Search

Current conceptualizations of vulnerability have so far served to describe—and reproduce—social difference, setting people apart at local and global scales. Yet vulnerability is fundamental to the connectedness in social relations critical to understanding and acting on climate change. A more compassionate type of research is urgently required; that is, one that goes beyond the material and political dimensions to investigate the deeply personal. Drawing on politics of adaptation, emotional geographies, sustainability science and psychology literatures, the paper reconceptualizes vulnerability as co-suffering, linking lived experiences with a shared humanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change scenarios have significant implications for the livelihoods and food security of particular groups in society and will necessitate a range of adaptation actions. While there is a significant literature on the social as well as biophysical factors and limits to adaptation, less is known about the interactions between these, and what such interactions mean for the prospects of achieving sustainable and resilient food systems. This paper is an attempt at addressing this gap by examining changing biophysical and social factors, with specific consideration of vulnerable groups, across four case studies (Ghana, Malawi, Norway and Spain). In each case, future climate change scenarios and associated biophysical limits are mapped onto four key social factors that drive vulnerability and mediate adaptation, namely, scale, history, power and politics, and social differentiation. We then consider what the interaction between biophysical limits and socio‐political dynamics means for the options for and limits to future adaptation, and how climate may interact with, and reshape, socio‐political elements. We find that biophysical limits and socio‐political factors do not operate in isolation, but interact, with dynamic relationships determining the 'space' or set of options for sustainable adaptation. By connecting the perspectives of biophysical and social factors, the study illuminates the risks of unanticipated outcomes that result from the disregard of local contexts in the implementation of adaptation measures. We conclude that a framework focusing on the space for sustainable adaptation conditioned by biophysical and social factors, and their interactions, can help provide evidence on what does and does not constitute sustainable adaptation, and help to counter unhelpful narratives of climate change as a sole or dominant cause of challenges in food systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses governance of water infrastructure in two settlements of Baltistan as an entry point to examine the co-production of power and vulnerability. Access to water and irrigated land is a critical factor in determining how the effects of disasters, such as flooding, are socially distributed within a community. At the same time, the governance of water is intimately linked to the longer-term politics of disaster vulnerability. We examine three different forms of disputes over water infrastructure where struggles over authority and social ordering materialise: (i) between and within settlements over access to a water resource; (ii) within settlements over post-disaster water infrastructure development and (iii) between a settlement and the district government over land, water rights and flood protection. The findings illustrate that the governance of water infrastructure involves continuous negotiations, contestations and disputes over access rights. Access to water resources as an expression of rights plays a key role in the recognition of authority relations. In particular, influential individuals seek to legitimise their leadership role in a settlement by representing the rights and interests of groups in the negotiation of these disputes. However, environmental variability and change, including disasters and post-disaster development interventions, alter perceptions of what constitute legitimate rights, and provide spaces for popular contestation of authority relations through silent non-compliance with decisions. The close interlinkages between material and non-material effects of a disaster are a key feature of the co-production of power and vulnerability. By adding authority relations to studies of village-level practices around disasters, we enrich our understanding of the co-production of power and vulnerability and how these dynamics unfold over time. It is only by investigating this co-production that a deeper understanding can be developed of the mechanisms through which vulnerability is either exacerbated or reduced for particular groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vulnerability to climate change is the result of complex interactions of various social, political, economic and environmental conditions. Humanitarian actions, while often having short-term and 'neutral' intentions, necessarily influence the development pathways that define people's vulnerability to climate change. On the one hand, humanitarian interventions risk reinforcing existing vulnerability patterns by increasing the gap between those who benefit from different programmes and those that remain marginalised. On the other, addressing climate change may provide new opportunities for transforming the development pathways that create vulnerability in the first place. However, while there are shifts at the policy level towards integrating humanitarian assistance with longer-term development, considerations about how humanitarian action may support transformational adaptation are often missing. This article describes a framework for integrating climate change adaptation concerns into humanitarian policies and actions, which has been developed in collaboration with several humanitarian organisations to support efforts to reduce longer‑term vulnerability and the recurrence of humanitarian crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the role of ‘illicit’ activities in shaping vulnerability dynamics and exemplifies the role of subjectivities and authority in the politics of adaptation. Through drawing on data from several areas in Kitui County in Kenya, the article shows how people are able to use illicit strategies very differently, with differential outcomes on their vulnerability. We suggest that this dynamic has important political dimensions in terms of how authority, legitimacy, subjectivity and social status are reproduced or challenged through the daily practice of how individuals and households within a village engage in strategies to manage shocks and change. We use the term ‘illicit’ here to emphasize that some activities carried out to cope with shocks and change in the study area, namely bush-meat hunting, home-brewing, charcoal production, prostitution, forest uses and theft, are actually subject to legal or social sanctions and repercussions because they are counter to statutory and/or customary law and moral codes. What is seen as socially acceptable locally (and by whom) however, and what sanctions can be expected, is malleable as a result of a dynamic interplay between statutory and customary law and social norms, subjectivity and environmental conditions, which do not always coincide. People may use this to their advantage differentially. Engaging in illicit activities can alter subjectivity and authority, as people are ascribed roles characterized as ‘immoral’ or ‘criminal’, which in turn may affect their social standing and authority in the community. Illicit strategies are, however, also in part an arena where people assume authority and