Vulnerability and global environmental change

《Vulnerability and global environmental change》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Vulnerability and global environmental change（14页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Vulnerability and global environmental change.by Coleen VogelDepartment of Geography and Environmental StudiesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa.This paper is adapted from an earlier paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Risk Reduction in southern Africa, Disaster Mitigati

2、on for Sustainable Livelihoods Project, SADEP, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, October, 1997. Aspects from the paper reproduced for the LUCC Newsletter. Despite being somewhat dated now, the paper attempts to give an overview of some of the various actors involved in vulnerability in Sout

3、hern Africa. IntroductionHuman-induced changes in atmospheric composition, climate and land use broadly constitute global environmental change. One of the components of global environmental change is human dimensions including human-induced alteration of the biophysical systems and the consequent ef

4、fect on human welfare (Parry, 1996). Vulnerability, a term often loosely bandied about in both the development literature and relief field, is a fundamental aspect of global environmental change. While the term vulnerability is used in a number of contexts (e.g. medical science and biophysical scien

5、ces) it is increasingly being viewed through the lens of the social sciences (Chambers, 1989; Liverman, 1990, 1992; Dow, 1992; Watts and Bohle, 1993; Blaikie et al., 1994; Kasperson et al., 1995). The term vulnerability is explained below and examples given of some of the current vulnerability asses

6、sments that are being undertaken in southern Africa. This discussion is not definitive but rather draws on various sources in an attempt to provoke thought and discussion particularly around how vulnerability analysis can be better integrated and crafted into global change initiatives. Grasping vuln

7、erability: what does it mean? There have been several attempts at defining and capturing what is meant by vulnerability (see the following for good overviews of vulnerability e.g. Liverman, 1990, 1992; Dow, 1992; Watts and Bohle, 1993; Cutter, 1996). Some view poverty and vulnerability as one and th

8、e same while others equate vulnerability with certain kinds of production systems (Parry and Carter, 1987). In terms of the latter, Wisner (1993) argues that while farming in marginal areas may constitute a form of vulnerability it is the system here that is vulnerable not the households. Watts and

9、Bohle (1993, 46) indeed call for a refinement of our understanding of vulnerability and argue that the local and historical configurations of poverty, hunger and famine define for them what is called a space of vulnerability: .vulnerability is a multi-layered and multi-dimensional social space defin

10、ed by determinate political, economic and institutional capabilities of people in specific places at specific times. Vulnerability or vulnerable groups thus implies some form of external dimension that may increasingly predispose people to risk and hence greater vulnerability but also includes impor

11、tant internal elements (e.g. Chambers, 1989) such as defencelessness and a lack of means to cope with damaging loss. Risk is closely tied to vulnerability and can be seen as a function of vulnerability. Communities who are most vulnerable will also probably be those most at risk to shock or disturba

12、nce to normal daily life. Although communities may face the same risk they will not, however, be equally vulnerable. There is thus a complex interaction between the exogenous (external threat/event) and the internal capacity of a community or household to withstand or respond to the event.While the

13、focus for much of the debate around vulnerability is focused on risk and what predisposes people to risk, some have also called for a closer examination of resilience or capacity to withstand heightened vulnerability (e.g. Anderson and Woodrow, 1989, 1993; Watts and Bohle, 1993; Blaikie et al., 1994

14、; Kasperson, et al., 1995). Blaikie et al. (1994), for example, thus define vulnerability as the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impacts of natural hazard (Blaikie et al., 1994, 9). Anderson and Woodrow (1989) sugg

15、est three categories that are used when trying to understand and identify dimensions of vulnerability and capacity including physical and material, social and organizational and motivational and attitudinal. Vulnerability can thus be viewed along a continuum from resilience to susceptibility. To ana

16、lyse vulnerability one needs therefore to better understand risk and resilience. In its broadest sense risk may be defined as the chance of a defined hazard occurring. Where data are available, modelling and fairly quantitative assessments of risk can be undertaken. However, the difference between r

