Vulnerable research: Reflexivity, decolonisation, and climate politics

This paper discusses the role and relevance of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) and the new scenarios that combine SSPs with representative concentration pathways (RCPs) for climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IAV) research. It first provides an overview of uses of social–environmental scenarios in IAV studies and identifies the main shortcomings of earlier such scenarios. Second, the paper elaborates on two aspects of the SSPs and new scenarios that would improve their usefulness for IAV studies compared to earlier scenario sets: (i) enhancing their applicability while retaining coherence across spatial scales, and (ii) adding indicators of importance for projecting vulnerability. The paper therefore presents an agenda for future research, recommending that SSPs incorporate not only the standard variables of population and gross domestic product, but also indicators such as income distribution, spatial population, human health and governance.

The concept of vulnerability is well established in the climate change literature, underpinning significant research effort. The ability of vulnerability research to capture the complexities of climate-society dynamics has been increasingly questioned, however. In this paper, we identify, characterize, and evaluate concerns over the use of vulnerability approaches in the climate change field based on a review of peer-reviewed articles published since 1990 (n = 587). Seven concerns are identified: neglect of social drivers, promotion of a static understanding of human-environment interactions, vagueness about the concept of vulnerability, neglect of cross-scale interactions, passive and negative framing, limited influence on decision-making, and limited collaboration across disciplines. Examining each concern against trends in the literature, we find some of these concerns weakly justified, but others pose valid challenges to vulnerability research. Efforts to revitalize vulnerability research are needed, with priority areas including developing the next generation of empirical studies, catalyzing collaboration across disciplines to leverage and build on the strengths of divergent intellectual traditions involved in vulnerability research, and linking research to the practical realities of decision-making.

Beside sustainable development, vulnerability might be the most frequently used expression in environmental studies. Vulnerability depends on the intensity of the impacts on a natural or social system as well as on its adaptive capacity. Appropriate adaptation warrants successful survival of the system even under high impact, when its vulnerability is significantly reduced; therefore, measuring adaptive capacity should have an established place in the methodology of impact – adaptation – vulnerability research. The main problem is to find relevant data that are required to establish indicators. In our study, the focus was laid on measuring adaptive capacity within vulnerability research, and on identifying possibilities for accurate calculation of adaptation. An attempt was made to determine the adaptive capacity to droughts in the micro-regions of Zala County. It could be established that the adaptive capacity of the population in the rural areas of Zala County to the expected increase in drought frequency is very low, which can be primarily explained by the lack of knowledge about adaptive agriculture.

Assessing vulnerability is an important component of human dimensions of climate change (HDCC) research. Vulnerability assessments identify and characterize who and what are sensitive to climatic risks and why, characterize adaptive capacity and its determinants, and identify opportunities for adaptation. This paper examines the importance of case study and analogue methodologies in vulnerability research, reviews the historical evolution of the two methodologies in the HDCC field, and identifies ways in which they can be used to increase our understanding of vulnerability. Case studies involve in‐depth place‐based research that focuses on a particular exposure unit (e.g., community, industry, etc.) to characterize vulnerability and its determinants. Temporal analogues use past and present experiences and responses to climatic variability, change and extremes to provide insights for vulnerability to climate change; spatial analogues involve conducting research in one region and identifying parallels to how another region might be affected by climate change. Vulnerability research that uses case studies and analogues can help to develop an understanding of the determinants of vulnerability and how they interact, and identify opportunities to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity to current and future climate risks. This information can assist policy makers in developing adaptation plans and to mainstream climate change adaptation into other policy‐ and decision‐making processes. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.This article is categorized under:Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

This study systematically identifies, characterizes, and critically evaluates community-level climate change vulnerability assessments published over the last 25 years (n = 274). We find that while the field has advanced considerably in terms of conceptual framing and methodological approaches, key shortcomings remain in how vulnerability is being studied at the community-level. We argue that vulnerability research needs to more critically engage with the following: methods for evaluating future vulnerability, the relevance of vulnerability research for decision-making, interdependencies between social and ecological systems, attention to researcher / subject power dynamics, critical interpretation of key terms, and consideration of the potentially positive opportunities presented by a changing climate. Addressing these research needs is necessary for generating knowledge that supports climate-affected communities in navigating the challenges and opportunities ahead.

As the international community increases investment in agricultural adaptation to climate change in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is increasing demand to extract generalized knowledge claims about vulnerability from individual studies. If synthesis is to successfully produce sound generalized knowledge claims, relevant evidence must be possible to find and interpret. The format through which research in this field is now normally reported does not adequately support finding relevant evidence nor its interpretation. This opinion piece outlines and assesses three possible pathways for changing reporting practices in vulnerability research – standardization of methods, reporting checklists, and modularised reporting – in order to support the identification and synthesis of evidence. Rather than resolving these issues, this piece intends to open up the conversation about them.

