Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9338-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Climate vulnerability index - measure of climate change

vulnerability to communities: a case of rural
Lower Himalaya, India

Rajiv Pandey & ShashidharKumar Jha

Received: 3 July 2011 / Accepted: 8 November 2011 /

Published online: 2 December 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI) is being proposed to assess climate change
vulnerability of communities with a case study. The index consists of household parameters
of all the three dimensions of vulnerability such as Exposure, Sensitivity and Adaptive
Capability. Exposure is defined by ‘Natural disaster and Climate variability’, however
Sensitivity by ‘Health’, Food’, and ‘Water’ and Adaptive Capability by ‘Socio-
demographic profile’, ‘Livelihood strategies’, and ‘Social networks’. Respective parameters
were based on the peers and literature. The CVI vulnerable status ranges from high (0) to
low (1). Household questionnaire survey was undertaken from two regions namely, near to
district (NDH) and away to district (ADH), in Srinagar, Uttrakhand, India. Data for desired
parameters for CVI was collected from 50 randomly selected households. Data were
aggregated using a composite index and differential vulnerabilities were compared. High
vulnerability was observed for livelihood strategies, food and natural disaster for ADH
households, and health and water for NDH households. It was found that the adaptive
capability and sensitivity of ADH households was higher than NDH, however, exposure
realization was similar in both the regions. The CVI was 0.69 and 0.64 for NDH and ADH,
respectively, suggests high vulnerability to NDH households. This pragmatic CVI approach
may be used to assess and monitor vulnerability under various stress condition, and/or
evaluate potential program/ policy effectiveness in various data-scarce regions by
comparing various anticipated scenarios with baseline. Further, the result obtained by
index may have implications for developing adaptation or coping strategies to the region.

Keyword Adaptive capacity . Exposure . Mitigation . Sensitivity . Social vulnerability

S. Jha
Biodiversity and Climate Change Division Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education,
Dehradun, India

R. Pandey (*)
Scientist- E, Climate Change Division, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi, India
e-mail: pandeyr@icfre.org

R. Pandey
e-mail: rajivfri@yahoo.com
488 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

1 Introduction

The human-induced climate change resulting from past emissions will expand unless
substantial mitigation measures are introduced (Vincent and Cull 2010). If the aggregate
reduction in emissions is not being achieved, the temperature will increased by 2°C
(Pachauri and Reisinger 2007). However, till now and near future, the adequate emission
reduction is not possible due to various unforeseeable reasons. Therefore, there is the
indisputable need for societies to adapt to at least some degree of climate change,
particularly most imperative for the developing world.
The climate change impact assessment explore the vulnerability status of resource-reliant
poor (Mearns and Norton 2010), established socioeconomic inequalities within communi-
ties, and discussed about the destitution of the poorest (Ahmed et al. 2009) however, some
concluded that environmental change may catalyze rural communities’ latent adaptive
capacities (Pelling and High 2005; Nelson et al. 2007) and stimulate systemic improve-
ments (Adger et al. 2005; Folke 2006). The climate adaptation and mitigation policy is
devised based on these assessment and deals with coping strategies of rural communities in
the face of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events (Paavola and Adger 2006;
Eriksen and O’Brien 2007).
The traditional science addresses the climate change assessment through scenario driven
approach and makes projection through models developed on the basis of past analogues of
climate variability. These models forecast that how changing patterns of weather and other
events might impact on human populations. This top down approaches do not account the
differential vulnerabilities of human populations to these environmental risks, therefore
may be improper and not suitable for policies. This strongly argue that the likely impacts of
climate change may be adjudged through bottom up approach as social vulnerability is
inextricably linked with the climate change processes (Vincent and Cull 2010). Moreover,
the complexity of the topography and the orographic feature, which makes difficult to
understand climatic characteristics in the mountainous (ICIMOD 2011) also enforces to
apply vulnerability approach.
The vulnerability science is based on the logic that human populations mediate
environmental change to produce impacts. Therefore, the bottom up approach may be used
for key policy and other practical applications with focus of society-nature relations (Adger
2006; Fussel 2007a; b). The “vulnerability” assessment suggests a key role for targeted
assistance in helping the rural poor to adapt to climate change (Huq 2007; Lemos et al.
2007), and points instead to more bottom-up forms of assistance that allow adaptive
capacities and flexible governance structures to emerge (Ostrom 2007; Wisner 2010).
Context-specific methods of assessment are required to assess the levels of vulnerability
to human societies due to multiple driving forces in relation to specific outcomes (Adger
and Vincent 2005). The sustainable livelihoods framework may be suitable for assessing
local level vulnerability and adaptive capacity through analysing the status of five “capital
assets” – financial, human, social, physical and natural (Chambers and Conway 1992). This
framework has been applied to investigate the contextual and multi-dimensional nature of
vulnerability (Reid and Vogel 2006; O’Brien et al. 2009).
Climate change and extreme events has adversely impacted on the functioning of the
ecosystems and provisions of critical goods and services to mankind. This impact is much
more pronounced to the resource poor mountainous communities (Parmesan and Yohe
2003) because they have limited livelihood options due to remoteness and fragile
mountainous settings and less incentive to stay in balance with surrounding ecosystems.
Mountainous ecosystems are also the key resources of water, energy, minerals and forest
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 489

