
with the vulnerability and adaptation research.
Natural science
field usually considers the biophysical factors of climate changes and
therefore, examine potential vulnerability as an end-point analysis. While
scientists working with socio-economic factors examine current or starting-
point vulnerability analysis (Fellmann, 2012). Although, such division of
vulnerability analysis on the basis of timeframe as it is important, and valid
to maintain the different perspectives, yet, socio-economic factors play a
significant role in modifying climate change impacts (Carter et al., 2007;
Fellmann, 2012). This underscores how vulnerability depend on the on-going
autonomous and or planned adaptation practices (Carter et al., 2007).
Hence, to have
thorough understanding of vulnerability requires the combination of the various
perspectives, as an integrative approach (Fellmann, 2012).The integrated
vulnerability analysis, combine both the socio-economic and biophysical
component of the system under study. The approach considers all the internal
dimension of vulnerability and the external stressors of concern. This
integrated diagnostic technique was used in an agro-ecologically based
household’s vulnerability analysis in Ethiopia (Madu, 2012), similarly, (Deressa
, Hassan, & Ringler, 2008) used the approach in vulnerability analysis of
farmers at the regional level in Ethiopia. Moreover, the dynamics of
vulnerability makes its assessment as a continuous process so as to portray the
spatial and temporal dimensions of vulnerability of a particular system of
concern (Luers, 2005; Ericksen and Kelly, 2007). This study adopts the
integrated vulnerability assessment approach by assessing the of paddy farmers’
households and communities vulnerability to climate change variability.
3.3. Theoretical Framework for
Vulnerability Assessment
There are
different type of methods and tools use in the assessment of vulnerability as a
result of the multiplicity of interpretation and concepts. The various
methodological approaches use in assessment of climate change vulnerability in
agricultural sector ranges from experimental, modelling, meta-analysis, and
survey-based.
There are two well- known methodologies of estimating vulnerability in literature; the vulnerability variable assessment method and the indicator technique. The vulnerability variable assessment procedure is based on econometric technique of determining welfare loss of particular variables of interest such as household food consumption, income, agricultural crop yields etc., as it relates to particular set of stressors for instance climate change (Schimmelpfennig & Yohe, 1999; Gbetibouo et al., 2010). Although this approach can provide vulnerability index of a particular area, yet, could not adequately reflects all the three levels of vulnerability (Luers et al., 2003; Gbetibouo et al., 2010). These approaches include entitlement- based and Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA)
Entitlement- Based Approach
This is one of
the variable assessment approaches applied in the development economics to
understand the occurrence of food insecurity. This framework was first
formulated in the 1980’s following the initial work of Sen (1981) entitled
“poverty and famine”. This pioneering work marked the turning point of the
paradigm shift in the food insecurity research as an advancement of the
Malthusian theory. The emphasis is tilted away from the issue of food
availability to food accessibility concerning individuals or household
(Devereux, 2001). This theory therefore dispelled the assumptions of Malthusian
theory that insufficient agricultural food production as the main determinant
of food insecurity. It argued that entitlements bundles of individuals are the
determinant of the access to food, thereby the theory used economic and
institutional factors to unbundle the vulnerability to food insecurity (Sen,
1981).
According to
this theory, entitlement entails collections of commodity bundles that a person
can command in society using the totality of rights and opportunities that he
or she faces alternatively” (Sen, 1984, p. 497).These are resources which could
be actual or potential comprising of mutual arrangements (reciprocal),
production as well as productive assets available to a given household or
community at the time of difficulty (Sen, 1984). Availability of food in the
market does not guarantee its access by individuals or households rather the
amount of entitlement is what determinant the vulnerability of the household
when food crises arise (Sen, 1981). Food insecurity arises where a given
household or individual cannot access food by the use of entitlement at
disposal even in the presence abundant food supply (Devereux, 2001).
Based on this
theory four types of relationship concerning entitlements were identified to
include production, trade, labour and heirloom or remittance. The theory posits
that individuals or households will have food access directly or otherwise via
these means. Three fundamental ways by which individual or household will have
food entitlement are three; (i) Individuals or households produce their own
food as a direct entitlement; (ii) indirectly where household members purchases
food from the market; and/or (iii) households or individuals are provided with
food through charity, non-governmental organization (NGO) or remittance from
family and friends, this is a transfer entitlements (Fraser et al., 2005). When
households experience disruption in their entitlement bundle they became
susceptible to food insecurity as they do not have the capacity to change their
strategies for food entitlement (Fraser et al., 2005).
