September 2011
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity: A Literature Review
Daniel J. Murphy, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
College of Forestry and Conservation
University of Montana
Introduction
Over the last decade vulnerability has emerged as a cornerstone concept in the social
sciences. Previously focused largely on disaster and hazard research, the transformative threat
that climate change poses to human societies globally has forced “vulnerability” to move from
the periphery to the center of current thinking in human-ecological relations. In addition, the real
threat posed by climate change that studies of vulnerability have brought to the forefront has
necessitated a serious shift in thinking how individuals and societies deal with such potentially
transformative changes. The term adaptive capacity has emerged as a important rubric for
theorizing our ability to respond to such change.
In this literature review I attempt to cover the breadth of research on vulnerability and
adaptive capacity, mostly in the context of climate change. Sacrificing for depth, I aim to include
a variety of theoretical developments across a number of disciplines and a diversity of
methodological approaches. While I review the concepts and methodologies in their various
manifestations I also evaluate their usefulness at various scales and in various contexts. My goal
here is to refine how we think, to some degree, about the vulnerability and adaptive capacity,
specifically of communities. I argue, ultimately, for the greater incorporation of a systemsoriented perspective (SES) and a contextual approach that is deeply rooted in a practical
understanding of the interplay between power, knowledge, and action. This requires, I argue, a
shift in how we think not only about governance but also about morality, value, equity, and
justice. Additionally, I attempt to start a conversation about what this means methodologically
for researchers.
Vulnerability
The term vulnerability, in its contemporary social science usages, emerges from a long
genealogy of research on risks, hazards, and disaster (Alwang et al 2001). Some of the earliest
thinking evolved out of three somewhat distinct trajectories: 1) the geography of disaster
literature in the 1970s, 2) grey literature work in rural economic development and in economics
more broadly, and 3) scholarly as well as practitioner accounts of increasing drought and famine
among rural poor in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere. The trajectories of all three of these
literatures overlap in important ways, particularly in the way they have conceptualized disaster
and its constituent catastrophes as social phenomena rather than solely natural ones.1
The primary thrust of theoretical development has come from the latter two perspectives.
Though there is much overlap, these works still represent in some ways poles in research on the
1
Though it might be fruitful to explore these literatures more fully, that has been done elsewhere - though I disagree
to some extent on their interpretations of vulnerability’s intellectual lineage.
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
political economy of vulnerability emblematized by two foundational works by Amartya Sen
(1981) and Michael Watts (1983), both on famine.2 In Watts work in Nigeria, and other research
on African famine and poverty (see Iliffe 1987), the primary cause of famine was not a failure to
produce but a lack of structural power. In particular, Watts focused on the broader structural
forces such as policy and state power as determinants of famine. In Sen’s treatise on famine in
Bengal and Ireland, such calamities did not result from the inability to produce food but a lack of
entitlements or the command over resources (i.e. the ability to access them, particularly through
markets). Rather than focus on the broader structural determinants, Sen was concerned with how,
and whether, actors were able to make decisions and garner resources. Because Sen did not
engage with the broader structural determinants of poverty, Watts and Bohle (1994) referred to
the entitlement framework as conjunctural, meaning that it is static and open-ended, lacking a
dynamic yet structural sense of vulnerability and history.3 Moreover, it perceives vulnerability
from an actor-oriented perspective rather than a structural one. These distinctions in scale,
hierarchy, and time are important and have continued as points of contention in theorizing
vulnerability.
Yet, this research also fundamentally reframed not only how researchers understand
famine but disasters more broadly. Moreover, concurrent with this emergent focus on poverty
and vulnerability dynamics was the growing body of work referred to now as political ecology.4
The field traces its foundations to the fields of geography, anthropology, and rural sociology,
where the combination of human ecological concerns with political economic ones became the
primary lens through which to investigate environmental problems like land degradation,
pollution, conflict, and drought-induced famine (Blaikie and Brookfield 1985; Little and
Horowitz 1987) as well as disasters and hazards. Additionally, as research on risks, hazards, and
vulnerability became increasingly tied to a political ecological paradigm, shifts in the one have
mirrored the other. Wisner et al (1996) cite three major theoretical paradigms in vulnerability
research: 1) realism, 2) social constructivism, and 3) critical realism.
Theory and Vulnerability
Research in Wisner et al’s (1996) realist camp largely accepts the ontological division
between hazards and the populations they affect. In other words, hurricanes, droughts, floods,
and other shocks and disturbances are probabilistic events that independently emerge from
‘nature’ to affect human populations. The occurrence of such natural hazards is calculable and
the risks they pose have inherent qualities and effects; consequently, they are objective,
empirical realities with definable and measurable characteristics. 5 Though human influence
shapes how risk is measured and experienced, the primary event itself is ‘naturally’ induced. In
terms of action, this perspective generally relies on a technocratic focus on infrastructural
See Devereux (2001) for a critical review of Sen’s entitlements approach. See also Leach et al (1999) for an
important reframing of Sen’s work that is more attentive to the complexities of power.
3
Criticisms of conjunctural vulnerability (Watts and Bohle 1994) and conjunctural poverty (Iliffe 1987) often
highlight these issues. However, the term itself (i.e. conjuncture) refers to a “combination events” and is used in
synchronic way to describe contextually complex causal chain that leads to poverty and famine. Structural
approaches however argue for causal determinants.
4
For overviews, see Robbins (2007) and Neumann (2005).
5
This viewpoint is maintained within economics and much of development practice.
2
2
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
mitigation, management, and recovery. For example, flooding is mitigated primarily by building
levees, and earthquakes are managed by building structurally sound architecture. If we use the
example of Hurricane Katrina, disaster, in this approach, was largely the result of a technical
failure in levee construction, not the accumulation of historical racial exclusion and social
marginalization (Laska and Morrow 2007). This is what Wisner et al (1996) refer to as the
‘realist’ approach and this still represents the dominant perspective today.
Though a minor perspective in the larger literature, social constructivist perspectives on
disaster and vulnerability drew heavily on post-structuralist influences in political ecology. In
contemporary writing, this line of inquiry argues that nature is never pre-given and is always
constituted through social construction. Consequently, risk, disaster, and vulnerability are social
and cultural constructions in the first instance and are always implicated in ‘ways of seeing’
(Bankhorst 2003). Yet, though this work offers important insights into the discursive
construction of risk and vulnerability, it is limited in its application beyond critical scholarship
because it denies in many ways other epistemologies, such as science, and a serious
consideration of the material reality of hazardous events.
In contrast Wisner et al (1996) propose a framework for understanding risk, disaster, and
vulnerability in ways that brought together social constructionist perspective with realist ones
under the flag of critical realism.6 In their ‘pressure-and-release’ or PAR framework, they argue
that vulnerability is shaped primarily by “underlying factors and root causes … (and) when these
underlying factors and root causes coincide in space and time with a hazardous event or process,
we think of those whose characteristics have been shaped by such underlying factors and root
causes as ‘vulnerable to that hazard’ and ‘at risk to disaster’” (Wisner et al 2004: 49). In this
model then, pressure (which creates effects and impacts) comes from both the hazard-event and
the unsafe ‘conditions’ that lead to disastrous events. At the heart of these ‘unsafe conditions’ are
the social relations that produce exposure (Murphy 2011) and which result in a “human ecology
of endangerment” (Hewitt 1997). Additionally, exposure is not simply exposure to a hazard but
to the risk of that hazard occurring. These are important conceptual tools that enable a better
theorization of vulnerability particularly in the context of climate change as I will discuss below.
Similar configurations are also found in the work of Hewitt (1997), Oliver-Smith (1996), OliverSmith and Hoffman (1999), and others.7 This theorization of disaster and vulnerability has had
an important impact on contemporary work. For example, as Brooks (2001) states “risk is a
function of physically defined hazards and socially constructed vulnerability … [where]
vulnerability is a state variable, determined by the internal properties of a system; for social
systems, we are considering what may be referred to as social vulnerability”. By the late 1990’s
and early 2000’s this was the overriding perspective in much of the literature. However, with the
emergence of climate change as a new and uncertain threat, theorization of vulnerability has
undergone much change.
[NOTE:
6
Critical realism is the dominant perspective within non-economic social science.
See the edited volume by Murphy and Jones (2009) “The Political Economy of Hazards and Disasters” for a
thorough introduction and overview of this genealogy and Tony Oliver-Smith’s (2002) “Catastrophe and Culture”.
7
3
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Because Finan (2009), amongst others, considers the livelihood approach to be the
quintessential starting point for understanding vulnerability and adaptive capacity, I will include
at a later date a short exploration of the term ‘vulnerability’ in livelihoods research – this does
include some critical elements of the vulnerability concept, particularly Watts and Bohle’s
(1994) contribution of entitlement, empowerment, and political economy as components of
vulnerability’s make-up]
Vulnerability to Climate Change
In contemporary research, despite the volume of current writing, there is a wide diversity
of definitions of vulnerability, particularly in the context of climate change. In contrast to hazard
vulnerability, vulnerability to climate change introduces a greater deal of uncertainty and
therefore a prominent element of ‘surprise’. Moreover, the scale and accretion of changes over
time disrupts the traditional narrative of hazards: 1) pre-event, 2) event, and 3) post-event. In
contrast, climate change poses widely distributed, though uneven and unequal, shifts in global
and local ecologies. Problems of scale, scope, and uncertainty are amplified in comparison to
past research on hazard vulnerability. Yet, as Fussel and Klein (2006) state, the current
conceptual framework of vulnerability is still uniquely tied to thinking about risk, hazards, and
disasters. Reframing vulnerability to more closely reflect the threat climate change poses and the
relationship it has to human communities is a critical step in the frontier of vulnerability
research.
Defining Vulnerability
The most commonly cited definition of climate change vulnerability comes from the
IPCC report: vulnerability is “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a
function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed,
its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (McCarthy et al 2001). This definition is often
represented in the formula:
Exposure + Sensitivity + Adaptive Capacity = Vulnerability
Exposure in this formula refers to the proximity of units or systems to disturbances resulting
from climatic variation and sensitivity to susceptibility of potential loss from these impacts.
Adaptive capacity, which will be discussed in great detail in the second half of this literature
review, refers to the ability to cope and/or alter system functions in order to manage
transformative change. Other terms also come into play, most prominently resilience, which will
be discussed in detail below.
There is, however, of course, wide disagreement concerning the usefulness of this
definition. Though Adger (2006) argues that “the points of convergence are more numerous and
more fundamental than points of divergence” in vulnerability scholarship, I tend to agree with
Fussel (2007), O’Brien et al (2009), and Gallopin (2006), that definitions are critical to
4
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
understanding why research is conducted in a particular way.8 As Nelson and Finan (2009) point
out, the differences are not “pedantic” either because this work has significant impacts on policymaking.
For instance, various authors configure the formula quite differently. Smit and Wandel
(2006), for instance, argue that exposure and sensitivity are effectively two sides of the same
coin because sensitivity is simply a comparative descriptor of exposure. They argue that the
“vulnerability of any system is reflective of the exposure and sensitivity of that system to
hazardous conditions and the ability or capacity or resilience of the system to cope, adapt, or
recover from the effects of those conditions”. Moss et al (2001) leave out exposure altogether
and consider vulnerability as a function of adaptive capacity and sensitivity. 9 Nelson et al (2007)
argue that vulnerability is a function of exposure and sensitivity only and that by adding adaptive
capacity we arrive at resilience. Thomalla et al (2006) see vulnerability as the direct opposite of
resilience whereas McLaughlin and Dietz (2007) argue that vulnerability encompasses the
concept of resilience because as they state, “analyzing vulnerability involves identifying not only
the threat but also the ‘resilience’ or responsiveness in exploiting opportunities, and in resisting
or recovering from the negative effects of a changing environment”.
Increasingly, there seems to be a move away from these components of vulnerability.
Gallopin (2006) introduces a new term, robustness, which he proposes is the counter to
vulnerability, of which resilience and adaptive capacity are a part (see also Janssen et al 2006).
Robustness assumes some of the traits typically afforded toeither vulnerability, adaptive
capacity, and/or resilience. In short, the term refers not to responsiveness but the ability to repel
and resist impacts; therefore, he argues, robustness along with resilience are the twin opposites of
vulnerability, a state in which neither resistance nor response are possible. And in Adger et al’s
(2009a) more recent conceptualization, vulnerability emerges from an entity’s state relative to
some kind of threshold combined with the probabilistic risk of exposure. This adds a kind of
forward-looking dynamism largely missing in past approaches. Unfortunately, though, the
distinctions between these definitions are rarely made explicit. I argue, beyond reconfiguring the
recipe of vulnerability ingredients, there are more fundamental differences that may account for
this diversity and below are attempt to trace these out.
Dissecting Vulnerability
In reviews of the vulnerability literature, authors dissect current writing into various
camps and here I will cover some of the distinctions they highlight.
Outcome versus Context
Kelly and Adger (2000) distinguish between end-point and starting point vulnerability. In
essence, they are pointing out the difference between vulnerability as an inherent condition
(starting point vulnerability) versus vulnerability to a specific loss (end-point vulnerability). In a
similar light, O’Brien et al (2009) argue that there is a distinction between ‘outcome’ research,
8
In fact, Gallopin (2006) offers a fundamentally restructured composition for vulnerability that does no adhere to
the customary components of exposure, sensitivity, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
9
The logic here is that we are all exposed.
5
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
which is focused solely on losses, and ‘contextual’, which is focused on the conditions,
processes, and contextual dynamics that enable loss.
Figure 1. Distinctions between 'outcome' vulnerability and 'contextual' vulnerability.
(From O'Brien et al 2009)
In outcome research (see 1a in Figure 1 above), vulnerability is seen largely as exposure
to an objective, empirical threat and can be classed within a ‘realist’ paradigm. These works are
concerned largely with quantifying loss potential, sectoral impacts, and appropriateness of
technological adaptations (O’Brien et al 2009). This work is heavily reliant on climate modeling
and economic assessments of sectoral sensitivities. Underlying this perspective are a number of
basic theoretical assumptions. First, exposure units are easily identifiable and experience discrete
impacts. Secondly, since much of this research utilizes a dose-response methodology, the
exposure unit is take as an independent variable and is divorced from contextual issues of scale,
place, and hierarchy. This perspective has little applicability at the community and household
level as it ignores much of the social complexity that produces vulnerability in the first place.
Contextual vulnerability research (see 1b in Figure 1) grows out of the critical realist
lineage and generally falls into two major traditions, largely separated by scale. Within this body
of work, vulnerability is highly contextualized within local and global political economies
(institutions and structures) and broader social and ecological conditions. In particular this work
is concerned with institutional and socio-economic constraints, determining factors, drivers,
underlying processes, and differential impacts, capacities, and sensitivities. This approach
manifests in widely different ways (see Eakin 2005 and Eakin 2006 for in-depth case studies). As
I describe below, indicator and agent-based modeling research often combines aspects of
contextual vulnerability with a focus primarily on outcomes.
6
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
There are two major critiques of these bodies of work. In outcome research, vulnerability
is depersonalized, depoliticized, decontextualized, and aprocessual. This work avoids the vast
complexities that produce and sustain vulnerabilities. In contextual research, the label of
vulnerable can become disempowering in itself and renders actors as passive victims
(McLaughlin and Deitz 2007; Thornton and Manasfi 2010). Though such work is often coupled
with nuanced thinking about coping response and adaptive capacity, there is a danger in stressing
the overpowering context in which actors engage climate change and ignoring the potential for
agency. Only seeing vulnerability as a state of “powerlessness” (Hewitt 1997) and ignoring the
creative and powerful assertions of agency by the vulnerable can be problematic.
Units of analysis
There are other major differences in the current work on vulnerability including
definitions of analytical units and the scope of analysis.10 Two basic questions in vulnerability
research, that are often left unanswered or assumed, are “what is exposed and to what is it
exposed”? Here I explore a distinction highlighted by Nelson et al (2007) between actor-oriented
and systems-oriented research.
Actor-oriented perspectives focus on discernible ‘exposure units’ such as countries,
communities, households, and individuals or on specific attributes of exposure units such as
wellbeing, livelihood, or health. For example, Kelly and Adger (2000) define vulnerability as
“the state of individuals, groups or communities in terms of the ability to cope with and adapt to
any external stress placed on their livelihoods and well-being”. This work is also the basis for
much outcome research as well, with a focus on definable sectors or industries. Within the actororiented framework, there are two basic nodes of research.
One strand of this work, exemplified by the work of Susan Cutter11, focuses largely on
the exposure of specific analytical units to definable hazards or impacts.12 In particular, the focus
here is on the inherent qualities of specific units and how they render them vulnerable. Cutter has
variously defined vulnerability as “the inherent pre-event characteristics or qualities … that
create potential for harm” (YR: pg#), “the likelihood that an individual or group will be exposed
to and adversely affected by a hazard” (YR: pg#), and “the combination of physical, social,
economic, and political components that influence the degree to which an individual,
community, or system is threatened by a particular event” (YR: pg#).
