Chapter 5: Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes at the Local Level
Executive Summary
Inequalities influence local coping and adaptive capacity and pose disaster risk management and adaptation challenges (high agreement, robust evidence). These inequalities reflect differences in gender, age, wealth, class, ethnicity, health, and disability. They may also be reflected in differences in access to livelihoods and entitlements. Understanding and increasing the awareness of coping mechanisms in the context of local-level livelihood is important to climate change adaptation planning and risk management. This signifies the need for the identification and accommodation of these differences to enhance opportunities arising from their incorporation into adaptation planning and disaster response. [5.5.1]
5.1. Introduction: Why the Local is Important
These contextual factors are critical to planning for climate extremes. They suggest the need for strengthening coordination between climate change adaptation and disaster risk management locally that will in turn improve the implementation of plans (Mitchell and van Aalst, 2008). Such coordination is also needed in order to avoid any negative impacts across different sectors or scales that could potentially result from fragmented adaptation and development plans. This is evident in the implementation of some of the adaptation strategies, such as largescale agriculture, irrigation, and hydroelectric development, that may benefit large groups or the national interests but may also harm local, indigenous, and poor populations (Kates, 2000; Rojas Blanco, 2006). Some sources believe that it is essential that any new disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation strategies must be built on strengthening local actors and enhancing their livelihoods (Osman-Elasha, 2006a). Moreover, a key aspect of planning for adaptation at the local level is the identification of the differentiated social impacts of climate change based on gender, age, disability, ethnicity, geographical location, livelihood, and migrant status (Tanner and Mitchell, 2008). Emphasis needs to be given to identifying the adaptation measures that serve the most vulnerable groups, address their urgent needs, and increase their resilience. This often means using a more coordinated and integrated management approach with the involvement of diverse stakeholder groups (Sperling and Szekely, 2005), which may assist in avoiding maladaptation across sectors or scales and provide for win-win solutions.
5.2. How Local Places Currently Cope with Disaster Risk
5.2.1. Emergency Assistance and Disaster Relief
Relief, nevertheless, is often a critically important strategy for coping. Relief organizations have built capacity based on experience in recent years, have become increasingly accountable, and are obliged to follow humanitarian principles. Despite these improvements, some problems remain. Relief cannot cover all losses, most of which are borne locally. Relief can undermine local coping capacities and reduce resilience and sustainability (Susman et al., 1983; Waddell, 1989), reinforce the status quo that was characterized by vulnerability (O’Keefe et al., 1976), and in some cases, serve to remove independence or autonomy from disaster ‘victims’ so that ownership of the event and control over the recovery phase is lost at the local level (Hillhorst, 2002). Relief is often inequitably distributed and in some disasters there is insufficient relief. Corruption is also a factor in some disaster relief operations with local elites often benefiting more than others (Pelling and Dill, 2010). Humanitarian organizations are increasingly aware of these concerns and many are addressing them through coordination of activities, addressing gendered inequalities, and working in partnership with local organizations in disaster relief. There is also a growing recognition of the need for accountability in humanitarian work (Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, 2011).
5.2.2. Population Movements
Where climate change increases the marginality of livelihoods and settlements beyond a sustainable level, communities may be forced to migrate or be displaced (McLeman and Smit, 2006). While migration typically has many causes, of which the environment (including climate) is just one factor, extremes often serve as precipitating events (Hugo, 1996). Furthermore, a number of researchers consider that climaterelated migration, other than forced displacement, may not necessarily be a problem and indeed may be a positive adaptive response, with people who remain at the place of origin benefitting from remittances (Barnett and Webber, 2009; Tacoli, 2009). Nomadic pastoralists migrate as part of their livelihoods but often respond to disruptive events by modifying their patterns of mobility (Anderson et al., 2010). Migration is highly gendered in terms of both drivers and impacts, which differ between men and women, although it is not clear how these differences might be played out in the context of climate change (Hugo, 2010).
