This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland] On: 18 September 2013, At: 22:35 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Climate Policy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcpo20 Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses a a b c KAREN O'BRIEN , SIRI ERIKSEN , LYNN P. NYGAARD & ANE SCHJOLDEN a Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway b CICERO, PO Box 1129 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway c Forum for utvikling Oslo, Norway Published online: 15 Jun 2011. To cite this article: KAREN O'BRIEN , SIRI ERIKSEN , LYNN P. NYGAARD & ANE SCHJOLDEN (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses, Climate Policy, 7:1, 73-88 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 73 ■ synthesis article Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses KAREN O’BRIEN1*, SIRI ERIKSEN1, LYNN P. NYGAARD2, ANE SCHJOLDEN3 1 Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway 2 CICERO, PO Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway 3 Forum for utvikling Oslo, Norway In this article, we discuss how two interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature are manifestations of different discourses and framings of the climate change problem. The two differing interpretations, conceptualized here as ‘outcome vulnerability’ and ‘contextual vulnerability’, are linked respectively to a scientific framing and a human-security framing. Each framing prioritizes the production of different types of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of policy responses to climate change. Nevertheless, studies are seldom explicit about the interpretation that they use. We present a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the two interpretations of vulnerability and use this tool to illustrate the practical consequences that interpretations of vulnerability have for climate change policy and responses in Mozambique. We argue that because the two interpretations are rooted in different discourses and differ fundamentally in their conceptualization of the character and causes of vulnerability, they cannot be integrated into one common framework. Instead, it should be recognized that the two interpretations represent complementary approaches to the climate change issue. We point out that the human-security framing of climate change has been far less visible in formal, international scientific and policy debates, and addressing this imbalance would broaden the scope of adaptation policies. Keywords: adaptation; climate change; Mozambique; vulnerability Dans cet article, nous discutons de la façon dont deux interprétations de la « vulnérabilité », telle qu’elle est couverte dans la littérature sur les changements climatiques, représentent deux manières différentes d’aborder le sujet du problème climatique. Les deux interprétations, définies ici en tant que « vulnérabilité liée aux conséquences » et « vulnérabilité liée au contexte » relèvent, respectivement, du point de vue scientifique et celui de la sécurité humaine. Chaque point de vue donne priorité à la formation de différents types de savoir, et mettent en valeur différents modèles de politiques de réponses aux changements climatiques. Cependant, les différentes études précisent rarement quelle définition est appliquée. Une méthode d’évaluation permettant de distinguer les deux interprétations est avancée ici et appliquée pour illustrer leurs conséquences réelles sur les politiques et réponses, au Mozambique. Les deux interprétations étant ancrées dans deux discours différents et étant fondamentalement différentes quant à la conceptualisation du caractère et des causes de la vulnérabilité, elles ne peuvent être intégrées dans un cadre d’analyse commun. Il s’agit plutôt de reconnaitre que les deux interprétations représentent des approches complémentaires au problème des changements climatiques. Le point de vue de la sécurité humaine a été jusqu’alors moins couvert dans le débat international officiel en matière de science et de politiques : un rééquilibrage agrandirait le champ des politiques d’adaptation. Mots clés: adaptation; changements climatique; Mozambique; vulnérabilité ■ *Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected] CLIMATE POLICY 7 (2007) 73–88 © 2007 Earthscan ISSN: 1469-3062 (print), 1752-7457 (online) www.climatepolicy.com CLIMATE POLICY 74 O’Brien et al. 1. Introduction Vulnerability has found its place into the climate change lexicon, with both natural and social scientists eager to measure and assess vulnerability, whether from the perspective of regions, sectors, ecosystems or social groups. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers climate change vulnerability to be a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptability (McCarthy et al., 2001). Through this broad framework, the meaning of vulnerability has expanded to engulf notions of risk, impacts and adaptability. Approaches to vulnerability from the natural hazards, rural livelihoods and poverty literatures have penetrated climate change research, while at the same time climate researchers have developed their own Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 interpretations and approaches (e.g. Kelly and Adger, 2000; Smit et al., 2000; Burton et al., 2002; Brooks, 2003; Wisner et al., 2004; Füssel and Klein, 2006). It is also widely seen as an integrative concept that can link the social and biophysical dimensions of environmental change (Turner et al., 2003; Ionescu et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the fact remains that the word ‘vulnerability’ means different things to different researchers. And while it has been fairly well documented how these differing definitions and interpretations of vulnerability are an outcome of the wide breadth and scope of climate change research and the diverse scientific communities involved, there is little understanding about what this actually means for climate change research and policy. There has been a failure to appreciate that these differing definitions are manifestations of different discourses on climate change – discourses that not only represent different approaches to science, but also different political responses to climate change (Demerritt, 2001; Forsyth, 2003). The question we address here is not whether one approach is better than the other, but to what extent differing interpretations of vulnerability can, in fact, be integrated into a common framework. We first trace the development of the two main interpretations of vulnerability to climate change and show how they are based on two distinct framings of the climate change issue that emerge from different discourses on global environmental change. We refer to these interpretations as outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability, and link them to a scientific framing and a human-security framing of climate change. Each framing prioritizes the production of different types of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of responses to climate change. We then present a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the two interpretations of vulnerability, and illustrate the practical consequences that interpretations of vulnerability have for climate change policy and responses by drawing on examples from research on Mozambique. We demonstrate that discourses and framings of climate change do matter. They influence the questions asked, the knowledge produced, and the policies and responses that are prioritized. We conclude that the different framings of outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability make it very difficult to integrate them into a single integrative vulnerability framework. Instead, the two interpretations represent complementary means of understanding the significance of climate change and its relevance to society. 