This approach is important in that it brings to the forefront communities and other social
forms as exposure units. 13 Yet, there are some major failings as well, both theoretically and
methodologically. By viewing vulnerability as an inherent quality or characteristic they only
allude to processes of marginalization and exclusion. Moreover, though Cutter (1993; 1996) and
Cutter et al (2003; 2010) seem to consider processes of marginalization in producing
For example, I do not cover the work on ‘forests management regimes’ as exposure units. See Ogden and Innes
(2008), Lemieux et al (2011), and Seidl et al (2011) for work of this genre.
11
See Cutter (1996, 2003), Cutter et al (2008), Cutter et al (2000), Cutter et al (2003), Cutter et al (2006), and Cutter
and Finch (2008).
12
Though her work is not explicitly engaged with climate change research, it is frequently mentioned and her work
has been highly influential. There are numerous citations included in the bibliography.
13
There is an important body of work on community capacity and resilience that is germane to this review (see
Donoghue and Sturtevant 2007).
10
7
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
vulnerability, they do so in harmful ways that amount to essentializing the vulnerable. For
instance, African Americans, Latinos, women, and the elderly are represented as inherently
vulnerable. Complex place-based processes of marginalization and exclusion are lost when
vulnerability becomes an inherent attribute of individuals and communities. 14 In essence,
‘African American’ simply equates to ‘vulnerable’ regardless of their specific relationship to a
hazard or even to the broader community.15 As a whole, this work has a limited focus on the
processes, complex interactions, or determinants that lead to “unsafe conditions” (Wisner et al
1996).16
Moreover, vulnerability is treated simply as a summation of various components and this
failing has been reflected in the problematic methodology of the social vulnerability index
(SoVI). This is not a complete rejection of the use of quantitative data but a critique of the
assumption that determinants of vulnerability somehow are of equal weighting or are even
divisible in the first place. Eakin and Bojoquez-Tapia (2008) demonstrate new methodologies for
dealing with these complexities. I explore their contributions in the methods section below.
Other strands of this work, primarily descendants of the livelihoods and political
economy lineages, approach vulnerability in more complex ways and this is reflected in their
methodologies as well (Ford et al 2006; Paavola 2008; Murphy 2011). These approaches do not
view vulnerability as inherent or easily represented by demographic variables; rather,
vulnerability is produced through a broader set of interactions in which actors and exposed units
are situated. Moreover, they not only highlight the direct relationship between exposure units and
the hazards and other threats to which they are exposed but also consciously incorporate the
complexities of scale in spatial, temporal, and hierarchical terms.17
There are two veins in this work that mirror in many ways their intellectual ancestors in
Watts (1983) and Sen (1981). Both of these bodies of literature are focused in locating and
tracing out the processual interactions (i.e. historical dynamics) that underlie the unsafe
conditions that can lead to vulnerability (a la Wisner et al 1996). One vein, what I call the
rational choice approach to vulnerability focuses on constraints and opportunities only in the
way they impact decision-making processes. Actors in this approach are treated as largely
autonomous from society and broad social structures, and therefore are seen as independent
navigators of a landscape of options and barriers. This perspective, derived as it is from the work
of Sen (1981), is often found in the development literature.
Related though somewhat tangential to this focus on rational actors and decision-making
approach to this work concerns the role of perception in vulnerability (Stoll-Kleeman et al 2001).
As Zarhan et al (2008) aptly demonstrate, realist conceptions of vulnerability and broader
14
In some ways, this work implicitly commits an ecological fallacy by presenting individuals within these
communities as reflecting the broader community’s vulnerability. The more egregious error, however, is to assume
that specific communities are inherently vulnerable simply because they have a history of exclusion.
15
This is often referred to as ‘social vulnerability’ and has some similarities to the idea of generic vulnerability.
However, referring to vulnerability outside of relationships to hazards, risks, or threats seems unhelpful. In this
definition vulnerability becomes just another term for social, political, or economic marginality and exclusion.
Moreover, to describe a particular community as generally, and therefore essentially, vulnerable promotes a sense of
fated-ness and robs communities of a sense of agency and dignity.
16
They consider statistical determinants but not determinants in an historical sense a la Wisner et al’s 1994.
17
This is particularly important considering the necessity of institutional fit and match (Cummings et al 2006).
8
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
deductive work can seriously miss important elements in localized risk perception. In his
research he explore whether proximity to a specific hazard type (i.e. exposure) indicated higher
levels of risk perception. In fact they did not. He found that those more likely to live near coasts
and forests were more likely to disbelieve climate change and human responsibility for disasters
and other hazards such as coastal flooding, hurricane impacts, and forest fires. Even in cases
where vulnerabilities are relatively apparent, a number of factors can cloud one’s perceptions of
the risk. For instance, “a study of elderly people’s perceptions of heat wave risks suggests that
this relatively vulnerable group does not perceive its vulnerability and therefore does little to
adapt” (Wolf et al 2009). There are other problems however. Other work highlights that avoiding
localized perceptions may be a major gap in understanding the foundations of vulnerability
(Crate and Nuttall 2009). For example, time horizons and scale and scope are important elements
in risk perception that affect actors’ behaviors (Slimak and Dietz 2006). Additionally, as
Satterfield et al (2004) argue “those who perceive themselves ot be vulnerable to environmental
risks or perceive themselves to be victims of injustice, also perceive themselves to be more at
risk from environmental hazards of all types”. These factors are not taken into account in many
vulnerability frameworks.
Yet, Pelling (2010) argues that “too often, th(is) literature reduces the individual to a
rational economic actor” and misses the broader social forces and conditions that formulate
actors as exposure units. In particular it ignores the political nature of the institutional landscape
and the ways structural inequalities are manifested in social practice and through actors as
subjects. For example, studies of perception often ignore the political nature of knowledge and
the formation of consciousness in hegemonic contexts. Information and the conceptual
frameworks that guide our perceptions can be variously controlled, influenced, or determined by
larger structural forces, often without awareness of that fact. Pelling (2001, 2003) and others,
following the work of Watts (1983) and Watts and Bohle (1994), summon historical processes of
marginalization, exclusion, and alienation as primary determinants in producing vulnerabilities.
In doing so, this work actively foregrounds issues of morality, value, equity, and justice (Roberts
and Parks 2006). This vein of research also favors complex notions of communities, households,
and individuals in which these are seen not as essential ‘units’ but as contested, overlapping, and
networked configurations of social power. This framing complicates vulnerability because it
alters how we think about ‘exposure units’. I discuss this in more detail below.
As a number of the definitions of vulnerability cited above demonstrate, not all
researchers are concerned specifically with ‘exposure units’. In contrast, many of these
definitions center on the vulnerability of systems and systemic or systematic vulnerability. Much
of this work draws on the social-ecological systems (SES) literature that attempts to conceptually
couple human and natural systems (Berkes et al 2000, 2003; Gunderson and Holling 2002).18 In
this sense, human social systems are not entirely distinct or separable from ecological ones and
vice versa (though much of the work in this field continues to hold this division).19 Reframing
18
A number of theoretical traditions have sought to explore a much more inclusive notion of ecology. In terms of
disaster, see Oliver-Smith’s (1996) notion of human-environment mutuality.
19
See Davidson (2010) for a thought-provoking review of the applicability of resilience and other SES concepts to
social systems (and Klein et al 2003). Also, for a scathing review of the normative and therefore conservative
implications of this paradigm see Hornborg (2001).
9
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
the focus of vulnerability on systems rather than exposure units reframes how we think about
exposure, sensitivity, and other component aspects of vulnerable states. For instance, similar in
some ways to the ‘contextual’ literature, exposure units in a systems approach can only be
conceived in their relations and not as essential, discrete entities. One of the important
contributions of this perspective is the idea of thresholds (Nelson et al 2007). For instance, when
a relationship between units is exposed to a hazardous threat, there is at some level a threshold
point beyond which that relationship is no longer functionally possible within novel conditions.
This framing is particularly amenable to climate change vulnerability because climate change
poses not only potentially hazardous threats to exposed units but also presents the possibility for
an existential shift in the fundamental relationships and interactions that make up socialecological systems.
Though much of this work cites the influence of SES literature and defines vulnerability
in terms of systems, the literature largely continues within the contextual, actor-oriented
perspective because it fails to fully trace out the implications of seeing vulnerability in terms of
systems. This is due to the fact that ‘systems’ are rarely defined or invoked beyond conceptual
framings (Davidson 2010). The focus continues to center on ‘exposed units’ albeit in their
situated relationships within broader systems or with systems as exposure units. Moreover, much
of this work also continues to conceptually divorce social systems from natural ones. For
instance, climate change is often positioned as an external threat to ‘the system’ rather than as a
system-generated disturbance. Self or system-generating disturbances and the downward spirals
they can induce challenge this perspective (see Murphy 2011). This is an ontological problem
that has yet to be fully confronted in systems-oriented approaches. How to maintain a systemsoriented approach while conceptually dealing with the relationship between threat and exposure
unit (i.e. distinctions between internal and external) is a problem still to be resolved.
A systems approach so far has also encountered significant difficulties in dealing with
issues of power (Davidson 2010; Thornton and Manasfi 2010). As Nelson et al (2007) point out,
much of the foundational work has a normative slant that is heavily reliant on modeling and
statistical analyses. But how do systems distribute vulnerability and how do systems respond in
an environment marked by social inequality? These are important questions that are frequently
avoided.
Additionally, vulnerability research needs to better conceptualize what is vulnerable and
to what is it vulnerable? What is exposed and to what is it exposed? For example, are
communities existentially vulnerable to climate change? In other words, are the relationships that
fundamentally make-up up this social form (the ‘community’) under threat or is it some aspect of
a community that is exposed?20 For example, one problem is the threat climate change poses to
loss of sacred lands and ritualized places. In this context, what is vulnerable: communities, the
landscape, or the ritualized relationships between communities, spirits, and the land? And how
does a focus on these relationships fundamentally alter how we think about vulnerability? Are
20
In other words, will a community continue to exist in the context of climate? What I am trying to highlight is that
need to distinguish what is vulnerable – community health, community social capital, community economic wellbeing, or some combination? The term community, like household, is highly contested – defining the term is critical
to understand how we approach its vulnerability.
10
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
the qualities and the characteristics of the spirit world important in this configuration? What
methods do we have to deal with this?
Space and Time
A major distinction between outcome and context-centered research and actor versus
systems-oriented research are the different ways in which each deal with time and space.
As Adger et al (2009: pg#) point out, the “vulnerability of specific individuals and
communities is not geographically bounded but rather is connected at different scales, so that the
drivers of their exposure and sensitivity are inseparable from large-scale processes of
sociocultural change and market integration”. Clearly, a multi-scalar spatial perspective is more
amenable to a context-centered perspective (Wilbanks and Kates 1999). Drawing on a contextual
perspective, Adger et al (2008) describe not only the nested (or mutually embedded) nature of
vulnerability but also how it is tele-connected or intertwined with the trans-local, multi-place
dynamics that are the sine qua non of our globalizing world. Consequently, even place-based
vulnerability is the product of processes occurring at multiple spatial as well as temporal scales.
Eakin and Luers (2006) point out that this requires research that accounts for cross-spatial and
cross-scalar outcomes as well as influences and that we must address “multiple, interacting
stressors”. Leichenko and O’Brien (2002, 2008) and O’Brien and Leichenko (2003), for instance,
have sought in a number of publications to repeatedly demonstrate the way that multiple
stressors, originating from complex and trans-local networks, can interact to create “double
exposures”. For climate change, this adds an additional layer of uncertainty.
Outcome-centered approaches rarely incorporate this trans-local, interconnected vision
into their understandings of vulnerability’s genesis. Clearly, this more closely aligns with a
context-centered perspective. The picture is more complicated however when we look at actororiented and systems-oriented frameworks. Generally, it is equally applied, at least in writing, in
the literature reviewed here, whether actor-oriented or systems-oriented. For example, in
discussing the vulnerability of systems, Adger et al (2009) speak of three mechanisms of
interdependence: 1) biophysical links and feedbacks, 2) economic and market links, and 3) flows
of resource, people and information.21 In this piece, they argue that vulnerabilities ‘there’ can
impact vulnerabilities ‘here’. For example, vulnerabilities in India farming systems to climate
change can impact the price of commodities and further exacerbate vulnerabilities elsewhere
such as food security in southern Africa.
But to what extent are these connections internal or external to the ‘system’? Do they not
also contribute to the constituent make-up of the system’s functioning? In a way this problem
reflects an ontological one in which, lacking system boundaries and definitions or at least some
sense of a nodal center, the system becomes everything and ultimately nothing. Moreover, how
does a system function when everything only consists of the system’s relations. This flat
ontology needs mechanisms and ‘triggers’ that can only come from an uneven space where
agents have some autonomy from the system itself in order to act against other system
components (Hinchliffe 2007). Clearly, most analyses do not treat vulnerability in such a way;
21
It is highly unfortunate that they do not include political components in this web of interdependence. This is a
major failing of larger portion of work in both the actor-oriented and systems-oriented literature. For a notable
exception, see Nelson and Finan (2009).
11
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
rather, they implicitly assume that systems are made up of agents, but the exact nature of the
system is still largely ambiguous.
Actor-oriented frameworks do not suffer from the same philosophical malady; in
contrast, the interconnectedness of space in a globalized world is encountered and enacted by
actors themselves. The world, in essence, is a vast pool table where moving billiard balls
constantly ‘engage’ one another. 22 The problem here is a lack of understanding about
relationships and the way those relationships harden and formulate actors themselves.23 If actors,
or social groups, are nested and embedded in broader social dynamics and trans-local political
economies then they also constitute those very actors and social groups, at least in part.
These perspectives are not only underwritten by differing spatial ontologies but temporal
ones as well. In most writing, vulnerability is treated as a state variable, a condition if you will.
Even in early work where time was considered in the temporal narrative of events, such as ex
ante and ex post, vulnerability was seen largely as an initial condition or state that could be
effectively measured. This is the case in most ‘outcome’-oriented research. Yet, this static,
synchronic perspective is even captured within some systems-oriented writing where
vulnerability is a state determined by internal properties of a system (see Brooks et al 2005).
This is evident in contextual work where the focus is on the social-ecological complexities at a
given time. As a number of scholars point out (Eaking and Luers 2006; Nelson et al 2007;
Nelson and Finan 2009) this lack of dynamism is particularly problematic. Eakin and Luers
(2006) argue that vulnerability analyses must confront multiple and dynamically interacting
stressors that change over time.
Nelson and Finan (2009) draw their attention to persistent vulnerabilities. As they make
evident, current vulnerabilities and the adaptive actions actors utilize can impact both future
vulnerabilities and restrict potential pathways for future action (i.e. path dependency). For
example, as a burgeoning body of work in poverty dynamics demonstrates current vulnerabilities
can encourage responses (coping strategies, for example) that either increase vulnerability and/or
reduce adaptive capacity in the long-term (Addison et al 2009). In Nelson and Finan (2009),
long-term investment in patron-client relationships empowered people’s ability to cope with
highly variable ecologies (such as drought), while at the same time such political arrangements
over the long term may prove to be maladaptive. Resulting path dependencies and institutional
inertia can limit future adaptation and further deepen vulnerabilities over the long-term.
Moreover, as the degree of exposure and sensitivity fluctuates with systemic shifts in broader
human ecologies (similar in some ways to a dynamic double exposure), there may be sudden
mismatches between stressors and how households, communities, and other social groupings
respond.
Clearly then, if vulnerabilities are a result of interdependent relationships between
exposed units (or the relationships that sustain these units), stressors, and the three mechanisms
22
Here I borrow an analogy used many years ago by the anthropologist Eric Wolf (1982), one of the founding
theorists in political ecology.
23
Much of this problem concerns long-term structure-agency debates within the social sciences. Though I do not
want to labor the point, the differences in these perspectives ultimately impact how we theorize vulnerability and
therefore this impacts the kinds of methodologies and research design we use.
12
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
highlighted by Agder et al (2009) for instance, we must consider not only spatial dynamics but
also temporal ones, too.
Rethinking Vulnerability
Ionescu et al (2009) argue that what is needed in vulnerability research is a strict
formalization of concepts and methods. They use mathematical models to argue for the
simplification and standardization of vulnerability research. Though many lament the wide
diversity of thought in vulnerability (see Cutter 2003), I would argue that such an initiative is not
only unhelpful but also potentially dangerous.24 Limiting our thinking to standardized models of
a notoriously slippery and vastly complex concept amounts to wearing intellectual blinders. Here
I want to briefly address a few future steps scholars need to address in thinking through the
“vulnerability problem”.
