356
Vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity Vulnerability is a broad concept
used in different research traditions and encompasses both biophysical and social
systems. In the context of climate change, the IPCC defines 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. 21). This definition includes an external biophysical dimension, represented through exposure to
climate change and variability, as well as an internal social dimension of a system,
which comprises its sensitivity and adaptive capacity. When determining the vulnerability of a system (which can refer to either countries, ecosystems, societies, or
individuals), one must consider both its ability to recover from disturbance (i.e.
resilience) as well as its resistance to being disturbed (i.e. adaptive capacity). At the
individual level, personal transformation leading towards better psychological resilience and adaptation is poorly studied among farming populations.
Resilience has roots in ecology and can be described as the capacity of biophysical and social systems to prevent, mitigate, or cope with risk and recover from
shocks. The conceptual linkages between vulnerability and resilience are very complex and blurry, as they originate from different social scientific disciplines, but can
be applied to both biophysical and social systems. At first approximation, resilience
can be seen as an antonym of vulnerability because, to some, vulnerability refers to
the capacity to preserve the structure of the system, while resilience refers to its
capacity to recover from nonstructural changes in dynamics (Gallopín 2006).
Others, however, view resilience as a component of vulnerability or use both terms
interchangeably (Gallopín 2006). Without intention to engage further into this epistemological debate, we would like to point out the relations between the concepts of
adaptive capacity (as an integral part of vulnerability) and resilience. In the context
of climate change, adaptive capacity is defined as ‘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’
(IPCC 2001, p. 21). This implies that resilience is a component of adaptive capacity
in the context of mitigation or recovery from shocks, while the ability to adjust and
respond to changes provides capacity to maintain resilience. For example, a cropping system that is drought tolerant implies the preparedness of the system to cope
and mitigate the damage caused by the extended periods of drought, which is therefore drought-resilient. The adaptive capacity of this system, however, provides the
means of increasing and maintaining resilience (e.g. conservation agriculture
knowledge and skills via extension, access to drought-resistant crop varieties, or
irrigation system). Therefore, systems with high adaptive capacity and resilience are
able to reconfigure without significant declines in crucial functions in relation to
primary productivity, natural resource-based sustainability, social relations, and
well-being during and after stresses and shocks (Nyamwanza 2012).
Changes in climatic conditions will require different adaptation strategies, in
terms of both livelihood strategies and adjustments in agricultural production to
alleviate the severity of climate change impacts and increase in adaptive capacity. If
B. K. Sitaula et al.
Vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity Vulnerability is a broad concept
used in different research traditions and encompasses both biophysical and social
systems. In the context of climate change, the IPCC defines 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. 21). This definition includes an external biophysical dimension, represented through exposure to
climate change and variability, as well as an internal social dimension of a system,
which comprises its sensitivity and adaptive capacity. When determining the vulnerability of a system (which can refer to either countries, ecosystems, societies, or
individuals), one must consider both its ability to recover from disturbance (i.e.
resilience) as well as its resistance to being disturbed (i.e. adaptive capacity). At the
individual level, personal transformation leading towards better psychological resilience and adaptation is poorly studied among farming populations.
Resilience has roots in ecology and can be described as the capacity of biophysical and social systems to prevent, mitigate, or cope with risk and recover from
shocks. The conceptual linkages between vulnerability and resilience are very complex and blurry, as they originate from different social scientific disciplines, but can
be applied to both biophysical and social systems. At first approximation, resilience
can be seen as an antonym of vulnerability because, to some, vulnerability refers to
the capacity to preserve the structure of the system, while resilience refers to its
capacity to recover from nonstructural changes in dynamics (Gallopín 2006).
Others, however, view resilience as a component of vulnerability or use both terms
interchangeably (Gallopín 2006). Without intention to engage further into this epistemological debate, we would like to point out the relations between the concepts of
adaptive capacity (as an integral part of vulnerability) and resilience. In the context
of climate change, adaptive capacity is defined as ‘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’
(IPCC 2001, p. 21). This implies that resilience is a component of adaptive capacity
in the context of mitigation or recovery from shocks, while the ability to adjust and
respond to changes provides capacity to maintain resilience. For example, a cropping system that is drought tolerant implies the preparedness of the system to cope
and mitigate the damage caused by the extended periods of drought, which is therefore drought-resilient. The adaptive capacity of this system, however, provides the
means of increasing and maintaining resilience (e.g. conservation agriculture
knowledge and skills via extension, access to drought-resistant crop varieties, or
irrigation system). Therefore, systems with high adaptive capacity and resilience are
able to reconfigure without significant declines in crucial functions in relation to
primary productivity, natural resource-based sustainability, social relations, and
well-being during and after stresses and shocks (Nyamwanza 2012).
Changes in climatic conditions will require different adaptation strategies, in
terms of both livelihood strategies and adjustments in agricultural production to
alleviate the severity of climate change impacts and increase in adaptive capacity. If
B. K. Sitaula et al.