The role of social practices in established vulnerability frameworks

Within the different schools of thought, introduced in section 2.1.1, a substantial range of conceptual vulnerability frameworks have been developed. As it is risk-related practices on which the current research focuses, the following section will draw on those frameworks against the background of selected vulnerability frameworks. Thereby, only influential conceptualisations which are relevant to the present research foci, i.e. formal and private actions, coping and adaptation, the evaluation of strategies, rural development, disaster risk reduction and climate change, will be presented (see Table 2.2). Table 2.2 reveals in this respect that not only is vulnerability an important linking concept between different research communities, but that it is also a promising anchor point for conceptualising risk-related strategies from different viewpoints. Each of the schools of thought and their specific perspectives on risk-related strategies will therefore be depicted in more detail in the following sections.

Table 2.2:Conceptualisations of risk-related strategies in different vulnerability frameworks

In development and poverty research, important conceptualisations were developed which attempt to include the dynamics of vulnerability. This is of particular interest when dealing with change, as is the case in this research (see section 1.3). Adams et al. (1998) conceptualise coping processes along a continuum which represents a deterioration of a household’s situation with progressive crisis. A household’s location along this continuum describes the strategies being applied starting with

adaptation practices to minimise risk in normal times, via coping in times of crisis, to coping in case of failure and calamity (Cekan 1994). In a decision-making context, this indicates that preferences for certain actions and immediate goals change with the occurrence of a hazard. Proceeding along this continuum, risk minimisation objectives are displaced by strategies aimed at fulfilling immediate needs (Adams et al. 1998). The succession of different strategies depends on factors such as costs, reversibility and effectiveness of strategies. Devereux (1999: 9) argues, in this context that a household shifts from one set of behaviours to others, most commonly less preferred strategies, or intensifies a "normal" behaviour (Korf 2002: 3). Corbett (1988) and Watts (1983) refer to ‘last resort’

strategies. These stand at the end of the continuum and indicate a looming crisis and a failure to cope which can result in a calamity (Adams et al. 1998). Watts and Bohle (1993) conceptualise the continuum of vulnerability in their dynamic framework for hunger famine vulnerability (see Figure 2.2). They assume that there exists a baseline-vulnerability for each household (corrugated line at the bottom of Figure 2.2). Coping in times of crisis increases the intensity of deprivation (depicted on the y-axis) and can bring this baseline vulnerability to a higher level (social space of vulnerability II in the left half of the figure). Both approaches, however, do not consider adaptation explicitly as a process which can decrease baseline vulnerability and initiate a regression along the continuum of coping.

Korf (2002) therefore includes adaptation in his conceptualisation of the interplay of livelihood strategies and vulnerability by assuming that agents undergo phases of adaptation and coping;

whereby adaptation can lead to a decrease in vulnerability and coping can imply an increase in vulnerability.

Figure 2.2: Watt’s and Bohle’s framework for hunger-famine vulnerability (Source: Watts, Bohle 1993: 64) In general, these approaches, however, mainly concern informal strategies and include formal strategies only as an external determinant of baseline vulnerability and coping capacity. Despite the neglect of formal strategies, they can address aspects pertinent to this research. They capture, in contrast to most other approaches, the consequences of coping and, at least in Korf’s approach, of adaptation to vulnerability. This provides not only a more dynamic perspective of vulnerability but also accounts for vulnerability-related outcomes of coping and adaptation – both aspects of high relevance to the first research question (see section 1.2). These approaches also account for decision-making processes, individuals’ evaluations and hazard-dependent shifts in preferences – issues particularly relevant to the second research question (see section 1.2).

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach was introduced by Chambers and Conway (1991) in the beginning of the 90s and has, since then, heavily influenced theoretical as well as practical discourses in poverty and development research. It was most commonly applied to rural areas in developing countries, as is also the case in the current research project. The concept acts on the assumption that the poor operate in a vulnerability context. Within this milieu, the capital endowment, i.e. human, social, physical, natural and financial assets (see pentagon in the centre of Figure 2.3), of a household serves as a so-called ‘livelihood platform’ (Ellis 2000: 30). Access to this platform is mediated by transforming structures and processes. Together they shape agency and livelihood vulnerability towards shocks, trends and variability and form an overall environment for decision-making (Bebbington 1999: 2022). This approach therefore provides a good foundation for analysing social practices and understanding why and how strategies can be implemented. The livelihood assets and transforming structures and processes are the basis for the coping and adaptation strategies of an actor (mainly informal ones represented by the livelihood strategies box), i.e. the wealth in terms of access to assets determines the capacity to act. Formal strategies are seen as external factors structuring processes (grey box of transforming structures and processes).