We should start with a fundamental question: what is vulnerable to what? This question
highlights a current disjuncture in most understandings of vulnerability: to what extent must an
exposure unit have a relationship with a particular hazard or threat? Gallopin (2006) argues that
to be vulnerable a population must have some relationship to a threat. Though individuals,
groups, or communities may be excluded, marginal, poor, weak or dominated, they can only be
vulnerable in relation not only to the broader social system but also to a threat, whether general
(climate change) or specific (hazard).25 There is no state of being in which an entity is always
under threat from everything (Liverman 1990). Moreover, even if a population is vulnerable to
some threat they may not be existentially at threat. The community may be impacted, but the
community as a social form is not necessarily vulnerable; rather, there is something about the
community, an aspect that is typically vulnerable. For instance, community health or wellbeing
may be vulnerable, but the community itself may not be. This should be made explicit.
Our starting point, then, should be in understanding that vulnerability describes
relationships and relativity. Vulnerability cannot be conceived of outside of a threat and it must
refer relatively to a state of invulnerability or comparative invulnerability. If we are all
vulnerable, vulnerability is hard to perceive and if there is no threat it is impossible to be
vulnerable. This ultimately requires a reconsideration of the relationships between the exposed
unit and the threat. Conceptually, I argue, we should not remove units from the systems of
which they are constituent parts because “things” are made “real” through the relationships that
constitute its active “being in the world” (Hague and Etkin 2007). The contribution of a systems
perspective then is critical. In other words, we should shift our focus not to exposed units but
exposed relationships or sets of relationships (i.e. systems). 26 However, though actors and
systems mutually constitute the other, to a degree, they do not wholly explain the other.
24
These calls seem to ignore the fact that vulnerability research is an important aspect in reducing vulnerability and
that most studies of resilience and adaptive capacity highlight not only the importance of learning but also diversity
as a critical element. Arguing for a singular, totalizing vision and method in vulnerability research contradicts this
vital strength in current writing.
25
Similar to the PAR approach (Wisner et al 1996).
26
Though work on resilience is fascinating and does advance our thinking, particularly in regards to time, I am not
sure to what extent the term is useful because of its normative implications (Klein 2003; Davidson 2011; Hornborg
2010; Nelson et al 2007).
13
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Developing a more refined conceptualization of the relationships of agency to structure and actor
to system requires further thinking (Tompkins and Adger 2005).
Additionally, this requires a serious engagement with issues of power. Incorporating the
political into vulnerability analysis, I would argue, is fundamental. This necessitates a continued
investment in a contextual approach to vulnerability albeit one in which systems and actors form
a dynamic, spatially complicated field of variously articulated agencies (Murphy 2011).
Understanding the drivers, sources, and determinants of exposure and sensitivity to threats or
sets of threats requires a deep engagement with the field of political ecology (beyond a
simplistic and formulaic incorporation of political economy peripherally into ecological
“systems”). Future research should continue a focus on problems of scale, value, and governance
in ways that are more attuned to this perspective and the actualities of real politics. This is
fundamental not only to illuminating vulnerability but also to understanding how actors respond
to this relationship and where the capacity to respond comes from. Inappropriately configured
assessments will miss these dynamics and consequently, we should continue to struggle with
how such a conceptual framework will impact research design and method.
Methodologies in Vulnerability Research
Generally, theories of vulnerability align consistently with particular sets of research
methodology. For example, the work of Pelling (2003), emblematic of an actor-oriented
contextual research agenda with a focus on political economic concerns, relies heavily not on
quantitative indicators but on careful qualitative analysis of case studies. However, this direct
association, between theoretical agenda and research design, is not always the case. For example,
as I will describe below, research utilizing indicators and other quantitative measures in the
pursuit of understanding relative vulnerability can emerge from very different paradigms of
thought. For instance, the work of Susan Cutter is dissimilar in many ways from the indicator
work of Adger and Vincent (2005), Luers (2005), Luers et al (2003), and Eakin and Luers (2006)
though all use quantitative, indicator methods. Moreover, such methodologies have also meld
with participatory approaches more in line with contextual research agendas. In the follow
sections I will consider these various methodologies separately.
Dose-Response Methods and Scenario-based Modeling
The primary methodology of large-scale, outcome-oriented, climate change vulnerability
analyses follow some kind of dose-response model of experimentation (O’Brien et al 2009).
Vulnerabilities are measured through the impact a particular hazard inflicts on a given population
or economic sector. This methodology subscribes to a realist conception of hazards and
disturbance and is largely outcome-oriented.
An off-shoot of dose-response methods are scenario-based modeling efforts. For instance,
climate models are used to predict potential future impacts and then these impacts are
experimentally inflicted on other models of, for example, economic growth or other projections.
These are also used widely in ecological vulnerability assessments. Much of the climate change
literature uses these predictions as a means to demonstrate the ‘potential’ future effects of impact
as well as locate and target vulnerabilities. “Scenario-based methods are imposed on biophysical
and socio-economic systems, usually through the use of models, to determine outcomes on
14
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
various natural, economic and social sectors” (exemplified by Lal et al 1998; Brenkert and
Malone 2005; Yohe and Schlesinger 2002; Sutherland and Gouldby 2003).
The benefit of this work, like indicator research described below, is its usefulness in
large-scale targeting for vulnerability reduction and adaptation efforts. Moreover, it is replicable
and with scenario-based modeling, it is to some degree predictive though its effectiveness is
largely unknown until future events occur. On the downside, these methods have limited
usefulness at smaller scales particular at the level of community and household. These
methodologies are devoid of contextual or systems-oriented approaches and have simplistic
understandings of the dynamism of time and space.
Case Studies: Causal Processes of Vulnerability
Case study approaches attempt to uncover underlying causal determinants and processes
through, typically, long-term, in-depth fieldwork. Included in this research design are a mix of
data collection methodologies with a strong reliance on qualitative methods such as interviewing,
participant observation, and archival analysis (Eriksen et al 2005; Adger 1999; Adger et al 2002).
Depending on the disciplinary-basis of this work, there is a variable composition and depth of
these methods. Anthropological work typically favors ethnographic research, including
participant-observation. Geographical work often brings in otherwise neglected spatial elements,
occasionally through GIS analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data (see Eakins 2006).
Regardless of disciplinary focus, this strand of research is amenable to a contextual approach,
whether through an actor-orientation or systems-orientation. This research can effectively trace
out the ways local places are connected to larger scales; though, it is less capable of describing
the dynamics at larger scales.
The benefit of these idiographic methodologies is the increased levels of internal validity.
The dynamics and causal factors in generating vulnerability are traced out in ways that more
closely reflect the actualities of real, on-the-ground processes. Yet, there are also downsides to
this work. Cutter (2003) critiques such work for being overly specific, lacking in external
validity, and incapable of influencing decision making and planning in any significant way. In
her view, only by contributing to nomothetic, positivist models of vulnerability can work be
effectively applied to what is essentially a problem of efficient resource allocation. However, a
meta-analysis of case studies, which has only been partially done, would serve to remedy this
problem (CITE). This also highlights another point of debate within this work. There is
significant disagreement as to what extent this work should engage in rigorous, deductive,
hypothesis-testing research or whether such dynamics should be explored through a grounded
theory approach where relevant themes and questions emerging through interactions and events
in the field. Such larger debates within the social sciences, however, are unlikely to be resolved
even within vulnerability research.
Indicator Research: Attributes and Rankings
To a great extent much of the research on climate change vulnerability has attempted
some kind of variation on indicator methodologies.27 In this vein, the determinants and drivers of
vulnerability are largely taken as given (Andrey and Jones 2007; Brooks et al 2005; Birkmann
27
15
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
2006; Johnson 2009; Ligon and Schecter 2003). For example, indicators of ‘vulnerability’ are
derived from broader literature and case studies of hazard impacts and outcomes. The goal in this
research is primarily targeting (Eriksen and Kelly 2007; Hinkel 2011).28 As stated above, Cutters
work is aimed primarily at highlighting which communities are more vulnerable to disaster than
others so that efficient allocation of public resources can be made so as to produce the most
beneficial effect (Boruff and Cutter 2005 and 2008; Boruff et al 2005).29 The same is generally
true in Adger and Vincent’s (2005) and Brooks et al (2005) work that utilizes indicators of
country-level vulnerability so aid can be efficiently and equitably distributed to those who need it
most. In most cases, however, as Adger and Vincent (2005) point out, there are few policy
benefits other than targeting because indicator research does not demonstrate anything other than
past relative vulnerability.
In selecting indicators, both of these frameworks rely on expert elicitation and theoretical
correlations derived from past events or descriptive case studies (typically from other places).
Expert panel decisions are used to weigh particular indicators. Only in some cases are indicators
and indicator weights assessed in participatory methodologies (see below). Because there is wide
diversity not only in theorizing vulnerability but also on the characteristics of vulnerable
populations, the mix of indicators is often wildly different. For instance, Adger and Vincent
(2005) argue that indicators will be different, both in their composition and weight, at different
scales. In Moser (2007) and Prowse and Scott (2007), asset losses are perceived to be primary
indicators of vulnerability for households. Cutter utilizes largely demographic indicators that
reflect broader patterns of social marginalization and exclusion such as race, gender, age,
ethnicity, and correlates them with loss rates to arrive at vulnerability. Brooks (2005) uses human
mortality rates to judge a number of arbitrary indicators in formulating country vulnerability
indices. (NEED citation), following a meta-analysis of case studies, arrive at much more
complex set of indicators including robustness, redundancy, rapidity, and resourcefulness and
test them against well-being (?) data. They find that, unlike other indices, these are much more
applicable to a wider array of situations.30 Additionally, they are not impacted by problems of
place and scale specificity.
There are a number of issues scholars raise concerning the use of quantitative indicator
research on vulnerability. First, the validity of particular indicators is highly problematic because
these research methods rely on expert elicitation. Second, there is great uncertainty concerning
the construct validity of these measures. As Adger and Vincent (2005) point out “one of the main
reasons for this uncertainty is not being able to validate the effectiveness of the indicators in
representing determinants of vulnerability, as indeed the whole objective of indicators is to
capture intangible processes”. Vulnerability, here, is perceived to be made of some mix of
discernible, discrete variables and the weights assigned to them are often arbitrary and “involves
28
Though as Smit and Wandel (2006) point out this work rarely incorporates policy-making into their
conceptualization of vulnerability nor the how such work could be incorporated into policy-making. In other words,
the work largely assumes indicator analyses are somehow useful.
29
A sensitivity analysis conducted by Schmidtlein et al 2008 of the SoVI, showed that with small shifts in the index
components, wide variation resulted. Consequently, SoVI is highly dependent on subjective interpretations of
important indicators.
30
Though I agree with Norris et al 2008 and their study is very intriguing, I am skeptical that substituting one
somewhat ambiguous measure for another may get us closer to a direct picture of vulnerability.
16
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
collapsing complex causal chains into single variables”. “A leap of faith is required between
vulnerability of a key variable and other elements such as ecosystem services and ‘well-being’”
(Adger 2006: #).
Moreover, it might overemphasize factors represented by multiply related variables. For
example, some variables may be so closely related that the measured effect is mutually shared,
but the result is measuring the same thing twice. For example, disaggregating factors that
collectively constitute vulnerability can be difficult to tease apart particularly if the factors
overlap. In turn, by disaggregating vulnerability into discrete variables, the work “neglects the
finer mosaic, complexity, and often contradictory nature of vulnerability”. Even as Neil Adger,
who has conducted significant quantitative research on vulnerability, argues: “the translation of
this complex set of parameters into a quantitative metric in many ways reduces its impact and
hides its complexity” (Adger 2006: pg).
Importantly, what constitutes ‘damage’ or ‘negative effects’ varies across contexts and
cultures. As O’Brien et al (2009) point out “the values deemed important to a society or
community may include not only life and property, but also family, neighbourhood and
profession, as well as the more general ‘desirable ends for society’” (citing Næss, 2001; Farley
and Costanza, 2002). Much of this research considers only economic losses or mortality and
neglects other kinds of loss that may be more meaningful to local groups (see Crate 2009). If
contemporary climate trends continue and current modeling is correct, a number of historic,
spiritual, and ritually important landscapes are under threat. This loss of culture is often missed
in quantitative, indicator research.
Indicator work is also often excessively focus on constraints and characteristics of lack
rather than on elements of a pro-active nature and opportunities more broadly. As McLaughlin
and Dietz point out, overwhelmingly, the literature uses vulnerability in a way that treats the
‘vulnerable’ as passive victims. Though disaster can often be used to further entrench
inequalities (Klein 2007) in some cases disaster helps reverse massive inequalities by opening up
new opportunities. Additionally, in times of disaster new bonds and new moral economies of
mutual aid can emerge and cement themselves through actors’ creativity and ingenuity.
There have been laudable attempts to continue quantitative analysis on vulnerability
despite some of these serious failings. For example, Wood et al (2007) find that single factor
analysis and the equal weighting of variables is highly problematic. Additionally, much indicator
work does not fully appreciate the ways in which variables can be variously amplified or muted
in interaction with other variables. Wood et al (2007) try to alleviate this tension by using
multivariate factor (MVF) and principal component analysis (PC). Yet, one of the primary
problems here is that a SoVI accomplished through MVF or PC analysis may only show
variables that have high variance and those with low variance will be missed, though they may
have a greater overall impact. Eakin and Bojoquez-Tapia (2008) propose the use of multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) and elements of fuzzy logic to mitigate the fundamental problems
associated with subjective and highly uncertain selection of indicators and weights. Recognizing
the multidimensional and complex nature of vulnerability they generate a vulnerability index
based on assets and attributes of households against which they test the contribution of variables
through pairwise comparisons. In doing so they can test actual variables (like income
diversification) against a vulnerability index which they point out can be generated through
participatory work.
17
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
The problem here is that this kind of work can be overlay specific and inapplicable
beyond the community in which it is conducted; conversely, most indicator has the opposite
problem, it is often too general. Some argue these approaches are examining quite different
elements of vulnerability. Nelson 2010 distinguishes between general vulnerability and specific
vulnerability, pointing out that indicator research is helpful in the sense of understanding
vulnerability more generally. Here they refer to a context of greater uncertainty, in regards to the
probabilistic likelihood of some (or any) event impacting various communities in any number of
adverse ways. In contrast, highly contextualized accounts refer to a direct relationship between
exposure unit and a specific threat with specific properties. Reframing the distinctions this way
makes a greater case for using indicator and quantitative methodologies for targeting and
resource allocation.
Agent-based Modeling
One of the new advances in charting future vulnerabilities is through agent-based
modeling programs that build scenarios based on a range of indicators and their mutual
interactions. A number of researchers have used these tools to explore how various exposure
units, such as households, communities, and countries, might respond to risk and climate change
over time. For example, West (2009) demonstrates future potential for Mossi household
fragmentation overtime based on analysis of past observations filtered through agent-based
models. Here, key parameters emerge from historical data on household fusion and fission and
are correlated to climate and meteorological data. Taking into consideration various factors such
as commodity prices, future climate conditions, such as increasing drought, are entered into a
basic system function and then the ‘system’ over time, including elements of randomness into
the algorithm, is played out through various scenarios.31 Evidently, although such work attempts
to be predictive and can incorporate case study data, it is hampered by its adherence to weighting
and somewhat simplistic assumptions of variable interactions (and weights). Moreover, because
it is a new technique in this field, its impact and usefulness cannot be fully appreciated yet.
Geographies of Vulnerability: Mapping
Another outgrowth of this focus on indicator and quantitative research is the need for
visual understanding of the spatial and scalar relationships between both various manifestations
of vulnerability and between vulnerability and other spatially distributed variables like borders,
resources, or market-proximity (Morrow 1999; Reid et al 2009; Thornton et al 2009). For
example, one of the more prominent examples of this work is Cutter’s SoVI mapping; yet, this
kind of method and data presentation technique is prominent elsewhere (see Hilhorst and
Bankhoff’s 2003 volume Mapping Vulnerability). Within development practice there has been an
increasing focus on poverty and asset mapping, risk mapping, and in may cases this work is
participatory. In the case of participatory risk mapping (PRM) researchers elicit risks from
participants as well as weights of comparative risks and their spatial components. These are then
correlated with other spatial variables in order to determine the spatial distribution or risk
exposure.
31
See also Berman and Kofinas (2004).
18
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Prominent theoretical work in the field has also employed such spatial mapping
techniques. For example, in O’Brien and Leichenko’s (2008) work on ‘double exposures” they
combine spatial mapping of multiple vulnerabilities including ‘natural’ hazards and social and
economic exposures to global shifts in markets to explore how and where these sources interact
to determine where vulnerabilities are most amplified. Evidently, this work is highly dependent
on other metrics and is largely a data analysis/presentation technique (though a highly useful
one) rather than a data collection methodology.