This theory was
criticized as it gave too much emphasis on economic market- based causality
(Antwi-Agyei, 2012). The approach did not take into consideration the
socio-political and bio- physical factors influencing food insecurity in a
given area, also the manner through which individuals make their means of
livelihood at times of difficulty (Burchi & De Muro, 2016). The entitlement
approach has been practically criticized by Devereux (2001) when he argued that
Sen’s ideas of entitlement had four shortcomings. First, in connection with the
idea of endowment, in reality, people choose hunger instead of selling their
assets. Second, on the basis of De Wall’s health crisis model, death is not caused
by the right, but is more due to the pattern of migration and exposure to new
diseases. Thirdly, criticism also focuses on entitlement rights, in many cases,
in relation to individual as a unit of analysis, in developing countries, the
right to poverty is owned by society not by individuals.
Finally, the shortcoming of this theory is due to extra- entitlement transfer problems. Hunger problems are not just problems with individuals but also problems with institutions, social contexts and political crises. In spite of its criticisms, this approach provides a useful premise upon which an assessment of how the several bundles of entitlement own by individuals could be used to provide explanation of buffer this may create at the time of extreme climate events. In this research this approach provides a wider conceptualization and explorations of numerous capital assets a given farming households and communities will have access to in order to ameliorate negative effects of climate change variability.
Sustainable Livelihood Approach
The Sustainable
Livelihood Approach (SLA) was intended for the assessment of poverty and this
theory builds on the entitlement approach (Sen, 1981). Essentially, the SL
framework deals with the issue of assets that is readily available to the
households and could either be tangible assets or intangible assets, it is akin
to the concepts of endowments in the entitlement theory. These assets are
categorized into five: human, financial, natural, social capital and physical
capitals. Even though this approach is considered as a people- oriented, the
somewhat “pentagon of asset" in actuality is the major thrust of the
Sustainable Livelihood framework. This approach has been used for various
developmental issues, such as food safety (Devereux et al., 2004; Hussein,
2002).
There are two
distinguishing characteristics of the general framework of the Sustainable
Livelihood approach that serves as merits in food security analysis against the
past approaches. The first is that the theory has a long term views; the second
is its focus on context (economic, social, physical, cultural and political
etc.), even though this theory is limited to agricultural activities and rural
areas, and rarely took into consideration macroeconomic or economy -wide
issues. The amalgamation of both analytical features with household asset
studies give rise to three interconnected concepts in the food security
analysis specific to the SL frameworks which were not considered in the earlier
approaches:
Firstly, the theory
clearly considered risk and shock, and the internal sides of vulnerability
translating into lack of ability to manage without being damaged which Chambers
(1995) 'referred to as not lack or want but exposure and helplessness. It has
two sides: the outer side of exposure to shock, stress and risk; and inner
weakness, which means lack of means to overcome without facing damaging loss.
Secondly, the idea of sustainability, which is closely related to vulnerability
and resilience, is among the central principles of the framework of sustainable
livelihood:
As according to
Department For International Development (DFID, 1999) there is sustainability
in livelihood when it can overcome and recover from stress and shock and
maintain or improve its capacities and assets both now and in time ahead.
Thirdly, is addressing coping strategies which 'represent a set of sequence of
activities conducted, specifically by households in reaction to external shock
resulting in the decline in the food availability (Curtis, 1993, quoting
Davies, 1993). Coping strategies are incorporated into a more generalize
survival instinct that is a combined activities chosen by the public to achieve
their livelihood objectives. The concept of sustainable livelihood has also
been extensively been applied in the measurement of food security, mostly in
humanitarian disasters.
The DFID SL framework (Figure 3) is intended to hypothesize the way
through which individuals reacted when they are vulnerable which is influenced
by several factors such as seasonal limitations as well as opportunities, economic
misfortunes and long- term trend. How the individuals harness numerous
livelihood alternative assets or capital singly or in combination as affected
by vulnerability situation, access and influence of various institutions and
procedures. How they can optimize their livelihoods strategy to attain their
preferred livelihood outcomes (DFID, 2000). It is therefore, assumed that when
individuals possess good access to capital assets, the better they are able to
effect structures and processes for them to be highly reactive to their
needs(Carney, 2000).
