AN INFORMATION BUllHIN ON GlOBAl fNVIRONMfNTAl CHANG AND HUMAN SfCURITY

ISSUf NO. 13

March 2004

Vulnerability and Global

fnvironmental Change:
Rhetoric and Reality
Global environmental change includes transformations of both societal and biophysical systems as the
result of human activities. The human consequences
of environmental change are products of the vulnerability and sensitivity of social and environmental
systems. Improved scientific understanding of
vulnerability in all its dimensions is necessary if we
are to find appropriate ways to reduce heightened
vulnerability, and also to improve understanding of
how enhanced vulnerabilities may act as triggers to
complex environmental feedbacks in the earth system.
In this AVISO issue, we establish the policy context
by exploring some of the current use and wider
discourse around vulnerability from scientific and
user-community perspectives. We also explore the
linkages between vulnerability and human security.
We conclude with recommendations on how to
use vulnerability as a means of improving human
capacity to manage risks of environmental change.
The term "vulnerability" appears with increasing
frequency in the global environmental change literature as well as in discussions of human development,
food security, and natural hazards. Nevertheless, the
concept is somewhat fuzzy and often difficult to use
effectively in science and wider policy1 contexts.
Coupled to the scientific debate surrounding the
definition and use of vulnerability are similar
1

"capturing the differen Jial elements

of vulnerability is a prerequisite for
the formulation and implementation
of policies that will promote equitable
and sustainable development"
discussions, for example, related to such concepts as
resilience and adaptive capacity to environmental
change. Although the relationships between
resilience, adaptive capacity and vulnerability are
still being explored, some would argue that resilience
increases the capacity to cope with stress and hence
serves as a loose antonym for vulnerability. Others
argue that human security represents the opposite of
vulnerability. Despite the apparent lack of clarity of
which term is the best to use, there is widespread
acknowledgement that vulnerability is central to
discussions of sustainable development and a critical
issue for a variety of stakeholders.

The Contextual and Dynamic Nature

of Vulnerability
Vulnerability is not a new concept or paradigm;
it has been part of scholarly and policy discussions
for several decades. What is new, however, is the
expanded use to which the concept has been applied
by disaster managers, development practitioners, and
global change scientists, among others.
Most definitions of vulnerability include the idea of
potential damage or adverse outcomes in relation to
an external stress, a process, or an event. The stress,

Policy is used here in a broad context including not only 'government' but also wider civil society, NGOs. and
others that constitute the broader policy community.

2
process, or event is usually referred to as an external
agent, and it varies according to the context of the
study or assessment (e.g., climate change, land
degradation, or pollution).
Although vulnerability is sometimes discussed in the
abstract, it is usually associated with one or more
processes, explicitly answering the question
"vulnerable to what?" Blaikie et al. (1994, p. 9), for
example, 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. "
Vulnerability is not, however, a predetermined state,
but instead is usually socially constructed, contextual, dynamic and driven by various causal agents
and processes. Changing social and environmental
conditions such as urbanization and deforestation,
for example, can influence vulnerability. Vulnerability
is also often the result of interacting stresses and
pressures that vary across regions. The spread of
HIV I AIDS, for example, is increasing potential
vulnerability to global environmental change in subSaharan Africa by impacting the local labor force and
reducing local adaptive capacities. The consequences
of these multiple stressors were visible in the 2002/
2003 'famine' in southern Africa and are currently
being unveiled by severe drought in parts of the
region.
Vulnerability is a relative term, and within any
society, wealthy or poor, some members are likely to
be more vulnerable than others. Although a community may face the same risk, all members will not be
equally vulnerable. Despite the obvious linkages of
vulnerability to climate variability, the allocation of
risk and differential vulnerabilities to global environmental change is also structurally determined, with
vulnerability often being unevenly distributed across
society. Furthermore, the meaning and interpretation
of vulnerability differs across societies and contexts,
depending on particular values. For example,
vulnerability to climate variability may be expressed
in terms of insurance payments and infrastructure
losses in a wealthy coastal resort or in terms of lives
lost and hunger in a densely populated housing
development located in a flood zone. Although
contexts are different, vulnerability remains a concern
in both cases. Therefore, capturing the differential
elements of vulnerability is a prerequisite for the
formula tion and implementation of policies that will
promote equitable and sustainable development.