Participatory Vulnerability Assessments
Participatory vulnerability assessments do not seek to describe or uncover general
vulnerabilities nor do they seek to deductively test theories about vulnerability components and
make-up.32 Through stakeholder consultation, participatory approaches seek local definitions of
the hazards, risks, and uncertainties that pose threats and how that might manifest (see Tompkins
et al 2008). For example, local communities define for themselves what is at threat and often this
may be significantly different than expert elicitation, which largely focuses on economic and
infrastructural vulnerabilities. Additionally, this methodology, through actors’ own
understandings, allows for recognition of multiple, complex, and overlapping sources and
determinants of vulnerability. Such work seeks to uncover risk perception and apply that in
locally meaningful ways. This is an important step towards identifying feasibilities and
practicalities for future action whether that be through mitigation, minimization/reduction,
management, coping or adaptation. In other words, this kind of assessment pre-empts the
necessary ‘buy-in’ that must accompany any counter measures. This perspective also presents an
important corrective to larger more generalized frameworks that may not be meaningful locally
and may hold little applicability.
Some participatory work has also sought to counteract potential throwback from
communities that do accept current scientific consensus on climate change by presenting climate
change as possibilities and potentialities (for the most part without direct reference to climate
change or buzzwords like global warming). By presenting scenarios and impacts, researchers
avoid the confrontation with ideological framings at odds with science. This work has an added
benefit of helping communities deal with uncertainty surrounding a changing environment.
Though most climate change deniers do not accept climate science they tend to have a sense that
something is happening (Stoll-Kleeman et al 2001). In such cases, participatory vulnerability
assessments can be a kind of action research whereby the goal is not so much generating
knowledge for the social science community but to guide communities and their members
through a process of self-actualization and self-assessment (see the methods section below
concerning adaptive capacity)(Shackley and Deanwood 2002). These kinds of research protocols
not only assess vulnerability in locally meaningful ways they also enhance local adaptive
capacity by encouraging citizens to think reflexively about their own capabilities and capacities.
Despite the high internal validity of such research, like case study approaches, there may
be little external validity because the data are so highly contextualized and case specific. This
32
Though they could. A meta-analysis of participatory approaches or community-elicited vulnerability assessments
may uncover important dynamics. However, there is a danger of watering down the nature of vulnerability by
simply creating an average case study.
19
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
poses a problem for scaling up and cross-case analysis. However, Norris et al (2008) have sought
community assessment methodologies that in themselves may be manageable in different
contexts and across larger scales by utilizing conceptual terminology that is more mutable.
Communities themselves may have uncomplicated understandings of complex interactions
particularly when hidden dynamics, marginalized voices, and counter-hegemonies are difficult to
uncover. This is a significant downside to participatory approaches, in that they might reflect
normative (and performative) notions of community ideals and perceptions. The opposite can
also be true, in that there can be excessive nuance in community assessments and findings may
need an additional level of analysis to filter locally complex understandings into useable
frameworks. Though, again, the cost here is a loss of potentially critical knowledge.
Moving Forward with Vulnerability Assessment
Many of the methodologies presented could be improved simply by being more explicit
about how they are addressing vulnerability. 33 Each of the methodologies have different
strengths and weaknesses. 34 For example, though I would not necessarily promote indicator
studies, it is unlikely that large-scale institutions like UNDP or the World Bank will allocate
funding based on in-depth case study vulnerability assessments. Being explicity refers both to
making clear the basic theoretical positions of the l… and recognizing the limitations or the
partial nature of any study of vulnerability. Totalizing and exclusionary .. like those made by
Cutter (2003) and Inoescu et al (200?) are extreme in that they do not recognize the partial and
incomplete nature of their own research and frameworks. The inclusion of additional voices and
the benefits of other models and contributions must be valued. “Improving vulnerability
assessments in this way may well mean incorporating a greater diversity of academic
perspectives, including the humanities, while also developing new tools for effective
incorporation of nonacademic voices in vulnerability research”.
This could also include greater steps toward integrative vulnerability assessments (Nelson
et al 2007; see the work of Lorenzoni et al 2001). Incorporating systems-oriented perspectives
could vastly improve the likelihood of such interdisciplinary collaborations. Along with
important participatory elements, vulnerability assessments may not only become more
“democratic” they may actually more closely measure the state of vulnerability itself.
We must also take heed of Nelson et al’s (2007: 388) statement that “vulnerability is
inherently about ethics and equity”. Vulnerability assessments in themselves, and because of our
societal role as scholars, should be applied in nature. Integrating assessments into vulnerability
reduction efforts not only makes scholarship useful it becomes a fundamental element in the
architecture of adaptive capacity. “Vulnerability demands assessments in which values are made
explicit, entitlements are reviewed and questioned, and new mechanisms for addressing existing
inequities are implemented.”
Identifying the aspect of vulnerability being addressed is helpful. As Adger points out “such clarity inhibits overly
ambitious research claims and facilitates meta-analyses and cross-case study comparisons”.
34
As […] states, “vulnerability assessments thus appear most successful—or perhaps most relevant—when they are
conducted for defined human-environment systems, particular places, and with particular stakeholders in mind.
Assessment of vulnerability is thus unlikely to be boiled down to a single recipe.”
33
20
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Adaptive Capacity
In the second half of this literature review I explore the uses of the term adaptive capacity
and its relatives, adaptation and resilience. Though this is not intended to be an exhaustive
review of the entire literature, it should serve as a productive start to considering how this
concept articulates with vulnerability and its promise for thinking about a world undergoing vast
climatic changes. I preface this with a word of caution that is rarely recognized in this body of
work.
Adaptation
The use of the tem ‘adaptation’ does not always have a glorious past in the social
sciences. Following Darwin’s work on the functional role of adaptation in evolutionary
processes, social ‘scientists’ used this work to legitimize the categorization of societies based on
misguided notions of social evolution. Foundational theorists in the social sciences from Henry
Lewis Maine to Emile Durkheim largely subscribed to a core belief in social evolution. In
practice this had seriously devastating consequences both for those who were assumed to be
lower on the social evolutionary scale and for those who were viewed as being maladapted to
their environment and times. From the racist categorization of social groups, the colonization of
non-European people and lands, to the eugenics movement in the early 1900s and the close
association between capitalist class processes and theories of social evolution, these ideas firmly
implanted in society conceptions of ‘adaptation’ that we are still reeling from.
Even when these worldviews had fallen out of favor, muted notions of adaption and
relative adaptation continued to underlie a number of worldviews including ‘development’
(Rostow 1960), the “war on poverty” (see O’Connor 2002), and even current sustainability
discourses directed overwhelmingly at the poor (see Thornton et al 2010 for a critique). In these
perspectives, liberal notions of wealth, privilege, and progress become fused with ethics of
interventionism, population management, and social engineering. For example, in the culture of
poverty school (Lewis 1959), culture, the very basis for thought and action in human social
worlds was perceived to be a barrier to greater economic success, efficiency, and improvement.
The poor, and other marginal people, were perceived to maladapted to their environment and
their time. Emerging from this liberal concerns for others’ welfare were paradigms that largely
blamed the victim, including discourses concerning overpopulation, environmental degradation,
and famine that ascribed such problems to the ‘outmoded’ and ‘maladapted’ practices of the poor
and politically weak. Some of these perspectives continue to today in other forms.
In order to move forward, thinking in adaptive capacity must recognize the problematic
nature and the perverse history social science has had in assessing and ranking the relative
adapted-ness of communities and social groups. Moreover, we must be concerned as we label
some groups vulnerable or lacking in ‘adaptive capacity’ and considered their histories as
marginal and excluded. Referring to communities as inherently vulnerable or lacking in adaptive
capacity, though this may be comparatively true and is applauded for bringing processes and
histories of marginalization to the forefront, must be weighed against the potential impact such
labeling and the policies that come with might have for those societies or communities.
It is somewhat understandable then that as the political economic turn in the social
sciences emerged in the 1970s and became cemented in the 1980s, the term adaptation lost
considerable favor amongst social scientists. Even for ecological and environmental social
21
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
scientists, the term held considerably problematic connotations. Yet, despite this critique came
increasing recognition that the world was encountering significant ecological crises. In
particular, the environmental problems associated with excessive resource use and global change
prompted serious questions about the adaptiveness of capitalist production systems. Additionally,
work such as Ulrich Beck’s ‘risk society’ demonstrated that in fact, rather than being better
adapted, modern society has largely found ways of covering up and avoiding risk rather than
confronting it; moreover, the increasing complexity of society has to a large extent become
riskier. Though this seemed to be a major shift in consciousness regarding the utility of the
adaptation concept, it only furthered past inequities in both cause and effect continue. For
example, the emergence of sustainability as a cause for common concern became largely
entrenched in social policies aimed at the poor, weak, and marginal, leaving aside, for the most
part, the wealthiest who use considerably more resources per capita and at greater rates.
Moreover, if we are to make claims for greater equity and justice in climate change adaptation
we must seriously confront not only the problematic history of adaptation but also the broader
picture of its implications (Adger 2004; Adger et al 2006). Confronting the entrenched interests
that foster and sustain unequal resource use, vulnerability, and benefits surely should receive
primary attention.
Though the history of adaptation in social sciences has not always been innocent the term
is highly useful. Research in the social sciences, despite reactions against, continued a dialogue
with the adaptation concept long after it fell out of favor. Stemming from the advances made in
the development of a political ecological framework in which social and political dynamics are
viewed as critical elements within any given ‘ecology’ (i.e. sets of interacting relationships), the
term is used in more nuanced and less ‘naturalistic’ ways. Adaptation therefore has both political
connotations as well as basic ecological ones. This does not mean the term is always used this
way and in some of the literature I review below there is clearly still a tendency toward
normative and apolitical use of the term as some kind of objective, ideal state. As I move through
this work, it is important to keep this in mind lest we should succumb to a vision in which
adaptation is solely a technical issue.35
Adaptive Capacity in Climate Change Research
The IPCC report defines adaptive capacity as an element of vulnerability that includes
“the characteristics of communities, countries, and regions that influence their propensity or
ability to adapt” (2001:18). Similarly, Adger and Vincent (2005) state that “adaptive capacity is a
vector of resources and assets that represent the asset based from which adaptation actions and
investments can be made”. They define assets following Bebbington (1999): “assets are
resources which people use not only to generate additional flows and stock but which also give
the ‘capability to be and to act’”. These assets ensure that risks can be modified, losses can be
absorbed and recovered, and new opportunities can be exploited (Adger and Vincent 2005; Smit
In many ways, adaptation is depolicitized in the same way as ‘development’ (Ferguson 1994). The term is
assumed to be an objective, knowable goal that represent an evident, desired state of equilibrium that simply
requires technical adjustments and engineering. Adaptation, though, is a political project that is deeply embedded in
values, morality, and ethics.
35
22
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
and Pilifisova 2003; see also Tanner and Conway’s (2006) ORCHID approach). The
composition of these assets will of course depend on scale and include adjustments in
management strategies (Wall and Marzall 2006). In reviewing the broader literature on adaptive
capacity, however, I found a considerable diversity in conceptual definitions of adaptive capacity
well beyond the IPCC’s basic framework. Because they are core elements of all definitions, here
I explore how this body of research theorizes capacity and action.
Understanding capacity and adaptation
Much of the literature on adaptive capacity has been focused on locating and analyzing
determinants of that capacity and the connections and correlations between capacity and
adaptation itself. Yet, capacity and adaptation are highly debated concepts and how they are
theorized greatly impacts how they are operationalized. According to McLaughlin and Dietz
(2007) following a definition more attuned to evolutionary biology: “’adaptation’ in general
refers to any interactive process which improves performance by bringing about a better match
or fit between some entity and its environment”. Similarly, Adger and Vincent (2005) state that
“adapted-ness is a state in which a system is effective in relating with the environment and meets
the normative goal of stakeholders”. Brooks (2005) narrows this definition of adaptation as an
“adjustment in a system’s behavior and characteristics that enhance its ability to cope with
external stress”. Smit et al (1999) similarly argue that adaptations are “adjustments in ecologicalsocio-economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli their effects or
impacts” while Pielke refers to these adjustments in reference to individual groups and
institutions. In a more encompassing perspective, Smit and Wandel (2006) state that “adaptation
in the context of human dimensions of global change usually refers to a process, action, or
outcome in a system in order for the system to better cope with, manage, or adjust to some
changing condition, stress, hazard, risk, or opportunity”.
Adaptive actions are also attributed various and diverse characteristics. Yohe and Tol
(2002) point out that adaptations are either anticipatory or reactive, autonomous or planned.
Anticipatory actions occur well in advance of threatening events or threshold shifts. Reactive
actions, evidently, occur following such events. Autonomous actions occur independent of
formal planning processes where as planned actions are deeply implicated in them. Some
researchers explore adaptive capacity in reference only to specific events, risks, or thresholds
while other are more concerned with what might be a called a generic capacity to adapt. It is
clear from both the definitions cited above and the characteristics attributed to adaptation and
adaptive capacity that there are significant cleavages for debate. In particular, like the concept of
vulnerability, there are divergences concerning time, scope, scale, and selection of ‘adaptive’
units. This has important implications for how we not only locate the determinants of adaptive
capacity but also how we practically engage in building adaptive capacity.
For example, McLaughlin and Dietz (2007) focus on adaptation as a process involving an
entity and its environment. In contrast, Adger and Vincent (2005) center on adaptedness as a
state relationship between a system and its environment. Clearly, the distinguishing elements
here are between a state of ‘being in relation’ and a ‘process’ of interaction. Yet, Adger and
Vincent (2005) add another set of elements: ethics, morals, and values. Assuming they use
“normative” in an intentionally problematic way, this highlights not just the political nature of
‘adaptation’ but also its roots in particular political values. This contrasts with McLaughlin and
23
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Dietz’s (2007) highly ‘apolitical’ conception. Brooks (2005) concurs with both of these
definitions in how he theorizes the relationship between system (or entity) and the environment:
as one of division. In most definitions of adaptive capacity even those that invoke systems,
human social worlds and the ‘environment’ or ‘nature’ are still largely divorced, independent
elements. Smit et al (1999) attempt to break down this wall by speaking of ecological-socioeconomic systems and stimuli without ascribing it to external forces. Smit and Wandel (2006)
attempt to include nearly all perspectives in their definition. In the following section I explore
these lines of convergence and divergence.
Capacity as Qualities versus Capacity as Context
One of the fundamental issues at the core of understanding adaptive capacity concerns
both what is adapting, to what and why, and where does capacity come from (Pittock and Jones
2000)? In most studies, particular those that generate quantitative indices of various
determinants, adaptive capacity is an inherent quality of a social group whether a household,
community, or country. In contrast, a number of works argue that adaptive capacity emerges
from broader structural conditions (i.e. political economy) and social context in which groups are
situated (Shepherd et al 2006). In other words, the problem of inherent capacity is one of
endogeneity whereas a context-derived capacity is one of exogeneity. Though the former does
invoke marginalization and privilege indirectly, through its choice of indicators, it largely avoids
a more refined contextual framework. As I will point out below this a key issue in indicator
studies of adaptive capacity and is highly problematic.
For instance, in a study of community responses to the ice storm disaster of 1998 in
southern Canada, Murphy (2004) found that Amish communities were little affected and quickly
bounced back from the destruction while non-Amish communities, who where reliant on modern
conveniences and electricity, suffered immensely including massive economic losses. In an
indicator study that included overall economic wealth as a positive factor in adaptive capacity, as
most do, the Amish community would have been rated quite low in adaptive capacity whereas
other suburban communities would have been rated high. Other indicators might have better
reflected the differences such as social capital. Yet, in Murphy (2011) and Nelson and Finan
(2009) quantitative measures of social capital would have ill measured adaptive capacity. For
example, in Murphy (2011) poor Mongolian households engaged in patron-client relationships
with wealthier livestock owners were less vulnerable to disaster and responded much quicker
afterwards than other poor households. Yet, though this may be attributed to their reserves of
social capital, this social resource (i.e. patron-clientage) also locks them in a cycle of near
permanent poverty (see also Nelson and Finan 2009 and Addison et al 2003 for similar cases).
Similarly, Bankhoff (2008) compares various measures of social capital between communities in
the Philippines and in the US. He demonstrates that although poor communities are more
exposed, more sensitive, and ultimately more vulnerable to disasters that those in the US they
have significantly higher quantitative measures of social capital. Basing measures of adaptive
capacity on social capital as a metric of qualitative relationships is problematic. In fact, some
kinds of social capital may in fact be contrary to adaptation as they represent entrench interests
bordering on social inertia. When these are tied to broader structural forces, the changes
necessary for real and effective adaptation can be seriously impeded.
24
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Clearly, adaptive capacity is not endogenous to a particular group but neither does it
emerge solely from context either; rather, it emerges in the dynamic interplay between these
poles.