Figure 2.3: The sustainable livelihoods framework (Source: DFID 1999: 2.1)

The framework therefore provides important impulses for this research project: Firstly, aiming to give a comprehensive picture of local living conditions in rural areas of developing countries, it can provide a pertinent basis for identifying indicators of household vulnerability (particularly important for answering the first research question). Nevertheless, the perception of hazards and vulnerabilities and how the subjective dimension of livelihoods feed into decision-making for livelihood strategies is not addressed in this framework. These are aspects of central relevance in a study which aims at a more in-depth analysis and evaluation of risk-related strategies as is the case in this research.

Secondly, the interplay of informal and formal processes and structures is addressed as part of the framework. How exactly formal strategies influence local livelihoods is kept in a black box, however, and should be more explicitly conceptualised. Thirdly, the framework directly looks at the impacts of private strategies on local livelihoods and therefore implicitly takes on an integrated evaluation perspective which has been outlined as a central interest of this research. It does not consider which outputs have caused the given livelihood outcomes, though, and neglects to address how far these outcomes would lead to longer-term impacts on the livelihood system.

Pressure-And-Release Model (PAR)

The pressure-and-release model (PAR) was introduced by Blaikie et al. (2003) in their influential book

“At risk”. Being a decisive framework in the disaster risk community, it addresses the natural hazard and disaster risk side of vulnerability research. The PAR model conceptualises the risk of natural disasters as a function of vulnerability and the hazard. The model wants to link “discrete risks with political economy of resources and normative disaster management and interventions” (Adger 2006:

275). Vulnerability is depicted in its progression from root causes, via dynamic pressures towards unsafe conditions (see arrows on the left in Figure 2.4). Root causes can be found in power and resource distributions, or in political and economic ideologies. They are therefore closely related to the good governance discussion, which strongly influences formal risk management strategies. Root causes are an “interrelated set of widespread and general processes within a society and the world economy” (Wisner et al. 2004: 52); examples for root causes are political and economic systems or unequal access to resources and power. Dynamic pressures mediate and transform root causes into unsafe conditions (Wisner et al. 2004). They include, besides macro-forces (e.g. population changes) and deficient structures (e.g. institutions or education), formal strategies in the risk context (e.g.

structural adjustment programs). Informal practices come into the picture with the access model which has gained less attention in scientific debates. It deals with the “amount of ‘access’ that people have to the capabilities, assets and livelihood opportunities that will enable them (or not) to reduce their vulnerability and avoid disaster” (Wisner et al. 2004: 87). It therefore addresses people’s agency, their interactions as well as their coping and adaptation strategies. This makes it possible to link it to merits and challenges relevant in the sustainable livelihood debate.

Figure 2.4: Pressure and Release Model of Disaster Risk Reduction (Source: Wisner et al. 2004: 51)

The ideas around root causes and dynamic pressures are of substantial relevance to countries undergoing transformation. For this reason it is highly relevant to the present research which centres on Vietnam – a country which underwent substantial changes in root causes in the recent past and will probably continue to do so in future. In addition, the PAR model can provide approaches to conceptualise government-related aspects in the context of disaster risk. The interplay with informal strategies is not explicitly addressed, though.

Vulnerability of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems Framework

One of the most prominent models in integrated and interdisciplinary vulnerability research in the field of disaster risk reduction and in the climate change community is the framework for coupled social-ecological systems developed by Turner and his colleagues (Birkmann 2006, 2013). Turner et al.

(2003) define and conceptualise vulnerability from a place-based perspective, but also by considering influences outside the place on a regional and global scale (depicted as overlapping layers in Figure 2.5). The vulnerability of a local system (inner layer) comprises exposure, susceptibility and resilience and is influenced by human and environmental factors outside and inside the place. Having a relatively strong focus on social and ecological coupling processes, it is most pertinent to research in rural areas, such as in the present research, where the interconnectedness of both systems is often more apparent than in urban areas. Human and environmental influences, variability and changes outside the place generate, in their interplay, hazards (boxes on the left in Figure 2.5) which affect the local system. It is therefore possible to integrate a dynamic and change-oriented perspective, as is also required in this research context which is concerned with climate change and socio-political transformation in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Similar to the ‘livelihood platform’, the conditions on a local scale comprise, on the social side, social, economic and human capital. Environmental conditions include natural capital, i.e. the access to biophysical characteristics such as ecosystem services. Risk-related strategies are addressed comprehensively in the resilience component of vulnerability inside the place and occur in the form of response mechanisms outside the place. They are not only seen in their formal and informal appearance (response boxes on the outer region and world layers vs. boxes on the inner local layer in Figure 2.5) and as coping and adaptation processes but are also perceived in their interaction with each other, their effects on each other and their effects on other components of the system. Coping mechanisms can, for example, facilitate adaptation which can itself lead to substantial system-wide changes in the social-ecological system.