Moving from lmpad to Vulnerability Assessments

Effective response to vulnerability will require multifaceted strategies. Traditionally, impact assessments
have been used to gain some indication of responses
to risk. Such assessments have usually focused on
downstream impacts, which may include both
biophysical and socio-economic elements. Impact
assessments are used to document potential
consequences of environmental change, and are
exemplified by various national and international
assessments, including those carried out by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A particular event (e.g., drought) or human action
(e.g., construction of a large reservoir), for example,
is selected for assessment and the residual impacts
that result from the action or event are then tracked,
either from an ecosystem or social perspective
(see Figure la) .

figure 1: from impact assessments (a) to vulnerability

assessments (b).
a) Impact Assessments
Climate event
External
Stress

Exposure Unit

Critical Outcomes
and Downstream Impacts

b) Vulnerability Assessments
Climate event
External
Stress

Exposure Unit
Unit at risk to number
of adverse outcomes

Multiple Causes
Internal Stress

Compound
event impacts

3
Vulnerability assessments (see Figure lb ), however, turn
this approach around and concentrate on the factors
(both environmental and human) that, together or
separately, drive and shape the vulnerability of
the receptor (e.g., a community or a landscape).
The potential risks for either the social group or
ecosystem are then assessed in the face of a variety
of stress events, and in light of the ability of the
receiving ecosystem or social group to respond
(i.e., the internal coping dimension). The combined
causal factors that contribute to an exposure unit's
coping capacity thus become as important as, if not
more important than, the external environmental
stress contributing to risk.

narratives developed alongside these practical

assessments have influenced funding and development agencies and politicians, such as Britain's
Department for International Development (DFID) or
the World Bank. Three common approaches to
vulnerability assessments are described below:

The indicator approach:

The point of departure for these vulnerability assessments is a specific set or combination of indicators
used to measure vulnerability, such as x, y, z.
Indicator approaches can be used at virtually any
scale (e.g., household, system, state), but they are often
unable to capture the complex temporal and spatial
dynamics, as described earlier. Examples of this
approach include Ramachandran's and Eastman's
mapping of West African food security indicators,
and Lonergan et al.'s Index of Human Insecurity (IHI)
that assists policy and aids decision-makers in
development efforts to identify vulnerable or insecure
regions. A mapping of the vulnerability of Indian
agriculture to climate change includes both indicators
of climate sensitivity (dryness and monsoon
dependency under projected 2xC02 conditions) and
adaptive capacity (biophysical, socioeconomic and
technological factors). The resulting vulnerability
map (see Figure 2) demonstrates that the districts
most likely to be affected by climate change are not
necessarily the most vulnerable.

The example of drought can be used to illustrate

the difference between impact assessments and
vulnerability assessments. On the one hand, drought
in a region is usually driven by rainfall failure and
higher than average temperatures associated with
changes in atmospheric dynamics. An impact
assessment, using climate variability as cause,
usually then focuses on the consequences of this
drought for various sectors, most notably crop
production and agricultural income. On the other
hand, the region's vulnerability to drought may be
influenced by years of environmental degradation,
past or present economic policies (e.g., structural
adjustments), and erosion of social capital and
intricate support mechanisms over time. In some
areas, conflict and war may further
compound vulnerability to drought.
Box 1: Some 'triggers' or factors enhanCing vulnerability to famine in
The exposure unit (e.g., ecosystem
and / or social group) thus is
southern Africa and some mit1gahon and adaptation options.
weakened by a set of drivers or causal
mechanisms that together with the
Triggers
Long-term Mitigation
climate.hazard contributes to the
and
Adaptation
vulnerability of that community.
Box 1 shows an example of triggers
Drought driven by El Nino Effective use and distribution of
heightening vulnerability in a
seasonal forecasts
famine-prone region in southern
Rainfall failure
Rain water harvesting
Africa, with some policy options to
promote mitigation and adaptation.
Insidious drivers
Notwithstanding the difficulties in
Governance failure
Effective institutional co-ordination
capturing the dynamics, complexity,
(e.g., Departments of Welfare,
and scale of vulnerability, a number
Agriculture,
Water).
of approaches and methods exist for
Prevailing poverty
assessing vulnerability. These have
Social programs for support to child
been proposed and undertaken by
headed households, enabling
a wide variety of practitioners,
environment for diversification of
including disaster managers and
livelihood strategies.
humanitarian workers. Academic