Scales and Boundaries
Concerns over scale are in a way an extension of the debate above. In the search for
determinants and indicators of adaptive capacity, a growing critique has emerged arguing that
these will be significantly different depending on the scale of adaptive unit being analyzed
(Adger and Vincent 2005; Vincent 2007; Wilbanks and Kates 1999). For instance, the
characteristics of adaptive capacity within households will be significantly different than those
for communities those for countries (Adger and Vincent 2005; Vincent 2007) and for individuals
(Grothman and Patt 2005). Yet, these forms of social organization are also nested (Adger et al
2008; Adger et al 2009) in that nation-states consist of and govern communities and households
and communities are embedded in nation-states. Consequently, the scale issue is more critical
than simply selecting some kind of exposure; rather, the issues become: 1) how are exposure
units implicated at various scales and 2) how is this scalar nature of the unit produced. Moreover,
how do various scales converge in a particular place? In a sense this is the root of O’Brien and
Leichenko’s (2008) work on double exposure in regards to vulnerability as outlined above. Like
vulnerability, adaptive capacity is also a product of double exposure – both to the broader
ecology in which threats emerge but also the broader political economy through which adaptive
capacity dialectically emerges. Households and communities are engaged in relationships and
networks that overlap and cross-cut their own boundaries in ways that challenge both simplistic
notions of discrete adaptive units and discrete, coherent scales.
This is most clearly evident if we pursue an institutional viewpoint of adaptive capacity
rather than focus on the characteristic qualities and attributes of various ‘social forms’.
Institutions, the rules of game (North 1991), and organizations (Williamson 1986), the socially
networked manifestation of institutions, operate in ways that not only connect these various
entities and social forms but are also constitutive of them. The legal codes, administrative rules,
and operating principles that make up the interactive frames around which action occurs,
configure the possibilities for adaptation in ways that are not easily captured in studies that focus
narrowly on adaptive units like households and communities. This focus on networks, linkages,
institutions, and organizations cuts across social boundaries and scales that are often assumed to
be concrete and coherent social forms but are in fact are manifestations of relationships built
through rules, ethics, morals, codes, principles, and their strategic manipulation.
Scope: Actor versus Systems Perspectives
One of the fundamental divisions in current work on adaptive capacity concerns the
scope of adaptation. Most research has taken what Nelson et al (2007) call an actor-oriented
approach; in contrast, they and others argue for a system-oriented perspective. In the definitions
of adaptive capacity cited above, rather than households, communities, or institutions taking
center stage, the focus is on the ‘system’. Though its not clear that early work drew on the
‘social-ecological systems’ literature, later work, most emblematically in the reviews by Nelson
et al (2007) and Eakin and Luers (2006), has directly drawn on this work emphasizing the
importance of system resilience. Though it is rarely defined, system here refers to coupled
25
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
human-natural systems (Gunderson and Holling 2002) or social ecologies (Berkes). However,
this concept is often used in a perplexing way, primarily because many of the threats to a defined
system emerge from constituent system elements, as I described above. Moreover there is rarely
a definitive picture of what composes the system. In fact, systems often appear to be simply a set
of (functional) relationships, akin to networks, in which some elements, such as events like
drought or floods, are excluded and others are not.
This is an important point because what is included or excluded from system definitions
can critically shape how we think of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. For example, if we see
drought as an external threat to a ‘system’ such as rural farming ecologies, we may miss greater
system scales. This is particularly true in the case of dryland communities found in the Sahel
where events like drought may be considered external threats by outsiders but are in fact integral
to an adaptive cycle in which local Sahelian communities are finely attuned (see Mortimore
1989). Historically, in decadal episodes of drying Sahelian agro-pastoralists relied more heavily
on livestock husbandry and in wet periods they would shift to more settled agro-pastoral
livelihoods. Viewing drought as external to this ‘system’ could be disastrous. 36 For example,
mobile livestock-keeping, though it was an adaptation to arid conditions, was assumed to be
degrading the landscape leading to desertification. Attempts to move herders out of this
livelihood and the support of arid-land irrigation and cropping was an attempt at ‘adapting’ these
communities to their delicate, dryland environment. However, this was a major miscalculation of
the nature of the ‘system’. Drought was integral to the shifting dynamics of agro-pastoralism in
the Sahel; in other words, it was not external to the system but an integral element of that system.
The same could be said of earlier miscalculations concerning the role of fire in North American
forests.
Systems perspectives though do offer an important theoretical advantage over other work
because this orientation focus on the relationships that sustain things including systems
themselves. It is these relationships which are vulnerable and therefore also integral to adaptive
capacity. In SES theory, systems consist of the dynamic interaction between bio and geophysical units and social ones. In short, they concern coupled human-natural systems. Important
aspects of this framework for our thinking here are the notion of feedbacks, linkages, and
resilience. Feedback through linkages are critical elements in understanding vulnerability
because it demonstrates the conceptual difficulty in “separating discourse, institutions, and
ecological process” (Nelson et al 2007). It is through these linkages that change occurs.
Moreover, it is through these linkages that systems sustain themselves or demonstrate resilience.
Nelson et al (2007: 396) argue that “adaptation is best formulated as an issue of system
resilience”. Resilience here refers to the “amount of change a system can undergo and still retain
the same function and structure while maintain options to develop”.37
The problem of viewing certain events, forces, or actions as elements external to ‘systems’ is described in great
detail in Leach and Fairhead’s Misreading the African Landscape. See also Leach and Mearns (1996) The Lie of the
Land.
37
From a non-SES perspective, Clark (2000) defines resilience as “the ability of the exposure unit to resist or
recover from the damage associated with the convergence of multiple stresses” (see also Fussel 2007).
36
26
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Time
The problem of resilience brings to the forefront the problem of time. Most research on
adaptation and adaptive capacity implicitly refers to a specific element of time. Whereas some
works describe synchronic, short-term adaptation referring to, for instance, flood wall (levee)
construction in the Netherlands (Tompkins 2008), other works focus on long-term, largely
undefined temporal frames. Additionally, cross-cutting these time scales, some work focuses on
adaptation to specific hazards, climate change induced or otherwise, while others focus on
threshold transformations. In more recent years, the focus has largely turned towards adaptation
to long-term, threshold transformations. This diverse time elements play an important role in
distinguishing between certain kinds or response.
Nelson et al (2007) and a number of other scholarly works address the distinction
between coping and adaptation (see Figure # below). Within socio-ecological systems there are
dynamic yet stable states where variability necessitates not only risk mitigation, management,
and reduction but also coping strategies in the event of wide fluctuations in system conditions.
The purpose of such coping mechanism is to maintain a stable state of relationships within the
system. When systemic shocks occur, the purpose of such action is to maintain an original
(approximate) state.38 Therefore, coping actions are not in themselves adaptive in the sense of
transformative change. Though they may reflect past adaptations, their usefulness in future
adaptations is uncertain, particularly in the context of transformations. In contrast, when a system
is undergoing these large-scale changes that exceed functional thresholds, i.e. meaning the sets of
relationships within the system are being severed or fundamentally (and functionally) altered,
coping is no longer effective; rather, the system and system elements must adapt to novel
conditions.
Within the literature, researchers highlight two possible adaptive responses, resistance or
resilience. 39 For the former, system elements attempt to prevent the occurrence of system
transformation. In the latter, system elements attempt to weather major transformations and reintegrate in new but functionally similar ways.40 In the context of such transformative change,
adaptation becomes an attempt to maintain the status quo. Thinking at these timescales presents
critical conceptual problems for how we think both about adaptation and its goals and capacity
and its constituent features. For instance, the maintenance of the status quo in the context of
transformative change seems oddly misplace when the system is radically changing (Klein et al
2003). As Walker (2004) points out “sometimes resilience is not a good thing”. They argue that
radical environmental change necessitates equally radical if not revolutionary social change. This
argument seems important in the context of anthropogenic climate change. The return to the
status quo seems unlikely and the fundamental determinants are the problem itself; consequently,
resilience (or resistance) makes little sense. But even within those perspectives that highlight the
The state being described here is one of “being in relation” rather than a static, concretized set of relationships.
The goal in this sense is to return an exact original state but to “settle” into those relationships once again. In this
sense, the system is dynamic and changing but the relationships continue.
39
Janssen et al (2007) also discuss robustness. However, this is not a response, it is an ability to weather or absorb a
shock in spite of response. Gallopin (2006) argues that robustness is the polar opposite of vulnerability.
40
Carpenter et al (2001) point out the need to talk about “resilience of what to what” if we are to effectively deploy
this term. In many cases, resilience is discussed only in the abstract. There are a number of notable exceptions,
particularly case studies.
38
27
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
need for broader changes, some argue for incremental adjustments while others are tied to
radically transformative actions. The idea here is that adjustments geared towards a potential
shift in system function are adaptive because they are future-oriented. In this sense, then, we can
speak of resilience as ‘adaptive’.41 Clearly, time is not only an important element in how we
think about adaptation and adaptive capacity but also in the practical sense as well. For instance,
the speed of change required by institutions and the timing involved in learning cycles and
response depend on how we think about ‘change’. I will discuss some of this below.
Figure 2. Adaptation versus coping (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Adaptation as Action: Constraints and Opportunities
A significant portion of the literature on adaptive capacity is concerned not so much with
‘adaptation’ or ‘capacity’ in any theoretical sense, but with adaptive action, its constraints, and
its opportunities. In other words, rather than theorize what comprises adaptive capacity, this
work starts from the idea that adaptations are manifestations of adaptive capacity and therefore
allow us to evaluate the elements of adaptive capacity as they work in practice.42 Burton et al
(1993) state that there are effectively six potential courses of adaptation action including what he
called 1) ‘share the loss’, 2) ‘bear the loss’, 3) modify the event, 4) prevent the event, 5) change
patterns/practices of use, and 6) change location. Agrawal (2009) in his study of the importance
of local institutions in adaptation to climate change, explores the broader anthropological
41
Here we still have a problem. For example, if mitigation is part of this adaptive exercise in adjustment, then to
what extent is truly adaptive? In short, where do we draw the line between adaptation and other forms of response?
This is an important debate.
42
Smit and Wandel (2006) distinguish between adaptations, adaptive capacity, and adaptive features. For our
purposes here, adaptive features are elements of adaptive capacity. Understanding these features in part may be
significantly more feasible than understanding capacity as a whole. Adaptation in their terms “demonstrates an
ability to overcome stress” while adaptive features “increase flexible functioning”.
28
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
literature and cites more specific examples including pooling, mobility, storage, diversification,
and market exchange.
Much of this work operates under the assumptions of an actor-oriented framework and
begins from a specific social form such as household or community and traces out the
institutional environment in terms of constraints (or limits) and opportunities (Adger 2009; see
Bradshaw et al 2004 for an example). In the diverse work on the subject, actions are constrained
or enabled in various ways, mostly by variables reflecting some element of the constraints
outlined in Yohe and Tol (2002), including: 1) the range of available technological options, 2)
the availability of resources and distribution, 3) the structure of institutions, 4) stocks of human
and social capital, 5) access to risk spreading mechanisms, 6) ability of decision-makers to deal
with risk and information, 7) the public’s perception, and 8) the significance of exposure. 43
Though there are numerous angles from which to explore the constraints and opportunities in
adaptive action, here I highlight: 1) the problem of governance, 2) perception, 3) moral and value
.., and 4) learning capacity.
Of prime concern are governance issues (Adger et al 2009b). From the bottom,
adaptation measures must take into account the will of local citizens, non-governmental
organizations, and local governing bodies. Wall and Marzall (2006) and Zarhan et al (2008)
highlight the importance of local saliency, credibility, and legitimacy in formulating potential
course of action. In other words, adaptation measures must ‘speak’ meaningfully to local needs
and desires, must align with local interest, and must be viewed as emerging from both credible
and legitimate institutions and processes (O’Riordan and Jordan 1999). Lacking these
considerations, adaptation measures will face significant resistance and generate friction in ways
that may ultimately limit adaptive possibilities. Clearly then, capacity must reflect community
wills as well as the channels between citizens and state actors that lubricate the potential for
communication and action (Moser and Dilling 2004, 2007).
A number of works have highlighted the importance of top-down governance issues
(Eakin and Lemos 2006; Pahl-Wostl 2009). Keskitalo et al (2004) have strongly contended that
adaptation measures are largely impossible without encountering structures of governance and
consequently, governance must be a critical site of adaptive thinking otherwise most actions are
rendered infeasible. Without responsive, meaningful governance, problems of saliency,
credibility and legitimacy have little weight. Consequently, representative democracy is seen as a
critical element in the formation of adaptive communities. Elements of governance, whether
from the bottom or top, however, are not magic bullets in formulating adaptive actions. As a
number of researchers have pointed out, at the heart of action are knowledge and perception.
Highlighted frequently in the literature but not fully developed are the psychological,
cultural, and discursive limits to adaptation (Crate and Nuttall 2009; Hulme 2009; Norgaard
2011). In other words, is adaptation “good to think” (Levi-Strauss 196?)? Place-based values and
values of place are clearly important and can, when not aligned with decision-makers’
perceptions, present serious boundaries to potential adaptation measures. In other ways though,
these values can also become an opportunity, most particularly when those places and landscapes
themselves are at threat. More general environmental ethics are also important elements in
43
I cannot deal with each of these here due to space constraints, but they are capture consistently in other literature
reviews.
29
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
shaping potential course for action. For example, how do local actors view their role within local
as well as global ecologies? Do ‘people’ inhabit the world in these environmental imaginaries or
control it, and is it morally just to live in harmony as nodes within a broader ecology? Is it
corruptible or virtuous to bend natural environments to society’s will?
Scholars have also focused more narrowly on climate change perceptions and beliefs,
focusing on the ways such beliefs impede the possibility for action. For example, Zarhan et al
(2008) tested the hypothesis that material proximity to climate-change induced hazards would
result in greater recognition of the threats climate change poses and more vociferous calls for
climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, they found that those living in greatest
proximity to climate-change related hazards like coastal flooding, wildfire, and increased
hurricane intensity are, in fact, more likely to disbelieve climate change science and disregard the
need for adaptation and mitigation. Clearly then, perception is important; but equally important
are the processes that give rise to such divergence between local material reality and ideology
and perception. For example, in White’s study of wild fire risk, insurance was cited as a critical
enabling factor in fostering misaligned perceptions of wildfire as a threat.
These kinds of perceptions are also implicated in how individuals, communities, and
societies view risk (Shackley and Deanwood 2002; Tucker et al 2010). This is a critical element
particularly within capitalist societies that view risk somewhat ambivalently in general. Risk in
some contexts is an opportunity and in other it is a constraint. For example, insurance markets,
though they represent a kind of risk management strategy through pooling, view risk largely as
an opportunity. High risk ventures can also be high return opportunities and in circumstances
where significant economies of scale are reached, risk can be an important source of capital
return.44 In other words, capitalist economies reward risk-takers in the short-term and only in the
long-term do benefits accrue to the risk averse (see also Wisner 2003).
There are a number of other problems that perception presents for action on climate
change. In psychological studies of insurance markets (Kunreuther 2008), economists highlight a
number of psycho-social constraints on risk perception including: 1) lack of awareness (as well
as myopia), 2) underestimation, 3) budget constraints, 4) inability to effectively calculate risk, 5)
uncertainty, 6) hyperbolic discounting, 7) limited planning horizons, 8) procrastination, 9)
learning failure, and what are called 10) the “levee effect”, 11) the “Samaritan’s dilemma”, and
12) the “politicians dilemma”.45
Lack of awareness simply refers to hidden factors or hidden dimensions. In many
discussions of climate change adaptation, this is seen as a primary problem; however,
information about climate change is widespread and ignorance is not the core of resistance
against climate change science. Consequently, increased educational efforts can only achieve so
much (Moser and Dilling 2004, 2007). Underestimation could be more important particularly
considering the timescales involved in climate change and the potentially drastic thresholds we
may cross over that time. Budget constraints are frequently taken into consideration and, in many
44
See the credit derivative crisis of 2008. Derivative swaps were a way of bundling risk and backing them with
securities; however, the problem was that the firms bundling and selling the risk, did not in fact bear the risk they
were selling leading to serious issues of moral hazard.
45
These are all ‘actor-oriented’ as they stem from rational choice perspectives that lie at the foundation of modern
economics. These problems do not take into account the way these problems are social produced.
30
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
cases, are the only constraint consideration in generating adaptation measures; but as this review
has clearly demonstrated, though budget constraints (hard or soft) are one of the most critical
elements in action they are only one of the limitations and sources of friction in moving forward
on adaptation. Uncertainty and the inability to calculate risk are interrelated. Clearly, climate
change is uncertain in its impacts, timing, and intensity because past events are a poor predictor
in a dynamic context. But some uncertainties are the result not of the inapplicability of past
events to future ones but of an incapacity to effectively calculate risks that may be too complex.
