Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change · R osita Pedro was born in a tree, high above the...

Chapter

3Human Vulnerability

to EnvironmentalChange

UNEP, Chaiwat Chittirapap, Topham Picturepoint

Rosita Pedro was born in a tree, high above theraging, muddy waters of the Limpopo River infull flood. Rosita was born vulnerable, how

much more precarious a start to life could anybodyhave? The reason for Rosita’s plight, and that of hermother Sofia, was a mixture of natural phenomena andhuman impacts. The floods that devastatedMozambique in March 2000 were a natural occurrencebut their severity was exacerbated by poor landmanagement, serious erosion of wetlands andovergrazing of grasslands in the upper watersheds ofthe Limpopo river in Botswana, South Africa andZimbabwe. Wetlands absorb excess water like asponge and release it slowly into a watershed or riversystem, so their shrinking removes that safety valve.Grasslands damaged by overgrazing and burning hadbecome compacted and hardened, allowing water toflow off into rivers instead of seeping into the soil. Inaddition, meteorologists attributed the torrential rainsto exceptionally warm surface temperatures in theIndian Ocean and Mozambique Channel, possiblyassociated with global warming. In the resultingdisaster, several hundred people were killed andthousands displaced and impoverished (Guardian 2000,Stoddard 2000).

Understanding vulnerabilityVulnerability represents the interface betweenexposure to the physical threats to human well-beingand the capacity of people and communities to copewith those threats. Threats may arise from acombination of social and physical processes. Humanvulnerability thus integrates many environmentalconcerns. Since everyone is vulnerable toenvironmental threats, in some way, the issue cutsacross rich and poor, urban and rural, North and South,and may undermine the entire sustainabledevelopment process in developing countries.Reducing vulnerability requires identifying points ofintervention in the causal chain between theemergence of a hazard and the human consequences(Clark and others 1998).

Many natural phenomena pose threats, includingextreme events such as floods, drought, fire, storms,tsunami, landslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakesand insect swarms. Human activities have added tothe list, with threats from explosions, chemical andradioactive contamination, and other technological

incidents. The risk lies in the probability of exposureto any of these events, which can occur with varyingseverity at different geographical scales, suddenly andunexpectedly or gradually and predictably, and to thedegree of exposure. With an increasing and morewidely distributed global population, however, naturaldisasters are resulting in increasing damage, loss oflife and displacement of populations. In addition,human-induced changes to the environment havereduced its capacity to absorb the impacts of changeand to deliver the goods and services to satisfy humanneeds.

The analysis of environmental impacts inChapter 2 revealed many examples of whereindividuals, communities and even countries arevulnerable to threats from their physical environment.Environmental change and social vulnerability to it isnothing new. More than 9 000 years ago, theSumerians of Mesopotamia started irrigating land tomeet increased demand for food from a growingpopulation but their civilization eventually collapsedpartly because of the waterlogging and salinizationthat resulted. The Mayan civilization collapsed around900 B.C. mainly as a result of soil erosion, loss ofagro-ecosystem viability and silting of rivers. TheDust Bowl phenomenon of the American prairies inthe 20th century resulted from massive soil erosion,and led to communities being uprooted andwidespread poverty. During the three days ofLondon’s ‘Great Smog’ of 1952, some 4 000 peopledied as a result of a lethal combination of air ladenwith particulates and SO2 from the widespreadburning of coal and a temperature inversion caused byanticyclonic conditions over the city (Met Office2002).

Some people live in places of inherent risk tohumans — areas, for example, that are too hot, too dryor too prone to natural hazards. Others such as RositaPedro are at risk because an existing threat hasbecome more severe or extensive through time.Places or conditions which were once safe have beenso altered that they no longer safeguard human healthand well-being adequately. Many of the children underthe age of five who die every year from diarrhoealdisease contract it from drinking contaminated water(see Chapter 2, ‘Freshwater’).

Most environments are in a constant state of fluxbecause of natural causes and human modifications forfood production, settlements, infrastructure, or to

3 0 2 HUMAN VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

produce and trade goods. Most intentional changes aredesigned to harness the environment for humanbenefit. Domestication of land for intensive foodproduction is one example; harnessing river resourcesto provide fresh water, energy and transport isanother. Such changes may also unintentionally alterthe quality or quantity of environmental resources andbe difficult to cope with.

Analysing old and new threats to human securityshows that human vulnerability to environmentalconditions has social, economic and ecologicaldimensions. The most conspicuous and widelyreported manifestation of this vulnerability is whenpeople are affected suddenly and violently by naturalhazards such as the eruption of Mount Nyiragongoresulting in the devastation of the town of Goma in theDemocratic Republic of Congo (see box). Theseevents turn into disasters when local communities arenot able to cope with their impacts. Theenvironmental factors that contribute to humanvulnerability, however, are both varied and variable,and are not limited to disaster events; they span thewhole sustainable development spectrum.

Vulnerable groupsAlthough everyone is vulnerable to environmentalimpacts of some kind, the ability of people andsocieties to adapt to and cope with change is veryvaried. Developing countries, particularly the leastdeveloped, have less capacity to adapt to change andare more vulnerable to environmental threats andglobal change, just as they are more vulnerable to

other stresses. This condition is most extreme amongthe poorest people (IPCC 2001) and disadvantagedgroups such as women and children.

The coping capacity of human society is acombination of all the natural and social characteristicsand resources available in a particular location that areused to reduce the impacts of hazards (IATFDR 2001).These include factors such as wealth, technology,education, information, skills, infrastructure, access toresources and management capabilities. Between twoand three times as many disaster events werereported in the United States in 1999 as in India orBangladesh but there were 14 times and 34 timesmore deaths in India and in Bangladesh, respectively,than in the United States (UNEP 2000). The criticalfactor behind these statistics lies in the advantagesenjoyed by US citizens in terms of levels of copingcapacity (see also Chapter 2, ‘Disasters’). There is,therefore, no direct correlation between theoccurrence of extreme events and their level of humanimpact.

In many instances, coping capacity that wasadequate in the past has not kept pace withenvironmental change. This can happen whentraditional options are reduced or eliminated (thesettlement of nomads, the introduction of regulationsrestricting resource use that was previously free), orwhen new threats emerge for which no copingmechanism exists, resources are lacking, andtechnology and skills are not available.

Some groups are more exposed than others toparticular environmental risks: urban populations areexposed to high levels of contaminant and particulatepollution in the air, slum dwellers often lack theminimum protective infrastructure, employees may beexposed to particular hazards in the work place, andthe uninformed may simply not know about thethreats that surround them. A wide range of social andeconomic factors have direct and indirect bearing onhuman vulnerability to environmental change,including poverty and inequality, and the availability ofnatural resources. No standard framework exists foridentifying all these factors.

Poverty is generally recognized as one of the mostimportant causes of vulnerability to environmentalthreats, on the basis that the poor tend to have muchlower coping capacities, and thus they bear adisproportionate burden of the impact of disasters,conflict, drought, desertification and pollution. But

HUMAN VULNERABILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 3 0 3

Mount Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of Congo haserupted more than 50 times in the past 150 years. Despitethis potential hazard, the fertility of the surrounding areawith its rich volcanic soils and its proximity to the lakecontinues to attract people. The eruption of Nyiragongo on17 January 2002 affected an area already beset by years ofcivil conflict, which had severely diminished people’s copingstrategies. Residents received little warning of the impendingeruption. The town of Goma, 18 km from the volcano, wasdevastated by flows of lava 1-2 metres high that engulfedthe town and destroyed 14 nearby villages. At least 147people were killed and many more injured. Approximately350 000 people were affected, with some 30 000 peopledisplaced and 12 500 households destroyed.

