Human dependence on agricultural livelihoods, particularly by the poor, is high and
so land use/land cover change needs much attention to monitor the impact of
climate change in developing countries. It is therefore, required that responses to
climate change can either seek to be reduced the level or rate of change (mitigation)
or need to manage its consequences (adaptation) (Halsnaes and Verhagen 2007) at
various level. There are a lot of reports devoted to evaluate vulnerability of climate
change on a national and global level (Easterling 1996; Smit and Smithers 1994;
Ikerd 1997; FAO 2003; Stern 2006; Barnosky 2008; Fischer et al. 2005;
IPCC 2007; Rosenzweig et al. 2002; Warren et al. 2006; Reilly et al. 2001;
Reinsborough 2003; Willis et al. 2004; Wilson and Tyrchniewicz 1995; Milestad
and Darnhofer 2003; McCarthy et al. 2001) but unfortunately more comprehensive
and site specific vulnerability assessment that would have been suitable to plan
possible adaptation measures at local/regional scales are yet to be carried out.
Finally, Vogel et al. (2007) suggests that vulnerability assessment is required
across spatial and varying temporal scales, e.g. assessing present vulnerability at
varying scales (e.g. local to household level as well as national assessments) using
the Human Development Index or other indicators and mapping of vulnerability by
the study of Vulnerability and global environmental change in the year 2001.
Technical adaptations to climate change in many developing countries where the
issue of climate change is overshadowed by a number of immediate development
priorities such as poverty eradication; food and water security; health and natural
resource management; local air—water pollution (Chapter by Surender Kumar and
Parmod Kumar (Chap. 17); Klein et al. 2004; Brown 2008; Downing et al. 1997;
Guilmoto 1998; Ezra and Kiros 2001; Verchot et al. 2007). This has become a key
issue in climate change negotiations, where much of the attention focused on
sources of funding, as well as the emerging issues of equity and compensation (Yin
et al. 2000) are going to bear the brunt of climate change and suffer most from its
negative impacts (Verchot et al. 2007). Looking at vulnerability as an end point has
played a useful role in measuring the extent of the climate change problem, and
weighing the costs of impacts and adaptations against the costs of greenhouse gas
mitigation (Xinhua et al. 1999; Vavrus et al. 2008). Future climate change scenarios and estimates of impacts can provide a useful contextual frame for studies
that take climate change as a starting point (Nordlund 2008; Li et al. 2008).
However, to understand vulnerability as well as adaptation, “greater insights can be
gained from closely looking around and closely looking back at microscopic level
that how farmers changes their way of living in changing climatic condition rather
than from looking forward” (Adger 2003; Fuessel 2007; Thomas 2008;
Abbas 2015). Thus, transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches require for
developing the climate resilient society and ecology.
636
S. Nautiyal et al.
so land use/land cover change needs much attention to monitor the impact of
climate change in developing countries. It is therefore, required that responses to
climate change can either seek to be reduced the level or rate of change (mitigation)
or need to manage its consequences (adaptation) (Halsnaes and Verhagen 2007) at
various level. There are a lot of reports devoted to evaluate vulnerability of climate
change on a national and global level (Easterling 1996; Smit and Smithers 1994;
Ikerd 1997; FAO 2003; Stern 2006; Barnosky 2008; Fischer et al. 2005;
IPCC 2007; Rosenzweig et al. 2002; Warren et al. 2006; Reilly et al. 2001;
Reinsborough 2003; Willis et al. 2004; Wilson and Tyrchniewicz 1995; Milestad
and Darnhofer 2003; McCarthy et al. 2001) but unfortunately more comprehensive
and site specific vulnerability assessment that would have been suitable to plan
possible adaptation measures at local/regional scales are yet to be carried out.
Finally, Vogel et al. (2007) suggests that vulnerability assessment is required
across spatial and varying temporal scales, e.g. assessing present vulnerability at
varying scales (e.g. local to household level as well as national assessments) using
the Human Development Index or other indicators and mapping of vulnerability by
the study of Vulnerability and global environmental change in the year 2001.
Technical adaptations to climate change in many developing countries where the
issue of climate change is overshadowed by a number of immediate development
priorities such as poverty eradication; food and water security; health and natural
resource management; local air—water pollution (Chapter by Surender Kumar and
Parmod Kumar (Chap. 17); Klein et al. 2004; Brown 2008; Downing et al. 1997;
Guilmoto 1998; Ezra and Kiros 2001; Verchot et al. 2007). This has become a key
issue in climate change negotiations, where much of the attention focused on
sources of funding, as well as the emerging issues of equity and compensation (Yin
et al. 2000) are going to bear the brunt of climate change and suffer most from its
negative impacts (Verchot et al. 2007). Looking at vulnerability as an end point has
played a useful role in measuring the extent of the climate change problem, and
weighing the costs of impacts and adaptations against the costs of greenhouse gas
mitigation (Xinhua et al. 1999; Vavrus et al. 2008). Future climate change scenarios and estimates of impacts can provide a useful contextual frame for studies
that take climate change as a starting point (Nordlund 2008; Li et al. 2008).
However, to understand vulnerability as well as adaptation, “greater insights can be
gained from closely looking around and closely looking back at microscopic level
that how farmers changes their way of living in changing climatic condition rather
than from looking forward” (Adger 2003; Fuessel 2007; Thomas 2008;
Abbas 2015). Thus, transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches require for
developing the climate resilient society and ecology.
636
S. Nautiyal et al.