2. Different framings, different discourses There have been many efforts to define, classify and understand the meaning and utility of vulnerability (Chambers, 1989; Dow, 1992; Bohle et al., 1994; Liverman, 1994; Ribot, 1995; Bankoff et al., 2004; Cardona, 2004; O’Brien et al., 2004a; Brooks et al., 2005; Adger, 2006; Eakin and Luers, 2006). Definitional differences can be attributed to the utility of the concept across different fields of study, including natural hazards, poverty and development. Kelly and Adger (2000) identify two main approaches to vulnerability in the climate change literature: ‘end-point’ and ‘starting-point’ CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 75 approaches. The end-point approach considers vulnerability as ‘the end point of a sequence of analyses beginning with projections of future emission trends, moving on to the development of climate scenarios, and thence to biophysical impact studies and the identification of adaptive options’ (p. 326). Any residual consequences that remain after adaptation has taken place define the levels of vulnerability. Vulnerability here summarizes the net impact of the climate problem, and can be represented quantitatively as a monetary cost or as a change in yield or flow, human mortality, ecosystem damage, or qualitatively as a description of relative or comparative change. An example of an end-point definition can be found in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which defines vulnerability1 to mean ‘the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes’ and sees vulnerability to climate Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 change as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (McCarthy et al., 2001, p. 6). The starting point approach, in contrast, considers vulnerability as a present inability to cope with external pressures or changes, which in this case is changing climate conditions. Here, vulnerability is considered a characteristic of social and ecological systems that is generated by multiple factors and processes. A focus on prior damage, referred to by Kelly and Adger (2000) as the ‘wounded soldier’ approach, assumes that addressing present-day vulnerability will reduce vulnerability under future climate conditions (Burton et al., 2002). The distinction between end-point and starting-point vulnerability studies exemplifies the differences between the two main interpretations of vulnerability. These interpretations are more succinctly summarized as ‘outcome vulnerability’ and ‘contextual vulnerability’. Outcome vulnerability is considered 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. This is represented schematically in Figure 1a, where the result of the analysis is an outcome that can be attributed to climate change. While positive outcomes are possible, it is the negative outcomes that are associated with vulnerability. Outcome vulnerability is often used to determine the extent to which different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions lead to ‘dangerous interference with the FIGURE 1 Frameworks depicting two interpretations of vulnerability to climate change: (a) outcome vulnerability; (b) contextual vulnerability. CLIMATE POLICY 76 O’Brien et al. climate system’, as discussed in Article 2 of the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 1992). Reducing outcome vulnerability involves reducing exposure through climate change mitigation, or developing adaptations to limit negative outcomes. Contextual vulnerability, in contrast, is based on a processual and multidimensional view of climate– society interactions. Both climate variability and change are considered to occur in the context of political, institutional, economic and social structures and changes, which interact dynamically with contextual conditions associated with a particular ‘exposure unit’. As depicted in Figure 1b, contextual conditions influence the exposure to climate variability and change, as well as potential responses. Responses can in turn affect both the processes and contextual conditions. Climate change is important because it modifies biophysical conditions, which alter the context for responding to other processes Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 of change (e.g. economic liberalization, political decentralization, the spread of epidemics). These other processes, in turn, alter the context in which climate change occurs. From this perspective, reducing vulnerability involves altering the context in which climate change occurs, so that individuals and groups can better respond to changing conditions. It also stresses the need to mitigate climate change on the basis of equity and justice (Athanasiou and Baer, 2002, Adger et al., 2006). The two depictions of vulnerability represented in Figure 1 are not simply about different interpretations of the word vulnerability. They are about fundamentally different framings of the climate change problem. We distinguish these as a scientific framing and a human-security framing of climate change. The framing of an issue creates boundaries around social groups, biophysical entities, or their interactions, to establish an ordered vision of events (Forsyth, 2003). Framings influence the questions that are asked and structure the kind of knowledge that is produced. They determine what is included on the agenda, and what is silenced. Framings emerge from discourses that are embedded in institutions, actors and academic disciplines. Scientific framings view climate change as a problem of human impacts on the global climate system. Research is focused on the changes that can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions, with special emphasis on quantifiable impacts based on future general circulation model scenarios (Demeritt, 2001). Firm boundaries are drawn between ‘nature’ and ‘society’, and the focus is disproportionately on nature as part of the Earth system (Castree, 2001). In the scientific framing of climate change, society is typically represented as one box that both drives the process and experiences the consequences. Vulnerability is interpreted as the negative outcome of climate change on any particular exposure unit – an outcome that can be quantified and measured, and reduced through technical and sectoral adaptation measures, as well as by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As Füssel and Klein (2006) point out, this framing tends to favour a physical-flows view that emphasizes the flow of matter and energy between systems components. Human-security framings, in contrast, view climate change as a transformative process that affects humans in different ways, and focuses on the consequences of climate variability and change for individuals and societies. Human security is defined as occurring when and where individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate or adapt to risks to their human, environmental and social rights, and have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options (GECHS, 1999). In this framing, nature and society are often considered as inseparable aspects of the same context (see Castree, 2001; Forsyth, 2003); nature–society relationships are conceptualized as a mutuality, rather than as a duality (Oliver-Smith, 2004). This sets much wider boundaries around the issue of climate change, emphasizing its interactions with multiple processes of change. It can also be associated with an actor–system view that ‘emphasizes the flow of information and the relationship between different factors that determines social decision-making’ (Füssel and Klein, 2006, p. 311).Vulnerability is considered to be influenced not only by changing biophysical conditions, but by dynamic social, economic, political, institutional and technological structures and processes; i.e. contextual conditions. CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 77 Human-security framings can reveal the complex nuances of climate change. Human security may involve more than food security or economic performance, and could include such aspects as a 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. Importantly, what constitutes ‘damage’ or ‘negative effects’ varies across contexts and cultures. 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’ (Næss, 2001; Farley and Costanza, 2002). Furthermore, it may be that the more subtle impacts have greater relevance to individuals and communities (such as skiing in Norway or gardening in England), and these are often disregarded as trivial based on quantitative economic Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 measures of vulnerability to climate change. TABLE 1 Discourses on global environmental change (adapted from Leichenko and O’Brien, 2007) and relationship to framings of climate change Environmental Description Framing of climate change change discourse Biophysical • Takes the dynamic Earth system as a starting A scientific issue that requires a point and focuses on what humans are doing to better understanding of key biological and physical conditions and processes biophysical processes and • Reflects the ‘enlightenment’ paradigm of impacts. positivist science, which is based on an understanding that more information and knowledge will enable society to better manage environmental problems. Critical • Emphasizes how social and political relations A human-security issue that shape processes, responses, and outcomes from requires understanding environmental change. differential capacities to respond • Reflects social theory and post-structuralist and to changing conditions. postmodernist approaches to knowledge. Many proponents question the rational, scientific paradigm that underlies the biophysical and human–environment discourses. • Draws on the work of philosophers and postmodern theorists. Proponents argue that scientific enquiry, theories and hypotheses represent constructions of reality that are influenced by history and by the current cultural, political and economic context. Human–environment • Situates global environmental change within the context Refers to both framings, but of interrelated human and environmental systems, where the emphasizes the role of science in natural environment is inseparable from human activities. promoting sustainability. • Draws upon references to the ‘coupled human–environment system’, resilience, and adaptive management. • Nature–society interactions are considered to operate at multiple scales, and interact with multiple stressors. CLIMATE POLICY 78 O’Brien et al. These two framings are not arbitrary, but instead can be seen as products of different discourses on climate change – discourses that represent distinct world views and approaches to science. Discourses can be considered a system of representation, or an area of language use expressing a particular standpoint and related to a certain set of institutions (Peet and Watts, 1996). They influence interpretations of what certain phrases mean and control how they are used, prioritize the questions that are asked and answered, and influence the solutions that are prescribed (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008, forthcoming). In particular, discourses influence how problems are framed. This is achieved through problem closure, language, and social participation (Forsyth, 2003). There are numerous ways of classifying discourses on environmental change. Adger et al. (2001), for example, identify a global managerial discourse and a populist discourse. Although discourses and Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 the framings associated with them are often implicit rather than explicit, they nevertheless reflect how individuals and societies perceive and evaluate the issue of climate change (Forsyth, 2003). Three global environmental change discourses are described in Table 1 and related to framings of climate change. These are, of course, generalized discourses that could be categorized in a number of ways (Adger et al., 2001; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008, forthcoming). A biophysical discourse on global environmental change emphasizes the importance of understanding key processes of the integrated Earth system, and how human activities affect these processes (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008, forthcoming). This supports the scientific framing of the climate change issue. This is in sharp contrast to a critical discourse that emphasizes the role of social, political and economic relations in shaping the processes, responses and outcomes of environmental change (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008, forthcoming). This discourse is closely associated with human- security framings of climate change. A human–environment discourse that emphasizes the coupled social–ecological system can be linked to both framings. Within the human–environment discourse, some research emphasizes the role of science and technology for improving environmental management, while other research emphasizes the importance of location and context in generating vulnerability (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008, forthcoming). Not surprisingly, it is from this discourse that most efforts to develop an integrative framework for vulnerability assessments emerge (Turner et al., 2003; Newell et al., 2005). 3. Identifying conceptualizations of vulnerability Most studies do not explicitly refer to a discourse or framing; instead, this must be interpreted through the language, methods and questions that appear in texts and debates. The word ‘vulnerability’ is used in all three discourses; thus it is often difficult to ‘place’ a study within a discourse and framing based on the presence or absence of this word. Figure 2 presents a diagnostic tool that can be used to clarify the interpretation of vulnerability that is being used in any particular climate-change study. The figure shows typical prioritized questions, focal points, methods, results and proposed responses, and can thus be used to distinguish whether a given study is addressing ‘outcome vulnerability’ or ‘contextual vulnerability’. The questions that are addressed in a study, either implicitly or explicitly, can provide a strong clue as to the interpretation of vulnerability. The question ‘To what extent are human activities contributing to dangerous climate change?’ is closely associated with studies focusing on outcome vulnerability. In contrast, the question of whether climate change is a relevant problem for a particular region, community, sector or social group is typically associated with contextual vulnerability studies. The question of who is negatively affected by climate change may be addressed by both types of studies; outcome studies often focus on vocations or professions, while contextual studies focus on class, race, age or gender. The question ‘Which sectors are likely to be negatively affected by climate change?’ is CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 79 Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 FIGURE 2 Diagnostic tool for identifying interpretations of vulnerability. most often associated with outcome vulnerability, but may form an important part of contextual vulnerability studies, particularly if a society’s economy is dominated by climate-sensitive activities. The question of why some regions and social groups are more vulnerable than others is closely tied to contextual vulnerability studies. Here, the underlying causes are not considered to be climate change alone, but interactions between contextual conditions and multiple processes of change. The focal point of the study can also provide a good indication as to the interpretation of vulnerability. Studies that focus on vulnerability to future climate change and sectoral sensitivities (such as vulnerability of agricultural yields to climate change in 2050) are generally outcome- oriented (Lal et al., 1998). Studies that focus on current climate variability, livelihood and coping strategies, and political economy, including entitlements and social capital, are closely linked to contextual vulnerability and the questions of whether climate change is a relevant problem and why some groups and regions are more vulnerable than others. The role of institutions as a focus of vulnerability research often lies between the two interpretations: in some cases institutional adaptations are considered in relation to outcome vulnerability (e.g. policy reforms to offset the negative impacts of decreased future agricultural yields), and in other cases institutional changes are related to contextual vulnerability (e.g. water privatization that affects the ability to respond to drought). A focus on multiple stressors is also in the intermediate area; some vulnerability studies may assess outcomes on an exposure unit in relation to two or more stressors, while others recognize multiple stressors as a key factor influencing the context in which regions or groups are exposed to and respond to climate change. The methods used in vulnerability studies also tend to be closely associated with the interpretation of vulnerability and the related questions and focal points. Dose–response models, integrated CLIMATE POLICY 80 O’Brien et al. assessment models and scenario-based approaches are, to differing degrees, associated with outcome vulnerability studies of future climate change and sectoral sensitivities, as reflected in their position towards the left in Figure 2. Scenario-based methods are imposed on biophysical and socio-economic systems, usually through the use of models, to determine outcomes on various natural, economic and social sectors (exemplified by Lal et al., 1998; Yohe and Schlesinger, 2002; Sutherland and Gouldby, 2003). This approach relies on future scenarios and directs attention towards future impacts of climate change, rather than towards present vulnerability. Nevertheless, scenario results are sometimes included in contextual vulnerability studies as well, but mainly as a tool for describing future biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Household surveys and case studies are, in contrast, more closely linked to contextual vulnerability studies. They often examine in depth, in Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 one location, how multiple stressors interact with the driving causes of vulnerability (Eakin, 2003; Lind and Eriksen, 2006). Indicator approaches to vulnerability and agent-based modelling may be associated with either type of study. Indicator studies can be used both to enhance understanding of the causes of vulnerability and to quantify the extent of the problem (Luers et al., 2003; O’Brien et al., 2004b; Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). Agent-based modelling studies represent behaviours and responses that are influenced by the context, but the focus is often on vulnerability as an outcome (Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell, 2005). Identified results from vulnerability studies are not surprisingly related to the questions posed, focal points and methods. For example, dose–response models and integrated assessment models typically lead to findings regarding measurable gains or losses and sectoral impacts typical of an outcome interpretation of vulnerability, addressing questions of which sectors are likely to be negatively affected by climate change. Household surveys and case studies investigating livelihood and coping strategies and political economy reveal key interacting processes and relative winners and losers – results that address questions of why some regions and social groups are more vulnerable than others. Contextual studies frequently lead to findings regarding institutional and socio-economic constraints to local responses; that is, an identification of the factors that prevent coping and adaptation. Constraints may also be identified in outcome-oriented vulnerability studies, particularly in relation to specific sectoral adaptations (e.g. soil type, barriers to ecosystem migration, etc.). The findings from outcome-type vulnerability studies lead to particular conclusions about responses to climate change. With increased knowledge of sectoral impacts and outcome vulnerability, it is possible to identify sectoral sensitivities that could be reduced through adaptations. Quantification of the measurable gains or losses also leads to an understanding of the urgency with which international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be put in place. When vulnerability is viewed as contextual, however, vulnerability assessments can be used to identify opportunities and constraints to implementing specific adaptation policies (Burton et al., 2002). The type of response measures that emerge are social rather than technical in nature, and include poverty reduction, diversification of livelihoods, protection of common property resources, and strengthening of collective action (Kelly and Adger, 2000). Such measures strengthen the ability to respond to stressors and secure livelihoods under present conditions, which should then increase the capacity to respond to changing conditions in the future. Adaptive management is another policy recommendation that results from outcome- as well as contextual-type vulnerability studies. Adaptive management refers to ‘combining, in a dynamic ongoing process, local and scientific ecological knowledge in the co-management of resources and ecosystems’ (Olsson and Folke, 2001, p. 86). This can be both a way of addressing identified maladapted practices as well as institutional constraints to local responses to climate change. While some of the policy conclusions may be similar, the two types of vulnerability studies can lead to very different conclusions regarding responses. As we show in the next section, these differences do matter. CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 81 4. Different interpretations in practice: examples from Mozambique We illustrate the effect of how vulnerability is conceptualized on recommended responses by examining the case of Mozambique using two studies; one that refers to outcome vulnerability and one that focuses on contextual vulnerability. We use the diagnostic tool presented in Section 3 to ‘locate’ the two studies. In Figure 3, the National Vulnerability Assessment for Mozambique, carried out by the Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA, 2000), is labelled using stars (*), while a study of vulnerability to climate stress in the context of market integration (Eriksen and Silva, 2003) is labelled using circles (O). These two studies have been selected because they illustrate contrasting interpretations of vulnerability. Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 Mozambique is a southern African country with a population of about 17 million. Mozambique’s economy and society is emerging from a civil war that ended in 1992. At the same time, since the early 1990s, the country has been undergoing a liberalization of the economy. Currently, the people of Mozambique are constantly responding to climate variability, both within and between seasons, which is characteristic of the southern African region (Hulme et al., 2001). Some recent droughts, floods and cyclones have been particularly severe: during the floods in 2000, about 700 people died and 550,000 had to be relocated from their homes, and Mozambique’s annual economic growth rate was reduced from 8% to 2% (Christie and Hanlon, 2001). The region-wide drought that culminated in 2003 put 659,000 people in Mozambique in need of food aid (FEWS-NET, 2004). Future climate change is likely not only to increase temperatures, but also to affect climate variability and the frequency and intensity of extreme events (Joubert and Hewitson, 1997; McCarthy et al., 2001; PRECIS, 2001; Tyson et al., 2002). The prioritized question in the MICOA (2000) study relates to the extent to which climate change is a serious problem for Mozambique, reflected in a star far to the left in Figure 3. A sectoral approach is taken, with efforts to identify measurable gains or losses. The focal point of the study is climate change between 1975 and 2075. The method involves the use of general circulation model results in a vulnerability assessment model, which is a collection of dose–response type models used to predict changes in the water, coastal resources, agriculture, forestry, rangelands and livestock sectors. Climate scenarios interpreted specifically for Mozambique suggest that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could lead to an increase in the mean annual temperature by 1.8–3.1°C, a 2–9% decrease in rainfall, and a 2–3% increase in solar radiation by 2075 (MICOA, 2000). Four main outcomes were associated with these changes, and consequently interpreted as climate-related threats: (1) inundation of low-lying lands, mainly in the coastal zone; (2) freshwater shortage, limiting domestic, industrial and hydropower use; (3) reduction in crop production, such as maize yields; and (4) a decline in nitrogen content in plants, reducing their nutritional value, affecting livestock in particular. The responses identified in the report focus both on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and on adaptation. Largely technical, sectoral adaptation measures are suggested on the basis of the projected impacts on resources. Decreased freshwater availability can be addressed by increased efficiency of water use, construction and improvement of dams, irrigation channels, and the establishment of schemes for recycling water. The impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector can be addressed by means of adjustments such as changes in crop types, season and location of farming, or the development of intensified and mechanized farming, with intensive use of fertilizers and irrigation. Furthermore, coastal erosion and salt water intrusion can be addressed through a combination of integrated and participatory management, and the construction of dykes and seawalls. Correcting current inappropriate practices is thus the main adaptation focus, although the study also suggests the use of natural means of coastal dune-building in response to coastal erosion. CLIMATE POLICY 82 O’Brien et al. The main question addressed in the study by Eriksen and Silva (2003) is why some regions and social groups are more vulnerable than others. Specifically, they examine how market integration affects the local pattern of coping and vulnerability. The focus was on multiple stressors, in particular how climate stress (variability and extremes) and market integration influence local livelihood strategies. The study employed a comparative case-study approach, examining two villages of differing market integration, both affected by the 2000 floods and the 2003 drought: Massavasse, located in the Chokwe district; and Matidze, located in the neighbouring Mabalane district. The main methods of data collection were household questionnaires, semi-structured household interviews, key informant interviews, and group interviews, as well as local market surveys. Although the interview data were also analysed Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 quantitatively, the study emphasized qualitative analysis, placing its methods to the right in Figure 3. Findings focused on the large variations in vulnerability, both within and between the villages, and the multiple factors that influenced these variations. Dryland, rainfed farming, predominant in Matidze, appeared to be undergoing a process of marginalization. For example, irrigation- based villages in Chókwè district were the target of government, international aid agency and NGO assistance, both in reconstruction and recovery after the floods and in infrastructural and agricultural development. In contrast, most villages in Mabalane district received no such attention, and thus agricultural tools and equipment lost during the 2000 floods were not replaced, affecting subsequent harvests. In particular, the small-scale irrigation that would have provided food and income during the 2003 drought had all but disappeared. FIGURE 3 Identifying interpretations of vulnerability in two Mozambique studies. CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 83 Furthermore, the opening up of market opportunities with increased trade and liberalization of the economy had very unequal benefits. Income opportunities in trade of agricultural goods as well as forest products, particularly charcoal, and casual employment on commercial farms provided new sources of livelihood for many. Market-based mechanisms were more robust in the face of drought in Massavasse, where access to regional and national markets was fairly good. Some commercial farmers with access to water through pump irrigation, market information and transport, were able to produce vegetables for the market and benefit from elevated prices. In Matidze, most of the market-based coping strategies proved unviable or yielded very marginal profits as the drought intensified, such as small-scale production of sweet potato and pumpkin leaves in the river bed for local sale. Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 The study concluded that people are able to evolve their coping strategies and access new opportunities that arise with market integration, but this takes place mainly through informal mechanisms, and often at marginal benefit (Eriksen and Silva, 2003). Although the study did not identify specific responses, the main conclusions have clear implications for the type of adaptation measures that could be formulated: reducing local vulnerability depends on addressing processes and inequities that exclude most people from the formal economy and formal types of coping strategies in the face of climate stress, and on making informal activities that are accessible to most people more viable. The findings also imply that in the absence of such responses, the most vulnerable people in Mozambique are unlikely to be reached by formal technical interventions. In effect, the technological expertise provided through government programmes has been of most use to the more wealthy farmers who can afford to invest in the new technology, while fewer technical options are available for rainfed farming, or the plethora of other livelihood activities in which people engage (Eriksen and Silva, 2003). Technological measures may actually be counterproductive and exacerbate inequality and the processes of marginalization of rural households that are currently contributing to vulnerability, instead of effectively reducing vulnerability (Adger, 2003). Comparing the two studies in Figure 3, the MICOA vulnerability assessment can be considered to be an example of outcome vulnerability, while the Eriksen and Silva (2003) study addresses contextual vulnerability. To a policy-maker, the word vulnerability may suggest that the studies are addressing the same aspect of the climate-change problem. However, the studies differ significantly in their prioritized questions, focal points, methods and findings, and identify very different policy responses. 5. Conclusions: an integrated framework for reducing vulnerability? The implication for policy-making of different interpretations of vulnerability, as illustrated by the two Mozambique studies above, is clear: ‘vulnerability reduction’ as a policy objective may be rhetorically non-controversial, but what this means in practice depends on the particular interpretation of vulnerability. Forsyth (2003, p. 191) points out that ‘[u]nder orthodox approaches to environmental science, vulnerability may be best addressed by mitigating biophysical changes considered the main causes of risk’. These differ from alternative approaches that emphasize reducing vulnerability by also increasing the ability of societies to adapt to such changes (Forsyth, 2003). Adaptation to climate change has received particular attention in recent years, as it has become clearer that some degree of climate change is inevitable regardless of mitigation efforts. Adaptation refers to ‘adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts’ (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001, p. 881). The interpretation CLIMATE POLICY 84 O’Brien et al. of vulnerability affects the type of adaptation that is promoted, influencing decisions on what, how, and who to fund (Huq and Burton, 2003). In the scientific framing, adaptations are made in response to projected climate change. This places urgency on identifying exactly how the climate will change in response to different scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific knowledge about climate change is critical to assessments of outcome vulnerability, for it answers the question ‘vulnerable to what?’ In the human-security framing, adaptations are not necessarily directly linked to any particular manifestation of climate change (e.g. a 2.4°C warming, or a 17% decrease in rainfall). Instead, they may involve some combination of decreasing exposure and increasing coping or adaptive capacities, to respond to multiple shocks and transformations. This framing Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 emphasizes a more generalized ‘vulnerability to change’, where climate hazards and long- term changes represent only part of the profound transformations affecting societies. Consequently, there are multiple points for intervention. This approach allows for adaptation to uncertainty, which has been increasingly identified as a distinguishing characteristic of environmental change and policy (Mitchell and Hulme, 1999; Lempert et al., 2000; Berkhout et al., 2003). The scientific framing of climate change and an understanding of vulnerability as an outcome have generated adaptation research that is impacts-driven, employing the standard seven-step approach outlined in the IPCC Guidelines (Carter et al., 1994) and oriented towards mitigation policies. ‘What matters in this connection is the extent to which the gross impact of climate change can be reduced by adaptation’ (Burton et al., 2002, p. 147). Viewing vulnerability as an outcome leads to the danger that adaptation is reduced to building local capacity to make sectoral and technological changes, rather than addressing the fundamental causes of vulnerability, including the geopolitical and economic contexts (Brooks, 2003). There is little doubt that technological adaptations such as irrigation schemes, drought- tolerant seed varieties, raised bridges, structural improvements in housing and so forth can decrease vulnerability to climate change in many countries. However, technological adaptations to climate change represent only one of many options – and in some cases a problematic one (for instance, if adaptations increase inequality within or among regions or social groups). Thus the natural question to ask is whether it is possible to integrate these two interpretations into a comprehensive and formal framework for understanding vulnerability to climate change. By definition, integrated frameworks presuppose that it is possible to develop a shared conceptualization of the problem – in this case climate change. Integration occurs when different disciplines can make use of the common framework and interact to better understand the system in question. The question then becomes whether it is possible to reconcile the outcome and contextual conceptualizations of vulnerability at a fundamental level, or whether the differences between scientific and human-security framings of climate change mean that these two conceptualizations must remain mutually exclusive. As Newell et al. (2005, p. 301) aptly point out: If the knowledge that we seek to integrate consists of disparate models of causality, then the integration process cannot be simply a matter of building a ‘shared language’. Single words take multiple meanings when different speakers have different models and examples in mind. We must be particularly wary of superficial approaches to developing ‘better communication’ that only appear to remove conceptual confusion – ‘[a] common language may still hide divergent assumptions’ (Pickett et al., 1999, p. 304). CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 85 Evidence suggests that, indeed, the differences may be simply too great to overcome. Because merging two different framings involves different discourses and different actors, integrating the two interpretations of vulnerability into one unifying framework is not simply a matter of science, but of the politics of climate change. Although there have been many attempts to develop integrative vulnerability frameworks (see Turner et al., 2003; Ionescu et al., 2005; Füssel and Klein, 2006), these frameworks arguably do not integrate the different interpretations, but instead formalize a single interpretation. The development of an integrative framework requires a process of conceptual blending, which comes about through the construction of new world views from two or more existing world views (Newell et al., 2005). This conceptual blending has not been achieved across the various discourses on global environmental change; such a blending cannot be negotiated, Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 but involves a change in beliefs and understandings. Although it may be possible to integrate across disciplines, it is much more difficult to integrate across discourses that are based on different models of causality. Outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability address two different but interrelated questions that reflect two distinct framings of the climate change issue: (1) ‘Are humans changing the climate system?’ and (2) ‘What are the differential implications of climate change for society?’ The first question is addressed through the scientific framing, which is embedded in institutions with strong influence over climate-change debates and research, including the UNFCCC, the IPCC, and most international global change research programmes. The second question has yet to be clearly articulated. In fact, the human-security framing is far less visible in formal, international scientific and policy debates, and has been considered the domain of NGOs, development practitioners and social movements (see, for example, www.ecoequity.org/). Outcome vulnerability and contextual vulnerability are thus two different but complementary aspects of climate change. Rather than being merely a question of definitions or semantics, the interpretation of vulnerability has consequences for how climate research is carried out within interdisciplinary research institutes, where scientists with differing backgrounds often use terminologies that are vaguely defined and lack shared meanings. As Downing (2003, p. 96) notes, ‘the climate change community does not appear to be very close to adopting standards, or even a common paradigm and analytic language’. Misunderstandings caused by different conceptualizations of vulnerability can be largely avoided by using qualifying terms (Füssel and Klein, 2006). But it also requires explicitly recognizing the different framings of climate change, and acknowledging that they are both important to understanding both the relevance of and responses to climate change. The dominance of the scientific framing of climate change has meant that the scope of adaptation policies has been interpreted quite narrowly (Klein et al., 2007). Increased attention to the human-security framing of climate change may raise the relevance of climate change to broader communities, and create a greater urgency for understanding the complexities of the Earth system (O’Brien, 2006). Thus we can conclude that, although integration is important for meaningful comparisons of vulnerability assessments (Ionescu et al., 2005), it is perhaps more important to recognize the usefulness of approaching vulnerability from different perspectives. Acknowledgements This research was carried out with support from the Norwegian Research Council (Climate change impacts and vulnerability in Norway: A regional assessment) and the World Bank (Economic change and climate vulnerability in southern Africa). The authors would like to thank Nick CLIMATE POLICY 86 O’Brien et al. Brooks, Robin Leichenko and Knut Alfsen for comments on earlier drafts, and Richard Klein, Cezar Ionescu and the FAVAIA research group at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK) for sharing their insights. They are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for substantial comments that contributed to major revisions to an earlier draft. Note 1. Because vulnerability is referred to in several chapters of the TAR, there are multiple and often conflicting definitions (see Brooks et al., 2005). Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 References Acosta-Michlik, L., Rounsevell, M., 2005, ‘From generic indices to adaptive agents: shifting foci in assessing vulnerability to the combined impacts of climate change and globalization’, IHDP Update 01/2005, 14–16. Adger, W.N., 2003, ‘Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change’, Economic Geography 79(4), 387–404. Adger, W.N., 2006, ‘Vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change 16, 268–281. Adger W.N., Paavola J., Mace, M.J., Huq, S. (eds), 2006, Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Adger, W.N., Benjaminsen, T.A., Brown, K., Svarstad, H., 2001, ‘Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses’, Development and Change 32, 681–715. Athanasiou, T., Baer, P., 2002, Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming, Seven Stories Press, New York. Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D. (eds), 2004, Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan, London. Berkhout, F., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2003, ‘Shifting perspectives in environmental social science’, in: F. Berkhout, M. Leach, I. Scoones (eds), Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK pp. 1–31. 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. Brooks, N., 2003, Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework, Working Paper 38, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005, ‘The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation’, Global Environmental Change 15(2), 151–163. Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., Schipper, E.L., 2002, ‘From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy’, Climate Policy 2, 145–159. Cardona, O.D., 2004, ‘The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management’, in: G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, D. Hilhorst (eds), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan, London, 37–51. Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Harasawa, H., Nishioka, S., 1994, IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations, University College, London, and Centre for Global Environmental Research, Tsukuba, Japan. Castree, N., 2001, ‘Socializing nature: theory, practice, and politics’, in: N. Castree, B. Braun (eds), Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1–21. Chambers, R., 1989, ‘Vulnerability, coping and policy’, IDS Bulletin 20, 1–7. Christie, F., Hanlon, J., 2001, Mozambique and the Great Flood of 2000, James Currey, Oxford, UK. Demeritt, D., 2001, ‘The construction of global warming and the politics of science’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2), 307–337. Dow, K., 1992, ‘Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change’, Geoforum 23, 417–436. Downing, T.E., 2003, ‘Lessons from famine early warning systems and food security for understanding adaptation to climate change: toward a vulnerability adaptation science?’ in: J.