Sources: USAID 2002 and ETE 2000

Vulnerability in a crisis area: Mount Nyiragongo

poverty is not the only reason. The very young andthe old, women and children are often identified asespecially vulnerable groups. Refugees, migrants andother displaced groups lack both the physicalresources and social structure necessary to respond tothreats although paradoxically they may initiallybenefit from the high visibility of their plight. Theurban poor, on the other hand, usually live inobscurity, and in times of disaster their numbers canswell enormously. The mosaics of vulnerability seemso complex as to cast doubt on attempts to describepatterns and estimate trends at the global or even theregional scale. General or gradual economic declinecan affect vulnerable groups disproportionately,creating severe but largely hidden hardships (Downingand Bakker 2000).

The cultural dimension is important. Indigenouscommunities with unique lifestyles intimately adaptedto local climate, vegetation and wildlife may beparticularly threatened by environmental change (seebox above). Traditionally, many indigenouscommunities developed highly specific copingmechanisms to deal with their environments andperiodic extreme events. Such coping mechanismsincluded adaptive behaviour such as regular seasonalmigration or exceptional relocation in times of floodingor drought, and changes in practices such as plantingand gathering specific food crops; for example, fruitsand foods that are not usually eaten during times ofgood harvests may be relied upon in times of cropfailure. With the breakdown of social patterns, andreduction of options to continue following indigenouslifestyles, such coping mechanisms are also giving wayor disappearing.

Poor and indigenous communities are considered

to be more vulnerable to climate-related events suchas storms, floods and droughts because ofinadequacies in social support services and systemssuch as water management infrastructure (IPCC2001). They are also more affected by pests anddiseases — especially vector-borne, respiratory andother infectious diseases (Woodward and others 1998,Braaf 1999). In addition, since many poor inhabitisolated rural environments or the margins of largetowns and cities, they are more exposed to socialproblems associated with economic insecurity,inadequate water supplies and lower health standards.

Vulnerable placesHuman exposure to environmental threats is notevenly distributed. Some locations, such as highlatitudes (see box below), floodplains, river banks,small islands and coastal areas, may pose more riskthan others. Human uses or modifications of theenvironment such as deforestation, increasing pavedareas covered by buildings and roads, and rivercanalization have created impacts that often affectareas a long way from the source of the environmentalchange, such as far downstream.

Individual choices have an enormous bearing onwhere people live and work, with the result thathuman vulnerability is closely related to populationdensity and distribution. Floodplains, low-lying coastalareas and volcanic areas have always been favoured forsettlement because of their soil fertility or theavailability of flat land. As populations increase andthere is more competition for land and resources,areas of higher potential risk are increasingly being


The culture of the indigenous peoples of the Mackenzie basin in northwest Canadais threatened by climate change. Over the past 35 years, temperatures haveincreased rapidly by about 1ºC a decade, with significant results such as meltingpermafrost, increasing numbers of landslips and forest fires, and decreasinggroundwater levels. More frequent forest fires will reduce traditionally importantterrestrial, aquatic and bird species. Because of a decrease in water availability,muskrats have already disappeared from the Peace Athabasca delta. Changes suchas these in the ecosystem and resource base jeopardize the sustainability oftraditional lifestyles that are dependent on wildlife harvested by hunting, fishing andtrapping as a prime source of food, income and traditional clothing.

Sources: Cohen and others 1997

Culture and climate change

People living in high latitudes are particularly vulnerable tomalignant melanoma (skin cancer). The prevalence of thiscondition has increased dramatically in the 20th centuryand has been attributed to increased ultraviolet (UV)radiation resulting from ozone depletion, caused mainly byindustrialized countries. Changes in behaviour, such asincreasingly outdoor lifestyles and sunbathing, arecontributory factors. In the year 2000, 78.5 per cent ofmelanoma cases, and 73 per cent of melanoma-relateddeaths reported worldwide, were in developed countries(Ferlay and others 2001). In the United States, there hasbeen a 1 800 per cent rise in reported cases of malignantmelanoma since 1930. One in five Americans develops skincancer, and one American dies of it every hour (US EPA1998).

The hazards of living in high latitudes

settled, such as mountains, steep slopes and locationsnear sources of pollution. Such settlers are vulnerableto the associated single or combined hazards such aslandslides, flooding, volcanic eruptions and toxicchemicals. Again, the poorest strata of society areoften the most vulnerable because they have feweroptions in where to live.

For various reasons, even the more affluent oftenchoose to live or work in areas prone to environmentalthreats or hazards. Those living along the earthquake-prone San Andreas fault in California are a primeexample, as are those who settle in hurricane belts, onsand spits, on eroding coastlines or in towns wherewater supplies are inadequate to meet demand.Clearly, the benefits of the location (employment, jobsecurity, leisure facilities) are perceived to outweighthe known risks. Measures to mitigate the risks maybe sought in the form of insurance or purchasing ascarce commodity such as water but these options arenot always appropriate, available or affordable to allmembers of the community.

In 2002, more than 1 billion urban dwellers, mostlyin Africa, Asia and Latin America, live in slums or assquatters UNCHS 2001). Of the projected 1 billionnew urban dwellers by 2010, most will probably beabsorbed by cities in developing countries that alreadyface multiple problems such as shortages of adequatehousing, infrastructure, potable water supplies,adequate sanitation and transportation systems as wellas environmental pollution. The urban poor, unable to

afford alternatives, are frequently forced to live inareas with the worst urban services and mostunhealthy environmental conditions, exposed tomultiple hazards and increased risk, their vulnerabilityenhanced by overcrowding.

Some communities have become more vulnerablebecause the scarcity of critical resources such as land,fresh water and forests is contributing to conflicts.These environmental scarcities do not usually causewars among countries but they can generate severe


Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) are catastrophic discharges of water resultingprimarily from melting glaciers.

Global warming over the past half century has led to an accelerated retreat ofthe glaciers and enlargement of several glacial lakes in the Hindu Kush and TibetanHimalayas. In Bhutan, for example, some glaciers are retreating at a rate of 20-30metres a year. Many glacial lakes are dammed by unstable moraines. Occasionallythese dams burst and release large amounts of stored water, causing seriousflooding downstream and along the river channel. The water contains substantialdebris and causes serious damage — often at great distances from the outburstsource; in Pakistan, damage has occurred 1 300 km from the outburst source.Such flash floods are a common problem in countries such as Bhutan, China(Tibet), India, Nepal and Pakistan.

In Nepal, records indicate that GLOFs occur once every three to ten years. Overthe past few decades at least 12 GLOFs have caused major damage toinfrastructure. For example, Dig Tsho glacial lake in Bhutan burst on 4 August1985, causing significant loss of life and destroying the nearly completed Namchehydropower plant, as well as 14 bridges.

Sources: WECS 1987, Watanabe and Rothacher 1996

Floods caused by glacial lake outbursts

An estimated 30 million people depend on LakeVictoria, a lake whose natural resources are underincreasing stress. The population on the shore hasgrown fast over the past century withcorresponding increases in the demand for fish andagricultural products. Following the introduction ofgill nets by European settlers at the beginning ofthe 20th century, populations of indigenous fishspecies declined. Many were specially adapted toeat algae, decaying plant material, and snails thathost the larvae of Schistosomes that causebilharzia in humans. The lake started toeutrophicate and people became more vulnerableto disease.

As fish catches declined, non-native specieswere introduced, so causing further stress toindigenous fish. The greatest impact resulted fromthe introduction of nile perch (Lates niloticus) in

the 1960s, as the basis of commercial freshwaterfisheries. This had repercussions on the localfishing economy and distribution of wealth. Localpeople who previously met most of their proteinrequirements from the lake began to suffer frommalnutrition and protein deficiency. Although20 000 tonnes of fish are exported annually toEuropean and Asian markets, local people canafford only fish heads and bones from which theflesh has been removed.

Wetlands around the lake have beenconverted to grow rice, cotton and sugarcane, andtheir function as natural filters for silt and nutrientshas been lost. Run-off now carries soil and excessnutrients from the cultivated areas straight into thelake. The resulting algal growth clouds the surfacewater and reduces oxygen availability, seriouslyaffecting the habitat of endemic fish species, which

prefer clear waters, while their predator, the nileperch, thrives in such murky waters. This furtheraggravates food insecurity in lakeside communities.

