p.1 The first element of this project was the development of a conceptual framework within which indicators representing vulnerability and adaptive capacity could be developed. [JLJ - that's a great way to start] The conceptual framework was developed through a combination of literature review, attendance at meetings of practitioners in the field of vulnerability, adaptation and natural hazards, and discussions with key individuals. There are different views and definitions of vulnerability.
p.17 Concepts need to be operationalised in order to test variables empirically. Operationalising involves the specifying of how theoretical concepts will be measured, in other words "indicators that will be used to measure the concept to produce data on it" (Blalock 1984, p. 133-4).
p.22-23 The dynamic character of vulnerability leads to a complexity, in terms of processes interacting at several different geographic scales, that has to be tackled by national indicator studies. Because vulnerability cannot be measured directly, indirect measurements through a focus on processes shaping vulnerability needs to be accommodated both in the use of deductive or inductive research approaches. Blalock (1984) argues that when links between phenomenon are well understood, measurement can be direct, but that in social sciences, causal laws are multivariate and indeterminate.
The complexity may render it tempting to give up conceptualising the understanding of vulnerability that underlies the analysis. Precisely because of the complexity, however, it is all the more important to outline a conceptual framework so that assumptions and weaknesses in understanding can be assessed. A crucial aspect in defining indicators that are essentially trying to capture the causes of vulnerability is that the relationships between vulnerability and the factors shaping vulnerability need to be well understood and the assumptions about these relations made explicit.
p.28 In addition to causing a great deal of confusion among researchers, development agencies and policy makers, the lack of a coherent conceptual framework relating vulnerability, adaptive capacity and other important concepts such as risk makes the task of choosing indicators rather problematic. The question of what factors constitute vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and why, is crucial if we are to attempt any sort of quantitative or semi-quantitative measurement of these variables.
p.28 Broadly speaking, the vulnerability of a system, population or individual to a threat relates to its capacity to be harmed by that threat. [JLJ - that would include "harmed in any way", including distraction from other, important issues or concerns. A vulnerable system must execute coping behaviors and invest in coping resources if it hopes to meet the future with resilience]
p.31 The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) describes vulnerability as
"The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. 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." (IPCC, 2001, p. 995) (IPCC Def. 1)
Exposure is defined in the same report as "The nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant climatic variations." Sensitivity is "the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea level rise)." Adaptive capacity is "The ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences."
p.34-35 Many definitions of adaptive capacity exist... broadly speaking it may be described as the ability or capacity of a system to modify or change its characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with existing or anticipated external stresses. We may view reductions in social vulnerability as arising from the realization of adaptive capacity as adaptation. The term adaptation is used here to mean adjustments in a system's behaviour and characteristics that enhance its ability to cope with external stresses. Given constant levels of hazard over time, adaptation will allow a system to reduce the risk associated with these hazards by reducing its social vulnerability. Faced with increased hazard, a system may maintain current levels of risk through such adaptation; reductions in risk in the face of increased hazard will require a greater adaptation effort. If hazards increase dramatically in frequency or severity, a human system may face greater risk despite reduction in social vulnerability achieved through the implementation of adaptation strategies.
p.35 adaptive capacity, as an element of overall vulnerability of a society, can be illuminated through examining the institutions for resource management and their effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. Social capital is made up of the networks and relationships between individuals and social groups that facilitate economic well-being and security.
p.36 Adaptation does not occur instantaneously; a system requires time to realise its adaptive capacity as adaptation. Adaptive capacity represents potential rather than actual adaptation. A high level of adaptive capacity therefore only reduces a system's vulnerability to hazards occurring in the future (allowing the system time to adapt in an anticipatory manner) or to hazards that involve slow change over relatively long periods, to which the system can adapt reactively.
p.37 it is existing adaptations resulting from the past realization of adaptive capacity that determine current levels of vulnerability... a system's vulnerability to more gradual, longer-term change will be a function of it's ability to adapt incrementally and responsively, and its vulnerability to discrete hazards occurring in the future will be a function of its ability to anticipate and pre-empt those hazards via appropriate planned adaptation strategies... In other words, we must ask ourselves whether a system is likely to implement the necessary adaptation measures in the time available to it in order to reduce risk to a subjectively defined acceptable level.
p.96 some would argue that the capacity to adapt, that most fundamental aspect of human behaviour, is, by its opportunistic nature, so situation-specific and dynamic that predictive understanding may be extremely difficult to achieve. It may well prove impossible to model the adaptive process from 'first principles,' with the science of adaptation limited to description and eschewing prediction, an interesting philosophical dilemma. [JLJ - the capacity to adapt is really not as mystical as it would seem. Like a sports coach preparing his team to play a game, one comes up with a combination of exercises to prepare the team in general, such as physical conditioning, scrimmages, drills, team-building and communication exercises, diagnosing where problems lie, then scheming ways to improve needed skills. We might just simulate disasters or ordeals using a model, then watch as our model adapts or not. The "unsinkable" Titanic contained flawed steel, which fractured rather than deformed (Charpy test) upon contact with an iceberg - other safety and design errors http://www.writing.eng.vt.edu/uer/bassett.html combined in a worst case scenario to result in a large loss of life and failed adaptive capacity. Perhaps it takes the unfortunate investigation after a disaster to establish regulations which aim for a degree of adaptive capacity]
