Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Many definitions of vulnerability is found in the literatures. Kelly and Adger (2000) defines the vulnerability as “ability or inability of individuals or social groupings to respond to, in the sense of cope with, recover from, or adapt to, any external stress placed on their livelihoods and well-being”. According to the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC defines the vulnerability as “degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Barker et al. (2007), states that vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity. Vulnerability is also described as the “propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected” (Pachauri et al., 2014).
Nelson et al., (2010) indicates that the concept of vulnerability is rarely converted into analytical measures that can be used to prioritize policy interventions and evaluate their impact. An increasing awareness of climate change and its potential impacts on rural communities is driving demand for research capable of prioritizing adaptation responses (Nelson et al. 2009). However, the study does not address the causes of vulnerability to climate change on the livelihoods.
According to Turner et al. (2003), vulnerability to climate change has become a hotly debated and increasingly researched subject with climate change research shifting from an impacts-led approach, to a vulnerability-led approach. The vulnerability of households to climate change is a function of different factors – biophysical and socio-economic factors. For this study, vulnerability is conceptualized as a state that exists before encountering a climatic shock and this is according to Gbetibouo and Ringler, (2009). The causes of climate change vulnerability are the drivers of adaptive capacity and susceptibility at the household level. Adaptive capacity of households is usually depicted by human, physical, financial, natural and social capitals which they own. According to Piya et al. (2012), these capitals influence vulnerability but do not elaborate on how they cause vulnerability. This study will establish how these capitals are linked to vulnerability.
According to Eriksen, (2008), poor households have few capitals and therefore more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. O’Brien and Leichenko, (2000) have emphasized the importance of incorporating globalization stressors in the analysis of vulnerability to climate change, which they have called “double exposure.” Scholars also emphasize that vulnerability needs to be differentiated among different groups of people and places (O’Brien et al., 2007; Füssel, 2007). For example, smallholders who rely on agriculture can be a particularly vulnerable population (O’Brien et al., 2004; Hallegatte et al., 2015). However, the scholars do not link causes of vulnerability to climate change to livelihoods of households.
According to Leonard et al. (2013) when climate change hits, traditional ecological knowledge can shape the process and outcomes of adaptation because it is a part of social, economic, and cultural systems, and influences individuals’ preferences, beliefs, daily practices, perceptions and responses to climate change. Lebel, (2013) and Wisner (2010) stress that ability to develop their traditionally ecological knowledge by combining it with scientific knowledge is believed to be crucial to dealing with climate change.