IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes at the Local LevelChapter 5Learning ProcessesSocialTransformationsTop-DownReliantEnablingParticipatoryPartnershipWhere Many AreWhere All Should BeReflexiveSocial LearningInstitutional ChangeParadigm ShiftIndividualLearningIncreasing Local CapacityImpactsVulnerability toAdaptationAdaptation andDevelopmentDevelopment toResilienceResilienceFigure 5-2 | Learning and transformation. Throughout the adaptation process, learning is expected to increase along with institutional change leading to the potential forparadigmatic transformation – the community moves away from an impact-focus perspective to a resilience-centric one where there is an expectation of risk and where goodgovernance and key partnerships are the norm. Source: adapted from O’Brien et al., 2011.management communities have by and large paid little attention to thelinks between climate change and natural hazards (Bullock et al., 2009).As a result, state and local disaster mitigation plans, even when requiredby law, usually fail to include climate change, sea level rise, or climateextreme events in hazard assessments or do so in entirely deterministicways. Decisions about development, hazard mitigation, and emergencypreparedness in the context of climate change give rise to criticalquestions about social and economic adaptation, and the informationand data to support it, especially at the local scale (Mileti, 1999; Cutter,2001; Mileti and Peek, 2002). For example: How do cumulative impactsof smaller events over time compare to single high-impact events forlocalities? Do increased levels of hazard mitigation and disasterpreparedness increase local risk-taking by individuals and social systems?How do short-term adjustments or coping strategies enable or constrainlong-term vulnerabilities in localities? What are the tradeoffs amongdecision acceptability versus decision quality, especially within localcontexts (Comfort et al., 1999; Travis, 2010)?For many of these questions, sufficient empirical information is lacking,especially at the sub-national scale (see also Section 5.4.2.3). Two recentall-hazards studies for the United States found that from 1970 to 2004,climate-sensitive hazards accounted for the majority of recorded fatalitiesfrom natural hazards (Borden and Cutter, 2008; Thacker et al., 2008). Yet,these are the only databases for monitoring mortality from natural hazardsat the local level and suffer from lack of consistency and completeness.The hurricane recovery process includes ample evidence of how effortsto ensure that the rush to return to normal have also led to depletion ofnatural resources and increased risk. How decisions regarding the rightto migrate (even temporarily), the right to organize, and the right ofaccess to information are made will, as a result, have major implicationsfor the ability of different groups to adapt successfully to floods, droughts,and storms. The idea of linking place-based recovery, preparedness, andresilience to adaptation is intuitively appealing. However, the constituencythat supports improved disaster risk management has historically proventoo small to bring about many of the changes that have beenrecommended by researchers, especially those that focus on strengtheningthe social fabric to decrease vulnerability. Behind the specific questionsof the transparency of risk, are broader questions about the publicsphere. What public goods will be provided by governments at all levels(and how will they be funded), what public goods will be provided byprivate or organizations in civil society, what will be provided by324