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein, S. Huq (eds), Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, Imperial College Press, London, 71–100. CLIMATE POLICY Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses 87 Eakin, H., 2003, ‘The social vulnerability of irrigated vegetable farming households in central Puebla’, Journal of Environment and Development 12, 414–429. Eakin, H., Luers, A., 2006, ‘Assessing the vulnerability of social–environmental systems’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, 6.1–6.30. Eriksen, S., Kelly, P.M., 2007, ‘Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment status’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 495–524, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-3460-6. Eriksen, S., Silva, J., 2003, ‘The impact of economic liberalisation on climate vulnerability among farmers in Mozambique’, presentation at the Open Meeting of Human Dimensions Research Community, 16–18 October 2003, Montreal [available at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting]. Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2002, ‘Envisioning shared goals for humanity: a detailed, shared vision of a sustainable and desirable USA in 2100’, Ecological Economics 43, 245–259. Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 FEWS-NET, 2004, Mozambique Monthly Report. Mozambique Food Security Update: Fears of Third Consecutive Drought Year [available at www.fews.net/centers/inner Sections.aspx?f=mz&m=101144&pageID=monthliesDoc]. Forsyth, T., 2003, Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science, Routledge, London. Füssel, H.M., Klein, R.J.T., 2006, ‘Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking’, Climatic Change 75(3), 301–329. GECHS, 1999, Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) Science Plan, IHDP Report 11, Bonn [available at www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/ reports/report11/gehssp.htm]. Hulme, M., Doherty, R., Ngara, T., New, M., Lister, D., 2001, ‘African climate change: 1900–2100’, Climate Research 17, 145–168. Huq, S., Burton, I., 2003, ‘Funding adaptation to climate change: what, who and how to fund’, in: Sustainable Development Opinion, IIED, London. Ionescu, C., Klein, R.J.T., Hinkel, J., Kavi Kumar, R.S., Klein, R., 2005, Towards a Formal Framework of Vulnerability to Climate Change, NeWater Working Paper 2 / FAVAIA Working Paper 1, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany [available at www.usf.uni-osnabrueck.de/projects/newater/downloads/newater_wp02.pdf]. Joubert, A.M., Hewitson, B., 1997, ‘Simulating present and future climates of southern Africa using general circulation models’, Progress in Physical Geography 21, 51–78. Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 2000, ‘Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation’, Climatic Change 47, 325–352. Klein, R.J.T., Eriksen, S.E.H., Næss, L.O., Hammill, A., Tanner, T.M., Robledo, C., O’Brien, K.L., 2007, ‘Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into development assistance’, Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9268-x. Lal, M., Singh, K.K., Rathore, L.S., Srinivasan, G., Saseendran, S.A., 1998, ‘Vulnerability of rice and wheat yields in NW India to future changes in climate’, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 89, 101–114. Leichenko, R.M., O’Brien, K.L., 2008, Double Exposure: Global Environmental Change in an Era of Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, forthcoming. Lempert, R.J., Schlesinger, M.E., Bankes, S.C., Andronova, N.G., 2000, ‘The impacts of climate variability on near- term policy choices and the value of information’, Climatic Change 45, 129–161. Lind, J., Eriksen, S., 2006, ‘The impacts of conflict on household coping strategies: evidence from Turkana and Kitui Districts in Kenya’, Die Erde 137(3). Liverman, D.M., 1994, ‘Vulnerability to global environmental change’, in: S.L. Cutter (ed), Environmental Risks and Hazards, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 326–342. 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. McCarthy, J.J. Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A. Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (eds), 2001, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. MICOA, 2000, Vulnerability of the Economy of Mozambique to Potential Climate Changes, Ministry for Co-ordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo, Mozambique. Mitchell, T.D., Hulme, M., 1999, ‘Predicting regional climate change: living with uncertainty’, Progress in Physical Geography 23, 57–78. Næss, S., 2001, Livskvalitet som psykisk velvære [Quality of Life as Psychological Well-being], Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), Oslo, Norway. Newell, B., Crumley, C.L., Hassan, N., Lambin, E.F., Pahl-Wostl, C., Underdal, A., Wasson, R., 2005, ‘A conceptual template for integrative human–environment research’, Global Environmental Change 15, 299–307. CLIMATE POLICY 88 O’Brien et al. O’Brien, K., 2006, ‘Are we missing the point? Global environmental change as an issue of human security’, Global Environmental Change 16, 1–3. O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Schjolden, A., Nygaard, L., 2004a, ‘What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research’, CICERO Working Paper 2004:04, Oslo, Norway. O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L., West, J., 2004b, ‘Mapping multiple stressors: climate change and economic globalization in India’, Global Environmental Change 14, 303–313. Oliver-Smith, A., 2004, ‘Theorizing vulnerability in a globalized world: a political ecology perspective’, in: G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, D. Hilhorst (eds), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan, London, 10–24. Olsson, P., Folke, C., 2001, ‘Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden’, Ecosystems 4, 85–104. Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 22:35 18 September 2013 Peet, R., Watts, M., 1996, ‘Liberation ecology: development, sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism’, in: R. Peet, M. Watts (eds), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements, Routledge, London, 1–45. Pickett, S.T.A., Burch, Jr., W.R., Grove, J. M., 1999, Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism, Ecosystems 2, 302–307. PRECIS, 2001, The Hadley Centre Regional Climate Modelling System: Providing Regional Climates for Impact Studies, The Hadley Centre, Bracknell, UK [available at www.metoffice.com]. Ribot, J., 1995, ‘The causal structure of vulnerability: its application to climate impact analysis’, GeoJournal 35(2),119–122. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., 2001, ‘Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity’, in: J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, K.S. White (eds), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 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. Sutherland, J., Gouldby, B., 2003, ‘Vulnerability of coastal defences to climate change’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water and Maritime Engineering 156, 137–145. Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A., 2003, ‘A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100, 8074–8079. Tyson, P., Odada, E., Schulze, R., Vogel, C., 2002, ‘Regional–global change linkages: Southern Africa’, in: P. Tyson, R. Fuchs, C. Fu, L. Lebel, A.P. Mitra, E. Odada, J. Perry, W. Steffen, H. Virji (eds), Global–Regional Linkages in the Earth System, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 3–73. UNFCCC, 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [available at www.unfccc.de]. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, London. Yohe, G., Schlesinger, M., 2002, ‘The economic geography of the impacts of climate change’, Journal of Economic Geography 2, 311–341. CLIMATE POLICY