Increased nutrients, much in the form ofsewage, have stimulated the growth of the waterhyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), one of the world’smost invasive plants. This has seriously affectedwater transport and paralysed many local fisheries.By the end of 1997, the 70 per cent decline ineconomic activity reported at Kisumu port wasattributable to water hyacinth choking the port andfish landings. The dense cover of water hyacinthalso stimulated secondary weed growth, andprovided habitats for snails and mosquitoes — thisin an area where the incidence of bilharzia andmalaria is already among the highest in the world.

Source: Fuggle 2001

Africa’s Lake Victoria basin: multiple dimensions of vulnerability

social stresses within countries or across borders,helping to stimulate sub-national insurgencies, ethnicclashes and urban unrest. Such civil violence affectsdeveloping societies particularly because they aregenerally more dependent on environmental resourcesand less able to buffer themselves from the socialcrisis that environmental scarcities cause (Homer-Dixon 1999).

Environmental changeTwo basic functions performed by the environment arethe ‘source’ or production function that supports thelivelihood of millions who depend upon environmentalresources, and the ‘sink’ or pollution absorption andcleansing function essential for human health andwell-being. Not only are these two functions closelyconnected in a cycle of production and renewal butthey are being increasingly impaired and degraded byhuman impacts.

Degradation of natural resources such as land,fresh and marine waters, forests and biodiversitythreatens the livelihood of many people but especiallythe poor. For example, water tables are falling fastunder the North China plain. In 1997, almost 100 000wells were abandoned apparently because they ran dryas the water table fell, but 221 900 new wells weredrilled. The drilling of so many wells reflects adesperate quest for water (Brown 2001).

The ‘sink’ function of the environment operatesthrough such processes as nutrient recycling,

decomposition, and the natural purification andfiltering of air and water. When these functions areimpaired, health can be jeopardized by contaminatedhousehold water, sanitation problems, indoor airpollution, urban air pollution and agrochemicalpollution.

How people are affectedEnvironmental change may have impacts on health,habitat and infrastructure, economy, society andculture, increasing vulnerability. The sections belowdiscuss three of these areas: health, food security andeconomic effects.

HealthHuman health is increasingly determined byenvironmental conditions (Rapport and others 1999,McMichael 2001). According to a report from theWorld Health Organization (WHO 1997), for example:

● Deteriorating environmental conditions are a majorcontributory factor to poor health and poor qualityof life. Mismanagement of natural resources,excessive waste production and associatedenvironmental conditions that affect health posemajor challenges to sustainable development.

● Impoverished populations living in rural and peri-urban areas are at greatest risk from degradedenvironmental conditions. The cumulative effectsof inadequate and hazardous shelter, overcrowding,lack of water supply and sanitation, unsafe food, airand water pollution, and high accident rates, haveserious effects on the health of these vulnerablegroups.

● Poor environmental quality is directly responsiblefor some 25 per cent of all preventable ill health,with diarrhoeal diseases and acute respiratoryinfections heading the list.

● Two-thirds of all preventable ill health due toenvironmental conditions occurs among children.

● Air pollution is a major contributor to a number ofdiseases, and to a lowering of the quality of life ingeneral.

There are regional differences in the way humanhealth is vulnerable to environmental degradation.Communities in many parts of Central and SouthAmerica, Central Africa and Asia are highly vulnerable


Poor land-use management can have profound effects on people. By 1986,deforestation in the upper reaches of the Yangtze basin in China had reduced forestcover from 22 per cent of total area in 1957 to only 10 per cent. As a result, soilerosion from the upper reaches and siltation in the middle and lower reaches hadbecome intense. In 1998, the most severe flood in Chinese history hit the Yangtzevalley, affecting 223 million people and causing more than US$36 billion ineconomic losses (Shougong 1999).

In July 1997, vast areas of southern Poland, the eastern Czech Republic andwestern Slovakia experienced one of the most disastrous floods in history when theOder, Elbe, Vistula and Morava Rivers overflowed. In Poland alone, flooding affectedone-quarter of the land area, including nearly 1 400 towns and villages, destroyed50 000 homes and caused 162 000 people to be evacuated. Total damage wasestimated at US$4 billion. The severity of the floods was attributed to thedestruction of forest and wetlands, engineering works on the main rivers andtributaries, and the removal of water-retaining vegetation which made riverine areasmore susceptible to flooding. Floods have become an increasingly regularoccurrence for more than a decade (EEA 2001).

Watershed management and flooding

to water-borne and vector-borne diseases. Airpollution threatens large urban areas and mega-cities,most of which are in developing countries. People indeveloped countries are more vulnerable to exposureto toxic chemicals and technological accidents butthere are notable exceptions such as arseniccontamination in south Asia (see box).

Overall, it is estimated that 25-33 per cent of theglobal burden of disease is attributable toenvironmental factors (Smith, Corvalán andKjellström 1999). Recent estimates suggest thatenvironment-related premature death and illnessaccount for 18 per cent of the total burden of diseasein the developing world (Murray and Lopez 1996).This comprises contributions from water supply andsanitation (7 per cent), indoor air pollution (4 percent), vector-borne diseases (3 per cent), urban airpollution (2 per cent) and agro-industrial waste (1 percent). In sub-Saharan Africa the figure is even higherat 26.5 per cent, mainly related to water supply andsanitation (10 per cent) and vector-borne diseases (9per cent).

Globally, 7 per cent of all deaths and diseases aredue to inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene(UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WRI 1998).Approximately 5 per cent are attributable to airpollution (Holdren and Smith 2000). Every year,environmental hazards kill 3 million children under theage of five (WHO 2002). Current estimates suggestthat 40-60 per cent of those deaths are due to acuterespiratory infection resulting from environmentalfactors, particularly particle emissions from solid fueluse (Smith, Corvalán and Kjellström 1999). In theUnited States, a 10 µg/m3 increase in fine particle air

pollution results in a 4 per cent increase in generalmorbidity, a 6 per cent increase in cardio-pulmonarymortality and an 8 per cent increase in lung cancermortality (Arden-Pope and others 2002).

In the short term, disease due to environmentalchange is likely to have more impact on developingcountries than on developed ones. This is partlybecause developed countries have devotedconsiderable effort to reducing the health threat fromdirty water, poor sanitation and using solid fuels inopen fires inside homes. The same is not true formost developing countries. As a result, exposures toparticulates for non-smokers are often an order ofmagnitude lower in developed countries than indeveloping ones. In Helsinki, for example, theparticulates in the air come mainly from indoor dust,cleaning products, traffic and long-range transport(Koistinen and others 2002). In developing countries,the use of solid fuel as a primary energy supplydominates the exposure of non-smokers to particlepollution, especially among women and children inrural and slum environments. In the past decade,smoke haze from forest fires has also become animportant source of respiratory disease (see imageabove). Furthermore, most developing countries stilllack the resources to deal effectively with publichealth crises and are situated in regions where manywater-borne and vector-borne diseases are acute.

Microbiological contamination of the sea bysewage pollution has precipitated a health crisis ofmassive proportions globally. Bathing in polluted seasis estimated to cause some 250 million cases ofgastroenteritis and upper respiratory disease everyyear, with an estimated annual cost worldwide of about


In Bangladesh, naturally occurring arsenic in undergroundsediment leaches into the groundwater. More than 25 percent of the 4 million tube wells that are the main source ofdrinking water contain dangerous levels of arsenic. Nearly75 million people are vulnerable to arsenic poisoning whichcan cause skin cancer, kidney and liver failure, respiratoryproblems and death. About 24 million people have alreadybeen exposed to arsenic poisoning. Agricultural production isaffected by arsenic-contaminated water in a 500-km swathof rice paddies and banana groves between the GangesRiver and the Indian border.

