The second set of limitations has to do with approaches that are “impact-first”. Prevalent in the disaster response and disaster risk reduction communities, which have had growing convergence with climate change adaptation,2 impact-first approaches begin with the identification of a particular hazard, or with historical experiences of post-hazard responses, and work backwards to decrease exposure and increase the resilience to this hazard. While these approaches are becoming broader and showing increased efficacy, they have two problems. The first is a general focus on the impact of hazards on geography and the built environment at the expense of other mechanisms and types of impacts on individuals, households and communities. The relatively simple step forward of adding to this physical focus an analysis of where people are in relation to hazards can significantly improve programming, while representing just the start of what adding population dynamics will achieve. The second problem is an isolated understanding of impacts and resiliency measures, which can vary widely depending on the hazard and can result in overly targeted risk reduction measures. Of course, the narrow, isolated nature of impactfirst approaches can in some ways be a strength, in so far as more targeted risk reduction activities may be more effective in reducing the risk from a particular hazard. However, the impacts of climate change vary widely in scale, time horizon and severity, such that a series of disparate hazard-specific risk reduction activities may not add up to a reduction in vulnerability or increase in resiliency associated with the broad set of hazards expected from climate change. O’Brien et al. (2008, p. 198) argue that because of the breadth of hazards, “[c]limate adaptation is a problem where large groups of individuals have to change their mindsets and behaviour.” The targeted outcomes associated with hazard-specific resilience—for example, targeted preparation for a flood or for a heat wave—may not, and are not intended to, result in widespread changes in mindsets and behaviour. This is at the core of the argument for adaptation based in development and linked to population dynamics. The third set of limitations is associated with a static perspective on the inputs to vulnerability. A very basic inclusion of population issues, particularly in the form of deterministic lists of vulnerable groups, can coincide with a lack of consideration of the future direction and pace of change. Fast-paced urbanization in many countries, the changing migration calculus, declining fertility and the resulting temporary “youth bulge”, the increase in elderly populations over time and other dynamics of population composition and distribution promise significant changes in both individual and systemic vulnerability going forward. Without these perspectives, adaptation plans based on, for instance, the current size of a city or the current age structure of a country will constantly be responding to yesterday’s problems and therefore will undoubtedly be rendered irrelevant. There is some limited recognition of the importance of a dynamic perspective on population within the IPCC, for instance: The assessment of key vulnerabilities involves substantial scientific uncertainties as well as value judgments. It requires consideration of the response of biophysical and socio-economic systems to changes in climatic and non-climatic conditions over time (e.g., changes in population, economy or technology), important non-climatic developments that affect adaptive capacity, the potential for effective adaptation across regions, sectors 4
The De mogra ph y of Ada ptation to C l imate Ch ange
Demography and Climate Change-text.indd 4
1/25/13 1:59 PM