5.4. Building Capacity at the Local Level for Risk Management in a Changing Climate
5.4.1. Proactive Behaviors and Protective Actions
At the household and community level, individuals often engage in protective actions to minimize the impact of extreme events on themselves, their families, and their friends and neighbors. In some cases individuals ignore the warning messages and choose to stay in places of risk. The range and choice of actions are often event specific and time dependent, but they are also constrained by location, adequate infrastructure, socioeconomic characteristics, access to disaster risk information, and risk perception (Tierney et al., 2001). For example, evacuation is used when there is sufficient warning to temporarily relocate out of harm’s way such as for tropical storms, flooding, and wildfires. Collective evacuations are not always possible given the location, population size, transportation networks, and the rapid onset of the event. At the same time, individual evacuation may be constrained by a host of factors ranging from access to transportation, monetary resources, health impairment, job responsibilities, gender, and the reluctance to leave home. There is a consistent body of literature on hurricane evacuations in the United States, for example, that finds: 1) individuals tend to evacuate as family units, but they often use more than one private vehicle to do so; 2) social influences (neighbors, family, friends) are key to individual and households evacuation decisionmaking; if neighbors are leaving then the individual is more inclined to evacuate and vice versa; 3) risk perception, especially the personalization of risk by individuals, is a more significant factor in prompting evacuation than prior adverse experience with hurricanes; 4) pets and concerns about property safety reduce household willingness to evacuate; and 5) social and demographic factors (age, presence of children, elderly, or pets in households, gender, income, disability, and race or ethnicity) either constrain or motivate evacuation depending on the particular context (Perry and Lindell, 1991; Dow and Cutter, 1998, 2000, 2002; Whitehead et al., 2000; Bateman and Edwards, 2002; Van Willigen et al., 2002; Sorensen et al., 2004; Lindell et al., 2005; Dash and Gladwin, 2007; McGuire et al., 2007; Sorensen and Sorensen, 2007; Edmonds and Cutter, 2008; Adeola, 2009). Culture also plays an important role in evacuation decisionmaking (Clot and Carter, 2009). For example, recent studies in Bangladesh have shown that there are high rates of nonevacuation despite improvements in warning systems and the construction of shelters. While there are a variety of reasons for this, gender issues (e.g., shelters were dominated by males, shelters didn’t have separate spaces for males and females) have a major influence upon females not evacuating (Paul and Dutt, 2010; Paul et al., 2010).
A different protective action, shelter-in-place, occurs when there is little time to act in response to an extreme event or when leaving the community would place individuals more at risk (Sorensen et al., 2004). Seeking higher ground or moving to higher floors in residential structures to get out of rising waters is one example. Another is the movement into interior spaces within buildings to seek refuge from strong winds. In the case of wildfires, shelter-in-place becomes a back-up strategy when evacuation routes are restricted because of the fire and include protecting the structure with garden hoses or finding a safe area such as a water body (lake or backyard swimming pool) as temporary shelter (Cova et al., 2009). In Australia, the shelter-in-place action is slightly different. Here the local community engagement with wildfire risks has two options: stay and defend or leave early. In this context, the decisions to remain are based on social networks, prior experience with wildfires, gender (males will remain to protect and guard property), and involvement with the local fire brigade (McGee and Russell, 2003). The study also found that rural residents were more self-reliant and prepared to defend then suburban residents (McGee and Russell, 2003).
The notion of the moral economy does not recognize the inequalities in some of the social systems that enabled such practices to be sustained (e.g., gender-based power relationships) and tended to perhaps provide an unrealistic notion of a less risky past. In addition, kinship-based sharing networks may foster freeloading among some members (diFalco and Bulte, 2009). Nevertheless, a reduction in traditional coping mechanisms including the moral economy is reflected in growing disaster losses and increasing dependency on relief (Campbell, 2006).
