Assessing Human Vulnerability to Climate Change from an Evolutionary Perspective - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 65

and 4.2.2 summarize two different perspectives - the behavioural and structural
paradigms on the factors that promote and inhibit adaptation. Section 4.2.3 outlines
an evolutionary perspective on socio-economic change, which we argue offers valu-
able insights into human systems' adaptive capacity.

4.2.1 Behavioural Paradigm

The behavioural paradigm holds that a system's adaptive capacity will depend on
the ability of its agents to accurately interpret risks posed by hazards and make
rational decisions based on those interpretations. It was initiated in the 1930s and
1940s by American geographer Gilbert White who stated, “Floods are 'acts of God,'
but fl ood losses are largely acts of man” (1945: 2). White observed that vulnerability
is exacerbated by numerous, often-irrational individual decisions - for example, the
decision to develop hazard-prone land, destroy coastal mangroves, construct sus-
ceptible buildings and infrastructure, or fail to purchase adequate insurance cover.
The behavioural paradigm draws on psychological and economic theories of
choice and (mis)perception of risks to explain human behaviour in the face of haz-
ards (Smith and Petley 2009 ). Earlier research used the neoclassical economics'
“rational choice” model as a starting point for analysis. In these models, rational,
self-interested agents choose each course of action based on the expected utility that
they will gain. Explanations were then sought for why agents' decision-making is
not always optimal in reality. Three problems understood to inhibit rational decision-
making that are particularly relevant to adaptation to extreme events include (1)
inadequate information concerning the risk of hazard and methods of protecting
against them; (2) myopia , or the tendency of agents to be short sighted; and (3) dif-
fi culties in coordinating collective action in regard to management of natural
resources, the provision of education, healthcare and other social services, and the
development of infrastructure.
More recent literature within the behavioural paradigm has developed more
nuanced theories of human choice and action. For example, Eiser et al. ( 2012 ) dis-
cussed the role of experience and learning processes in risk perception and decision-
making. The paper draws on cognitive heuristics , which holds that individuals make
decisions based not according to what is statistically rational, but on their own expe-
rience or the observed experience of others. Consequently, people will tend to over-
generalize from their own relatively small data sets of experiences or observations:
“By defi nition, low probability disasters occur infrequently within a given time
period. If one has not experienced a disaster, reliance on personal experience may
lead to an underestimation of the statistical risk. This can also lead to overconfi dence
in the effectiveness of safety procedures, the reliability of building and infrastruc-
ture, etc., essentially because they have not been fully put to the test” (Eiser et al.
2012 ). When unsafe behaviour is not immediately followed by harm, delayed rein-
forcement may increase a decision-maker's confi dence in their actions; defi cient
feedback undermines the learning process, and risky behaviour is propagated.