Assessing vulnerability Understanding vulnerability is a necessary prerequisite of measuring it. The impacts of climate change (and measures to respond to it) obviously cut across geographic, social, political and economic lines. Because of this, vulnerability assessments have tended either to focus within these divisions, resulting in a narrow and splintered approach that fails to recognize the different dimensions of the issue, or to be inclusive and all-encompassing, resulting in an unhelpful broadness that can inhibit concrete action. The way in which vulnerability is measured is closely linked to the types of responses that are proposed. Preconceptions of the most appropriate response strategies can shape the types of data that are collected, whereas a focus on only one set of data can influence the actions that are taken. To date, many international agencies have prioritized remote-sensing, model-based approaches. These top-down approaches obviously have an important role to play, but cannot incorporate the socially and contextually specific factors shaping the vulnerability of individuals, households and communities. They are also subject to a wide range of uncertainties, particularly when climate-model predictions are applied to relatively small spatial areas. In addition, these top-down approaches tend to encourage adaptation responses that rely on engineering and infrastructure only, which is just a small part of the overall framework necessary for dealing with the challenges of climate change. A more comprehensive approach to adaptation (as described, for example, by the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP, 2008) sees “delivering adaptation actions”, in this case, conceived of as offsetting losses, preventing effects or bearing losses, as only one component of adaptation, with “building adaptive capacity”, including addressing issues of information, governance and social structures, identified as being equally important. Community-based and non-governmental organizations have developed a range of participatory methods to assess hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities in support of community-based disaster risk reduction (van Aalst et al., 2008). While these risk assessments have the potential to reduce vulnerability to climate change, to be effective they will require a better awareness of the changing risks associated with climate change; this in turn will require better use of climate information at the community level. Broader participation by low-income groups can also increase the efficiency of local development programmes (including those addressing climate change impacts), give value to alternative voices and facilitate meaningful social change (Mohan, 2002). However, it is important to recognize that assessing risk solely at the level of the community neglects the global and regional dimensions of climate change. For example, short-term local observations (which will be affected by a range of different factors) cannot provide an adequate basis for planning for long-term changes in climate. In addition, particularly in densely settled urban areas, there will need to be a balanced set of responses from governments that address both local issues and the provision of large-scale infrastructure (although, of course, decisions made about the location and functioning of infrastructure can and should be shaped by local communities). Local population enumerations have some similarities to household surveys in lowincome areas, but, when used as a tool by effective grassroots organizations, they go 8
The De mogra ph y of Ada ptation to C l imate Ch ange
Demography and Climate Change-text.indd 8
1/25/13 1:59 PM