4
figure 2: Vulnerability of Indian agriculture to climate change

Household and detailed food economy approaches:

These vulnerability assessments usually try to
identify numbers and locations of people who
are vulnerable to food insecurity and famine,
classifying them as slightly, moderately,
highly or extremely vulnerable. Household
assets, including income, are typically used as
the framework for vulnerability analysis.
Households are divided into socio-economic
groups and data are sought on demography,
agricultural production, remotely sensed data,
rainfall and market data and other assets.
These data are often combined with anecdotal
data (obtained from focal group discussions
or participatory research) to draw information
on current levels of vulnerability in the various groups relative to a baseline vulnerability.
Examples of this approach include RiskMap
as used by Save the Children Fund, and
Vulnerability Assessment Mapping (VAM)
and recent Vulnerability Assessment
Committees (VAC) .

Despite these differences in approaches and

usage of nomenclatures, and their different
policy implications, there are three defining
features of vulnerability. First, vulnerability is
j'i
inherently a differential concept because risks or
changes and abilities to cope vary across
Source: O'Brien et al. 2004
physical space and among and within social
groups. Although a region may not be
considered vulnerable to environmental change, there
Sustainable livelihoods framework:
are likely to be households or groups within that
This framework looks at both hazards (e.g., droughts
region that are indeed vulnerable. Second, vulnerand floods) and the myriad of other 'drivers' that may
ability is scale-dependent, both across time and space.
enhance or reduce vulnerability. The sustainable
That is, it varies depending on the unit of analysis,
livelihoods framework usually links together a
from 'individual' or 'household' to 'class,' 'region,' or
stressor on the one hand (e.g., a shock such as
'system.' Third, vulnerability is dynamic, in that the
drought) to a range of other factors (e.g., institutions)
characteristics that shape vulnerability change over
and is used to examine how these factors impact on
time, in response to changing biophysical and sociovulnerability. The inter-connections and interplay of
economic conditions. Effectively capturing these
these factors are usually tracked with reference to
various features of vulnerability remains a critical
their impact on various capitals (e.g., social and
area of investigation both for scientists and for endphysical capital). This approach is people-centered
users of the science (e.g., humanitarian agencies,
and tries to examine how people operate within a
disaster practitioners). Having considered the
vulnerability context (e.g., within certain constraining
various approaches and methods to measure vulnerand enabling environments including economic
ability, the policy relevant issues are discussed below.
shocks and other longer term trends). How people
construct a livelihood in these contexts is therefore
Vulnerability Contributions to Policy hgendas
determined by their ability to draw on various assets
they may have within a vulnerability context, framed
Vulnerability, then, is sensitive to external and
by a range of institutions and processes.
internal factors (see Figure 3) that vary across time,