control over their own circumstances and resist rules of what is socially acceptable or not. Longer-term implications of the illicit coping strategies identified in this article were found to be contradictory and unpredictable, multifaceted and complex, particularly in terms of social differentiation and vulnerability. Coping strategies that might make a person or household less vulnerable on one time scale, might make them more vulnerable on another, thereby illustrating that adaptation is not a linear nor static process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Local strategies to manage climate variability are key to adapting to climate change in the long term. We investigate how local adaptive strategies are socially organised through a study of Øystre Slidre, a Norwegian mountain farming community operating close to the climatic margins. Farmers actively use informal social relations in accessing equipment and labour in order to secure production and quality of life. The importance of such relations in managing climate variability persists even with a dramatic shift towards larger scale production, increasing formalisation and economic diversification. Despite social innovations and adaptations such as the re-forming of social relationships and institutions, the concurrent reduction in the number of people involved in farming may be putting the flexibility of social networks and practices of collaboration under pressure, potentially undermining adaptive capacity to climate change. Future research and policy need to focus on ensuring social innovation in the social organisation of adaptation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Climate adaptation has become a pressing issue. Yet little attention has been paid to the consequences of adaptation policies and practices for sustainability. Recognition that not every adaptation to climate change is a good one has drawn attention to the need for sustainable adaptation strategies and measures that contribute to social justice and environmental integrity. This article presents four normative principles to guide responses to climate change and illustrates the significance of the sustainable adaptation' concept through case studies from diverse contexts. The principles are: first, recognize the context for vulnerability, including multiple stressors; second, acknowledge that differing values and interests affect adaptation outcomes; third, integrate local knowledge into adaptation responses; and fourth, consider potential feedbacks between local and global processes. We argue that fundamental societal transformations are required in order to achieve sustainable development pathways and avoid adaptation funding going into efforts that exacerbate vulnerability and contribute to rising emissions. Despite numerous challenges involved in achieving such change, we suggest that sustainable adaptation practices have the potential to address some of the shortcomings of conventional social and economic development pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the ways in which climate stressors and economic changes related to liberalisation alter the local vulnerability context. Household and key informant data from two villages in Mozambique are analysed. First, we explore how changes such as increased market integration, altered systems of agricultural support, land tenure change and privatisation of agro-industries may affect factors important for response capacity, including access to local natural resources, employment opportunities, and household labour and capital. Next, we investigate how people related to the market while coping with the 2002–2003 drought. The study reveals that there had been an increase in informal trade and casual employment opportunities; however, market relations were very unfavourable and as the drought intensified, smallholders were locked into activities that barely secured economic survival and which sometimes endangered long-term response capacity. Only a few large-scale farmers had the capital and skills necessary to negotiate a good market position in urban markets, thus securing future incomes. Inequality, social sustainability, vulnerability and natural resource use are all closely linked in the savannas. Hence, both climate change adaptation policies and sustainability measures need to target vulnerability context and the social and environmental stressors shaping it. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The need to address both poverty and vulnerability to climate change can be considered two of the major challenges facing human society in the 21st century. While the two concepts are closely interconnected, they are nonetheless distinct. A conceptual understanding of the relationship between vulnerability and poverty is presented, and the types of responses that can address both of these challenges are identified. An empirical example from Kenya is used to show how climate change adaptation can potentially reconcile the objectives of both poverty reduction and vulnerability reduction. Significantly, each and every poverty reduction measure does not reduce vulnerability to climate change, just as each and every adaptation measure does not automatically contribute to poverty reduction. It is argued that adaptation measures need to specifically target vulnerability-poverty linkages. Although most adaptation efforts have been focused on reducing risk, there is a need to address local capacity to adapt, as well as the societal processes generating vulnerability. An implication is that the mode of implementing adaptation measures must capture the specificity of both the vulnerability and poverty context. Furthermore, adaptation is not simply a local activity, since targeting the processes generating vulnerability and poverty often entails addressing political and economic structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we discuss how two interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature are manifestations of different discourses and framings of the climate change problem. The two differing interpretations, conceptualized here as `outcome vulnerability' and `contextual vulnerability', are linked respectively to a scientific framing and a human-security framing. Each framing prioritizes the production of different types of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of policy responses to climate change. Nevertheless, studies are seldom explicit about the interpretation that they use. We present a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the two interpretations of vulnerability and use this tool to illustrate the practical consequences that interpretations of vulnerability have for climate change policy and responses in Mozambique. We argue that because the two interpretations are rooted in different discourses and differ fundamentally in their conceptualization of the character and causes of vulnerability, they cannot be integrated into one common framework. Instead, it should be recognized that the two interpretations represent complementary approaches to the climate change issue. We 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Adaptation interventions may reinforce, redistribute or create new vulnerability. • Retrofitting adaptation into existing development agendas risks maladaptation. • Overcoming these challenges demands engaging more deeply with vulnerability contexts. • Real involvement of marginalised groups is required to improve use of climate finance. • Unless adaptation is rethought, transformation may also worsen vulnerability. This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]