Figure 2.5: Vulnerability framework as proposed by Turner et al. (2003: 8076) Vulnerability

Susceptibility Resilience Exposure

The framework is highly relevant to an analysis of most of the central research foci. It is expedient to research in a rural development context and addresses multiple scales. Moreover this conceptualisation encompasses not only structure-influenced practices but also considers action-influenced structures. It thereby provides an integrated view of formal and informal strategies (although not a very distinct one). The integration of feed-back effects and coupling processes strengthens this dynamic perspective and adds a good entry point for vulnerability-based evaluations in consideration of climate and socio-political changes, as is intended in the current research context.

IPCC SREX Framework

The recently published IPCC SREX (IPCC 2012) and the fifth assessment report - AR5 (IPCC 2014) argue for bringing the development, disaster risk reduction and climate change communities together and propose an integrated framework. (Disaster) Risk is at the interface between hazardous events, vulnerable social conditions and exposed elements (IPCC 2012: 32; IPCC 2014: 43). Vulnerability is accordingly independent of the physical event; and exposure is, as opposed to what the Turner framework argues, not part of vulnerability (see circle at the centre of ovoids in Figure 2.6). This socially determined view of vulnerability stands in contrast to a previous IPCC report which defined the “character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variability” (IPCC 2007: 883) as integral parts of vulnerability. The components shaping disaster risk are influenced by both changes in climate and by development (left and right end of Figure 2.6). Social practices are addressed as part of development comprising disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Accordingly, a focus lies on adaptation whereby coping is only implicitly included as part of disaster risk management. In contrast to the previous IPCC report, adaptation can only be anticipatory when undertaken by a human system. Natural systems can only adjust to actual climate and its effects. Both disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change aim to reduce vulnerability and exposure, increase capacities to better respond, prepare and recover, transfer and share risks, and bring about transformative changes (IPCC 2012: 4f).

Figure 2.6: Conceptualisation of disaster risk in the IPCC SREX report (Source: IPCC 2012: 31)

The contribution which the framework can make to this research context is mainly owed to the integrative perspective on disaster risk as a function of climate change and development. It brings together the three big conceptual schools of thought on which this research relies. Moreover, the degree to which risk reduction is achievable or achieved by DRM and CCA as well as the influential character of disaster risk on development via modified DRM and CCA, can provide an interesting evaluation perspective for the research context.

Anatomy of adaptation

Several scholars in the climate change community have put adaptation at the centre of their research, considering vulnerability and risk in a more contextual role (see e.g. Downing et al. 2004; Adger et al.

2005; Berkhout et al. 2006; Brooks et al. 2011). For these scholars, the main interest was to answer the question of what adaptation actually is. Smit et al. (1999: 204) attempts to find answers to this question by building on a so-called anatomy of adaptation. In the literal sense of anatomy, it breaks adaptation down to its major components in order to understand the overall system. Four major questions represent these components (see Figure 2.7): “Adaptation to what?”, “Who or what adapts?”, “How does adaptation occur?” and “How good is the adaptation” (Smit et al. 1999: 204;

Smit et al. 2000: 230). The ‘to what’ seeks the stimuli which bring about a response; these stimuli can, for instance, be sea level rise or an increasing intensity of extreme events which would, obviously, have different implications. ‘Who or what system’ refers to the agents in a relatively wide sense; it “can be people, social and economic sectors and activities, managed or unmanaged natural or ecological systems, or practices, processes or structures of systems” (Smit et al. 1999: 203).

Another important factor in the anatomy of adaptation is the question of ‘how adaptation occurs’.

This refers to the way in which adaptation varies with regard to its processes and outcomes. Finally, having a picture of what adaptation is provides an opportune entry point to raise the question ‘how good is this adaptation’.