5
either seasonally (e.g., for farmers), instantly (e.g.,
with a rapid onset 'disaster' such as a volcanic
eruption) and/ or progressively (e.g., associated
with past and present development issues such as
structural adjustment, globalization, HIV). Usually it
is the underlying, longer-term factors coupled to
development and other socio-economic variables that
contribute to vulnerability.
The various practitioners and scientists engaged
in global change research come from different
disciplines, bringing with them the nuances and
approaches associated with their respective fields.
Consequently, there has been much debate aimed at
clarifying what users mean by 'vulnerability' and,
more importantly, 'resilience' and/ or 'adaptive
capacity.' Within human dimensions research in
particular, vulnerability has been discussed in
relation to poverty, risk, coping capacity, adaptability,
assets and entitlements, and other features or
characteristics of human society.
These differences in perspectives have different
policy implications. For example, some assessments

figure 3: lhe double structure of vulnerability

Crisis and Conflict Theory

Coping

Source: adapted from Bohle, 2001

Box 2: Differences between coping and adaptation.

Coping versus Adapting
Coping capacity and adaptive capacity are similar in that they both represent the internal side of
vulnerability. They differ, however, in temporal scale and scope. Coping usually refers to short-term
responses to a hazard or stress, whereas adaptation implies a longer-term process whereby an array of
measures have been adopted to reduce sensitivity and vulnerability to a hazard or stress. Indeed, for
many (e.g., the rural poor living on the margins, the urban poor living in hazardous areas, those
suffering from severe malnutrition and hunger, those living in areas torn by conflict, and those at risk of
HIV I AIDS), shorter-term coping with global environmental change may become increasingly difficult as
social networks and strategies that were used in the past gradually become eroded.
Adaptive capacity often involves structural changes, and is mediated and shaped by a host of factors,
including formal and informal institutions at the household to national to global scale. The notion of
adaptive capacity has also received attention in the management of complex, biophysical environments
where it reflects the degree to which a landscape or ecosystem can be effectively managed to 'positively'
respond to an external stress. In other words, adaptive capacity refers to the resilience of the socioecological landscape.
Building adaptive capacity and mitigation also involves considerations of capacities across a range of
scales. Thus the use of the word in 'Kyoto Protocol' language may imply different interventions and
mitigation strategies to those who use the word 'adaptive capacity' and 'mitigation' at a very local level.
Discussion of adaptive carbon emissions strategies may thus be used with a more 'global' perspective in
mind, whereas for those working for a humanitarian organization, the use of the word adaptive capacity
may mean improving local livelihoods through improved HIV advocacy and treatment campaigns.
There is thus a need, particularly for policy makers and a variety of stakeholders, to be clear about their
use of the words 'vulnerability' and 'resilience,' as well as the contexts in which these words and
associated interventions are used.

6
that use a vulnerability perspective focus on
exposure to a stress or event and emphasize the
element of 'risk:' that is, vulnerable areas or groups
are predisposed to risk, broadly defined as 'the
chance of a defined hazard occurring.' In the
simplest terms, vulnerability is thus considered equal
to the risk (potential loss) in relation to the hazard
(e.g., drought or flood). A policy instrument that
builds on this understanding of vulnerability thus
might target high-risk regions or groups, with the
objective of minimizing the risk or hazard, or the
consequential impacts. Other assessments of
vulnerability include not only exposure to a risk or
hazard, but also to the capacity to cope or adapt to it
(see Box 2).

insights from vulnerability analyses into policy and

practice remains a challenge, and there remains a
lack of correspondence between vulnerability theory
and action. This gap is illustrated by the recurrent
food shortages and potential famines in southern
Africa, an area where vulnerability assessments are
often undertaken (e.g., by Save the Children Fund,
OXFAM, CARE, regional VAC). Because these are
not mainstreamed into wider development planning
the efforts, however, and results are often sporadic
and usually short-lived . The weak links between
analyses and decision-making suggest that the
institutional context for reducing vulnerability is
underdeveloped, and that the current notions of
vulnerability are too narrow and lack the ability to
capture the dynamism in a system.