Drug use research that involves transnational populations in their worksite nations and in their countries of origin requires special consideration for human subjects. These populations are exposed to similar, if not greater, research related risks than other vulnerable research subjects. If they are to be protected adequately, Internal Review Boards (IRBs) need to become familiar with transnational populations and the possible risks that their members face when participating in research that targets their drug use behaviors and practices. Addressed in this article are a number of challenges that IRBs in United States universities and research institutes encounter in assuring protections against possible research risks. Specific areas of concern are: the dearth of binational IRB reviews, IRB inexperience with transnational populations, mandatory written consent, limited research ethics training for researchers, the absence of a vulnerable population research advisory board, and the need for measures in case of a breach of confidentiality. The discourse of each one of these problem areas includes a recommendation for rectifying it. The article ends with five suggested measures that IRBs should consider in protecting transnational migrants from research related risks in the United States and in their homeland. The discussion of human subject problems and of the measures introduced to alleviate them are based on the author's experiences with preparing human subjects protocols for his ethnographic substance abuse research in both the United States and Mexico.

Climate change is increasingly recognized as having national security implications, which has prompted dialogue between the climate change and national security communities—with resultant advantages and differences. Climate change research has proven useful to the national security community sponsors in several ways. It has opened security discussions to consider climate as well as political factors in studies of the future. It has encouraged factoring in the stresses placed on societies by climate changes (of any kind) to help assess the potential for state stability. And it has shown that changes such as increased heat, more intense storms, longer periods without rain, and earlier spring onset call for building climate resilience as part of building stability. For the climate change research community, studies from a national security point of view have revealed research lacunae, such as the lack of usable migration studies. This has also pushed the research community to consider second- and third-order impacts of climate change, such as migration and state stability, which broadens discussion of future impacts beyond temperature increases, severe storms, and sea level rise and affirms the importance of governance in responding to these changes. The increasing emphasis in climate change science toward research in vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation also frames what the intelligence and defense communities need to know, including where there are dependencies and weaknesses that may allow climate change impacts to result in security threats and where social and economic interventions can prevent climate change impacts and other stressors from resulting in social and political instability or collapse.

Medical research involving human subjects can enhance the well-being of individual patients and provide enormous social benefits. It enables the acquisition of new scientific knowledge and the development of novel therapeutic and diagnostic procedures but also raises significant ethical and legal issues. This kind of medical research is controversial and implies a clash of values that are not always easy to balance. Particularly contentious is research on subjects who are incapable of giving consent or are in a position of subordination and more susceptible to manipulation and mistreatment. Such subjects are considered vulnerable and under special protection. The paper deals with the legal framework of medical research on vulnerable subjects in Bosnia and Herzegovina (its entities: the Republic of Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). In the first part of the paper, the notion and basic forms of medical research will be explored, as well as the concept of vulnerability. Reference will be made to relevant international documents defining the standards of medical research on vulnerable subjects. The paper will also provide a comparative overview of provisions governing vulnerable subjects research adopted in different national legislations. In the second part of the paper, the legal framework of medical research on vulnerable subjects in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be analyzed, and suggestions for possible changes will be made.

Vulnerability assessment studies on climate change are a substantial tool for the implementation of adaptation strategies that allow us to know what threats systems and their components (species, natural resources, populations, territories, among others) do face on climate change conditions, what actions are caused by them that increase their own vulnerability, and what strategies are implemented to reduce this vulnerability. The popularity of this research at the international level has caused different discussions about methods, components, and variables. How does the vulnerability to climate change have been assessed in Mexico? The objective of this article is to present a review of vulnerability assessment studies on climate change in Mexico, paying particular attention to study subjects, concepts, components, methodologies, tools, and applications. The method consisted of a systematic search and review of articles published on international databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scielo). A total of 57 articles were reviewed. The results identify knowledge gaps in research of vulnerability on climate change in Mexico. The conclusions can be used as a guide to understand the theoretical-conceptual framework of vulnerability and to conduct future research on subjects and areas which are less studied in Mexico

Thailand has a long coastline that is exposed to the impacts of climate change. The country ranks sixth in terms of the severity of projected effects of climate change due to sea level rise. The diversity of its regions is the most pronounced attribute of Thailand’s physical setting, with the mountainous region located in northern Thailand. With 25 major river basins and agriculture as a gross national product, Thailand is the world’s largest exporter of rice, and is often called “the rice bowl of Asia.” Agriculture employs 49% of the population and contributes 10% of GDP. The focus of research in vulnerability and adaptation in Thailand is to enable the integration of climate change adaptation into national development policies and planning. The Ban Klong Sai Village of Maharaj City located in the Ayutthaya Province is proposed as a local level pilot for flood adaptation. The aim is to monitor the sustainability of integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change with respect to community livelihood, good governance, and other aspects.KeywordsClimate change adaptationAgricultureVulnerabilityDisaster risksThailand

Humanity has long sought to explain and understand why environmental processes and phenomena contribute to and interfere with development processes, frequently through the terms and concepts of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’. Many proven ideas and approaches from development and disaster risk reduction literature are not fully considered by contemporary climate change work. This chapter describes the importance of older vulnerability and resilience research for contemporary investigations involving climate change, suggesting ways forward without disciplinary blinkers. Vulnerability and resilience as processes are explored alongside critiques of the post-disaster ‘return to normal’ paradigm. The importance of learning from already existing literature and experience is demonstrated for ensuring that complete vulnerability and resilience processes are accounted for by placing climate change within other contemporary development concerns.