Hyperbolic discounting involves the dismissal of certain elements of risk for various reasons. For
example, young drivers, as any State Farm insurance agent can tell you, are more likely to
engage in risky activities such as speeding, drunk driving, and cell phone use largely because
their limited experience fosters a dramatic under-estimation of the effect these behaviors have on
their driving ability. Risk perception also confronts limited time horizons. Individual actors can
only effectively see, calculate, and plan for risks at certain timescales. For example, as any life
insurance salesman could explain, most people severely underestimate the likelihood of their
own death. This overlaps to a great extent with procrastination. Learning failures refer to the
inability to effectively learn from a past event including its likelihood of re-occurring or
measures to mitigate, manage, or reduce the risk.
The levee effect concerns the psychological effect of risk management technologies on
risk perception and the overdeveloped sense of trust in current measures, particularly untested
ones. This also highlights the excessive reliance on technologies as solutions despite other, more
effective means to mitigate, manage, and reduce risks. The Samaritan’s dilemma refers to a
dynamic where extended charity becomes expected or routinized in a way the limits effective
risk management. The politician’s dilemma refers to policy-makers and decision-makers more
generally. Specifically, this dilemma highlights how decision-makers are unlikely to counter
more popular perceptions even if such perceptions are faulty because of various kinds of social
pressure and in the case of politicians, electoral success. 46 For individuals, they may
inappropriately calculate cost-benefits if they hold entrenched interests.
This research on risk perception undermines some of the current work on adaptation
constraints. For instance, the last scenario (politicians dilemma) highlights the problems with
Keskitalo (2004) and Wall and Marzall’s (2006) assertions about representative democracy.
Even in societies with fairly representative democracies vulnerability is not equally shared;
consequently, these divergent exposures will result in not only equally divergent perspective on
potential action but may in fact work to further entrench or deepen vulnerabilities. The
entrenched economic interests of dominant social classes, the deeply integrated nature of
livelihoods in unsustainable yet profitable industries, and the inflexibility of governance
structures and actors entrapped by these forces all prove to be significant problems even in
representative democracies. The politician’s dilemma extends beyond simple electoral pressures
to the vast array of industry and lobbyist agents that have become a practical sine qua non to
capitalist democracies. The largely perverse incentives, hidden costs, and broad systemic risks at
the heart of modern capitalist economic practices present massive challenges to even locally46
We could also explore the free-rider problem whereby individuals particularly are not concerned with action
because it is assumes others will do so for them. This is the opposite of an externality in which another’s actions
adversely one’s own potential for action. Moral hazard, adverse selection, other issues.
31
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
oriented adaptation measures which cannot be removed both from the political economic context
in which they emerge and the broader ecological transformations resulting from large-scale
anthropogenic forces. This problematic alignment of perception and practice ultimately shifts
how adaptation is configured particularly when measures are evaluated through cost-benefit and
trade-off analyses that are misaligned with environmental processes to begin with.47 Moreover,
the unequal nature of decision-making in these contexts also poses the problem of externalities.
Though one group may perceive a course of action as being beneficial to their own local context
there is serious potential, particularly at larger scales, for deleterious externalities. Moreover,
because of the path dependent nature of adaptive action, these could further limit potential action
and even worsen vulnerabilities.
This brings to the forefront not just the political economic nature of adaptation but also
its fundamentally moral nature. Adaptive action is motivated in part by specific societal goals
that are deeply rooted in ethics and morality. For societies in which and equity are issues of
limited import, climate change adaptation, because of its differential impacts, may not be a
significant priority (Adger et al 2006; Roberts and Parks 2006). Moreover, adaptation confronts
the issue of social change in a dramatic way. In the face of systemic environmental
transformations, is maintaining the status quo (i.e. resilience or resistance) or radical societal
change necessary? Such questions have only partly to do with the existential realities of climate
change.
Evidently, including issues of perception and morality are vitally important to discussions
of climate change adaptation but what are the costs of viewing culture as a limiting factor in
adaptation (Crate and Nuttall 2009)? In several case studies reviewed, culture is frequently
positioned as a potential limiting factor (Nielsen and Reenberg 2009). But what is the danger in
this? Such work has prior historical cognates in the culture of poverty school of thought and
broader development narratives where ‘blaming the victim’ served as a prominent rationale for
‘cultural’ transformation and patronizing practices of ‘civilizing’ the other. At the same time,
perceptions of climate change are proving to be stalwart barriers to future adaptation (Norgaard
2011). Do we account for culture and perception only when the actors are powerful and not when
they are politically marginal? To some extent this makes sense because of the relative weight of
structural forces on social action within these fields of power. At the same time, all people are
equally ‘cultural’. This requires, then, a nuanced sense of the articulation of actors’ perceptions
and cultural positions within broader social dynamics (Orlove 2009). The climate change
perceptions of wealthy coastal elites in south Texas are tied to much larger political and
economic interests than a livestock herder in Tanzania.
As I cited in the section above, for many the heart of adaptive capacity and action lie not
in broader societal constraints and opportunities but in the way society and its members learn and
the connections between that learning process and subsequent action (Krasny et al 2011; Pelling
2008; Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). Surely within this framework constraints and opportunities
can also be enumerated, but the focus on amorphous almost nebulous networks of learning and
knowledge production places greater emphasis not on outputs (actions or behaviors) but rather
47
In other words, they do not account for the cost. For example, externalities are frequently excluded from operating
costs and governments are not inclined generally to force industries to account for them because prices are kept low.
Including the ‘actual’ costs of operating a ‘mine’, for instance, might drive up resources prices.
32
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
on process and the connection between knowledge and practice. In this sense, adaptive capacity
emerges from the nature of institutions, networks, and communities of practice and the way
knowledge circulates and influences decision-making. As Pelling (2008) argues much of
adaptive capacity is latent and is only manifested as events unfold over time. For example,
flexibility of practice and mobility of knowledge, core elements in adaptive capacity, are only
expressed in observable ways when crises occur. Adaptive capacity, then, is largely “hidden in
implicit patterns of behavior and organizational forms that are hard to delineate”.
Experimentation, imitation, communication, and reflexivity are critical elements in this
learning process (Krasny et al 2011; Berkhout et al 2006). Moreover, Tscharkert and Dietrich
(2010) point out how building learning capacity is integral to anticipatory adaptation. Pelling
(2008) argues that much of this takes place not within formal institutions (or what they call
canonical networks) but within shadow spaces that crosscut scale, hierarchy, formal
organizations, and ‘canonical’ identities. In contrast, these shadow “communities of practice”
formulate the institutional glue that enables the flow of information and knowledge in ways that
tangentially intersect with formal processes. 48 Critical elements in these spaces are boundary
actors and objects that not only bind the canonical with the shadow world but also tie elements
within each of these spheres of social interaction. Though social groupings are noted for their
capacity to strategically forget and remember and the inertia of embedded knowledge, shadow
spaces disrupt these tactics and strategies that emerge in the course of community formation. For
Pelling (2008), these networks therefore make-up the latent nature of adaptive capacity.
Additional works from the adaptive management and adaptive governance literature
describe other ways in which these networks operate and how they intersect (Armitage et al
2007; Armitage et al 2008; Berkhout et al 2006; Cash et al 2006; Olsson et al 2004, 2006). This
literature not only highlights their existence, they also argue for their proliferation as a pathway
to managing in a dynamic world. The stress on iterative learning networks (Nelson et al 2007) is
both tied to the growing importance and relevance of work on social-ecological systems and the
need for adaptive management (Armitage 2007).
Critics of adaptive learning processes argue that such work only highlights one side of
network-based learning. For instance, the problems of groupthink are as potentially deleterious
as the wisdom of crowds may be helpful. In other words, embedded and accepted knowledge
within networks, and the subsequently strategic remembering and forgetting they entail, in fact
may be incorrect, misaligned with reality, and self-perpetuating rather than dynamic and selfreflexive. 49 Additionally, a ‘formal’ focus on the informal corrupts the emergent and unconducted nature of these nebulous networks. By attempting to ‘harness’ knowledge and
learning networks, formalization or even recognition may shed light on these shadow spaces and
disrupt the critical functioning environment. Lastly, it is argued that a focus on networks and
learning cycles, though laudable, ignores the real, structural change that needs to occur.
Networks in themselves may be ephemeral and lack the power to effect important change. In
48
The tangential nature of these networks is crucial to the functioning of both canonical networks and formal
organizations. Flexibility finds its genesis here rather than in formal codes, principles, and law.
49
For instance, look at the emergence of the Tea Party and their insistence on climate change denial. The Tea Party
emerged from these kinds of shadow spaces and though in many ways their platform has become canonical, these
networks were not noted for their flexibility but rather for their rigidity. Understanding the role of networks in and
between organizations must take account for strategic interests, selective learning, and the relevance of ideology.
33
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
many ways, by working in the ‘cracks’ these networks exist largely by evading or disengaging
from formal structures (Cash et al 2006). In order to formulate significant and lasting adaptive
actions, formal, structural changes must be achieved.50
Tied to the problems of power, justice, and equity are broader critiques against adaptation
itself (Dow et al 2006). Some argue that adaptation is simply another pathway for shifting the
work of dealing with global ecological problems onto the poor and marginalized who are the
least to blame for the very conditions the world is in (Adger 2004; Adger et al 2006; Paavola and
Adger 2006; Kates 2000). For Liverman (2008), adaptation is in many ways a distraction from
the real problem of mitigation. If the poor are forced to forego short term gains and improved
livelihoods for the cause of climate change adaptation while the wealthy elite continue to burn
fossil fuels and forego mitigation measures for the sake of short-term gains in additional wealth
and power, equity and justice simply become catch-words (Kates 2000). Yohe (2001), for
instance, argues that there should be a greater deal of focus on mitigative capacity rather than
adaptive capacity.
Methodologies in Adaptive Capacity Research
In the adaptive capacity research literature there are three, generally accepted
methodological niches that largely mirror those in vulnerability research. In Smit and Wandel’s
(2006) formulation the three main bodies of work include research on: 1) assumed impacts
focusing largely on cost/benefit analyses, 2) ranking of potential adaptive actions which has a
high technology focus albeit with a growing segment of participatory assessment research and 3)
the comparison of relative adaptive capacities through rating criteria and indices. All of these in a
way are aligned with outcome-oriented vulnerability research, though to varying degrees they
may have contextual components underlying them. From the standpoint of systems theory, very
little research has been explicitly conducted purely from this perspective; rather, work that cites
SES often engages with an actor-oriented approach albeit from a nuanced, contextual framework
(Nelson et al 2007).
The first is in many ways a counterpart to does-response methods in vulnerability
analysis. I do not cover this body of work to a great degree because it rarely invokes
‘communities’ or other smaller adaptive units like households. The second body of work is
specifically applied and amounts largely to feasibility assessments for particular adaptive actions.
Examples of this kind of work include Lemieux et al (2011), UNEP (2008), and Donohoe and
Needham (2009). 51 Here, I only briefly explore works that are focused on community-based
adaptive capacity assessments. The third body of work also emerges from outcome oriented
50
This is not to deny that these changes can emerge from informal, shadow spaces but that these spaces may not
always have beneficial impacts or lead to adaptive changes. Additionally, these networks can also form strategic
alliances that work against and impede rather than foster long-lasting structural changes. This problem extends
beyond the issue of adaptation. Networks are often envisioned as ‘powerless’ spaces of egalitarianism when in fact
they are deeply infused and dependent on power.
51
These kinds of assessments are less applied to community-based adaptations and are more directed towards larger
scale initiatives. They also do not engage communities in a participatory fashion for the most part and only
incorporate “expert” opinion. However, see Lemieux et al’s (2011) Delphi approach, Shackley and Deanwood
(2002), and Lorenzoni et al’s (2000) work on combining impact modeling with scenario-building.
34
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
research and indicator assessments in vulnerability methodologies and forms the most prominent
core in the work I cover here. Beyond these categories, I also add descriptive case studies and
action-oriented research. Case study approaches, similar to those in vulnerability research, are a
significant thread in contemporary adaptive capacity work. I also believe it is critical to add
action-oriented research because this work is predominantly concerned with improving
community adaptive capacity rather than measuring it per se, and is a growing area of work. To a
large extent this body of work draws from the other perspectives in important ways but its focus
on application through research is novel.
Indicator and other Quantitative Assessments
Indicator assessments in adaptive capacity research are similar in many respects to
vulnerability indicator assessments including many of the same basic research frameworks,
goals, and problems. In short, adaptive capacity indicator studies draw on case study works to
establish a core set of indicators against which sets of data are analyzed (Yohe and Tol 2002).
They select, either through case study review or expert elicitation, factors and determinants of
adaptive capacity, operationalize these indicators through various kind of measurement, score the
variable weights and compute the data by some kind of function, attempting to account for basic
statistical problems. This kind of research does not attempt to dissect and analyze the
determinants of adaptive capacity; rather, it takes them as ‘pre-given’ based on past experiences.
For example, Brooks (2005), drawing on past bodies of work on hazard response, expert
elicitation, and climate data, argues that adaptive capacity is associated with governance
indicators including civil and political rights and literacy. He uses hazard-based mortality rates
and a core set of eleven indicators as a means to test this hypothesis. By comparing measures of
rights and literacy with hazard mortality, and controlling for event exposure, he arrives not only
at a high correlation but an index of country rankings according to the calculated outcomes. The
fundamental purpose of such work is to highlight deficiencies in adaptive capacity so that
initiatives can be appropriately targeted to remedy such lacunas. Consequently, like indicator
work in vulnerability, this approach is geared almost singularly towards ‘targeting’ issues.
A number of works highlight the problematic nature of indicator assessments (Hinkel
2011). In many ways such critiques mirror those of vulnerability indicator assessments; however,
the work in adaptive capacity is additionally problematic. First, in many ways, indicator studies
reflect the simplistic assumption that adaptive capacity is the polar opposite of vulnerability. If
adaptive capacity is the presence of a positive variable, vulnerability is the lack of that variable.
Secondly, the methodology, to a large extent, relies heavily on expert elicitation, a dubious
strategy for predicting adaptive capacity to climate change. Moreover, there is limited
transparency, from a scholarly point of view, of exactly who are the experts.52 Expert elicitations
often seem to be very poor stereotypes of entire bodies of literature. For example, that literacy is
itself assumed to be a predictor of adaptive capacity seems to be founded on a number of
assumptions about the connections between literacy and governance. Yet, why literacy was
chosen is never made explicit.
This overlaps with the problem of construct validity. If adaptive capacity is largely latent
and climate change is both uncertain and uneven in its manifestations than developing indicators
52
In the articles, books, and reports I reviewed, this was never made explicit.
35
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
that directly measure adaptive capacity is highly problematic. For example, governance is
extremely difficult to capture with a few indicator variables (Adger et al 2009). The indicators
often chosen reflect broad, un-problematized assumptions about direct relationships that may not
in fact exist (see Haddad 2005 for a example of this problem). For example, that decentralization
is inherently good and reflective of adaptive capacity is a largely unfounded assumption rooted
in particular political ideologies and assumptions about communities and the ‘local’. Often
simply by selecting indicators, research depoliticizes politics itself, rendering what is a complex
interaction of interests, strategies, and histories into a single, technical issue. Even indicators like
social capital, which have wide usage in social science research, are highly problematic. The use
of a quantitative measure for what is essentially a qualitative social phenomena often occludes
critical dynamics. Dissection into constituent elements such as Krishna (2001) does with bonding
social capital versus network social capital is a step forward; but even this can be problematic.
Moreover, the reliance on indicators can lead to a proliferation of indicators when
measures are ineffective. Wall and Marzall (2006) claim that there are no limits to the number of
indicators one might use and Adger and Vincent (2005) argue that indices simply need to be
continually refined in order to account for finer grained and exhaustive lists of attributes. Yet,
there also seems to be the danger of cherry picking indicators that adhere to one’s models and to
observations on the ground: they are always right until the next event occurs. There are no set
protocols for testing variables or measures derived from one context in another context. Very
few indicator assessments ever disprove an index or its reliant functions because they rarely test
it on cases outside of those from which the indicators emerged.53 Moreover, the applied nature of
the work is problematic (Dessai and Hulme 2004). In selecting indicators that seem to capture
adaptive capacity, it is assumed implicitly that such work will have immediate and consequential
relevance in policy and decision-making when such measures have never experience rigorous
review or testing. 54 Moreover, this work is also often static in nature, using past measures
against past data. It also lacks a contextual perspective or is limited in its attenuation to a
systems-orientation though it often cites this work.55
Descriptive Case Study and Participatory Approaches
Compared to case study work in vulnerability, this strain of research is generally lacking
in the adaptive capacity literature though there is much overlap with participatory or communitybased adaptive capacity assessments. As Smit and Wandel (2006) state the central goal of this
approach is “to document the ways in which the system or community experiences changing
conditions and the processes of decision-making in this system (or that influence the system) that
may accommodate adaptations or provide means of improving adaptive capacity”. In the little
work that there is of this genre, case studies of climate change adaptations are plenty, particularly
in the grey literature, and are growing (see Vasquez-Leon et al 2003; Ford and Smit 2004).56
53
See Varghese et al 2006 for an exception to this.