Vulnerability to Climate Variability and Livelihood Capitals
It is important
to highlight the fact that individuals become vulnerable to climate variability
whenever their means of livelihood is at stake. The theory of SLA approach is
anchored on the belief that local farming communities have numerous
capabilities which needs to be considered. Basically, the Sustainable
Livelihood Approach is useful in the understanding of the way individuals or
communities use a combination of variety of capital endowments comprising of
tangible capital asset, example land asset, and intangible capital asset such
as the level of education or farmers experience, claim and access etc.
individuals possess and have control over to use it in achieving livelihood
goals within the existing social, economic and political milieu (Carney, 1998;
Yaro, 2004).Usually, the sustainable Livelihood Approach is used by taking into
consideration the five capital assets i.e. the human, physical, financial,
social and natural assets and also their connection to aggregate vulnerability
situation (context), process, institution and policy as well as livelihood
outcome (DFID, 2000).
Human capital
asset denote the quality and quantity of labor, which at the individual
household this is represented by the size and composition of household and its
characteristics in terms of Age, gender, levels of education, levels of training and skills, experience,
knowledge (perception) and the health status of the members of the household
(Defiesta & Rapera, 2014).Natural assets comprises of the natural flow and
stock and other environmental resources which is vital in the construction of livelihood
outcomes (Scoones, 1998).Similarly, it involves land quality and quantity,
meadow, water, agro- ecological characteristic including slope, terrain, and
forest resources (Elasha, Elhassan, Ahmed & Zakieldin, 2005), and the
quality of these natural endowments can be enhanced or devalued through human
activities. Financial capital assets include, income, saving, credit and other
form of liquid saving (Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000). This also involves
donations and assets that can be disposed easily like livestock and poultry (Elesha
et al., 2005; Hesselberg and Yaro, 2006).
The physical
assets are assets that are not related to land; they include infrastructure
such as markets, road networks, electricity and irrigation facilities (Elasha
et al., 2005) machinery and equipment (Scoones,
1998; Ellis, 2000) and type of housing (Scoones, 1998). Although infrastructure
are beyond the individual household’s capability and direct control, as these are provided by the government
typically as public goods, but the quality and quantity of these assets
contributes immensely to the viability
of rural livelihoods (Ellis, 2000).
Social Capital entails the numerous rights and claims arising from membership
of recognized group or association (Elasha et al., 2005); social relationships,
collaboration, membership of voluntary organizations, community groups,
professional union, social or political networks and also reliance on family
and relatives as well as friends at the
time of need (Ellis, 2000).
A number of
studies have used this SLA framework (Reid and Vogel, 2006; Thomas et al., 2007
Sallu, et al., 2010). The various studies help to provide a clear understanding
of the way communities or individuals responded to past environmental shocks by
employing the various form of capital assets at their disposal to overcome
climatic shocks.
This present
study therefore, intends to adopt this framework as assessing livelihoods
provides the advantages of understanding various adaptations that are readily
available in dealing with declining crop productivity arising from the effects
of climate variability and by extension how the consequences of this could
affect livelihoods (Antwi-Agyei, 2012).The study uses the SLA to frame how
rural livelihoods, including paddy rice production is vulnerable via the
identification of the farmers various capital assets. The assets are utilized
by the individual households differently to lessen the effects of climate
variability (Eakin and Bojorquez- Tapia, 2008). Therefore, individual farmers
access to wide ranging capital assets fundamentally help to influence the
capacity of households to deal with climate variability (Adger and Kelly,
1999).
In spite of the
usefulness and wider applicability, the framework has been faulted as difficult
to address temporal dimension as well as multiple scales and the dynamics of
power as an analytical tool (Antwi-Agyei, 2012). It was observed to provide a
constricted view of household vulnerability or the community at a particular
point in time and does not provide wider temporal variation linked with the
shocks (Scoone, 2009. Vulnerability situations and policies and collection of
assets are changing constantly with uncertainties. Hence, it is essential to
incorporate time frame with the study framework to give more strength to the
value of the analysis (Scoone, 2009).
The framework
also fails to clearly take into consideration political capital (Toner, 2003;
Baumann, 2000). The framework therefore, underestimates the importance of
politics and power in determining the vulnerability of farming communities to
the effect of climate variability. The inclusion of these it was argued have
the tendency to improve the analytical prowess of this framework (Baumann and
Sinha, 2009). Equally the absence of inclusion of the political capital makes
it difficult to assess the impact of structures transformation and processes on
rural livelihood (Antwi- Agyei, 2012).
Also, another
shortcoming of the framework is in its inability to recognize the variation of
livelihood analysis using multiple scales. While its assumption to link micro
and macro, it was observed that such assumption is unrealistic (Scoones, 2009).