Sources: Karim 2000, BICN 2001a and 2001b, and UN Wire 2001

Arsenic contamination in Bangladesh

Satellite imageshows extensivesmoke haze overIndonesia andneighbouringareas on 20October 1997.Hot spots areprobable areas offorest fires.Smoke haze hadsevere effects onthe health ofpeople over awide area ofSoutheast Asia

Source:MeteorologicalService of Singapore2002

US$1.6 billion. Some of these people will be disabledover the longer-term, suggesting that the globalimpacts of marine pollution are comparable to those ofdiphtheria and leprosy (see also page 181). Eatingsewage-contaminated shellfish causes an estimated2.5 million cases of infectious hepatitis a year, ofwhom some 25 000 die and another 25 000 suffer long-term disability resulting from liver damage. Theannual global burden on human health is estimated toequal some 3.2 million DALYs — comparable to theworldwide impact of all upper respiratory infectionsand intestinal worm diseases — and to cost worldsociety some US$10 billion annually (GESAMP 2001).

Food securityThere is only a fine line between harnessingenvironmental resources to provide goods andservices to meet people’s needs, and misusing,damaging or overexploiting those resources to thepoint where people’s lives, health or well-being areput at risk and they become vulnerable.

Food security means being able to obtain anutritionally adequate, culturally acceptable diet at alltimes through local non-emergency sources. Thisrequires both adequate food production or imports,and economic access to food at the household level, atall times, to ensure a healthy active life (Vyas 2000).This idea goes well beyond the traditional concept ofhunger: it embraces a systematic view of the causes ofhunger and poor nutrition within a community

(Umrani and Shah 1999), recognizing both physicaland economic vulnerability.

Projections of production increases suggest thatthe global availability of food should be adequate in


<2.5

2.5–4

5–19

20–34

>35

extremely low

very low

moderately low

moderately high

very high

no data

Undernourishment by country (% of population undernourished)

From independence until the mid-1970s, India facedproblems of food scarcity. The green revolution that began inthe mid-1960s combined new seed and fertilizer technology,substantial increases in irrigated land, infrastructuredevelopment and rural extension to all regions. The resultwas an unprecedented increase in the yield of major cerealssuch as wheat and rice, decreased production costs and aconsequent fall in prices that enabled poor people to buywheat and rice. The production of foodgrains increased from50.8 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 199.3 million tonnes in1996-97. By the mid-1970s, India was self-sufficient infood grains.

Despite the impressive results of the 1980s, recent trendsin aggregate production growth have been a matter forserious concern. Foodgrain production grew by 3.43 percent on average during the period 1991-92 to 1996-97 butthe foodgrain production target of 210 million tonnes wasnot met. In 1996-97, the production of rice stood at 81.3million tonnes, about 9 per cent less than the targeted 88million. These figures must be viewed against a significantjump in the use of fertilizer and pesticides. The consumptionof fertilizers (NPK) that had been stagnant at around 12million tonnes between 1990-91 and 1993-94, increasedto reach the level of 14.3 million tonnes in 1996-97.

Source : Planning Commission of India 2001

Food security: is the green revolution losing momentum?

Vulnerability tohunger isreflected in thismap of the globalstate of under-nourishment.Undernourishedpeople areunable to obtainthe food theyneed fromproduction orimports, eitherbecause it is notavailable orbecause theycannot afford it

Source: FAO 2000

coming decades. Aggregate statistics, however, areoften misleading, and can hide the real situation on theground. For example, per capita food production inAfrica has declined slightly over the past 30 years anddecreased significantly in the former Soviet Unionsince 1990 (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WRI 1998).

Agricultural growth as a consequence of the GreenRevolution has also had an adverse impact on theenvironment in terms of nutrient mining, increase insoil salinity, waterlogging, depletion of undergroundwater and the release of nitrogen into watercourses(see box on page 308).

Economic lossesHuman vulnerability to environmental change has animportant economic dimension. Human well-being isinextricably linked to ecosystems through the goodsand services that ecosystems provide. This includesboth marketed goods and services, such as food orforest products, and non-marketed ones such as waterflow regulation, so that any reduction or degradation insupply leads to a loss of human welfare (see boxbelow). In Japan, for example, the damage toagricultural crops caused by tropospheric ozoneamounts to an estimated US$166.5 million yearly inthe Kanto region alone (ECES 2001).

The economic dimensions of vulnerability toenvironmental change often focus on the impact ofnatural disasters or other extreme events. While totallosses may be highest in developed countries, withtheir expensive infrastructure, the impact on theeconomies of developing regions may be greater. Forexample, the 1991-92 drought that hit most ofSouthern Africa resulted in a decline of 62 per cent inthe Zimbabwe Stock Market (Benson and Clay 1994).

The potential economic losses of non-marketedecosystem goods and services and the impact onhuman vulnerability are likely to be even higher thanfor marketed goods and services. Equally, littleattention is paid to the high economic cost of moregradual environmental degradation and loss of naturalresource potential.

Responding to human vulnerabilityThe cumulative evidence for increasing humanvulnerability to environmental change calls for asignificant policy response and action on severalfronts. Social responses have frequently focused on‘downstream’ measures, designed to mitigate thehardships and cushion the impacts of environmentalchange or natural disaster after the event, rather thanon interventions intended to modify basic drivingforces ahead of a potential crisis. The onset ofconditions that give rise to threats and vulnerabilitycan often be gradual or inconspicuous. Donors areoften ready to offer relief once a high-profile disastersuch as a famine or flood has occurred but they areless likely to finance precautionary measures.‘Upstream’ intervention is generally highly cost-effective and should be given greater priority.

Levels and trends of vulnerability for differentgroups need to be assessed regularly as a basis fordesigning specific measures for vulnerability reductionand evaluating their impact. Governments need toassess and map national threats due to environmentalchange, particularly those that may be growing, and toinstitute early warning, mitigation and responsemeasures to reduce the human and economic costs ofdisasters that are in part avoidable. Vulnerabilityshould be recognized as a key indicator of theseriousness of environmental problems such as globalwarming (Adger and others 2001). It should be a focusfor developing policies that seek to help people avoid,cope with or adapt to adverse effects of environmentalchange. Prior action to mitigate threats and to boostpeople’s capacity to cope with or prepare for changemakes more sense than remedial efforts after the


Economic development has been the watchword in India’smarch into the 21st century, but a conservative estimate ofenvironmental damage put the figure at more than US$10billion a year, or 4.5 per cent of GDP, in 1992. A breakdownof the estimated costs shows that urban air pollution costsIndia US$1.3 billion a year; and water degradation hasassociated health costs of US$5.7 billion a year, nearlythree-fifths of total environmental costs. Land degradationcauses productivity losses of around US$2.4 billion anddeforestation leads to annual losses of US$214 million.

Source: Suchak 2002

The cost of resource degradation in India

‘It is not so much that humanity is trying to sustain the naturalworld, but rather that humanity is trying to sustain itself. Theprecariousness of nature is our peril, our fragility.’ — AmartyaSen, Nobel Laureate Economist

event. The following sections discuss some possibleapproaches.

Reducing vulnerabilityThere is a large and widening vulnerability gapbetween well-off people, with better all-round copingcapacity, who are becoming gradually less vulnerable,and the poor who grow increasingly so. It is vital tothe sustainable development effort that this gap isaddressed, as well as vulnerability itself. For the mostsignificant improvements, priority should go topolicies that reduce the vulnerability of the poor aspart of general strategies for poverty reduction. Thisis in keeping with the general priority being given topoverty reduction as essential to sustainabledevelopment.

Increasing human vulnerability is only nowachieving wide recognition, so that few existingpolicies specifically address this issue. However, anumber of studies, programmes and projects arecurrently addressing aspects of human vulnerabilityand these have already yielded valuable lessons forfuture policy action. Two types of policy response arepossible: reducing the threat through prevention andpreparedness initiatives, and improving the copingcapacity of vulnerable groups to enable them to dealwith the threat.

Reducing exposure to threatsExposure to threats can be minimized by reducing therisk — in other words the probability that damage will

occur. In theory, exposure can always be avoided bymoving people out of hazardous situations but this isnot always feasible in practice. Currently, theprediction of threats is an imperfect science. Peoplewill not evacuate their homes and businesses unlessabsolutely necessary, and a few false alarms willquickly discourage any further response.

