Abstract
Vulnerability assessments have often invoked sustainable livelihoods theory to support the quantification of adaptive capacity based on the availability of capital—social, human, physical, natural, and financial. However, the assumption that increased availability of these capitals confers greater adaptive capacity remains largely untested. We quantified the relationship between commonly used capital indicators and an empirical index of adaptive capacity (ACI) in the context of vulnerability of Australian wheat production to climate variability and change. We calculated ACI by comparing actual yields from farm survey data to climate-driven expected yields estimated by a crop model for 12 regions in Australia’s wheat-sheep zone from 1991–2010. We then compiled data for 24 typical indicators used in vulnerability analyses, spanning the five capitals. We analyzed the ACI and used regression techniques to identify related capital indicators. Between regions, mean ACI was not significantly different but variance over time was. ACI was higher in dry years and lower in wet years suggesting that farm adaptive strategies are geared towards mitigating losses rather than capitalizing on opportunity. Only six of the 24 capital indicators were significantly related to adaptive capacity in a way predicted by theory. Another four indicators were significantly related to adaptive capacity but of the opposite sign, countering our theory-driven expectation. We conclude that the deductive, theory-based use of capitals to define adaptive capacity and vulnerability should be more circumspect. Assessments need to be more evidence-based, first testing the relevance and influence of capital metrics on adaptive capacity for the specific system of interest. This will more effectively direct policy and targeting of investment to mitigate agro-climatic vulnerability.
Highlights
Crop yields are vulnerable to climatic variability and change [1,2,3,4,5,6]
Consistent with Simelton et al [21], [13] and Krishnamurthy et al [33], but in contrast to Simelton et al [14], we found that few capital indicators were related to the empirical metric of adaptive capacity in a way predicted by theory
Common practice in vulnerability assessments involves constructing indices of social, human, physical, natural, and financial capital measures assumed to affect adaptive capacity based on the deductive logic of sustainable livelihoods theory (SLT), and using the indices to identify vulnerable regions
Summary
Crop yields are vulnerable to climatic variability and change [1,2,3,4,5,6]. While climatic variability is the norm in most agriculturally-important regions [7,8], it is expected to increase, along with the incidence of extreme events such as drought [9,10]. Quantification of the adaptive capacity of crop production to climatic variability and change at a regional scale through integrating socio-economic indicators is commonly used in the assessment and management of vulnerability [11,12,13,14,15,16]. The development of reliable, evidence-based indicators that can be used to inform policy and boost the capacity of agriculture to adapt to climatic variability and change is becoming increasingly important [17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
