Climate Change Vulnerability: how do we assess it?

Climate vulnerability refers to the "propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected" by climate change. It can apply to humans but also to natural systems (ecosystems). 

The factors impacting vulnerability are climate adaptation, resilience and exposure (McCarthy et al., 2001). The assessment of climate change vulnerability is important in order to assess how and to which extent specific regions in the world are affected by climate change, both from an ecological point of view as well as from a socio-economic one. This way, we can develop a tailored framework of methodology to tackle each region in all aspects affected by climate change with the appropriate policies.

Analysing the diversified impacts and possible adaptation strategies against climate change allow inclusivity in the policy making which would otherwise unevenly impact on a bigger scale more impoverished and exposed countries rather than the more developed.

Moreover, an important variable to consider here, is the local governmental interests in adopting their own personal agenda, rather than prioritising the adaptation of the whole globe working in a cohesive way and with a common goal. This individualism might result in some future missed opportunities for more disadvantageous countries which might be fatal to the overall dream to keep the climate warming to 1,5 degrees C by 2055. Moreover, this vulnerability is regarded as an important concept which encompasses together the social and biophysical dimensions of environmental change (Turner et al., 2003; Ionescu et al., 2005).

Climate change vulnerability can also be interpreted in different ways, I am going to analyse now two interpretations present in the climate change literature which are manifestations of different discourses and framings of the climate change problem. The two differing interpretations, conceptualised here as ‘outcome vulnerability’ and ‘contextual vulnerability’, are linked respectively to a scientific framing and a human-security framing. The two approaches represent two different strategies in tackling climate change and to them derive as well different frameworks, which should be complementary for each other as they recognise different causes and characteristics for vulnerability. Important to point out that the human-security framing of climate change has been far less visible in formal, international scientific and policy debates, and addressing this imbalance would broaden the scope of adaptation policies. We will try now here to create a common framework incorporating both ideology, which are indeed a derivation of different scientific but also political approaches to climate change.

One way to describe the two different approaches in presenting vulnerability strategies, is to define them as 'end point' and 'starting point' approaches. The former considers vulnerability as the outcome of a process of analysis of possible future projections, moving to the development of such scenarios and finally outlining adaptive approaches. On the opposite side, the latter starts with defining the characteristics of vulnerability for the specific region which are denying it to copy and develop on research/experience with regard to climate conditions. This victimizing approach assumes that tackling vulnerability in the present time, avoids similar future consequences in other climate change scenarios.

OUTCOME VULNERABILITY = Outcome vulnerability is considered a linear result of the projected impacts of climate change on a particular exposure unit (which can be either biophysical or social), offset by adaptation measures. Reducing outcome vulnerability involves reducing exposure through climate change mitigation, or developing adaptations to limit negative outcomes. 

CONTEXTUAL VULNERABILITY = Contextual vulnerability, in contrast, is based on a processual and multidimensional view of climate– society interactions. Both climate variability and change are considered to occur in the context of political, institutional, economic and social structures and changes, which interact dynamically with contextual conditions associated with a particular ‘exposure unit’. From this perspective, reducing vulnerability involves altering the context in which climate change occurs, so that individuals and groups can better respond to changing conditions. It also stresses the need to mitigate climate change on the basis of equity and justice. In a nutshell, this vulnerability is described as an affiliation of the interactions between contextual conditions and multiple processes of change.

These two visions of vulnerability with relation to climate change can also be linked to two different frameworks of the problem: firstly a scientific one and secondly a human-security one. The purpose of creating a standardised descriptive guidelines is to give boundaries to the definitions of which are the actors involved, the impacts, the ambience and the institutions. They create a vision of the storyline which the literature is giving and create context to the research. 

The scientific framework highlights the importance of nature above society which is primarily the cause of climate change with a focus on quantifiable impact. Vulnerability is the consequence of such symptom and should be technically reduced by impact on greenhouse emissions. Nature and humanity are considered a duality of causal and effect. The human-security framework focuses on the transformative event which is climate change and how it affects and evolves with the societies surrounding it focusing on the consequences of climate variability for individuals. Human security occurs in the situation when communities have the necessary options to mitigate, adapt and change climate impact and the freedom to do so. In this scenario, nature and humanity are a mutuality. The boundaries to what climate change is are much wider and more subjectively defined, considered as several processes in continuous connection with each other. Vulnerability is not only conditioned by the ecological changes, but as well by the social, economic, technological, institutional, political ones (e.g. contextual conditions).

The different nature of the two frameworks creates as a consequence diverse discussions and development of the approaches. They influence interpretations, prioritization of actions and influence the final resolutions in distinct ways. 

To give a practical example, we refer to the case of Mozambique, where two different studies, one on outcome vulnerability and the other on contextual vulnerability, are carried out using contrasting interpretations. 

Mozambique is a South African country heavily affected by the environmental hazards of climate change, such as heavy rains, droughts and generally an increasing frequency of extreme events. 

The first study by the Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA, 2000) reflects on the severity of climate change in the country analysing possible adaptation and mitigation scenarios with related future advantages and disadvantages. The results of the study suggest that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to an increase in the mean annual temperature by 1.8–3.1°C, a 2–9% decrease in rainfall, and a 2–3% increase in solar radiation by 2075 (MICOA, 2000). 

On the other hand, the study of vulnerability to climate stress in the context of market integration (Eriksen and Silva, 2003) addresses the question as to why some regions are more affected by others. The main question answered is on how climate stress (variability and extremes) and market integration influence local livelihood strategies.

The study concludes that people can adapt to market integration by evolving their coping mechanisms and creating new opportunities, therefore decreasing inequality by creating more accesses to formal economies to the people where it's less viable. Without such approach, the most vulnerable people in Mozambique would not be reached by the latest technical interventions and further spread the gap in inequality.

The two studies conceptually address the same problem, however they adopt very different approaches and framework and thus as well resulting in very diverse short term and long term outcomes.

Adaptation has become in the recent years an obligation to consider in the literature about climate change: scientists came to the conclusion that some transformations resulting from the warming of the climate are irreversible and inevitable regardless of the mitigation techniques. With this in mind, the type of adaptation promoted will largely depend on the interpretation of vulnerability. In the scientific framework, the choice of adaptations depends on the scientific expectations and outcomes of climate change in order to reduce the vulnerability on the affected entities. In the human-security framework, the adaptations are not directly linked to scientific implications of climate change manifestations, but they may involve some decreasing climate exposure with adaptive capacities of the communities

Integration of these two models implies a harmonization of different process of casuality. For this reason the synthesis of the two seems unlikely. Moreover, the conceptual merger of these two frameworks does not only imply a scientific nature, but a social and political as well, which as of today seems improbable. However, this does not exclude the possibility to integrate along disciplines rather than discourses. 

In conclusion, Outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability address two different but interrelated questions that reflect two distinct framings of the climate change issue but also make them complementary: (1) ‘Are humans changing the climate system?’ and (2) ‘What are the differential implications of climate change for society?’

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L.P. Nygaard and A.N.E. Schjolden 'Why different interpretation of vulnerability matter in climate change discourse' Climate policy 7(1) 2007, pp.73–88