Human exposure can be reduced by reinforcinginfrastructure — for example, by upgrading buildingcodes, improving flood control, planting trees for soilstabilization or avalanche control, and providing safehavens or shelters. Many of these measures requiresignificant long-term investments.

Better environmental management, improvedpolicies to protect ecosystems and environmentalrestoration can be effective and practical ways toreduce vulnerability. In the long term, every effort toachieve sustainability in natural resource use, toreduce waste generation and pollution, and to bringsociety back into balance with the local environmentand global systems should reduce human vulnerability.One of the main goals of integrated environmentalplanning should be the integration of vulnerabilityassessment and reduction.

Many natural systems evolved in response tospecific major environmental threats and have a built-in capacity to absorb them. Vegetation stabilizesstream banks, slows run-off and prevents erosion.Beaches absorb wave energy and protect coastlines.Environmental threats may well increase with thedestruction of such natural defences. Their restorationis the best response to the problem because it isusually less expensive and more permanent thanartificial defensive construction which sometimessimply moves the threat elsewhere. Many floodcontrol works have aggravated problems elsewhere onriver systems and are now being systematicallyreversed.

Reinforcing coping capacityImproving the coping capacity of groups at greatestrisk can do much to reduce the damage caused byextreme events or environmental degradation. Theability to cope with threats includes the ability toabsorb impacts by guarding against or adapting tothem. It also includes provisions made in advance topay for potential damage, for instance by mobilizinginsurance repayments, savings or contingencyreserves.


Attempts toconserve waterupstream maysimply shift theproblemdownstream —restoration ofnatural defencesis often the bestway to decreaseoverallvulnerability

Source: UNEP, JohnL. Perret, TophamPicturepoint

People can draw on both tangible and hiddenassets for coping with change, assets that can help toreduce the probability and magnitude of harm(Chambers 1997). They can be helped to identify andmobilize whatever assets they have in time of needand these may be decisive factors in damageprevention. They include economic assets, social andpolitical assets, ecological assets, infrastructure assetsand personal assets. Strategies that take account ofthe existing assets of vulnerable groups and theirlikely needs may also cushion the damaging impacts ofunavoidable events or catastrophes. Restitution of lostor damaged assets through rapid response to suddenor extreme events in the form of rescue, relief andrehabilitation (for instance, provision of clean water,health care, shelter and food) may be all that isrequired to reduce hardship to manageable levels.

Institutional arrangements — including thepreparedness of public, private and social services —are an important aspect of coping (Adger and others2001). Institutional preparedness can be a decisivefactor in reducing vulnerability. For example, theflooding of the River Oder in 1997 caused less damageon the German side than it did in Poland (GACGC2000) because the Germans were better prepared.People in vulnerable areas should make institutionalarrangements to respond to potential crises. Thisrequires foresight but often can be done at little or nocost. The UNEP Awareness and Preparedness forEmergencies at Local Level programme (APELL) is agood example of institutional preparation to cope withpotential environmental threats (UNEP 2002).

Adapting to threatWhere a threat cannot be reduced or eliminated,adapting to it can be an effective response. Adaptationrefers both to physical adjustments or technicalmeasures (such as constructing a higher sea wall) andchanging behaviour, economic activities and socialorganization to be more compatible with existing oremerging conditions or threats. The latter requiresadaptive capacity, including the ability to develop newoptions and to deliver them to vulnerable populations.

Some environmental changes, such as expectedclimate change from global warming, have such longlead times that some degree of environmental changeis inevitable even if measures to control the situationare implemented rapidly. Some adaptation measuresmay then be essential. Efforts to predict the probable

impacts of climate change should help to determinethe adaptive actions that are necessary and the speedwith which they should be implemented.

Various investments in adaptive capacity have beenmade following advances in early warning. Severalcountries have tried to change patterns of agriculturalpractice so that crops more suited to periodic changesin growing conditions can be grown in years affected byclimate fluctuations associated with El Niño and LaNiña events (see box above). The risk of crop failure isthus reduced.

Early warningOne of the most effective responses to humanvulnerability to environmental change is to strengthenmechanisms for early warning. Many actions can betaken to protect life and property if warning isreceived in time. While some threats are inherentlyunpredictable, many of those arising from threats fromenvironmental degradation and mismanagement, andfrom human activities, can now be anticipated withsome precision. Early warning capacities areincreasing steadily with technological advances inenvironmental observing, assessment and


Pastoralists’ coping strategies for drought include migration to available water andpastures, setting aside dry grazing pastures and splitting herds to minimize risks. Inthe past, there were fewer pastoralists and they had large herds to survivedroughts. During extreme droughts, animals would graze unused swamps, forestsand areas remote from water. These ancient drought responses, however, are oftenno longer available to pastoralists, either because land has been sold or because ofbarriers erected by farmers, ranchers, industry and city residents. Other traditionaldrought responses, such as raiding neighbouring cattle and killing wildlife for meat,may be both illegal and no longer appropriate.

In 2000, Kenya experienced its worst drought for 40 years. Its effects weresevere because of the:

● breakdown of traditional coping methods;● increasing population pressure due to development of land formerly used as dry

season grazing;● land tenure system which restricts access to essential resources;● extension of the drought to areas usually not affected;● poor security, especially in arid and semi-arid land areas, that restricts animal

and human movement;● inadequate preparedness due to lack of access to or ignoring of weather

forecasts;● scepticism about traditional early warning systems and weather forecasts; and● lack of an effective marketing infrastructure for livestock.

Source: UNEP and Government of Kenya 2000

Breakdown of traditional coping mechanisms: Kenyan pastoralists

communications. Examples are the cyclone earlywarning systems that have been established in Indiaand Mauritius.

Conventionally, early warning means an urgentindication of an impending hazard (ISDR Secretariat2001). There is a need for both sudden onsetwarnings, for imminent disaster threats such astropical storms and floods, and slow onset warningsfor disseminating information about disasters that may

develop over time such as famine and drought. The term early warning is often taken to mean

‘prediction’ when in fact the occurrence of manythreatening events is essentially unpredictable. Earlywarning simply means that an event is imminent andthe time to escape from it or take action against it isnow. Early warning information can be produced in thecontext of a broader vulnerability assessment process,which includes the production and communication offorecast information and the incorporation of thatinformation in user decisions.

To be effective, an early warning system must beable to stimulate a timely response before an eventtakes place. It must identify who are the users of earlywarning information and what is the most efficientway to reach them with credible information toenhance their powers of decision-making. It must thentranslate relevant data into early warning indicatorsthat decision-makers can easily interpret and use.

Ultimately, the single most important factor thatwill lead governments to incorporate the use of earlywarning systems and information in decision-makingis the political will to invest in response systems, bothnationally and internationally (Buchanan-Smith 2001).One example of an operational early warning systemwhich has generated such a response is the FamineEarly Warning System Network for Africa (see box).


FEWS NET is a USAID-funded partnership toimprove food security in 17 drought-pronecountries in Africa, through African-led foodsecurity and response planning networks thatreduce the vulnerability of people at risk. FEWSNET, scheduled to run until 2005, is the successorto FEWS, which began in 1985. The goal is tostrengthen the abilities of African countries andregional organizations to manage threats to foodsecurity by providing early warning andvulnerability information. Achievements include:

● close collaboration with regional organizationsand governments in preparing contingency andresponse plans for El Niño in 1997;

● co-sponsoring regional seasonal rainfallforecasts for user-friendly dissemination;

● advances in satellite imagery interpretationthrough FEWS NET partners;

● forecasting the quality of harvests in the Sahel;● strengthening capacity by seconding FEWS

NET/USGS meteorologists to specializedcentres in Nairobi (Kenya), Harare (Zimbabwe)and Niamey (Niger);

● early warning of an impending food crisis inEthiopia in 2000;

● participating closely in national systems andregional institutions to develop commonmethodologies to assess vulnerability;

● emphasizing livelihood protection by mixingshort- and long-term programme and policyinterventions;

● exploring linkages between environmentalstress, food insecurity and conflict; and

● working with governments and their partners toshorten the time between early warning andresponse.