This paper reviews the current issues that involve environmental changes in Nigeria and environmental threats within the country. The fundamental aim of scientific knowledge in environmental studies is to reconcile climate change and environmental sustainability with developmental goals. Therefore, information on impact adaptation to climate change and vulnerability research is required to develop specific, action-oriented, interdisciplinary, successful, sociopolitical and democratic reform for the entire population of a country. This condition requires large inclusion of environmental researchers, institutions, re-inventing of research structures and ideas to dominate the global environmental change research and the critical analysis of present decision making, power, structure and related information structures. This review presents the effect of climate change in Nigeria and encourages adaptation research with challenging innovation, such as the use of energy-efficient renewable energy sources to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This paper also highlighted the need for researchers to become detailed, action oriented and multiscalar and to attend communications structure problems in enhancing the environmental activity.

We have learned much from two decades of climate impact studies and several comprehensive assessments of climate change. We now plainly perceive the first signs of climate change impacts and have a much clearer picture of the scale and scope of its future impacts. Although it is thought that global warming will ‘‘accelerate the global hydrological cycle’’ and make much of the earth’s terrestrial area a wetter place, both observations and climate modeling also suggest a drying out trend over large continental areas with increasing risk of drought. One does not contradict the other, and it is likely that future earth will be wetter in some places and drier in others. We have also learned that, despite uncertainties about the details, it is time to acknowledge the imminent risk of climate impacts and move on to assessing how to cope with these risks. For its part, the scientific community has responded by putting new energy into vulnerability and adaptation research. Researchers concerned with drought are asking ‘‘What makes society and nature vulnerable to drought and other climate extremes’’? And, ‘‘How can they better adapt to these extremes?’’ While vulnerability and adaptation research has certainly moved forward, a scan of the literature (taking, as an example, the 2007 report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shows that more progress has been made in the realm of qualitative knowledge than quantitative. But it is legitimate to ask, why do we need numerical information about vulnerability to climate change? What is the added value of quantifying the concept? From the standpoint of science, hard numbers make it possible to include vulnerability of human populations in climate impact and other models which can then better close the loop between society’s impact on climate and climate’s impact on society. Quantification provides (perhaps) a more objective basis for assessing one region’s vulnerability against another. Quantitative estimates of vulnerability could provide a ‘‘harder’’ basis for determining which adaptation options could be more successful and which ones not. Finally, formal quantitative methods can help explain why different disciplines harbor such strikingly different views on the nature of vulnerability. While this range of views might be interesting to academics, a reconciliation of views would help decision makers develop better strategies for society to cope with drought. This Special Issue confronts the quantification challenge head-on and proposes a new methodology for quantifying vulnerability of society to drought and other climate extremes. (While the topic of vulnerability of nature is equally important, it is unfortunately outside the scope of this work.). Using a combination of inference modeling and fuzzy logic, the methodology produces numerical estimates of vulnerability, but at the same time incorporates the fact that much of the knowledge about vulnerability is qualitative and not systematically documented. But work presented in this Special Issue goes a step further and uses the new approach to make one of the first comparisons of quantitative estimates of vulnerability from three distinct disciplinary perspectives (economics, political science, and behavioral science/environmental psychology). To enhance the generality of results, the approach was also applied to three case study regions having a range of socio-economic and water stress J. Alcamo (&) Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany e-mail: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Most scientific assessments for climate change adaptation and risk reduction are based on scenarios for climatic change. Scenarios for socio-economic development, particularly in terms of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, are largely lacking. This paper focuses on the utility of socio-economic scenarios for vulnerability, risk and adaptation research. The paper introduces the goals and functions of scenarios in general and reflects on the current global debate around shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs). It examines the options and constraints of scenario methods for risk and vulnerability assessments in the context of climate change and natural hazards. Two case studies are used to contrast the opportunities and current constraints in scenario methods at different scales: the global WorldRiskIndex, based on quantitative data and indicators; and a local participatory scenario development process in Jakarta, showing a qualitative approach. The juxtaposition of a quantitative approach with global data and a qualitative-participatory local approach provides new insights on how different methods and scenario techniques can be applied in vulnerability and risk research.