[t]he degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity. . . . The distribution of impacts and vulnerabilities is still considered to be uneven, and low-latitude, less-developed areas are generally at greatest risk due to both higher sensitivity and lower adaptive capacity. This definition, however, clearly begins with a focus on the effects or impacts of climate change, with no reference to the people that exist within and interact with these systems. A focus on hazards and impacts can lead to vulnerability being seen as the amount of damage caused to a system and often ignores the role of humans and their institutions in mediating the outcomes of events. As Brooks (2003, p. 3) emphasizes, “we can only talk meaningfully about the vulnerability of a specified system to a specified hazard or range of hazards” [emphasis in original]. In contrast, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) focuses less on the nature of the hazard and more on the components of vulnerability itself: “Vulnerability is the condition determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards” (cited in: Renaud and Perez, 2010, p. 155). Viewing vulnerability as a state that exists within a system brings much more attention to its social and demographic aspects—including poverty and inequality, marginalization, food entitlements, access to insurance and housing quality (Brooks, 2003).3 However, the UNISDR definition still makes no explicit reference to intentions, strategies, conflicts of interest and institutions. In this chapter, the importance of engaging with the influential definition of vulnerability proposed by the IPCC is recognized, and the relevance of “exposure” and “adaptive capacity” is emphasized, as these represent the key components when engaging with population dynamics, and with human and social systems more broadly. The concept of “sensitivity” is less directly relevant because human systems are not passively “sensitive”, but rather are actively able to shape their own outcomes by drawing on their adaptive capacity. The outcomes of the first UNFPA/International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) conference on Population Dynamics and Climate Change (Guzmán et al., 2009) clearly show that population dynamics shape vulnerability to climate change impacts, for example, through the distribution of populations both globally and within countries. As the editors concluded: It is impossible to understand and reduce vulnerability without taking population dynamics into account. From acute, climate-related events like storms and floods to long-term shifts in weather patterns and sea level patterns, the impacts only become clear through an understanding of who is at risk, what the risks are to people rather than just to places and how these risks vary within and across populations (Guzmán et al., 2009, p. 5).
Po pul at i ng Adap tat i o n I nco rp o rat i ng P o p ul at i o n Dy nam i c s i n C li m at e Ch ange Adap tat i o n P o li c y an d P ract i c e
Demography and Climate Change-text.indd 7
7
1/25/13 1:59 PM