17、isk and uncertainty, as Scoones (1996) highlights, is often blurred in practise. The ways that people respond to risks are also not reducible to a product of probabilities: values, preferences and normative judgements inevitably intervene and perceptions guide peoples responses (Scoones, 1996). Most

18、 poor people, moreover, choose a wide variety of options to try and increase their adaptability or minimize their risk to times of stress and shock (Chambers, 1989) and try and diversify their interests (e.g. Swift has indicated that this may include assets investments, stores and claims) (Swift, 19

19、89). Households have portfolios of investments, stores etc. which can and are often drawn down during times of stress. There are also differences in risk-minimizing responses along class lines with poorer households usually compelled to dispose of larger assets earlier on e.g. cattle than relatively

20、 richer households which have more options (Taal, 1989). Comprehensive discussions on this important aspect of vulnerability have been undertaken (see for example, Swift, 1989; Downing, 1991, 1992; Davies, 1996; Moser, 1996; Scoones, 1996) details of which fall outside the ambit of this brief paper.

21、 One important issue, however, emerging from these discussions, is that our notions of assets and capacities to reduce risk should not be narrow and static. Assets and risk-reducing activities are often transformed by the vulnerable through expansion of existing strategies or through diversification

22、 (Naerra et al., 1993; Pyle and Gabbar, 1993; Scoones, 1996). Another key research issue in seeking to understand vulnerability, that emerges repeatedly in the literature, is to better grasp the composition of current livelihood strategies of households (including intra- and inter-household utilizat

23、ion and transfer of resources) and how these are and may predispose communities to risk. Understanding the causal structure of present vulnerability enables the documentation and analysis of vulnerable groups over the next few decades and provides a baseline against which to measure the possible imp

24、acts of future stresses and shocks such as drought (for more details on methodology etc see Davies, 1996; Downing, Watts and Bohle, 1996). More therefore needs to be known about normal conditions that shape the lives of the vulnerable and what are the capacities and resources that can be drawn on to

25、 avert times of crisis e.g. possible increased droughts associated with global warming. Recent attempts at capturing vulnerability (including economic and also cultural aspects) call for a historical and more resource-based approach. Adopting such an approach, one needs to begin asking questions abo

26、ut the situation in which people find themselves (both past and present) of various groups identified such as the poorest third of all households, women, children and youth, the elderly, the disabled and some numbers of minority populations (Wisner, 1993). In each case, it is argued that, one needs

27、to know about access to a variety of resources including physiological and social resources (e.g. nutritional status, access to technology and information) and economic resources (e.g. income, access to markets etc). Using this approach a matrix of social indicators is derived that can ultimately fo

28、rm part of a vulnerability profile which includes class, age, gender, ethnicity and disability on the one axis and access to resources and locational patterns on the other. Trends about each of these can then be tabularised and established over time. Other dimensions of vulnerability (other than eco

29、nomic etc) include the cultural, religious and psychological dimensions of vulnerability. These forms of vulnerability are often lost in the literature, are difficult areas for research, but are vital to inform vulnerability analysis activities. Hareide (1997), for example, suggests that the followi

30、ng questions are useful in informing such aspects of vulnerability including: Is there something in present mentality among people (in his case, Ethiopia) that predispose groups to disaster? Is God responsible for an epidemic or a famine and how does this influence ones mitigation for such particula

31、rly extreme events ? Is the lack of trust between aid agencies, governments and others a reason why disasters occur? Are there serious deficiencies in the political culture that increase risk? Such questions may be useful in triggering some alternative understanding and responses about cultural and

32、other similar types of vulnerability.Finally, empowerment aspects of vulnerability can also be examined whereby one assesses the power relationships and rights that are exercised within a particular setting (e.g. Watts and Bohle, 1993). Thus in terms of household food security, one would seek to ide

33、ntify the complex configurations of rights exercised along generational and gender lines to food and other resources (Watts and Bohle, 1993). Questions that would be raised include what are the rules by which claims can be made over resources? How do different social actors gain access to and contro