5.4.3. Social Drivers
Similar to empowerment is the role of localized social norms, social capital, and social networks as these also shape behaviors and actions before, during, and after extreme events. Each of these factors operates on their own and in some cases also intersects with the others. As vulnerability to disasters and climate change is socially constructed (Sections 2.4 and 2.5.2), the breakdown of collective action often leads to increased vulnerability. Norms regarding gender also play a role in determining outcomes. For example, women were more prone to drowning than men during the Asian tsunami because they were less able to swim and because they were attempting to save their children (Rofi et al., 2006; Section 2.5.8).
5.5. Challenges and Opportunities
[...]
5.5.1. Differences in Coping and Risk Management
There are significant differences among localities and population groups in the ability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to disasters and climate extremes. During the last century, social science researchers have examined those factors that influence coping responses by households and local entities through post-disaster field investigations as well as pre-disaster assessments (Mileti, 1999; NRC, 2006). Among the most significant individual characteristics are gender, age, wealth, ethnicity, livelihoods, entitlements, health, and settlements. However, it is not only these characteristics operating individually, but also their synergistic effects that give rise to variability in coping and managing risks at the local level.
5.5.1.1. Gender, Age, and Wealth
The literature suggests that at the local level gender makes a difference in vulnerability (Section 2.4) and in the differential mortality from disasters (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007). The evidence is robust with high agreement. In disasters, women tend to have different coping strategies and constraints on actions than men (Fothergill, 1996; Morrow and Enarson, 1996; Peacock et al., 1997). These are due to socialized gender factors such as social position (class), marital status, education, wealth, and caregiver roles, as well as physical differences in stature and endurance. At the local level for example, women’s lack of mobility, access to resources, lack of power and legal protection, and social isolation found in many places across the globe tend to augment disaster risk, and vulnerability (Schroeder, 1987; IFRC, 1991; Mutton and Haque, 2004; UNIFEM, 2011). Relief and recovery operations are often insensitive to gender issues (Hamilton and Halvorson, 2007), and so the provision of such supplies and services also influences the differential capacities to cope (Enarson, 2000; Ariyabandu, 2006; Wachtendorf et al., 2006; Fulu, 2007), especially at the local level. However, the active participation of women has been shown to increase the effectiveness of prevention, disaster relief, recovery, and reconstruction, thereby improving disaster management (Enarson and Morrow, 1997, 1998; Fothergill, 1999, 2004; Hamilton and Halvorson, 2007; Enarson, 2010; see Box 5-5).
|
Box 5-5 | The Role of Women in Proactive Behavior
Women’s involvement in running shelters and processing food was crucial to the recovery of families and communities after Hurricane Mitch hit Honduras. One-third of the shelters were run by women, and this figure rose to 42% in the capital. The municipality of La Masica in Honduras, with a mostly rural population of 24,336 people, stands out in the aftermath of Mitch because, unlike other municipalities in the northern Atlanta Department, it reported no mortality. Some attributed this outcome to a process of community emergency preparedness that began about six months prior to the disaster. Gender lectures were given and, consequently, the community decided that men and women should participate equally in all hazard management activities. When Mitch struck, the municipality was prepared and vacated the area promptly, thus avoiding deaths. Women participated actively in all relief operations. They went on rescue missions, rehabilitated local infrastructure (such as schools), and along with men, distributed food. They also took over from men who had abandoned the task of continuous monitoring of the early warning system. This case study illustrates the more general finding that the active incorporation of women into disaster preparedness and response activities helps to ensure success in reducing the impacts of disasters (Buvinić et al., 1999; Cupples, 2007; Enarson, 2009).
|
5.5.1.2. Livelihoods and Entitlements
Adaptive capacity is influenced to a large extent by the institutional rules and behavioral norms that govern individual responses to hazards (Dulal et al., 2010). It is also socially differentiated along the lines of age, ethnicity, class, religion, and gender (Adger et al., 2007). Local institutions regulate the access to adaptation resources: those that ensure equitable opportunities for access to resources promote adaptive capacity within communities and other local entities (Jones et al., 2010). Institutions, as purveyors of the rules of the game (North, 1990), mediate the socially differential command over livelihood assets, thus determining protection or loss of entitlements.