Source: FEWS 2002

Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET)

Ten-day rainfall forecast of the type provided byFEWS. This one was for 1–10 March 2002

Source: NOAA 2002

Forecasting El Niño events can help countries with their strategic planning to ensuresecurity in areas such as agriculture, fishing, water resource management, floodcontrol and energy supply, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the people andcountry. The Tropical Atmospheric-Ocean (TAO) array of ocean observation buoys,using measurements of surface sea temperature, helps provide the first indication ofan El Niño six to nine months ahead of the event. A number of institutions in Peru,including the Instituto Geofisico, are working together to improve predictions of ElNiño events using statistical modelling. Such forecasts of rainfall and hot and coldevents have helped farmers to plan better use of water resources for irrigation, andfishermen to prepare better for variations in fish stocks. Forecasts of the next rainyseason are issued in Peru each November, after which farmers’ representatives andgovernment officials meet to decide the appropriate combination of crops to plant.A forecast of El Niño weather will mean recommendations to plant crops that preferwet conditions, such as rice, and to avoid crops that prefer drier weather. Australia,Brazil, Ethiopia and India are some of the countries that have taken similarinitiatives.

Source: NOAA/PMEL/TAO 1998, IOC 1998, CNA Peru 2001

Advantages of foresight: predicting El Niño

Assessing and measuring vulnerability Vulnerability assessment measures the seriousness ofpotential threats on the basis of known hazards andthe level of vulnerability of societies and individuals. Itcan be used to translate early warning information intopreventive action (IDNDR 1999) and is a necessaryelement in early warning and emergencypreparedness. Ideally, the results should beincorporated directly into the long-term planning ofinstitutions and governments, and should fosterinstitutional responsiveness to increasingvulnerability, and action for disaster preparedness andmitigation. Vulnerability assessments are widelyapplied and used in the fields of climate change andnatural disaster management, where they provide thebasis for effective warning systems.

Assessments of vulnerability can be made for bothpeople and the environmental systems that providegoods and services. They should identify the locationof vulnerable populations, the threats to their well-being and the extent of their vulnerability; the risks tothe environmental capacity to provide goods andservices; and the preventive steps that can be taken toimprove environmental conditions and reduce thenegative impacts of human action on the environment.This information is then assembled into a knowledgebase that is accessible, scientifically reliable and easy

to use, which can help policy-makers and plannersseeking to formulate adequate responses (see boxbelow).

Calculation of coping capacity would be a valuabletool for understanding how and why burdens ofenvironmental degradation are unevenly distributedaround the globe, and why the potential impact ofdifferent threats may be more or less catastrophicdepending upon a group’s ability to cope. In the caseof diseases such as cholera, governments of high-income countries would be likely to respond to therisk of an outbreak with costly prevention and earlywarning programmes such as a cholera-monitoringnetwork. Yet this response would not be affordable inmany other parts of the world.

When calculating vulnerability, geographical scaleis important. A single national figure may hide manysignificant variations. Although an assessment forhigh-income countries would show low overallvulnerability, there may be sub-populations that arehighly vulnerable. For instance, one country may beless vulnerable to outbreaks of vector-borne diseasetriggered by climate change than another, because ofthe medical system’s capacity to respond, but thosewithout medical insurance may still be particularlyvulnerable. Furthermore, societies that are wellequipped to cope with present vulnerability may lack


The South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission(SOPAC) is developing an index of the vulnerabilityof the environment to both human and naturalhazards. SOPAC identifies three aspects ofenvironmental vulnerability: level of risks (orpressures) on the environment; resilience of theenvironment to pressures, or intrinsic vulnerability;and the level of degradation of ecosystems, orextrinsic resilience. A total of 47 indicators areused: 26 indicators of risk, 7 indicators ofresilience and 14 indicators of environmentaldegradation. The indicators are also classified bycategory; meteorological, geological, biological,

anthropogenic and intrinsic country characteristics.Data were collected for five countries (Fiji, Samoa,Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Australia) for initial testing.The environmental vulnerability of small islanddeveloping states arises from an interplay of factorssuch as remoteness, geographical dispersion,vulnerability to natural disasters, ecological fragility,a high degree of economic openness and smallinternal markets, and limited natural resources.

The objective of the project is to promote theuse of environmental vulnerability considerations innational development planning and therebyencourage sustainable development. The

Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) provides arelatively quick and inexpensive way ofcharacterizing the vulnerability of natural systemsat the level of a region, state, province or island.

The figure below shows the scores obtained byFiji for each of the 47 indicators in the EVI. Areasof vulnerability can be easily identified, informationthat could lead to better management and possiblybetter vulnerability scores in the future. A score of1 is the least vulnerable, 7 the most vulnerable.

Sources: SOPAC 1999 and 2000, Kaly and Craig 2000,

Pratt and others 2001

67

54321

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

meteorologicalgeologicalcountry characteristicsbiologicalanthropogenic

Environmental vulnerability of small island developing states

the experience or technology to respond to emergingthreats.

ConclusionsLevels of risk and associated human vulnerabilitychange over time. In a resilient society, withappropriate interventions, recovery and mitigation canbring vulnerability back to a previous (baseline) levelor reduce it to a lower level, but too fast a rate ofchange may exceed the capacity of the society toadapt. The long-term nature of environmental changemay mean that potential future vulnerability is equallyas important as present vulnerability. The capacity toadapt may be more important in determining humanvulnerability in the long run than the ability to copewith present critical situations.

The degree and extent of vulnerability appears tobe increasing because of a combination of such factorsas the increasing impact of humans on theenvironment, reductions in the efficient functioning ofecosystems, the reduced ability of the environment toprovide goods and services, growing and morespatially concentrated populations, and increasinghuman settlement in high risk areas. As human impacton the environment increases, so people’s optionsdecrease. Human vulnerability to environmentalchange thus increases, despite many instances ofadequate coping capacity.

Assessments contribute to better-informeddecisions on preparedness, mitigation, relief andrehabilitation activities but there is a lag between thetime it takes to make such assessments and theoptimal response time. There is a growing gapbetween rapid rates of environmental degradation andthe slow pace of social response. This gap threatens todrain the environment of assets and options for futuregenerations and to increase the costs of substitutes formissing resources (Kasperson and others 1999). Highpriority should therefore be given to rapidassessments of vulnerability and the design of initialprotective responses, such as early warning systems,while longer-term remedial measures are put in place.Environmental restoration, with its potential to reducevulnerability, will thus become an increasinglyimportant component of sustainable development.

The complexity of the change process makesassessing and measuring human vulnerability tolong-term or future environmental change highly

speculative and it is hard to determine the kinds ofinvestment that would most effectively deal with thethreats in question. A better understanding of theinterplay of the social and physical factors thatdetermine human vulnerability needs to bedeveloped to increase the ability to mitigatepotentially harmful impacts that arise fromenvironmental change. Cause-and-effect linkagesneed to be investigated. Systems modellingapproaches and sensitivity analysis may help todetermine the nature and timing of the most cost-effective measures to anticipate threats whereuncertainty and complex relationships are important.

Delaying a response to an environmental threatoften stems from uncertainty, or a lack of knowledge.Improving the assessment process can help resolvethis although, even when the risks are known, actionmay not follow. Nevertheless, regional studies suggestthat the breakdown in response is more attributable tonarrow government policies aimed solely at economicgrowth, coupled with a lack of political will,government willingness to tolerate damage inmarginal areas and among vulnerable peoples, andwidespread political corruption than to public apathyor lack of awareness (Kasperson and others 1999).These are all issues to be tackled.

