IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 2Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerabilityon the cultural and social context (Slovic, 2000; Oppenheimer andTodorov, 2006; Schneider et al., 2007).Research findings emphasize the importance of considering the role –and cultures – of religion and faith in the context of disaster. Thisincludes the role of faith in the recovery process following a disaster(e.g., Davis and Wall, 1992; Massey and Sutton, 2007); religiousexplanations of nature (e.g., Orr, 2003; Peterson, 2005); the role ofreligion in influencing positions on environment and climate changepolicy (e.g., Kintisch, 2006; Hulme, 2009); and religion and vulnerability(Guth et al., 1995; Chester, 2005; Elliott et al., 2006; Schipper, 2010).The cultural dimension also includes the potential vulnerability ofaboriginal and native peoples in the context of climate extremes.Globally, indigenous populations are frequently dependent on primaryproduction and the natural resource base while being subject to(relatively) poor socioeconomic conditions (including poor health, highunemployment, low levels of education, and greater poverty). Thisapplies to groups from Canada (Turner and Clifton, 2009), to Australia(Campbell et al., 2008), to the Pacific (Mimura et al., 2007). Small islandstates, often with distinct cultures, typically show high vulnerability andlow adaptive capacity to climate change (Nurse and Sem, 2001).However, historically, indigenous groups have had to contend with manyhazards and, as a consequence, have developed capacities to cope(Campbell, 2006) such as the use of traditional knowledge systems,locally appropriate building construction with indigenous materials, anda range of other customary practices (Campbell, 2006).Given the degree of cultural diversity identified, the importance ofunderstanding differential risk perceptions in a cultural context isreinforced (Marris et al., 1998). Cultural Theory has contributed to anunderstanding of how people interpret their world and define riskaccording to their worldviews: hierarchical, fatalistic, individualistic,and egalitarian (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982). Too often policies andstudies focus on ‘the public’ in the aggregate and too little on the needs,interests, and attitudes of different social and cultural groups (see alsoSections 2.5.2.1.2 and 2.5.4).2.5.2.5. Institutional and Governance DimensionsThe institutional dimension is a key determinant of vulnerability toextreme events (Adger, 1999). Institutions have been defined in a broadsense to include “habitualized behavior and rules and norms that governsociety” (Adger, 2000) and not just the more typically understoodformal institutions. This view allows for a discussion of institutionalstructures such as property rights and land tenure issues (Toni andHolanda, 2008) that govern natural resource use and management. Itforms a bridge between the social and the environmental/ecologicaldimensions and can induce sustainable or unsustainable exploitation(Adger, 2000). Expanding the institutional domain to include politicaleconomy (Adger, 1999) and different modes of production – feudal,capitalist, socialist (Wisner, 1978) – raises questions about thevulnerability of institutions and the vulnerability caused by institutions(including government). Institutional factors play a critical role inadaptation (Adger, 2000) as they influence the social distribution ofvulnerability and shape adaptation capacity (Næss et al., 2005).This broader understanding of the institutional dimension also takes usinto a recognition of the role of social networks, community bonds andorganizing structures, and processes that can buffer the impacts ofextreme events (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004) partly through increasingsocial cohesion but also recognizing ambiguous or negative forms(UNISDR, 2004). For example, social capital/assets (Portes, 1998;Putnam, 2000) – “the norms and networks that enable people to actcollectively” (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000) – have a role in vulnerabilityreduction (Pelling, 1998). Social capital (or its lack) is both a cause andeffect of vulnerability and thus can result in either positive benefit ornegative impact; to be a part of a social group and accrue social assetsis often to indicate others’ exclusion. It also includes attempts toreframe climate debates by acknowledging the possibility of diverseimpacts on human security, which opens up human rights discoursesand rights-based approaches to disaster risk reduction (Kuwali, 2008;Mearns and Norton, 2010).The institutional dimension includes the relationship between policysetting and policy implementation in risk and disaster management. Topdownapproaches assume policies are directly translated into action onthe ground; bottom-up approaches recognize the importance of otheractors in shaping policy implementation (Urwin and Jordan, 2008). Twigg’scategorization of the characteristics of the ideal disaster resilientcommunity (Twigg, 2007) adopts the latter approach. This guidelinedocument, which has been field tested by NGOs, identifies the importantrelations between the community and the enabling environment ofgovernance at various scales in creating resilience, and by inference,reducing vulnerability. This set of 167 characteristics (organized under fivethematic areas) also refers to institutional forms for (and processes of)engagement with risk assessment, risk management, and hazard andvulnerability mapping. These have been championed by institutionsworking across scales to create the Hyogo Framework for Action (UNISDR,2007a) and associated tools (Davis et al., 2004; UNISDR, 2007b) withthe goal to reduce disaster risk and vulnerability. However, linkagesacross scales and the inclusion of local knowledge systems are still notintegrated well in formal institutions (Næss et al., 2005).A lack of institutional interaction and integration between disaster riskreduction, climate change, and development may mean policy responsesare redundant or conflicting (Schipper and Pelling, 2006; Mitchell andvan Aalst, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010). Thus, the institutional modeloperational in a given place and time (more or less participatory,deliberative, and democratic; integrated; or disjointed) could be animportant factor in either vulnerability creation or reduction (Comfort etal., 1999). Furthermore, risk-specific policies must also be integrated(see the slippage between UK heat and cold wave policies, Wolf et al.,2010a). However, further study of the role of institutions in influencingvulnerability is called for (O’Brien et al., 2004b).85