Vulnerability to Climate Change: Outcome or Context?

The effects of climate change are experienced differently and to different extents by different individuals, communities, and regions.

In discussing the vulnerability of a particular individual, community, or region, it is important to identify how the problem of climate change is framed.

Framings determine the questions which are asked, and, consequently, the answers that arise (O’Brien et al, 2007). Framings are products of discourse, which is to say, “a system of representation, or an area of language use expressing a particular standpoint and related to a certain set of institution” (O’Brien et al, 2007).

The two primary modes of framing the problem of climate change are known as scientific framing and human-security framing.

In scientific framing, which originates in a biophysical positivist scientific discourse, the end-point approach is taken, and the dominant mode of interpretation is known as outcome vulnerability. Vulnerability is seen as the end point of a sequence, or as the net impact of the climate problem (O’Brien et al, 2007). O’Brien et al (2007) describe vulnerability, using the outcome vulnerability interpretation, as “a linear result of the projected impacts of climate change on a particular exposure unit (which can be either biophysical or social), offset by adaptation measures”. Vulnerability is quantified “as a monetary cost or as a change in yield or flow, human mortality, ecosystem damage”, and expressed qualitatively as relative or comparative change (O’Brien et al, 2007). When the outcome vulnerability interpretation is adopted, solutions are geared toward limiting negative outcomes, and primarily comprise mitigation and adaptation measures (O’Brien et al, 2007). Scientific framing is currently the dominant and orthodox school of thought (O’Brien et al, 2007).

In human-security framing, which has its roots in a critical post-structuralist postmodern discourse, the starting-point approach is employed, and the mode of interpretation is known as contextual vulnerability. In this mode, vulnerability is viewed — through “a processual and multidimensional view of climate–society interactions” — as a “present inability to cope with external pressures and changes” or contextual conditions, climate change being one such condition (O’Brien et al, 2007). When one interprets vulnerability contextually, the solutions often involve “altering the context in which climate change occurs”, and/or mitigating the causes of climate change “on the basis of equity and justice” (O’Brien et al, 2007). It should be noted that human-security framing is regarded as an alternative or non-orthodox approach (O’Brien et al, 2007).

There are practical and far-reaching consequences to preferring one mode of framing or interpretation over the other.

The scientific mode of framing sees climate change as a problem of human impacts on the global climate system, and research is focused on the changes that can be attributed to greenhouse gas emission (O’Brien et al, 2007). The adaptation measures that are proposed within this framing tend to be oriented toward mitigation and sectoral or technological changes (O’Brien et al, 2007).

In human-security framing, the focus is on vulnerability to change as a whole, and adaptation to uncertainty in general, and climate change is viewed as “a transformative process that affects humans in different ways” (O’Brien et al, 2007). Adaptation measures that follow on from such framing largely address “the fundamental causes of vulnerability, including the geopolitical and economic contexts” (O’Brien et al, 2007).

The consequences of choosing one mode of framing or interpretation over another can be exemplified in the case of Mozambique in the early 2000s, when two studies were undertaken concerning climate change vulnerability — in 2000, by the Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs (‘MICOA’), and in 2003, by researchers Eriksen and Silva.

The MICOA study, working based on the outcome vulnerability interpretation, questioned the extent to which climate change was a serious problem in Mozambique (O’Brien et al, 2007). The data collected was in the form of “a collection of dose-response type models used to predict changes in the water, coastal resources, agriculture, forestry, rangelands and livestock sectors”, and the solutions proposed comprised mitigation, adaptation, and the correction of erroneous practices (O’Brien et al, 2007).

Eriksen and Silva tackled the question of why certain regions and groups were more vulnerable than others; particularly, how market integration affected coping strategies and vulnerability (O’Brien et al, 2007). Their research comprised questionnaires, interviews, and surveys, and their proposed solutions called for the improvement of structural processes and inequities in order to allow access to the formal economy or to increase the viability of informal market activities (O’Brien et al, 2007).

The danger of scientific framing, or outcome vulnerability, is in the loss of nuance and complexity. In human-security framing, or context vulnerability, it is recognized that climate change vulnerability is influenced by various contextual conditions apart from the biophysical, including “dynamic social, economic, political, institutional and technological structures and processes”. Not all impacts of climate change can be quantified or measured empirically. For example, more subtle impacts which are not prioritised in scientific framing or outcome vulnerability may often be of great significance to individuals and communities — these include “sense of belonging, respect, social and cultural heritage, equality and distribution of wealth, dispersed settlement, access to nature-based outdoor activities, and control over one’s own destiny”.

O’Brien et al 2007 suggest that the two modes are complementary. I argue that they may work well together to provide a more complete picture of our understanding of vulnerability.

References:-

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L.P. Nygaard, and A.N.E. Schjolden (2007). ‘Why Different interpretations of Vulnerability Matter in Climate Change Discourses’. Climate Policy 7(1) 2007, pp.73–88