In the recent past, responses to humanvulnerability have progressed from single measures toaddress a single issue (such as controlling floods bybuilding dykes) to the development of a mix ofmeasures serving different purposes (multipurposedam projects, warning systems, insurance, land usezoning, integrated river basin management). Today,issues are being visualized in the even broadercontext of sustainable development (Mitchell 2000).To support these new kinds of policy making,approaches need to be even further integrated toimprove the chances of capturing all aspects of humanvulnerability.

In an increasing number of areas, environmentaldamage may be irreversible, or restoration and thereduction in threat may require such a long time thataccommodation must accompany any remedialmeasures. Enabling people to adapt to such situations,especially where change may accelerate in the future,should accompany short-term disaster prevention andmanagement measures. Adaptation is vital where theimpacts to which people are vulnerable appearinevitable.


Stakeholder participation is important inresponding to human vulnerability, both to ensure a‘reality check’ on coping capacity and to boostprospects of success by involving as manystakeholders as possible in implementing copingmechanisms (IFRC 1999). Stakeholders should reviewand strengthen their capabilities in the areas of

preparedness and mitigation to increase copingcapacities, and become involved in post-eventexamination of new initiatives that might reducelosses in the future. Communities with effectivemitigation strategies could look into ways to helpother populations at risk from similar threats. In allcases, assessments of community conditions shouldprovide decision-makers with all the relevantinformation they need to make strategic decisions tocounter vulnerability.

This consideration of human vulnerability hasdemonstrated that the continuing loss ofenvironmental defences and accelerating global changeare increasing threats to human well-being and areputting sustainable development at risk. The evidencesuggests that many areas of the world are ontrajectories that will lead them into crisis and thatlittle time is left for creating effective responses ifdeteriorating situations are to be stabilized(Kasperson and others 1999). People are less and lessthe helpless victims of ‘acts of God’ and more andmore the victims of ‘acts of man’. But an increasingunderstanding of environmental processes and agrowing capacity for early warning should help toidentify threats and risks and react appropriately.There are now also better means of preventing andreducing harm to people and damage to economies andcommunities. An increased investment now in soundenvironmental management, community preparednessand vulnerability reduction will result in importantsavings in the future.


In 1987, the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment called for the:

● identification of critical threats to the survival, securityor well-being of all or of a majority of people, globallyand regionally;

● assessment of the causes and likely human, economicand ecological consequences of those threats, withregular and public reporting of the findings;

● provision of authoritative advice on what must be doneto avoid, reduce, or adapt to these threats; and

● provision of an additional source of advice togovernments and intergovernmental organizations onpolicies and programmes to address these threats.

Since the report of the Commission was published, IPCChas set up a vulnerability task group, and the System forAnalysis, Research and Training (START) and the Project onCritical Environmental Zones were initiated. These studiesdemonstrated that the coping capacity of countries differsconsiderably. IPCC claims that vulnerability and copingcapacity are inversely related and socially differentiated.

Sources: WCED 1987, IPCC 1996

A framework for assessing risk

Adger, N., Kelly, M. and Bentham, G. (2001).New Indicators of Vulnerability and AdaptiveCapacity. Paper presented at the InternationalWorkshop on Vulnerability and GlobalEnvironmental Change, Lila Nyagatan. Stockholm,17-19 May 2001

Arden Pope III, C., Burnett, T.R., Thun, M.J.,Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K. and Thurston, G.D.(2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality,and long-term exposure to fine particulate airpollution. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation 287, 9, 1132–41

Benson, C. and Clay, E. (1994). The Impact ofDrought on Sub-Saharan African Economies: APreliminary Examination. Working Paper 77.London, Overseas Development Institute

BICN (2001a). Over 20m people exposed toarsenic poisoning. News From Bangladesh (NFB)22 May 2001. Bangladesh InternationalCommunity News http://bicn.com/acic/resources/infobank/nfb/2001-05-22-nv4n574.htm [Geo-3-001]

BICN (2001b). Arsenic hits 24m in Bangladesh:WB. News From Bangladesh (NFB) 25 March2001. Bangladesh International Community Newshttp://bicn.com/acic/resources/infobank/nfb/2001-03-25-nv4n520.htm [Geo-3-002]

Braaf, R.R. (1999). Improving impact assessmentmethods: climate change and the health ofindigenous Australians. Global EnvironmentalChange 9, 95-104

Brown, L. R. (2001) Eco-economy. New York,W.W. Norton

Buchanan-Smith, M. (2001). Role of EarlyWarning Systems in Decision Making Processes. InWilhite, D.A., Sivakumar, M.V.K. and Wood, D.A.(eds.), Early Warning Systems for DroughtPreparedness and Drought Management. Geneva,World Meteorological Organizationhttp://drought.unl.edu/ndmc/center/ch2_Buchanan-Smith.pdf [Geo-3-003]

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts?London, Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup

Clark, E.G., Moser, C.S., Ratick, J.S., Kirstin, D.,Meyer, B.W., Srinivas, E., Weigen, J., Kasperson,X.J., Kasperson, E.R. and Schwarz, E.H. (1998).Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communitiesto extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA, USA.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange 3, 59-82

References: Chapter 3, Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change


CNA Peru (2001). GEO Peru 2000. Lima, ConseioNacional del Ambiente, Peru

Cohen, S.J., Barret, R., Irlbacher, S., Kertland, P.,Mortch, L., Pinter, L. and Zdan, T. (1997).Executive summary. In Cohen, S.J. (ed.), TheMackenzie Basin Impact Study (MBIS) FinalReport. Ottawa, Environment Canada

CSE (1999). State of India’s Environment, TheCitizen’s Fifth Report. Part 1: National Overview.New Delhi, Centre for Science and Environment

Downing, T. and Bakker, K. (2000). DroughtDiscourse and Vulnerability. In Wilhite, D. (ed.),Drought: a global assessment, Vol. 2. London,Routledge

ECES (2001). Documenting the Collapse of aDying Planet. Air Pollution. Earth Crash EarthSpirit http://www.eces.org/ec/pollution/air.shtml [Geo-3-004]

EEA (2001). Sustainable Water Use in Europe.Part 3: Extreme Hydrological Events: Floods andDroughts. Environmental Issues Report No. 21.Copenhagen, European Environment Agency

ETE (2000). Living with the Virunga Volcanoes.Classroom of the Futurewww.cotf.edu/ete/modules/mgorilla/mgvolcanoes.html

FAO (2000). Crops and Drops. Rome, Food andAgriculture Organizationhttp://www.fao.org/landandwater/aglw/oldocsw.asp [Geo-3-005]

Ferlay, J., Bray, F., Pisani, P. and Parkin, D.M.(2001). GLOBOCAN 2000: Cancer Incidence,Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide, Version 1.0.IARC Cancer Base No. 5. Lyon, IARC Press

FEWS (2002). Home Page Famine Early WarningSystem Networkhttp://www.fews.net/about/index.cfm [Geo-3-006]

Fuggle, R.F. (2001). Lake Victoria: a case study ofcomplex interrelationships. Nairobi, UnitedNations Environment Programme

GACGC (2000). World in Transition: strategies formanaging global environmental risks. GermanAdvisory Council on Global Change, Annual Report1998. Berlin, Springer-Verlag

GESAMP (2001). Protecting the Oceans fromLand-Based Activities. Land-based Sources andActivities Affecting the Quality and Uses of theMarine, Coastal and Associated FreshwaterEnvironment. GESAMP Reports and Studies No.71. Nairobi, United Nations EnvironmentProgrammehttp://gesamp.imo.org/no71/index.htm [Geo-3-22]

Guardian (2000). Baby born in a tree – motherand child saved by helicopter crew, The Guardian,3 March 2000

Holdren, J.P. and Smith, K.R. (2001). Energy, theenvironment and health. In Goldemberg, J. (ed.),World Energy Assessment: Energy and theChallenge of Sustainability. New York, UnitedNations Development Programme

Homer-Dixon, T.F. (1999). Environment, Scarcityand Violence. Princeton, Princeton UniversityPress

IATFDR (2001). Updated and ExpandedTerminology of Disaster Reduction: First DraftCompilation. Doc. # TF3/5, Inter-Agency TaskForce on Disaster Reduction, Third Meeting of theTask Force, Geneva, 3-4 May 2001