Abilities to cope and adapt are, moreover, influenced

by various institutional dimensions or 'institutional
With all the renewed activity and interest surroundarchitecture' that in turn will determine how a group
ing vulnerability science, one would expect
or ecosystem can respond to change. From this
'vulnerabilities' to decrease, while appropriate
perspective, a vulnerability assessment would not
interventions to 'build adaptive capacity' would be
only focus on the exposure and sensitivity to a risk or
expected to increase. This, however, does not seem to
hazard, but it would also integrate approaches from
be the case in many regions. In fact, the incongruity
various social science disciplines to explain other
between theory and action elicits the following
factors determining adaptive capacity.
Often a country, for example, has a
disaster management strategy in place.
Box 3: Vulnerability-Human Security Relationships
However, due to lack of careful thought
Vulnerability approaches can be used to assess the seven
around the institutional co-ordination
categories of threats that fall under human security. Within the
between departments and implementacontext of each category, any assessment must consider the
tion, a 'crisis' management response
question, "vulnerable to what?"
to issues associated with global
Economic security (assured basic income)- vulnerability to
environmental change prevails. Policy
global economic changes
can therefore add to the complexity of
the system / societal response to change
Food security (physical, economic and social access to food)
and, depending on the type of measures
-vulnerability to extreme events, agricultural changes, etc.
and / or policies introduced, can
Health security (relative freedom from disease and infection)
ultimately limit or enhance exposure,
- vulnerability to disease
sensitivity and risk to global
environmental change.
Environmental security (access to sanitary water supply,
Vulnerability is therefore directly
relevant and applicable to a number of
policy issues concerning human
security and development. It can be
used to identify regions and assess
groups at risk from the seven categories
of threats that fall under human
security (see Box 3). It can also be
useful for identifying "hot spots" and
assisting in development planning,
food relief efforts, and climate adaptation strategies. Yet incorporating

clean air and a non-degraded land system) - vulnerability to

pollution and land degradation
Personal security (security from physical violence and
threats)- vulnerability to conflicts, natural hazards,
creeping 'disasters' (e.g., HIV I AIDS)
Community security (security of cultural integrity)vulnerability to cultural globalization
Political security (protection of basic human rights and
freedoms)- vulnerability to conflicts and warfare

7
questions for both scientists and policy makers to
consider:
How can vulnerability science contribute to a better
understanding of complex daily realities?
Do vulnerability assessments need to pay greater
attention to the institutional context within which
decisions are made (e.g., issues of social justice) to
provide policy-makers with a more realistic range
of options for reducing vulnerability?
Do current conceptualizations of vulnerability
contribute to 'meaningful' enhanced human
security, or are they merely a way of categorizing
and differentiating the winners and losers under
global change?
At the same time as the scientific community moves
towards more dynamic, contextual, and complex
analyses, the practitioner community requires quick
and effective actions that can reduce vulnerability.
In order to make a difference, scientists should be able
to, at the end of the day, say something more than
"it is very complex." Critical aspects of vulnerability
should be identified. While general prescriptions
such as reducing poverty may serve as a way to
reduce vulnerability, concrete actions should also be
identified. Given the growing interest and attention
to the concept of vulnerability, it is perhaps timely to
address the gap between theory and action.

hdvancing the Policy-Relevance of Vulnerability Studies

As is evident from some of the cases and activities
cited above, vulnerability and resilience in global
environmental change research have become
important locus points in the science of global
change. Some suggest that these are just more 'sexy
topics' currently used to garner research funds.
Notwithstanding these critiques, there remains an
urgent need to synthesize and conduct assessments
that will be of use to those trying to live with the
various attendant risks that will accompany environmental change. As indicated here much has been
done, and much valuable discussion has occurred.
Despite these activities, several regions in the world,
where this science could be more effectively used, are
currently at risk and are likely to become more at risk
to global change in the future .
To make vulnerability more useful to policy and
decision makers, there is a need to extend analyses to
cover more sectors and facets of vulnerability, including urban vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities to changing
water supply, and vulnerabilities to infectious

diseases. There is also a need to explore the linkages

between causal agents, structures, and institutions
that may enhance or constrain vulnerability, as well
as to find the most effective mix of 'scales' at which
to intervene. A balanced vulnerability agenda
emphasizes the need to address underlying social,
economic, and environmental issues, which heighten
human vulnerabilities in developing and developed,
urban and rural contexts. The need for more effective
collaboration between scientists, policy makers, and
development practitioners is no longer an indulgent
academic luxury but a pressing imperative.

