Assessing Human Vulnerability to Climate Change from an Evolutionary Perspective - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 78

Within a policy-driven assessment framework, measuring vulnerability through
the use quantitative indicators of vulnerability can enable more effective implemen-
tation and monitoring of progress, and can facilitate comparison across different
countries or regions (Luers et al. 2003 ). For this reason, The Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA) , the 10-year plan adopted by 168 UN Member States in 2005 to make
the world safer from natural hazards, calls for the development of “systems of indi-
cators of disaster risk and vulnerability at national and sub-national scales that will
enable decision-makers to assess the impact of disasters on social, economic and
environmental conditions and disseminate the results to decision-makers, the public
and populations at risk” (UN/ISDR 2005 ).
Systems of indicators based on capitals and assets are useful in identifying the
resources that a system can draw on to cope with extreme events and adapt to chang-
ing selection pressures. They can help to identify fragile livelihoods and unsafe
conditions, as outlined in the PAR model. However, as argued by Jones et al. ( 2010 )
“(…) asset-oriented approaches typically mask the importance of processes and
functions in supporting adaptive capacity. Understanding adaptive capacity, there-
fore, entails recognizing the importance of various intangible processes: decision-
making and governance; the fostering of innovation, experimentation and
opportunity; and the structure of institutions and entitlements, for example.”
Adequate representation of local knowledge, experience and decision-making pro-
cesses is also a challenge in studies that aim to assess vulnerability using predeter-
mined variables.
Jones et al. ( 2010 ) developed the Local Adaptive Capacity (LAC) framework,
which characterizes adaptive capacity based on fi ve elements: asset base; institu-
tions and entitlements; knowledge and information; innovation; and fl exible
forward-looking decision-making and governance (see Table 4.1 ). The LAC frame-
work is an improvement over capital-based approaches in that it examines the pro-
cesses through which a system adapts, rather than just what it has that enables it to
adapt. Its focus on institutions, knowledge, innovation and fl exibility in decision-
making and governance correspond with an evolutionary perspective on adaptive
capacity. Jones et al. ( 2010 ) posited that indicators could be developed for each
characteristic within the LAC framework. While such indicators would be useful in
monitoring and evaluation, we argue that to unearth the historical root causes of
vulnerability and the structural factors that shape evolutionary trajectories, rich
descriptive data is required that can only be captured through qualitative methods.
Qualitative approaches to vulnerability assessment place strong emphasis on the
local context - the local culture, history, social dynamics and institutions - and how
this context is shaped by forces at different scales (see, e.g. Pittman 2010 ; Pittman
et al. 2011 ; Pouliotte et al. 2009 ; Wandel et al. 2009 ; Young et al. 2010 ). It is not
presumed that predetermined variables shape sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
Instead, ethnographic methods, focus groups and semi-structured interviews are
used in which respondents reveal experienced or expected changes in exposure and
sensitivity, the diversity of coping and adaptive strategies that they have at their
disposal, and their decision-making process. During interviews and focus groups,
respondents tell of the non-climate considerations in their decision-making process,