Data and processes linking vulnerability assessment to adaptation decision-making on climate change in Norway

Abstract

The article focuses on the use of climate change vulnerability assessments in a local decision-making context, with particular reference to recent studies in Norway. We focus on two aspects of vulnerability assessments that we see as key to local decision-making: first, the information generated through the assessments themselves, and second, the institutional linkages to local level decision-making processes. Different research approaches generate different types of data. This is rarely made explicit, yet it has important implications for decision-making. In addressing these challenges we propose a dialectic approach based on exchange, rather than integration of data from different approaches. The focus is on process over product, and on the need for anchoring vulnerability assessments in local decision-making processes. In conclusion, we argue that there is unlikely to be one single ‘correct’ assessment tool or indicator model to make vulnerability assessments matter at a local level.

Introduction

The increasing scientific certainty of human-induced climate change raises serious questions about the vulnerability of local communities. A key issue is how to improve adaptation to what appears as inevitable, yet uncertain, climate changes by using available information on climate change and societal vulnerability. Vulnerability assessments—systematic examinations of who is vulnerable, to what and why—are a widely used instrument, comprising a broad group of tools with varying characteristics and goals. Their origins lie in the areas of impact assessments, hazard research and food-security studies (Schröter et al., 2005; Patt et al., 2005); and their goals have over the past decade changed from mapping potential climate change impacts to an increased focus on strategies to facilitate adaptation (Füssel and Klein, in press).

The usefulness of vulnerability assessments for policymaking is, however, contested. Many concerns relate to the interface between researchers and stakeholders; the information vulnerability assessments can provide, and the ability of stakeholders to make use of it. Challenges discussed in the literature include: identifying user groups and their data needs; providing information that is salient, credible and legitimate; integrating data produced at different levels into meaningful information at the level of detail required by various stakeholders; and communicating uncertainty in climate scenarios (e.g., Cash et al., 2003; Aaheim and Schjolden, 2004; Moser, 2005; Jacobs et al., 2005; Patt and Dessai, 2005). There are many recommendations as to how to improve the use of vulnerability assessments. These include: involving stakeholders as active participants with agency, not merely passive recipients of information; involving users early in the process; combining users’ own lay knowledge with expert knowledge; and using climate and socio-economic scenarios to actively enhance social learning (e.g., Schröter et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2003; Berkhout et al., 2002).

Building on the discussion of these topics in the literature, we address challenges for vulnerability assessments as an instrument for local-level adaptation. The local level is important as vulnerability is location-specific and because a large share of decisions affecting vulnerability are local (O’Brien et al., 2004a; Liverman and Merideth, 2002; Cutter, 1993, Cutter, 2003). To illustrate challenges for local-level adaptation, we use examples from recent research in Norway. O’Brien et al. (2004a) demonstrate that while Norway as a whole can be considered resilient, vulnerability is potentially high at regional and local levels because of economic structures, topography and infrastructure. Municipal governments in Norway are important in determining local vulnerability to climate risk as they are obliged to consider natural hazards in area planning under the Planning and Building Act, and could be liable in case of damages (Berg and Fergus, 2004; Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Labour, 1997).

Yet, while climate-related risks such as floods, storms and landslides figure prominently in planning guidelines for risk management at the municipal level (NVE, 1999; Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Labour, 1997), there has as yet been little focus on local adaptation to climate change in Norway. A number of municipalities have prepared climate and energy plans, but very few have made reference to adaptation. At the same time, an increasing number of national agencies (e.g., the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, the Norwegian State Housing Bank) are developing their own plans to adapt their activities to climate change. Norway is thus an interesting example of a country where, in the absence (thus far) of a coordinated government adaptation strategy, outcomes at the local level depend on a combination of local initiatives and national-level, largely sector-based strategies. This in turn raises important questions as to how priorities for adaptation are set.

In this context, we focus here on two aspects of vulnerability assessments that we view as particularly important for local decision-making: the information generated through the assessments themselves, and the linkages to local-level decision-making processes. We discuss these in turn.

First, we examine (Section 2) the generation of data in vulnerability assessments. Two recent studies serve to illustrate the difference between vulnerability indicators based on descriptive, macro-level data and indicators developed from locally specific, interpretive information. By ‘descriptive’ we refer to quantitative studies that are characterized by viewing the local context from an outsider's perspective, whereas ‘interpretive’ implies more locally based studies aiming to look at the local context from an insider's point of view (Malone and Rayner, 2001).

Different perspectives raise different sets of challenges, and the data complement each other. We find that different perspectives on the role of climate scenarios, the types of information included, and the processes for identifying vulnerable areas have important implications for the data produced, which in turn is a key factor for whether and how the information can be used at the local level. These latter aspects have largely been overlooked in studies in Norway.

Second, we discuss (Section 3) the institutional challenges in making use of assessments: in particular the local capacity to use information; the structural fit between assessment information and local policy processes; and the processes through which institutions may change in response to external stresses. It is clear that institutions are key to the use of assessment information. This issue has, however, received relatively little attention compared to the work on improving the validity of assessment information itself. We review work in Norway indicating that there exist institutional barriers to the active use of vulnerability assessment information.

Discussing the way forward (Section 4), we argue for more recognition that different analytical viewpoints have important effects on the types of questions are asked, the type of information generated, and the functions of such information for different groups of users. We propose a dialectic approach which is broad enough to include different perspectives and data, ranging from the natural sciences to different social sciences, as well as the local information held by the users themselves. Three key components of this approach are outlined: (a) a framework for identifying vulnerable areas, utilising the strengths of different viewpoints; (b) a focus on vulnerability assessments as a long-term process rather than a one-off assessment product; and (c) an emphasis on grounding the assessment in local processes, but without overlooking the national level. Section 5 provides conclusions as well as some reflections on the future development of local-scale assessment approaches in Norway.