Scoones (2009) opined that the framework is limited in its incapacitation to
capture the globalization phenomenon and how this process impacted on the
activities and outcome of household livelihood. The author stressed the role of
globalization processes in influencing decision- making and choice of local
livelihood. The model was indicted for its inability to recognized distributional
issues (Yaro, 2004) which is believed to be vital in terms of coping and
adaptation to climate change variability.
Although the framework centered on the individuals in the assessment of their livelihood vulnerability and relative inequality facing the respective households which ultimately change the development objectives (Toit, 2005; Dijk, 2011), its methodology was considered to be individualistic. Furthermore, the livelihood assessment apparently assess, only the capital assets available to the farming household. For example, analyzing household the livelihood of a household may provide only evaluation of the availability of natural capital to deal with extreme events, but, the evaluation lack the ability to provide useful explanation as to whether a given agro-system is possibly sensitive to such changes in the environment (Fraser, 2007).The framework therefore, could not take into consideration the physical and ecological environments (Adger, 2006).
Quantitative Indicator Approach to Assessment of Vulnerability
Another
classical approach for quantification of vulnerability is the indicator method
of vulnerability assessment which employs the use of particular set or
collection of some proxy indicators, and assess vulnerability by calculating
indices, averages or weighted averages for the selected variables or indicators
(Gbetibouo et al., 2010). Therefore,
indicators referred to as quantitative measures normally in form of single
values employed as a representation of phenomenon of interest concerning a
given community, household or a particular system (Hinkell, 2011). A chosen
indicator is meant to simplify useful information which can be measured and
quantified, rather it makes the phenomenon perceptible (Moss, Brenkert, &
Malone, 2001).
The process of
aggregating diverse indicators as a representation of a single value to be used
in characterizing particular households, community or a system of interest
usually proves cumbersome. It appears more tasking where the assessment are
carried out in a very large spatial area as the indicators used may appear
different in different areas (Eakin and Luers, 2006; Hinkel, 2011). Therefore,
it is desirable to clearly comprehend the methodology involve in the
measurement of the indicators needed in vulnerability assessment (Gallopin,
1996; Abson et al., 2012).
The advantage of
this method is that it can be applicable in any scale of analysis, such as
household level, district or national level. The disadvantage of the indicator
approach is that applying indices may be marred by subjectivity in variables
selection, but could be very useful in observing trends and also discovering
conceptual frameworks, multiple indices can accurately measure the multiple
dimension of vulnerability (Leichenko & O'Brien, 2002; Gbetibouo et al., 2010). Therefore, other studies may
consider integrated vulnerability assessment approach to construct
vulnerability index for the identification of the most vulnerable to climate
change variability among farmers’ households, villages and communities.
4. Conclusion
Climate change
is caused by disruption of the global energy balance referred to as climate
forcing which may be internal or external. Global changes in the climate will
greatly impacted on agricultural systems with negative consequences on food
production by disrupting the global pattern, hence affecting all component of
food security. Although the effects of climate change will vary from place to
place, however, comprehending the complexity of the effect of climate change on
agriculture needs to be continuously studied as well as more vulnerability
assessment of many countries across the world.
Notwithstanding
the difficulty in conceptualizing and describing vulnerability, the review made
in this study provide an in-road into the various theoretical as well as
conceptual framing of vulnerability and its assessment, Especially as it
relates to vulnerability to climate change and variability. Such vulnerability
assessment can be employed in the identification of vulnerable groups in a
given geographical expression and help in inform policy concerning allocation
of resources in the affected areas.
References
Adger,
W. N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal
Vietnam. World Development, 27(2),
249-269.
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3),
268-281.
Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde,
C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation
practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change, 717-743.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., David, I., & Wisner, B.
(1994). At Risk, natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London:
Routledge.
Borre, K., Ertle, L., & Graff, M. (2010). Working
to eat: vulnerability, food insecurity, and obesity among migrant and seasonal
farmworker families. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 53(4), 443-462.
Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (2005).
The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level
and the implications for adaptation. Global
Environmental Change, 15(2), 151-163.
Bryan, E., Deressa, T. T., Gbetibouo, G. A., &
Ringler, C. (2009). Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa:
options and constraints. Environmental
Science and Policy, 12(4), 413-426.
Burchi, F., & De Muro, P. (2016). From food
availability to nutritional capabilities: Advancing food security analysis. Food Policy, 60, 10-19.
Cardona, O.D., Van Aalst, M., Birkmann, J., Fordham,
M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Sinh, B. (2012). Determinants of risk: exposure
and vulnerability. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to
advance climate change adaptation, 65-108.