34、l over various resources (see Leach, Mearns and Scoones, 1997 for more info on this aspect)? Reductions in the ability to overcome or enhance ones security is also another key issue that emerges from much of the local assessments of vulnerability. The reduction of the range of options, assets and ri

35、sk-reducing activities can often heighten vulnerability (see e.g. Scoones, 1996).Vulnerability is then, by way of a summary, perhaps best defined in terms of resilience and susceptibility including such dimensions as physical, social, cultural and psychological vulnerabilities and capacities that ar

36、e usually viewed against the backdrop of gender, time, space and scale (e.g. Anderson and Woodrow, 1989). Measuring vulnerabilityHaving briefly introduced discussion on aspects of vulnerability, risk and capacity, attention now shifts to examine measures and methods of capturing vulnerability. Sever

37、al of the sources consulted in compiling this paper concurred that aggregated approaches that make generalisations about rural communities or rural households are inadequate (Scoones, 1996; Chambers, 1989; Davies, 1996 etc). Despite these concerns some measures of vulnerability (e.g. Diriba, 1997),

38、have been attempted and include:*An indicator approach: Number of finite and objective indicators capturing aspects of vulnerability (e.g. NDVI, agricultural product prices etc).*Household modelling approach: Mix of objective data and household and community surveys to develop a sample (model) of ho

39、w households respond to risks etc e.g. RiskMap SCF. *Income estimation approach: Aims at estimating income at an administrative level to see if sufficient income was generated to purchase food for each person. SADC and FEWS have proposed a modified income estimation approach which is amenable to a m

40、ore in depth analysis of a domestic resource capacity approach (see below). Vulnerability assessments identify numbers of geographic locations of people vulnerable to food insecurity and famine. People are classified as slightly, moderately (have enough stocks to face a shock and weather it), highly

41、 or extremely vulnerable (experienced past shocks and have liquidated savings or assets and have thus made them vulnerable to future shocks). Household income is used as the framework for vulnerability analysis. Households are divided into socioeconomic groups and data are sought on demography, agri

42、cultural production, remotely sensed data, rainfall and market data. These data are then often combined with anecdotal data to draw information on current levels of vulnerability in the various groups relative to a baseline vulnerability. *Domestic resource capacity approach: Direct measure of vulne

43、rability, an absolute rather than a relative measure of vulnerability (VAM, Zambia, Mozambique). In brief this is defined as a communities ability to either collectively or individually allocate resources to mitigate a threatening disaster risk (e.g access to land and ownership, family labour availa

44、bility, livestock resources etc (adapted from WFP, Mozambique, 1997, e.g. see Diriba, 1997).Examples of vulnerability assessments in southern AfricaExamples, illustrating how vulnerability assessment is being undertaken in southern Africa, are provided below. The aim of several of these case studies

45、 is on improving food security in the region:Vulnerability Analysis Mapping in Mozambique: A concerted, in depth vulnerability analysis is being undertaken in Mozambique. In the case of Mozambique a classification of the country into different food production systems has been a clear requirement of

46、the vulnerability analysis mapping project (VAM). A multidisciplinary group (e.g. Ministries of Health, Department of Nutrition); Ministry of Planning and Finance (Department of Social Development, Poverty Alleviation Unit); National Early Warning Unit within the Department of Agriculture) have been

47、 mapping and undertaking the vulnerability analysis in the country (e.g. Diriba, 1997). Some of the preliminary mapping products include flood risk maps; NDVI identification of drought risk areas etc; food systems maps, land use maps, market access maps; and health and nutritional profiles that have

48、 been developed (in the latter case, approximately 80 districts out of 128 have been surveyed). One of the exciting aspects to emerge from this work is that collection, analysis and presentation of food security and nutrition has been institutionalised within government levels and has therefore beco

49、me a tool for local development, service delivery and monitoring and not only scientific enquiry. Vulnerability Analysis in ZimbabweSeveral types of vulnerability analysis have recently been undertaken in Zimbabwe (e.g. Eilerts and Vhurumuka, 1997; Eldridge, 1997). In these assessments a combination

