The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses
Abstract
In this article, we discuss how two interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature are manifestations of different discourses and framings of the climate change problem. The two differing interpretations, conceptualized here as ‘outcome vulnerability’ and ‘contextual vulnerability’, are linked respectively to a scientific framing and a human-security framing. Each framing prioritizes the production of different types of knowledge, and emphasizes different types of policy responses to climate change. Nevertheless, studies are seldom explicit about the interpretation that they use. We present a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the two interpretations of vulnerability and use this tool to illustrate the practical consequences that interpretations of vulnerability have for climate change policy and responses in Mozambique. We argue that because the two interpretations are rooted in different discourses and differ fundamentally in their conceptualization of the character and causes of vulnerability, they cannot be integrated into one common framework. Instead, it should be recognized that the two interpretations represent complementary approaches to the climate change issue. We point out that the human-security framing of climate change has been far less visible in formal, international scientific and policy debates, and addressing this imbalance would broaden the scope of adaptation policies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adger, W. N. (2006) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 · Cited by 5,417
Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change andFacilitating Adaptation
Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1023/a:1005627828199 · Cited by 1,630
The construction of global warming and the politics of science
Demeritt, D. (2001) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00245 · Cited by 729
Cited by
Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: A review
Thornton, P. K., Ericksen, P. J., Herrero, M., & Challinor, A. J. (2014) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12581 · Cited by 1,235
Beyond dichotomies: gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies
Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C., Asher, K., Brockhaus, M., & Basnett Sijapati, B. (2016) · Ambio · doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2 · Cited by 431
Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures
ERIKSEN, S. H., & O'BRIEN, K. (2007) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2007.9685660 · Cited by 284
Self-citationShokry, G., Connolly, J. J., & Anguelovski, I. (2020) · Urban Climate · doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100539 · Cited by 227
Abdrabo, K. I., Kantoush, S. A., Esmaiel, A., Saber, M., Sumi, T., Almamari, M., Elboshy, B., & Ghoniem, S. (2023) · Urban Climate · doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101426 · Cited by 180
O’Loughlin, J., Linke, A. M., & Witmer, F. D. W. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1411899111 · Cited by 132
Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Accountability: What Chance in Vulnerable Bangladesh?
Belal, A. R., Cooper, S. M., & Khan, N. A. (2015) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2015.01.005 · Cited by 127
Climate change vulnerability assessment in Georgia
KC, B., Shepherd, J. M., & Gaither, C. J. (2015) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.007 · Cited by 116
Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: a review
Bruno Soares, M., S. Gagnon, A., & M. Doherty, R. (2012) · International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management · doi:10.1108/17568691211200191 · Cited by 110
When the disaster strikes: Gendered (im)mobility in Bangladesh
Ayeb-Karlsson, S. (2020) · Climate Risk Management · doi:10.1016/j.crm.2020.100237 · Cited by 103
Foster, S., Leichenko, R., Nguyen, K. H., Blake, R., Kunreuther, H., Madajewicz, M., Petkova, E. P., Zimmerman, R., Corbin‐Mark, C., Yeampierre, E., et al. (2019) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.14009 · Cited by 102
Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty.
Gabrielsson, S., & Ramasar, V. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.034 · Cited by 68
An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability
Rahman, H. M. T., & Hickey, G. M. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12145654 · Cited by 52
1.5°C Hotspots: Climate Hazards, Vulnerabilities, and Impacts
Schleussner, C.-F., Deryng, D., D'haen, S., Hare, W., Lissner, T., Ly, M., Nauels, A., Noblet, M., Pfleiderer, P., Pringle, P., et al. (2018) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025835 · Cited by 45
Equity and Justice in Polycentric Climate Governance
Okereke, C. (2018) · Governing Climate Change · doi:10.1017/9781108284646.019 · Cited by 43
Haverkamp, J. A. (2017) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1177/0308518x17707525 · Cited by 32
Evolutionary Climate-Change Modelling: A Multi-Agent Climate-Economic Model
Geisendorf, S. (2018) · Computational Economics · doi:10.1007/s10614-017-9740-2 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- O'BRIEN, K., ERIKSEN, S., NYGAARD, L. P., & SCHJOLDEN, A.
- Venue
- Climate Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-88
- ISSN
- 1469-3062 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7457
- OpenAlex
- W1999126857
- Cited by
- 1,139
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