Livelihood is the generic term for all the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living. Livelihood influences how families and communities cope with and recover from stresses and shocks (Carney, 1998). Another definition of livelihoods gives more emphasis to access to assets and activities that is influenced by social relations (gender, class, kin, and belief systems) and institutions (Ellis, 2000). Understanding how natural resource-dependent people cope with climate change in the context of wider livelihood influences is critical to formulating valid adaptation frameworks.
|
Box 5-6 | Race, Class, Age, and Gender: Hurricane Katrina Recovery and Reconstruction
The intersection of race, class, age, and gender influenced differential decisionmaking; the uneven distribution of vulnerability and exposure; and variable access to post-event aid, recovery, and reconstruction in New Orleans before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina (Elliott and Pais, 2006; Hartman and Squires, 2006; Tierney, 2006). Evacuation can protect people from injury and death, but there are inequalities in who can evacuate and when, with the elderly, poor, and minority residents least able to leave without assistance (Cutter and Smith, 2009). Extended evacuations (or temporary displacements lasting weeks to months) produce negative effects. Prolonged periods of evacuation can result in a number of physical and mental health problems (Curtis et al., 2007; Mills et al., 2007). Furthermore, separation from family and community members and not knowing when a return home will be possible also adds to stress among evacuees (Curtis et al., 2007). DeSalvo et al. (2007) found that long periods of displacement were among the key causes of post-traumatic stress disorder in a study of New Orleans workers. These temporary displacements can also lead to permanent outmigration by specific social groups as shown by the depopulation of New Orleans five years after Hurricane Katrina (Myers et al., 2008). In terms of longer-term recovery, New Orleans is progressing, however large losses in population, housing, and employment suggest a pattern of only partial recovery for the city with significant differences in the location and the timing at the neighborhood or community level (Finch et al., 2010).
|
[...]
5.5.1.3. Health and Disability
The changes in extreme events and impacts of climate change influence the morbidity and mortality of many populations now, and even more so in the future (Campbell-Lendrum et al., 2003). The extreme impacts of climate change (see Sections 3.1.1 and 4.4.6) directly or indirectly affect the health of many populations and these will be felt first at the local level. Heat waves lead to heatstroke and cardiovascular disease, while shifts in air pollution concentrations such as ozone that often increase with higher temperatures cause morbidity from other diseases (Bernard et al., 2001). Heat waves differentially affect populations based on their ethnicity, gender, age (Díaz et al., 2002), and medical and socioeconomic status (O’Neill and Ebi, 2009), consequently raising concerns about health inequalities (see Case Study 9.2.1), especially at the local scale. Health inequalities are of concern in extreme impacts of climate change more generally, as those with the least resources often have the least ability to adapt, making the poor and disenfranchised most vulnerable to climate-related illnesses (McMichael et al., 2008). For extreme events, pre-existing health conditions that characterize vulnerable populations can exacerbate the impact of disaster events since these populations are more susceptible to additional injuries from disaster impacts (Brauer, 1999; Brown, 1999; Parati et al., 2001). Chronic health conditions/disabilities can also lead to subsequent communicable diseases and illnesses in the short term, to lasting chronic illnesses, and to longer-term mental health conditions (Shoaf and Rottmann, 2000; Bourque et al., 2006; Few and Matthies, 2006).
5.7. Information, Data, and Research Gaps at the Local Level
While there has been increasing focus on the processes by which knowledge has been produced, less time has been spent examining the capacity of local communities to critically assess knowledge claims made by others for their reliability and relevance to those communities (Fischhoff, 2007; Pulwarty, 2007). There is the need to move beyond the integration of physical and societal impacts to focus on practice and evaluation. How are impediments to the flow of information created? Is a focus on communication adequate to ensure effective response? How are these nodes defined among differentially vulnerable groups, for example, based on economic class, race, or gender? However, there is little research on the extent to which local jurisdictions have adopted policy options and practice and the ways in which they are being implemented. Most of the studies to date have addressed factors that lead to policy adoption and not necessarily successful implementation.
