IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Chapter 2Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerabilitydepend for resource access, particularly in times of stress (Cernea, 1996;Scudder, 2005).Migration is an ancient coping mechanism in response to environmental(and other) change and does not inevitably result in negative outcomes,either for the migrants themselves or for receiving communities (Barnettand Webber, 2009). Climate variability will result in some movement ofstressed people but there is low confidence in ability to assign directcausality to climatic impacts or to the numbers of people affected.2.5.2.1.2. Social groupsResearch evidence of the differential vulnerability of social groups isextensive and raises concerns about the disproportionate effects ofclimate change on identifiable, marginalized populations (Bohle et al.,1994; Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001; Thomalla et al., 2006). Particulargroups and conditions have been identified as having differentialexposure or vulnerability to extreme events, for example race/ethnicity(Fothergill et al., 1999; Elliott and Pais, 2006; Cutter and Finch, 2008),socioeconomic class and caste (O’Keefe et al., 1976; Peacock et al.,1997; Ray-Bennett, 2009), gender (Sen, 1981), age (both the elderly andchildren; Jabry, 2003; Wisner, 2006b; Bartlett, 2008), migration, andhousing tenure (whether renter or owner), as among the most commonsocial vulnerability characteristics (Cutter and Finch, 2008). Morrow(1999) extends and refines this list to include residents of group livingfacilities; ethnic minorities (by language); recent migrants (includingimmigrants); tourists and transients; physically or mentally disabled (seealso McGuire et al., 2007; Peek and Stough, 2010); large households;renters; large concentrations of children and youth; poor households;the homeless (see also Wisner, 1998); and women-headed households.Generally, the state of vulnerability is defined by a specific populationat a particular scale; aggregations (and generalizations) are often lessmeaningful and require careful interpretation (Adger and Kelly, 1999).One of the largest bodies of research evidence, and one which can be anexemplar for the way many other marginalized groups are differentiallyimpacted or affected by extreme events, has been on gender and disaster,and on women in particular (e.g., Neal and Phillips, 1990; Enarson andMorrow, 1998; Neumayer and Plümper, 2007). This body of literature isrelatively recent, particularly in a developed world context, given thelonger recognition of gender concerns in the development field(Fordham, 1998). The specific gender and climate change link includingself-defined gender groups has been even more recent (e.g., Masika,2002; Pincha and Krishna, 2009). The research evidence emphasizes thesocial construction of gendered vulnerability in which women and girlsare often (although not always) at greater risk of dying in disasters,typically marginalized from decisionmaking fora, and discriminated andacted against in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts(Houghton, 2009; Sultana, 2010).Women or other socially marginalized or excluded groups are notvulnerable through biology (except in very particular circumstances) butare made so by societal structures and roles. For example, in the IndianOcean tsunami of 2004, many males were out to sea in boats, fulfillingtheir roles as fishermen, and were thus less exposed than were manywomen who were on the seashore, fulfilling their roles as preparers andmarketers of the fish catch. However, the women were made vulnerablenot simply by their location and role but by societal norms which did notencourage survival training for girls (e.g., to swim or climb trees) andwhich placed the majority of the burden of child and elder care withwomen. Thus, escape was made more difficult for women carryingchildren and responsible for others (Doocy et al., 2007).The gender and disaster/climate change literature has also recognizedresilience/capacity/capability alongside vulnerability. This elaboration of thevulnerability approach makes clear that vulnerability in these identifiedgroups is not an immutable or totalizing condition. The vulnerability‘label’ can reinforce notions of passivity and helplessness, which obscurethe very significant, active contributions that socially marginalizedgroups make in coping with and adapting to extremes. An example isprovided in Box 2-2.2.5.2.2. EducationThe education dimension ranges across the vulnerability of educationalbuilding structures; issues related to access to education; and alsosharing and access to disaster risk reduction and climate adaptationinformation and knowledge (Wisner, 2006b). Priority 3 of the HyogoFramework for Action 2005-2015 recommends the use of knowledge,innovation, and education to build a ‘culture of safety and resilience’ atall levels (UNISDR, 2007a). A well-informed and motivated populationcan lead to disaster risk reduction but it requires the collection anddissemination of knowledge and information on hazards, vulnerabilities,and capacities. However, “It is not information per se that determinesaction, but how people interpret it in the context of their experience,beliefs and expectations. Perceptions of risks and hazards are culturallyand socially constructed, and social groups construct different meaningsfor potentially hazardous situations” (McIvor and Paton, 2007). In additionto knowledge and information, explicit environmental education programsamong children and adults may have benefits for public understandingof risk, vulnerability, and exposure to extreme events (UNISDR, 2004;Kobori, 2009; Nomura, 2009; Patterson et al., 2009; Kuhar et al., 2010),because they promote resilience building in socio-ecological systemsthrough their role in stewardship of biological diversity and ecosystemservices, provide the opportunity to integrate diverse forms of knowledgeand participatory processes in resource management (Krasny and Tidball,2009), and help promote action towards sustainable development(Waktola, 2009; Breiting and Wikenberg, 2010).Many lives have been lost through the inability of education infrastructureto withstand extreme events. Where flooding is a recurrent phenomenonschools can be exposed or vulnerable to floods. For example, a surveyof primary schools’ flood vulnerability in the Nyando River catchmentof western Kenya revealed that 40% were vulnerable, 48% were81