Carter, T. R., Jones, R. N., Lu, X., Bhadwal, S., Conde,
C., Mearns, L. O., Zurek, M. B. (2007). New assessment methods and the characterisation
of future conditions.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the
last first (Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical).
Defiesta, G. D., & Rapera, C. L. (2014). Measuring
adaptive capacity of farmers to climate change and variability: Application of
a composite index to an agricultural community in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and
Management, 17(2).
Deressa, T., Hassan, R. M., & Ringler, C. (2008). Measuring
Ethiopian farmers' vulnerability to climate change across regional states.
Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its
assessment. Global Environmental Change,
21(2), 647-656.
Eriksen, S., & Kelly, P. M. (2007). Developing
credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 12(4), 495-524.
Fellmann, T. (2012). The assessment of climate change
related vulnerability in the agricultural sector: Reviewing conceptual
frameworks. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the
agriculture sector, 23, 37.
Füssel , H. (2007). Vulnerability: a generally
applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17(2),
155-167.
Füssel , H., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006). Climate
change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75(3), 301-329.
Gbetibouo, G. A., & Ringler, C. (2009). Mapping
south african farming sector vulnerability to climate change and variability: A
subnational assessment: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
and Center for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA).
Gbetibouo , G. A., Ringler , C., & Hassan , R.
(2010). Vulnerability of the South African farming sector to climate change and
variability: An indicator approach. Paper presented at the Natural Resources
Forum.
Ghimire, Y. N., Shivakoti, G. P., & Perret, S. R.
(2010). Household-level vulnerability to drought in hill agriculture of Nepal:
implications for adaptation planning. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17(3), 225-230.
Griggs, D. J., & Noguer, M. (2002). Climate change
2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Weather, 57(8), 267-269.
Hinkel, J. (2011). Indicators of vulnerability and
adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21(1),
198-208.
IPCC. (2007). Climate change: Synthesis report. Valentia,
Geneva
IPCC. (2012a). Managing the risks of extreme events
and disasters to advance climate change adaptation.
IPCC. (2012b). Managing the risks of extreme events
and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change: Cambridge University Press.
Kasperson, J., Kasperson, R., Turner, B., Hsieh, W.,
& Schiller, A. (2003). Vulnerability to global environmental change. The
human dimensions of global environmental change: Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and
practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change andFacilitating
adaptation. Climatic change, 47(4),
325-352.
Leichenko, R. M., & O'Brien, K. L. (2002). The
dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, 7(1), 1-18.
Luers, A. L. (2005). The surface of vulnerability: an
analytical framework for examining environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 15(3), 214-223.
Luers, A. L., Lobell, D. B., Sklar, L. S., Addams, C.
L., & Matson, P. A. (2003). A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied
to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 13(4), 255-267.
Madu, I. (2012). Partial vulnerability of rural
households to climate change in Nigeria:Implication for internal security.
McCarthy, J. J. (2001). Climate change 2001: impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the third
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge
University Press.
Moss, R. H., Brenkert, A. L., & Malone, E. L.
(2001). Vulnerability to climate change: a quantitative approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL-SA-33642). Prepared for the US Department of Energy, 155-167.
Newell, B., Crumley, C. L., Hassan, N., Lambin, E. F.,
Pahl-Wostl, C., Underdal, A., & Wasson, R. (2005). A conceptual template
for integrative human–environment research. Global
Environmental Change, 15(4), 299-307.
O'Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P., &
Schjolden, A. (2007). Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in
climate change discourses. Climate
Policy, 7(1), 73-88.
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl,
G., Tompkins, H., Nygaard, L. (2004). Mapping vulnerability to multiple
stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change, 14(4), 303-313.
Paavola , J. (2008). Livelihoods, vulnerability and
adaptation to climate change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(7), 642-654.
Schimmelpfennig, D., & Yohe, G. (1999).
Vulnerability of crops to climate change: A practical method of indexing. Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited, 193-217.
Singh , N. P., Bantilan, C., & Byjesh, K. (2014).
Vulnerability and policy relevance to drought in the semi-arid tropics of
Asia–A retrospective analysis. Weather
and Climate Extremes, 3, 54-61.
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation,
adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), 282-292.
Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A.,
McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Martello, M. L. (2003). A
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
100(14), 8074-8079.
Watson, R., Zinyowera, T., Marufu, C., & Moss, R.
H. (1996). Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change:
Scientific-technical analysis: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
© The Author(s) 2022. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Related Paper: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment: An Evaluation of Social Dimension |