IDNDR (1999). Early Warning Programme ActionPlan for the Future (1998 –1999). Geneva,International Decade for Natural DisasterReduction Secretariat

IFRC (1999). Vulnerability and CapacityAssessment: An International Federation Guide.Geneva, International Federation of Red Cross andRed Crescent Societies

IOC (1998). GOOS and El Niño forecasting. In IOC(ed.), Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission Annual Report 1998. Paris,Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts,Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change:Scientific-Technical Analysis. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Second AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge and New York, CambridgeUniversity Press

IPCC (2001). IPCC Third Assessment Report —Climate Change 2001. Working Group I: TheScientific Basis. Summary for Policy Makers.Geneva, World Meteorological Organization andUnited Nations Environment Programme

ISDR Secretariat (2001). Early Warning Issues: ADiscussion Paper. Paper presented at the ThirdMeeting of the Task Force, Geneva, 3-4 May 2001

Kaly, U. and Craig, P. (2000). EnvironmentalVulnerability Index: Development and provisionalindices and profiles for Fiji, Samoa, Tuvalu andVanatua. SOPAC Technical Report 306http://www.sopac.org.fj/Projects/Evi/Files/EVI%20Report%20Phase%20II.pdf [Geo-3-008]

Karim, R.N. (2001). Arsenic the Silent Killer.Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studieshttp://www.bcas.net/arsenic/articles/2001/arsenic-May.htm [Geo-3-009]

Kasperson, R., Kasperson, J., and Turner II, B.L.(1999). Risk and Criticality: trajectories of regionalenvironmental degradation. Ambio 28, 6, 562-568

Koistinen, K.J., Edwards, R.D., Mathys, P.,Ruuskanen, J., Kuenzli, N., and Jantunen, M.J.(2002). Sources of PM2.5 In Personal Exposuresand Residential Indoor, Outdoor and WorkplaceMicroenvironments In EXPOLIS-Helsinki, Finland.Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &Health 28, Supplement 3, MultidisciplinaryResearch on Urban Air Particles in Finland (SYTTYprogramme)

McMichael, A.J. (2001). Human Frontiers,Environments and Disease: Past Patterns,Uncertain Futures. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press

Met Office (2002). The Great Smog of 1952http://www.met-office.gov.uk/education/historic/smog.html [Geo-3-010]

Meteorological Service of Singapore (2002).Monitoring of Smoke Haze and Forest Fires inSoutheast Asiahttp://www.gov.sg/metsin/hazed.html [Geo-3-011]

Mitchell, J.K. (2000). Urban metabolism anddisaster vulnerability in an era. In Schellnhuber H-J. and Wenzel, V. (eds.), Earth System Analysis:Integrating Science for Sustainability. Berlin,Springer-Verlag

Murray, C.J.L. and Lopez, A.D. (1996). TheGlobal Burden of Disease, Cambridge MA,Harvard University Press

NOAA (2002). NOAA Climate Prediction Center.Famine Early Warning System Networkhttp://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/fews/10day_precip.html [Geo-3-012]

NOAA/PMEL/TAO (1998). Impacts of El Niño andBenefits of El Niño Prediction. Seattle,NOAA/PMEL/TOA Project Office

Planning Commission of India (2001). Mid TermReview, Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002). NewDelhi ,Government of India

Pratt, C., Koshy, R., Kaly, U., Pal, R. and Sale-Mario, E. (2001). Environmental VulnerabilityIndex (EVI) Project; Progress Towards a Global EVI.South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission,Progress Report 405http://www.sopac.org.fj/Projects/Evi/archive.html#[Geo-3-013]

Rapport, D.J., Christensen, N., Karr, J.R. andPatil, G.P. (1999). The centrality of ecosystemhealth in achieving sustainability in the 21st

century. In Hayne, D.M. (ed.), Concepts and NewApproaches to Environmental Management.Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada,Series Vl, v. lX, 3-40. Toronto, University ofToronto Press

Shougong, Z. (1999). Catastrophic Flood Disasterin 1998 and the Post Factum Ecological andEnvironmental Reconstruction in China. Paperpresented at Natural Disasters and PolicyResponse in Asia: Implications for Food Security,Harvard University Asia Center, April 30-May 11999

Smith, K.R., Corvalán, C.F. and Kiellström, T.(1999). How much global ill health is attributableto environmental factors? Journal of Epidemiology10, 5, 573–84http://www.who.int/environmental_information/Disburden/Articles/smith.pdf [Geo-3-020]

SOPAC (1999). Environmental Vulnerability Index(EVI) to summarize national environmentalvulnerability profiles. Final Report. South PacificApplied Geoscience Commissionhttp://www.sopac.org.fj/Projects/Evi/archive.html#documents [Geo-3-014]

Stoddard, E. (2000). Mozambique floodsworsened by wetlands loss. Reuters, 14 March2000

Suchak, Y.K. (2002). Development andEnvironment Issues with Special Reference toGandhian Perspective. Gahndian Institution,Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/kavita_suchak.htm [Geo-3-015]


Umrani, A.P. and Ali Shah, S. (1999). FoodSecurity and Environment. Special Report.Sustainable Livestock and Agriculture ProductionBimonthly-Newsletter May & June 1999 ofProgressive Agriculturist & Pastoralist Association.Pakistan, Shahnaz.Palijo http://csf.colorado.edu/bioregional/apr99/0064.html [Geo-3-016]

UN WIRE (2001). Arsenic: Contaminated Waterin Asia Puts Millions At Risk. UN Wire, 10 May2001. United Nations Foundationhttp://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/util/display_stories.asp?objid=14683 [Geo-3-017]

UNCHS (2001). State of the World’s Cities2001. Nairobi, United Nations Centre for HumanSettlements (Habitat)

UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WRI (1998). WorldResources 1998-1999. Washington DC, WorldResources Institute

UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WRI (2000). WorldResources 2000-2001. Washington DC, WorldResources Institute

UNEP (2000). Assessing Human Vulnerabilitydue to Environmental Change: Concepts, Issues,Methods and Case Studies. UNEP/DEWA/TR,Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP (2002). APELL — Awareness andPreparedness for Emergencies at a Local Levelhttp://www.uneptie.org/pc/apell/ [Geo-3-018]

UNEP and Government of Kenya (2000).Devastating Drought in Kenya: EnvironmentalImpacts and Responses. Nairobi, United NationsEnvironment Programme

USAID (2002). Democratic Republic of theCongo-Volcano. Fact Sheet 12 (FY 2002).Washington DC, United States Agency forInternational Development

US EPA (1998). Stay Healthy in the Sun.Washington DC, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agencyhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/uvindex/stayheal.html[Geo-3-019]

Vyas, V.S. (2000). Presidential Address, 3rdAnnual Conference of Asian Society of AgriculturalEconomics, Jaipur, India, 18-20 October 2000

Watanabe, T. and Rothacher, D. (1996). The1994 Lugge Tsho glacial lake outburst flood,Bhutan Himalayas. Mountain Research andDevelopment 16, 1, 77–81

WCED (1987). Our Common Future. New York,Oxford University Press

WECS (1987). Study of Glacier Lake OutburstFloods in the Nepal Himalayas. Phase I, InterimReport, May 1997, WECS ReportNo.4/1/200587/1/1, Seq. No. 251. Kathmandu,Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

WHO (1997). Health and Environment: FiveYears after the Earth Summit. Geneva, WorldHealth Organization

WHO (2002). Environmental Hazards Kill at least3 Million Children aged under 5 Every Year. http://www.who.int/inf/en/pr-2002-12.html [Geo-3-021]

Woodward, A., Hales, S. and Weinstein, P.(1998). Climate change and human health in theAsia Pacific: who will be most vulnerable? ClimateResearch 11, 1, 31-39

Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change · R osita Pedro was born in a tree, high above the...

Documents

Transcript of Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change · R osita Pedro was born in a tree, high above the...