Figure 2.7: Anatomy of adaptation to climate change as proposed by Smit et al. (1999: 204)

Smit et al. (1999: 204), accordingly, asks most of the questions that are also asked in this research context. An anatomy could therefore provide pertinent means to systematically analyse many of the research components. It is, for instance, one of the few vulnerability-related approaches which address evaluation explicitly. Moreover, the question for the system which adapts allows a clear distinction between the adaptation of formal and informal actors and makes it easier to address the specific regional context of rural Vietnam. Nevertheless, this anatomy does not consider why certain adaptation actions are taken and why “good” adaptation occurs. These are, however, important aspects to be addressed not only in the present but also in other research contexts which are concerned with the character and implications of risk-related response mechanisms.

Barriers and limits of adaptation

In recent years, a growing debate around barriers and limits of adaptation has emerged in the climate change adaptation community (see e.g. Adger et al. 2007; Adger et al. 2009; Dow et al. 2013; Hulme et al. 2007; Inderberg, Eikeland 2009; Jones 2010; Moser 2009b: 33; Moser, Ekstrom 2010) - a topic which is also addressed in the research questions of this study. In the recently published fifth assessment report of the IPCC, this topic was prominently addressed with an own chapter on constraints (widely equivalent to the terms barriers and limits; Alam et al. 2014). Some scholars use the terms limits and barriers interchangeably (see Jones 2010) while others make a clear distinction (see e.g. Dow et al. 2013; Moser 2009b: 33; Hulme et al. 2007). Barriers are most commonly defined as obstacles that can be overcome, requiring, according to Moser and Ekstrom (2010: 22027),

“concerted effort, creative management, change of thinking, prioritisation, and related shifts in resources, land uses, institutions, etc.”. Limits, in contrast, are defined as absolute and insurmountable obstacles which relate to a set of immutable thresholds beyond which existing systems, states, valued objects and activities cannot be maintained or secured (Alam et al. 2014: 3;

Dow et al. 2013: 306; Moser, Ekstrom 2010: 22026; Adger et al. 2009: 335). Traditionally, they are analysed as ecological, physical, and technological thresholds which are absolute in a real sense (Moser, Ekstrom 2010: 22027; Adger et al. 2009: 335). In the IPCC fourth assessment report, barriers are grouped into financial barriers, social and cultural barriers and informational and cognitive barriers (Adger et al. 2007: 733). Jones (2010), in contrast, distinguishes social and human/informational barriers. She argues that social barriers are composed of normative, cognitive and institutional obstacles; whereas knowledge, technology, and economic barriers constitute human and informational barriers. Adger et al. (2009) see social barriers as endogenous to the society, depending on goals, values, risks and social choice. These barriers to adaptation are accordingly

“mutable, subjective and socially constructed”.

(a) (b)

Figure 2.8: Systematic approach for barrier identification based on an analysis of (a) an idealised adaptation process and (b) structural elements (Source: Moser, Ekstrom 2010: 22026f)

Moser and Ekstrom (2010: 22026) suggest a comprehensive, systematic approach for identifying and organising barriers and limits to adaptation. The framework consists of three sets of components:

First, an idealised adaptation process and related stages of decision-making are illustrated and analysed (see Figure 2.8a); second, the structural elements are considered, i.e. the actors, the larger context in which they function (e.g. institutions, governance), and the exposed system upon which they act (see Figure 2.8b). Accordingly, the first and second step make it possible to identify which obstacles could occur at each step in the adaptation process and facilitate a depiction of how the structural elements contribute to each barrier. In a third step, opportune points of influence and intervention can be located in a matrix representing the temporal (contemporary vs. legacy) and spatial/jurisdictional (remote vs. proximate) scope of action (Moser, Ekstrom 2010).

A systematic identification of barriers and limits of adaptation, as is suggested by Moser and Ekstrom (2010: 22026), can also provide an important contribution to this research context. So far, most of the previously introduced vulnerability frameworks mainly focused on a characterisation of vulnerability

and related practices; this approach provides a basis for making use of the information and translates it systematically in strategic points of intervention.

In summary, section 2.1 introduced the most relevant theoretical and conceptual lines of thought around risk, vulnerability and related practices for this research context. Each of these concepts was introduced against the background of its merits in finding an innovative and appropriate conceptual framework to analyse and evaluate coping and adaptation strategies in the context of changing water-related risks in the VMD. These insights inform, most notably, the conceptualisation of household vulnerability and its co-dependent links to social practices (see sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2).