In country-level work, these indicators often amount simply to a listing of countries from wealthy to poor or
loosely on simplistic governance indicators that use western democracies as yard-stick for political development.
55
An exception to this lack of dynamism are asset-based approaches (Prowse and Scott 200?) in adaptive capacity
work. However, asset-based approaches, similar to Sen’s approach to entitlements, lacks considerations of structural
power and the on-the-ground realities of resource access (Murphy 2011).
56
There is a wealth of work, however, on Arctic communities.
54
36
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Scholarly explorations in peer-review publications, however, are generally fewer in number.
Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate what in fact may be considered ‘adaptations’ and what
might be adaptive. There are a number of case studies where the adaptiveness of certain
measures might be questioned.
Overall, this work is highly place and community specific as it draws largely on a
contextual, actor-oriented approach. Through in-depth case study methodologies including
interviewing (from unstructured to structured), participant observation, and a range of other
qualitative methodologies, researchers in this strand seek to uncover the factors and determinants
of adaptive capacity through detailed analyses of community processes . As Smit and Wandel
(2006) point out this work “does not presume the specific variables that represent … adaptive
capacity, but seeks to identify these empirically from the community” by “focus(ing) on
conditions that are important to the community rather than those assumed by the researcher or
for which data are readily available”. As Pelling (2003) states, the goal in much of this work is to
reveal the underlying institutional alignments and arrangements that “prefigure” adaptive action.
This work is predominantly found in the anthropological and sociological traditions that
privilege grounded, ethnographic fieldwork. In an applied sense, there is little movement towards
scaling up or generating broader indices of ‘general’ adaptive capacity. “The scaling up of this
work would involve comparisons of communities and their environments that contribute to or
moderates vulnerabilities and the features of adaptive capacity that are effective” (Smit and
Wandel 2006).
Complementing descriptive case study research, which has largely focused on the
community scale, are participatory adaptive capacity assessments (Ivey et al 2004; Keskitalo
2004; Mendis-Millard and Reed 2007; Pahl-Wostl 2002; Shackley and Deanwood 2002; Van
Aalst 2008). In some ways this comprises an extension of both the descriptive work, indicator
assessments, and elements of action-oriented research design. Participatory approaches engage
and incorporate the “the experience and knowledge of community members to characterize
pertinent conditions, community sensitivities, adaptive strategies, and decision-making process
related to adaptive capacity” (Smit and Wandel 2006). In short, parameters, indicators, and
appropriate measures emerge from community dialogue with researchers rather than from
literature or expert elicited factors and determinants (see Figure 2 below). Additionally, in most
cases the goal is not to “score” (and rank) communities or other social groupings; rather, the goal
is to reveal underlying and potentially latent processes that are meaningful and relevant to
communities.
For example, Wall and Marzall (2006) use an asset-based approach to understanding
adaptive capacity and engage communities through participatory exercises in which they elicit
local enumerations of community assets. Community asset profiles are analyzed and revealed
through amoeba graphs that visually demonstrate areas of lack and potential vulnerability. In
addition, Wall and Marzall (2006) attempt to instruct community members how to utilize these
profiles for adaptive planning over time, so that communities can evaluate and monitor there
relative improvements in capacity-building overtime. This research could also be considered
‘action-oriented’ as I describe below (see also Keskitalo 2004).
Participatory approaches have several important benefits both from the research side and
from the action-oriented side. First, the problem of construct validity is less of a problem because
measures are contextually meaningful; though, the problem of external validity and scaling up
37
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
also presents problems for further research. However, “scaling up” is possible through metaanalysis of case studies and there is currently a few works that have tried to move in such a
direction (CITE). Second, because such work actively documents the decision-making processes
through which adaptations must take place the findings are not only more salient locally they are
easily incorporated into adaptation plans. In the research reviewed, this has been achieved in a
number of ways from scenario-based planning, basic focus group and community forum
exercises, and stakeholder analyses (Lorenzoni et al 2000; Tompkins et al 2008).
Figure 3. Participatory adaptive capacity assessment research framework (from Smit and
Wandel 2006).
Action Research: Building Adaptive Capacity through Assessment
Though much participatory adaptive capacity assessment is geared towards an exercise in
self-actualization it only tangentially engages in deepening learning capacities and reflexive
awareness. In other words, this is a by-product of the work not the aim. The overarching goal in
participatory work is geared either towards using participatory data as a part of larger analyses or
as a means to evaluate potential adaptive measures that emerge externally to the community. For
example, in Tompkins et al (2008), the researchers engaged community members through
scenario-based stakeholder planning sessions where they evaluate stakeholder preferences and
38
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
develop models for incorporating their ideas into adaptation plans. They use a matrix analysis to
develop a community-based adaptation plan for large scale flood-prevention. 57 However, the
range of adaptation measures, the capacity for organizing these self-assessment procedures, and
the implementation protocol all come from outside, though the community preferences guide the
results. Typically, what is left is not institutional (formal or otherwise) but technological.
This may be participatory but it is not action-oriented in that the goal is for the
community to actually incorporate assessment procedures and protocol measures into community
practice (Wall and Marzall 2006; Keskitalo 2004). Though many research programs realize that
by simply investigating adaptive capacity one is actively changing and building it, actionoriented research is more explicit because researchers aid communities not only in assessing
their vulnerability and adaptive capacity but also in building capacity for reflexive learning
through self-assessment. This is much closer to capacity-building efforts more generally that are
de rigeur in most development programs. Action-oriented research emerges only tangentially
from researchers desires and comes largely from community members themselves. The tools and
skills that research supply are meant to be integrated and embedded in and through community
practices so that there is limited reliance on outside actors and resources. In terms of resource
management in the context of climate change, this surely brings to the forefront the importance
of adaptive management (Fernandez-Gimenez 2008). Yet, there is little work in adaptive
management that might be called action-oriented either. In many ways, action-oriented research
is the frontier of adaptive capacity work.
Conclusion
[Incomplete]
References
Adger, Neil and Katharine Vincent
2005 Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. C.R. Geoscience 337: 399-410.
Adger WN, Eakin H, Winkles A. 2008. Nested and networked vulnerabilities in South
East Asia. In Global Environmental Change and the South-east Asian Region: An Assessment of
the State of the Science, ed. L Lebel. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Gerakbudaya. In press
Adger, WN et al, eds.
2009 Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
57
Lemieux et al (2011) also use a matrix approach. This is important in trying to evaluate the mutual influence of
cost, feasibility, community will, and path dependency on potential adaptive actions. However, there are a number
of potential issues with this methodology because it assigns equal significance to each column and row in the matrix.
Even when weights are assigned, these are evidently arbitrary. Moreover, the method gives the appearance that
adaptation is largely a technical issue when the very weights and values assigned are deeply political.
39
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Adger, Neil et al
2009 Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93: 335-354.
Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:268–81
Adger WN, Kelly PM, Winkels A, et al. 2002. Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories and
social resilience. Ambio 31: 358–66.
Adger, Neil et al
2009 Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers of Ecology
and Environment 7(3): 150-157.
Adger WN, Brown K, Tompkins EL. 2005. The political economy of cross-scale
networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10:9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol10/iss2/art9/
Adger, W.N., 2004. The right to keep cold. Environment and Planning A 36, 1711–1715.
Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ, eds. 2006. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate
Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adger, W.N., Winkels, A., 2006. Vulnerability, poverty, and sustaining well-being. In: Atkinson,
G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Rockstro¨ m, J., 2005b. Social-ecological
resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309, 1036–1039.
Allison HE, Hobbs RJ. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap”
of the western Australian agricultural region. Ecol. Soc. 9:3. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3
Allman, L., Fleming, P. & Wallace, A. (2004) The progress of English and Welsh local
authorities in Addressing climate change, Local Environment, 9(3), pp. 271–283.
Alwang, J., Siegel, P.B., Jorgensen, S.L., 2001. Vulnerability: A View from Different
Disciplines. Discussion Paper Series No. 0115. Social Protection Unit, World Bank, Washington
DC.
Anderies JM, Ryan P,Walker B. 2006. Loss of resilience, crisis, and institutional change:
lessons from an intensive agricultural system in southeastern Australia. Ecosystems 9:865–78
Apuuli B,Wright J, Elias C, Burton I (2000) Reconciling national and global priorities in
adaptation to climate change: with an illustration from Uganda. Environ Monit Assess 61:145–
40
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
159
Arnell NW, Delaney EK (2006) Adapting to climate change: water supply in England and
Wales. Clim Change 78:227–255
Bankoff, G. et al
2003 Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development, and People. Earthscan: London.
Bayliss-Smith, T. (1991) ‘Food Security and Agricultural Sustainability in the New Guinea
Highlands: Vulnerable People, Vulnerable Places’, IDS Bulletin
22.3: 5–11
Bebbington, A. (1999) ‘Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability,
Rural Livelihoods and Poverty’, World Development 27.12:
2021–44
Blate et al. 2009. Adapting to climate change in United States national forests. Unisylva 231/232
(60):
Burton, I.; Huq, S.; Lim, B.; Pilifosova, O. and Schipper, E.M. (2002) ‘From Impacts
Assessment to Adaptation Priorities: The Shaping of Adaptation Policy’, Climate Policy 2: 145–
59 Huq, S. and Reid, H. (2007) Community-Based Adaptation An IIED Briefing: A Vital
Approach to the Threat Climate Change Poses to the Poor, IIED Briefing, London: International
Institute for Environment and Development
Brenkert, A., Malone, E., 2005. Modelling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: a case
study of India and Indian states. Climatic Change 72 (1–2), 57–102.
Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change
15:151–63
Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Working Paper
38, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich. Available
at: www.tyndall.ac.uk.
Belliveau, S., Smit, B.&Bradshaw, B. (submitted) Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability:
evidence from the grape and wine industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada, Global
Environmental Change.
Berkes, F. & Jolly, D. (2001) Adapting to climate change: social–ecological resilience in a
Canadian western arctic community, Conservation Ecology, 5(2), p. 18.
Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale scale institutional linkages for commons management: perspectives
41
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
from the bottom up. In The Drama of the Commons, ed. E Ostrom, T Dietz, N Dolˇsak, PC
Stern, S Stonich, EUWeber, pp. 293–321.Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H. & Smit, B. (2004) Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability and
change: crop diversification in the Canadian prairies, Climatic Change, 67, pp. 119–141.
Bryant, C. R., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, T., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q. & Singh, B. (2000)
Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change, Climatic Change, 45, pp.
181–201.
Bateman J, Edwards B (2002) Gender and evacuation—a closer look at why women are more
likely to evacuate for hurricanes. Nat Hazards Rev 3(3):107–117.
Boruff B, Cutter S (2007) The environmental vulnerability of Caribbean island nations. Geogr
Rev 97(1):24–45
Boruff B, Emrich C, Cutter S (2005) Erosion hazard vulnerability of US coastal counties. J Coast
Res 21(5):932–942.
Burton C, Cutter S (2008) Levee failures and social vulnerability in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta area, California. Nat Hazards Rev 9(3):136–149.
Burton, I., Huq, B. Lim, Pilifosova, O. & Schipper, E. L. (2002) From impacts assessment to
adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy, Climate Policy, 2, pp. 145–159.
Birkmann, J., 2006. Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability :theoretical bases and
requirements. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. United
Nations Press, New York, pp. 55–77.
Bohle, H.G., Downing, T.E., Watts, M.J., 1994. Climate change and social vulnerability: toward
a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4 (1), 37–48.
Chambers, R. (Ed.), 1989. Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping and policy, IDS Bulletin
20 (2), 1–7.
Berkes F (2002) Epilogue: making sense of Arctic environmental change? In: Krupnik I, Jolly D
(eds) The earth is faster now: indigenous observations of arctic environmental change. Arctic
Research Consortium of the United States and Smithsonian Institution, Fairbanks AK, pp 335–
349
Berkes, Fikret
2007 Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking.
Natural Hazards 41: 283-295.
Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM (2006) Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate
42
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
change impacts. Clim Change 78:135–156
Berman M, Kofinas G (2004) Hunting for models: grounded and rational choice approaches to
analyzing climate effects on subsistence hunting in an Arctic community. Ecol Econ 49:31–46
Brooks, Nick and Neil Adger. (?) Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity. Technical Paper
7. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.
Brunner, Ronald and Amanda Lynch
2010 Adaptive Governance and Climate Change. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Burton, Ian
1994 Deconstructing adaptation and reconstructing. Delta 5(1): 14-15.
Cannon, T., 1994. Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of natural disasters. In: Varley, A.
(Ed.), Disasters, Development, and Environment. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 13–30.
Cannon, T. 2008. Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Communities and
Resilience. UNU-Wider Research paper No. 2008/34.
Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B.H., Anderies, J.M., Abel, N., 2001. From metaphor to measurement:
resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4, 765–781
Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, et al. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and
information in a multi-level world. Ecol Soc 11: 8.
Clark G, Moser S, Ratick S, Dow K, Meyer W, Emani S, Jin W, Kasperson J, Kasperson R,
Schwarz H (1998) Assessing the vulnerability of coastal comm
Clark WC. 1985. Scales of climate impacts. Clim. Change 7:5–27
Crate, Susan and Mark Nuttall
2009 Anthropology and Climate Change: From Enocunters to Actions. Left Coast Press:
Walnut Creek, CA.
Crow, Thomas R.
2008 “Managing Forest Landscapes for Climate Change”. R. Lafortezza et al, eds, Patterns
and Processes in forest Landscapes. Spring Science+Business Media.
CummingGS,CummingDHM,Redman CL. 2006. Scale mismatches in socio-ecological
systems: causes, consequences and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11:14. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/
Cutter, Susan et al
2008 A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
43
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Environmental Change 18: 598-606.
Cutter S (2003) The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Ann Assoc Am
Geogr 93(1):1–12.
Cutter, S.
1996 Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20(4): 529-539.
Cutter S, Finch C (2008) Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(7):2301–2306.
Cutter S, Mitchell J, Scott M (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places—a case
study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 90(4):713–737.
Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q
84(1):242–261.
Cutter S, Emrich C, Mitchell J, Boruff B, Gall M, Schmidtlein M, Burton C, Melton G (2006)
The long road home–race, class, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Environment 48(2):8–20
Davies, S., 1996. Adaptable Livelihoods: Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel.
Macmillan Press, London.
Davies, S. 1993. Are coping strategies a cop out? Institute of Development Studies Bulletin
24(4): 60-72.
Davidson, D. J., Williamson, T.&Parkins, J. R. (2003) Understanding climate change risk and
vulnerability in northern forest-based communities, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33, pp.
2252–2261.
Dessai, S. & Hulme, M. (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate
Policy, 4, pp. 107–128.
Dercon, S., Krishnan, P., 2000. Vulnerability, seasonality and poverty in Ethiopia. Journal of
Development Studies 36 (6), 25–53.
Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy
4:107–128
Dessai S, Adger WN, Hulme M, Turnpenny J, Köhler J, Warren R (2004) Defining and
experiencing dangerous climate change. Clim Change 64:11–25
Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert RJ, Pielke R Jr (2009) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In:
Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values,
44
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press)
Dow, K., 1992. Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to
global environmental change. Geoforum 23 (3), 417–436.
Dow, K., 1999. The extraordinary and the everyday in explanations of vulnerability to an oil
spill. The Geographical Review 89, 74–93.
Dow K, Kasperson RE, Bohn M. 2006. Exploring the social justice implications of adaptation
and vulnerability. See Ref. 5, pp. 79–96
Downing, T.E., 1991. Vulnerability to hunger in Africa: a climate change perspective. Global
Environmental Change 1 (5), 365–380
Eakin, Hallie and Luers, Amy Lynd (2006) “Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental
systems” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 365-394.
Eakin, Hallie (2005) “Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from
central Mexico” World Development 33(11): 1923-1938
Eakin, Hallie (2003) “The Social Vulnerability of Irrigated Vegetable Farming Households in
Central Puebla.” Journal of Environment and Development. 12 (4): 414-429.
Conde, Cecilia and Hallie Eakin (2003) “Adaptation to Climatic Variability and Change in
Tlaxcala, Mexico.” In Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, ed. J. Smith, R.
Klein, S. Huq. Imperial College Press, London, pp. 241-259.
Eakin, Hallie and Conley, Julie (2002) “Climate Variability and the Vulnerability of Ranching in
Southeastern Arizona: A Pilot Study.” Climate Research. 21 (3): 271-281.
Eakin, Hallie (2000) “Smallholder Maize Production and Climatic Risk: A Case Study from
Mexico.” Climatic Change. 45 (3-4): 19-36.