50、 of vulnerability approaches has emerged including RiskMap; FEWS, and a move towards the combination of an indicator-based approach to mapping vulnerability and a greater appreciation of the causal factors underpinning vulnerability over time. Vulnerability Analysis in MalawiIn 1996, FEWS undertook

51、a vulnerability assessment of Malawi in collaboration with the Poverty Monitoring System of the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development and various food specialists. This methodology involved the clustering of the country into regions and into production clusters (e.g. maize, mixed-agriculture

52、 cluster etc). A composite measure was then sought to explain and measure vulnerability (e.g. poverty, food deficiency and malnutrition). This study was thus able to clarify the distinction between factors determining vulnerability e.g. low rainfall and possible outcomes of that vulnerability. A com

53、bination of statistical analysis and informed opinion also allowed for a richer understanding of the nature of vulnerability in the country (see http/www.info.usaid.gov/fews for more details). Vulnerability Analysis in LesothoA comprehensive assessment of vulnerability for the 1997/98 season has als

54、o been recently undertaken by several partners in Lesotho (e.g. National Early Warning Unit; Lesotho; Disaster Management Authority, SADC Regional Early Warning Unit, Harare and USAID Famine Early Warning System, 1997). The study focuses on, for example, food availability (particularly cereal crops)

55、 and sources of income (e.g. remittances from mine workers) and assesses food trends in areas of vulnerability in the country. As is evident from the aforementioned examples, several detailed vulnerability assessments have either been completed or are currently being undertaken in the southern Afric

56、an region. These studies are multi-disciplinary in nature and are beginning to provide a clearer picture of vulnerability and food security in the region. While the focus of several of the aforementioned cases is on food security in the southern African region other forms of vulnerability analysis i

57、n different regions e.g. in Asia, South America, have and could be undertaken (e.g. Blaikie et al., 1994). Despite these various initiatives, it would appear that some scientists engaged in global change, have often reluctantly interacted with others working on vulnerability assessment. This could b

58、e attributed to the fuzzy nature of what exactly is meant by vulnerability and trying to grasp what it is that one is supposed to be measuring. Notwithstanding these problems it would seem that there is a growing demand and call for improved vulnerability assessments and similar work in several area

59、s of Africa and beyond. What then are the implications of such partnerships and developments for global change science? LUCC/GCTE and Vulnerability Analysis Scrutiny of the reports of the activities of some of the programmes and research initiatives of IGBP reveal that there is need for a careful as

60、sessment of how vulnerability assessment could improve global change activities, how global change science could add value to those projects already under way and if so, in what ways? Changing land use is a central theme for both LUCC and GCTE activities and calls for investigations of vulnerability

61、 have been made in several working documents and science plans. At a GCTE meeting in Botswana (10-14 June, 1996), for example, the following was identified as a major underlying concern for researchers:To identify vulnerable communities /areas /regions in the rangelands, and develop strategies, inte

62、rventions and policies for coping with change across a range of scales (GCTE, 1996, 18). A central component of the Miombo Network, for example, is to try and integrate the numerous initiatives that have already been undertaken in trying to assess natural resource use and vulnerability at both house

63、hold and higher levels:The aim of this experiment therefore is to link the outputs of the biophysical studies and socioeconomic research at household and community levels .the goal is to understand sufficiently well the processes governing the demand for, and the supply and regenerative capacity, of

64、 miombo resources .(IGBP Report 41, 51). Implied in the executive summary of the Kalahari Transect are some of the aspects of vulnerability referred to above including several factors that may be enhancing vulnerability of both groups and ecological areas in the transect:Historically they (areas in

65、the transect) have been sparsely populated, but are now coming under increased human pressure, as a result of population growth, human and animal disease control, increased infrastructure and improved agricultural technology (IGBP Report 42, 5, parentheses added). Some of the major problems that bedevil human dimension and vulnerability studies in these initiatives include: scale, both in space and time and determining the end-users of the product. How can one up-scale from a focused household-leve