Useful References and Web Sites:

Adger, N., and N. Kelly (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate
Change and the Architecture of Entitlements. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4: 253-266.
Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner (1994). At Risk:
Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. London:
Routledge.
Bohle, H. (2001). Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives
from Social Geography, IHDP Update, 2, 2001.
Chambers, R. (1989). Vulnerability, Coping and Policy, IDS
Bulletin (Vulnerability: How the Poor Cope), 20(2): 1-7.
ISDR (2002). Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster
Reduction Initiatives, International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction. Geneva.
Lonergan, S., K. Gustavson, and B. Carter (2000). The Index
of Human Insecurity. AVISO 6: 1-11. Available online:
www.gechs.org/aviso.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2003). Ecosystems

and Human Well-being, A Framework for Assessment.
Washington: Island Press.
O'Brien, K., R. Leichenko, U. Kelkar, H . Venema, G. Aandahl,
H. Tompkins, A. Javed, S. Bhadwal, S. Barg, L. Nygaard, and
J. West (2004). "Mapping Multiple Stressors: Climate Change
and Economic Globalization in India." Forthcoming in Global
Environmental Change 14(4).
Ostrom, E. (2001). Vulnerability and Polycentric Governance
Systems, IHDP Update, 3, 2001: 1-3.
Ramachandran, M., and R. Eastman (1997). Applications of
GIS to Vulnerability Mapping: A West African Food Security
Case Study. Applications of Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) Technology in Environmental Risk Assessment and

Management. UNEP and the Clark Labs for Cartographic
Technology and Geographic Analysis.
www.livelihoods.org
www.sadc-fanr.org.zw/vac
www.wfp.org

Coleen Vogel and Karen O'Brien

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

AVISO is a publication of the GECHS project.

Previous issues are available on the GECHS
website or from the project office.

The GECHS project involves activities including research projects, workshops, training
activities, publications and policy briefings.

GECHS

Interested individuals should contact the

project office for further information.

The Global Environmental Change and

Human Security (GECHS) project is a core
project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental
Change (IHDP). The main goal of the GECHS
project is to advance interdisciplinary,
international research and policy efforts in
the area of human security and environmental change. The GECHS project promotes
collaborative and participatory research, and
encourages new methodological approaches.

GECHS International Project Office

Dept. of Geography and Environmental
Studies
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive .
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6

phone: +01-613-520-2600 ext.1984

fax : +01-613-520-4301
email: [email protected] http: / / www.gechs.org

Opinions expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not reflect an official position of
the IHDP, the U.S . Agency for International Development, the University ofMichigan, The Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) or Procter and Gamble

This publication is supported by:

U.S. Agency for International Development
Office of Population and Reproductive Health
through a cooperative agreement with the
University of Michigan Population Fellows Program
The Woodrow Wilson Center
Environmental Change and Security Project

preparedfor the
Global Environmental Change and
Human Security Project
by
Coleen Vogel
University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
and
Karen O'Brien
Center for International Climate and
Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway
Advisory Board for Aviso
Mike Brklacich - Chair

IDRC

~~

Ca rleton University

International Development Research Centre

Steve Lonergan

University of Victoria
Geoffrey D. Dabelko

Woodrow Wilson Center

P&{j-

Procter and Gamble

Richard Matthew

Un iversity of California, Irvine

Chris Cocklin

Monash Uni versity

Support by the University of Victoria and

Carleton University is gratefully acknowledged

Gisele Morin-Labatut

International Development Research Centre

May Chazan - Managing Editor