Eakin, Hallie (1999) “Seasonal Climate Forecasting and the Relevance of Local Knowledge.”
Physical Geography. 20 (6): 447-460
Eakin H, Tompkins EL, Nelson DR, Anderies JM (2009) Hidden costs and disparate
uncertainties: trade-offs involved in approaches to climate policy. In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I,
O’Brien K (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge (in press)
Eakin, Hallie and Luis A. Bojoquez-Tapia
2008 Insights into the composition of household vulnerability from multicriteria decision
45
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
analysis. Global Environmental Change 18: 112-127.
Eakin, Hallie et al.
2010 Adaptive capcity in evolving peri-urban spaces: Responses to risk in the Upper Lerma
River Valley, Mexico.
Eakin H, Lemos MC. 2006. Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the challenge
of capacity-building under globalization. Glob. Environ. Change 16:7–18
Enarson E, Morrow B (1998) The gendered terrain of disaster. Praeger, Westport
Eriksen, S., Brown, K., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The dynamics of vulnerability: locating coping
strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geographical Journal 171, 287–305
Eriksen SH, Kelly PM. 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate
adaptation policy assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12:495–524
Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria et al
2008 Adaptive Management and Social Learning in Collaborative and Community-based
Monitoring: a Study of Five Community-based Forestry Organizations in the western USA.
Ecology and Society 13(2): 4
Finan TJ and Nelson DR. (2001) “Making rain, making roads, making do: public and private
responses to drought in Ceará, Brazil”. Climate Research 19(2): 97‐108.
Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16:253–67
Fordham, M., 1999. The intersection of gender and social class in disaster: balancing resilience
and vulnerability. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 17 (1), 15–36.
Fraser, E.D.G., 2003. Social vulnerability and ecological fragility: building bridges between
social and natural sciences using the Irish potato famine as a case study. Conservation Ecology 7
(2), 9.
Fussel, H.-M., Klein, R.J.T., 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of
conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 75 (3), 301–329.
Füssel H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches
and key lessons. Sustainability Science 2:265–275
Gagnon-Lebrun F, Agrawala S (2007) Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an
analysis of progress and trends. Climate Policy 7:392–408
46
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Gallop´ın GC. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Glob. Environ. Change 16:293–303
Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual
adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 15:199–213
Gunderson LH, Light SS. 2006. Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the
Everglades ecosystem. Policy Sci. 39:323–34
Haddad, B.M., 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15 (2), 165–176.
Handmer, J. and Dovers, SR. 1996. A typology of resilience: Rethinking institutions for
sustainable development. Organization and Environment 9(4): 482-511.
Hewitt, K., 1995. Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13 (3), 317–339.
Hilhorst, D., Bankoff, G., 2004. Introduction: mapping vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G.,
Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability:Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan,
Sterling, VA, pp. 1–9.
Hinkel, Jochen
2011 “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the
science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21: 198-208.
Huq, S and H Reid. (2004). Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bulletin 35(3): 1521.
Hulme, Mike
2009 Why we disagree about Climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction, and
opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivey, J., Smithers, J., de Loe¨, R. C. & Kreutzwiser, R. D. (2004) Community capacity for
adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local actors,
Environmental Management, 33(1), pp. 36–47.
Janssen MA, Anderies JM, Ostrom E. 2007. Robustness of social-ecological systems to
spatial and temporal variability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20:307–22
Janssen MA, Ostrom E. 2006. Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: a cross-cutting
theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on global environmental
change. Glob. Environ. Change 16:237–39
47
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Johnson, Daniel P. et al
2009 Socieconomic indicators of heat-related health-risk supplemented with remotely sensed
data. International Journa of Helath Geographics 8:57
Jones B, Andrey J (2007) Vulnerability index construction: methodological choices and their
influences on identifying vulnerable neighborhoods. Int J Emerg Manag 4(2):269–295
Jones, Eric T. and Arthur D. Murphy, eds
2009 The political Economy of Hazards and Disasters. AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD.
Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Turner Jr., B.L., Hsieh, W., Schiller, A., Forthcoming.
Vulnerability to global environmental change. In: Diekmann, A., Dietz, T., Jaeger, C., Rosa, E.
(Eds.), Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Social Dimensions. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kates, R.W., 2000. Cautionary tales: adaptation and the global poor. Climatic Change 45, 5–17.
Kelly, PM and WN Adger 2000. Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate
Change and Facilitating Adaptation. Climate Change 47: 325-352.
Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is
this concept? Environ. Hazards 5:35–45
Krishna, A., 2001. Moving from the stock of social capital to the flow of benefits: the role of
agency. World Development 29 (6), 925–943.
King, David and Collin MacGregor
Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Australian
Journal of Emergency Management.
Lansing, J.S., 2003. Complex adaptive systems. Annual Review of Anthropology 32, 183–204.
Larme, A.C., 1998. Environment, vulnerability, and gender in Andean ethnomedicine. Social
Science and Medicine 47 (8), 1005–1015.
Laska S, Morrow B (2007) Social vulnerabilities and Hurricane Katrina—an unnatural disaster
in New Orleans. Mar Technol Soc J 40(4):16–26
Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, et al. 2006. Governance
and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11:9.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
Leichenko, R., O’Brien, K., 2002. The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case
48
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
of Southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7, 1–18
Leichenko, R and K O’Brien. 2008. Environmental change and globalization: double exposures.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Lemos MC, Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
31:297–325
Ligon, E., Schechter, L., 2003. Measuring vulnerability. Economic Journal 113, C95–C102.
Luers, A.L., 2005. The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examining
environmental change. Global Environmental Change 15, 214–223.
Luers, A.L., Lobell, D.B., Sklar, L.S., Addams, C.L., Matson, P.A., 2003. A method for
quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global
Environmental Change 13, 255–267.
Magis, Kristen
2010 Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability. Society and Natural
Resources 23(5): 401-416.
McLaughlin, Paul and Thomas Dietz
2007 Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated perspective on vulnerability.
Global Environmental Change
Mendis-Millard, S., Reed, M.G., 2007. Understanding community capacity using adaptive and
reflexive research practices: lessons from two Canadian biosphere reserves. Society and Natural
Resources 20, 543–559
Mendis, S., Mills, S. & Yantz, J. (2003) Building Community Capacity to Adapt to Climate
Change in Resource-Based Communities (Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Prince Albert Model
Forest).
Millar, Constance et al
2007 Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the face of Uncertainity.
Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-2151.
Morrow B (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1):1–18.
Moser SC, Dilling L (2004) Making climate hot. Communicating the urgency and challenge of
global climate change. Environment 46(10):32–46
Moser S, Dilling L (eds) (2007) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change
and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 549 pp
49
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Nelson, Don et al
2007 Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 32: 395-419.
Nelson DR, and Finan TJ.(2009) “Praying for drought: Persistent vulnerability and the politics
of patronage in Ceará, Brazil”. American Anthropologist. 111(3): 302‐316.
Nelson, R., Kokic, P., Crimp, S., Martin, P., Meinke, H., Howden, S.M., de Voil, P., Nidumolu,
U., 2010. The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate variability and change:
part II – integrating impacts with adaptive capacity. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 18–27.
Ngo E (2003) When disasters and age collide—reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat
Hazards Rev 2(2):80–89.
Nielsen, Jonas Ostergaard and Anette Reenberg. 2009. Cultural barriers to climate change
adaptation: A case study from Npthern Burkina Faso. Global Environmental Change 20: 142152.
Norgaard, Kari Marie
2011 Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA.
O’Brien, K., Sygna, L., Haugen, J.R., 2004b. Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment
of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Climatic Change 64, 193–225.
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A.,
Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L., West, J., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors:
climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14, 303–313.
O’Riordan T, Jordan A (1999) Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a
Common analytical framework. Glob Environ Change 9:81–93
O’Brien, K.L., Leichenko, R.M., 2003. Winners and losers in the context of global change.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93, 89–103 (more of a theoertrical
discussion).
______. 2000. Double Exposure: Assessing the impacts of Climate Change within the context of
economic globalization. Global Environmental Change 10: 221-232.
O’Brien KL, Leichenko RM, Kelkar U, Venema H, Aandahl G, Tompkins H, Javed A, Bhadwal
S, Barg S, Nygaard L, West J (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change
and globalization in India. Glob Environ Change 14(4):303–313
50
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
O’Brien KL, Eriksen S, Sygna L, Naess LO (2006) Questioning complacency: climate change
impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio 35(2):50–56
Oliver-Smith, A., 1996. Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of
Anthropology 25, 303–328.
Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, et al. 2006. Shooting the
rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol.
Soc. 11:18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in
social-ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 34:75–90
Paavola J, Adger WN. 2006. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 56:594–609
108.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002) Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and
modeling processes, Integrated Assessment, 3(1), pp. 3–14.
Pelling, Mark et al
2008 Shadow Spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to
climate change within organizations. Environment and Planning A 40(4): 867-884
Pelling, M., High, C., 2005. Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments
of adaptive capacity? Global Environmental Change 15 (4), 308–309.
Pelling, M., 2001. Natural disasters? In: Castree, N., Braun, B. (Eds.), Social Nature: Theory
Practice, and Politics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 170–188.
Pelling, M., 2003. Paradigms of risk. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in
a Globalizing World. Routledge, New York, pp. 3–16.
Peterson GD. 2000. Scaling ecological dynamics: self-organization, hierarchical structure,
and ecological resilience. Clim. Change 44:291–309
Pittock, AB and RN Jones
2000 Adaptation to what and why? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61(1): 9-35.
Pielke RA Jr, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D. 2007. Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo on
adaptation. Nature 445:597–98
Pielke, RA 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environmental
Change 8(2): 159-170.
51
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Plummer R, Armitage D. 2007. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive
comanagement: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecol. Econ.
61:62–74
Prowse, Martin and Lucy Scott
2008 Assets and Adaptation: An Emerging Debate. IDS Bulleting 39(4): 42-52.
Pulwarty, R.S., Riebsame, W.E., 1997. The political ecology of vulnerability to hurricane-related
hazards. In: Diaz, H.F., Pulwarty, R.S. (Eds.), Hurricanes: Climate and Socio-Economic Impacts.
Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 185–214.
Pyle, A.S., Gabbar, O.A., 1993. Household vulnerability to famine: survival and recovery
strategies among Berti and Zaghawa migrants in Northern Darfur, Sudan, 1982–1989.
GeoJournal 20 (2), 141–146
Polsky C and Easterling WE. 2003. Adaptation to climate variabilityand change in the US Great
Plains: a multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85: 133–44
Reid, H. and Huq, S. (2007) How we are Set to Cope with the Impacts, IIED Briefing, London:
International Institute of Environment and Development
Reid, Colleen et al
2009 Mapping Community Determinants of Heat Vulnerability. Environmnetal Health
Perspectives 1117(1): 1730-1736.
Ribot, Jesse
1995 The causal structure of vulnerability: Its application to climate impact analysis.
GeoJournal 35(2): 119-122.
RIbot, J et al.
1996 Climate Variability, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Roberts JT, Parks BC. 2006. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics
and Climate Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 384 pp.
Roncoli C, Ingram K, Kirshen P. 2001. The costs and risks of coping with drought:
livelihood impacts and farmers’ responses in Burkina Faso. Clim. Res. 19:119–32
Schipper, Lisa and Ian Burton
2009 The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation to Climate Change. Earthscan: London.
Schmidtlein M, Deutsch R, Piegorsch W, Cutter S (2008) A sensitivity analysis of the Social
Vulnerability Index. Risk Anal 28(4):1099–1114.
52
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Shackley, S. & Deanwood, R. (2002) Stakeholder perceptions of climate change impacts at the
regional scale: implications for the effectiveness of regional and local responses, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 45 (3), pp. 381–402.
Shepherd P, Tansey J, Dowlatabadi H. 2006. Context matters: What shapes adaptation
to water stress in the Okanagan? Clim. Change 78:31–62
Smit, B. & Pilifisova, O. (2003) From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability
reduction, in: S. Huq, J. Smith & R. T. J. Klein (Eds) Enhancing the Capacity of Developing
Countries to Adapt to Climate Change (London, Imperial College Press).
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. & Street, R. (1999) The science of adaptation: a framework for
assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, pp. 199–213.
Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White,
K.S. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, IPCC Working Group
II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 877–912
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T., Wandel, J., 2000. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change
and variability. Climatic Change 45, 223–251.
Smithers, J. & Smit, B. (1997). Human adaptation to climatic variability and change, Global
Environmental Change, 7(2), pp. 129–146.
Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adoption, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change 16, 282–292.
Smith, JB et al
2003 Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity, and Development. Imperial College Press: London.
Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T, Jaeger CC (2001) The psychology of denial concerning climate
mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Glob Environ Change 11:107–117
Tanner, T. and Conway, D. (2006) ORCHID: Assessing and Addressing Adaptation
Opportunities and Risks from Climate Change and Disasters, Brighton: IDS
Thomas, D.S.G. and Twyman, C. (2005) ‘Equity and Justice in Climate Change Adaptation
Amongst Natural-resource-dependent Societies’, Global Environmental Change Part A 15.2:
115–24
Thomalla, Frank et al
2006 Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk
53
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters 30(1): 39-48.
Tobin G (1999) Sustainability and community resilience—the holy grail of hazards planning?
Environ Hazards: Hum Policy Dimens, Glob Environ Chang Part B 1(1):13–25
Tol RSJ, Yohe G. 2007. The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive capacity: an empirical
test. Glob. Environ. Change 17:218–27
Tompkins EL, Adger WN. 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change
policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 8:562–71
Tompkins EL, Few R, Brown K (2008) Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating
stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J Environ Manag 88: 1580–
1592
Thornton PK, Boone RB, Galvin KA, et al. 2007. Coping strategies in livestock-dependent
households in East and Southern Africa: a synthesis of four case studies. Hum Ecol 35: 461–76.
Tucker, Catherine et al
2010 Perceptions of risk and adaptation: Coffee producers, market shocks, and extreme
weather in Central America and Mexico. Global Environmental Change 20: 23-32.
Turner, B.L. et al
2003 A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8074-8079.
Uejio, Christopher et al
2010 Intra-Urban societal vulnerability to extreme heat: The role of heat exposur
United Nations Development Programme
2005 Adaptation Policy Framework for Climate Change. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Varghese, Jeji et al
2006 Critica Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community
Resilience. Rural Sociology 71(3): 505-527.
Van Aalst, M.K.; Cannon, T. and Burton, I. (2008) ‘Community Level Adaptation to Climate
Change: The Potential Role of Participatory Community Risk Assessment’, Global
Environmental Change 18: 165–79
Vincent, Katherine
2007 Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global Environmental
Change 17: 12-24
54
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
Walker B, Gunderson LH, Kinzig A, Folke C, Carpenter S, Schultz L. 2006. A handful of
heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol.
Soc. 11:13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/
Walker B, Carpenter SR, Anderies JM, Abel N, Cumming GS, et al. 2002. Resilience
management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach.
Conserv. Ecol. 6:14. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14
Wall, Ellen and Katia Marzall
2006 Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural Communities. Local
Environment 11(4): 373-397.
Watts, M., 1983. Silent Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G., 1993. The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and
famine. Progress in Human Geography 17 (1), 43–67.
Wisner, B., 2003. Changes in capitalism and global shifts in the distribution of hazard and
vulnerability. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World.
Routledge, New York, pp. 43–56.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, New York
Webb, P. and Harinarayan, A. (1999) ‘A Measure ofUncertainty: The Nature of Vulnerability
and itsRelationship to Malnutrition’, Disasters 23.4:292–305
Weichselgartner J (2001) Disaster mitigation—the concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster
Prev Manag 10(2):85–94.
Wilbanks, T., Kates, R.W., 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic
Change 43, 601–628.
Wood, Nathan et al
2010 Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the US
Pacific Northwest. Natural Hazards 52: 369-389.
World Bank
2006 Ovecoming Drought: Adaptation Strategies for Andhra Pradesh, India. The World Bank:
Washington, DC.
Young KR, Lipton JK (2006) Adaptive governance and climate change in the tropical highlands
55
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT
Forest Community Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in the Context of
Climate Change: Workshop
of Western South America. Clim Change 78:63–102
Yohe, G.W., 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions
side. Climatic Change 49, 247–262.
Yohe, G., Tol, R.S.J., 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward
a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 12, 25–40.
Yohe, G., Toth, F.L., 2000. Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change.
Climatic Change 45, 103–128.
Zahran, Sammy et al
2006 Climate Change Vulnerability and Policy Support. Society and Natural Resources 19:
771-789.
Zahran S, Brody S D, Vedlitz A, Grover H, Miller C, 2008, "Vulnerability and capacity:
explaining local commitment to climate-change policy" Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 26(3) 544 – 562
56
Murphy, DJ_2011 – DRAFT