products to lowland community and most vulnerable due to the unsustainable use of
existing ecological resources resulted into the vulnerability to human livelihood (ICIMOD
2011).
The natural perspective of vulnerability addresses as “a function of the character,
magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its
adaptive capacity” and social perspective of vulnerability described as “degree to which a
system is susceptible to injury, damage or harm” (IPCC 2001). The assessment of
vulnerability in mountains is complex as changes will not only stress the adaptive capacities
of mountain inhabitants but will also challenge lowland communities. In order to capture,
assess and monitor the complex and overlapping vulnerabilities, different assessment
approaches have been developed and applied at different scales.
Number of other indices has been developed with different set of parameters such as Climate
Vulnerability (Smit and Pilifosova 2001); Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) (Hahn et al.
2009); Livelihood Effect Index (LEI) (Urothody and Larsen 2010). Vincent’s (2004)
developed an index of social vulnerability to climate change (SVA) in Africa uses the
conceptual implementation of the global climate change community’s alignment of social
vulnerability with adaptive capacity (Klein et al. 2003; Adger 2006; Gallopin 2006). An index
using a combination of socioeconomic and biophysical indicators was developed and
examined vulnerability to climate change in seven regions in Ethiopia (Deressa et al. 2008).
To develop more effective climate change adaptation strategies in mountainous region,
two prominent approaches i.e. The IPCC Vulnerability Framework (IPCC 2007) and the
Mountain Specificities framework defined in terms of accessibility, marginality, and
fragility; or enabling features (Jodha 1992) are recommended (Brodnig and Prasad 2010).
The index facilitates combined and individual scores of various dimensions of vulnerability
at spatial level and contributes to identify appropriate adaptation and coping strategies that
would be feasible and practical for communities (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Therefore, the aim of present research is to fill an academic and policy demand for
assessing climate change vulnerability of communities through developing vulnerability
index with a case study for Himalayan region of India. The present methodological
approach is intended to bridge the gap between community requirements and priorities at
the micro level and policy processes at the macro level, with an emphasis on the fact that
higher-level policy development and planning must be informed by lessons learned and
insights gained at the local level. By identifying and assessing the most urgent adaptation
needs of the most vulnerable, as well as their local coping and adaptive strategies, the
proposed index based on bottom-up approach aims to provide recommendations for setting
priorities for action while helping to develop a robust, integrated model approach to
increasing resilience to climate risks at national and local levels. The developed social
vulnerability may also be adjusted with inputs of the existing biophysical vulnerability
assessments to create holistic and integrated scrutiny of the potential impacts of climate
change in the regional settings.

1.1 Mountain specificities and communities

Mountains, the most fragile environments on Earth are rich repositories of biodiversity and
water and providers of ecosystem goods and services to the communities at larger spatial
scale (Korner 2004; Viviroli and Weingartner 2004). Mountainous communities consist of
about 10% of the global population with larger share in developing countries. These
communities are often faced with difficulties in securing tenancy rights over land and
forests and gaining access to social services (e.g. credit, education, and health), partly
490 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

because of the tough terrain and partly due to their inadequate representation in governance
(Kohler and Maselli 2009).
The globalised world threatened the reciprocal relationship between human and
mountain. The livelihood vulnerability of mountainous ecosystems and intrinsic environ-
mental fragility has brought the issues of global sustainability outline. However spatio-
temporal assessment for smaller region is lacking across the mountainous region of world.
Evaluations of the impacts of stresses aim to identify preferred measures for adaptation and
coping strategies against these stresses.
The climate change impact on mountains is likely to put wide ranging effects on the
environment, biodiversity, and socioeconomic conditions of the region (Beniston 2003; Karma
et al. 2010). The harsh living conditions and a marginal position in terms of economic
integration and political decision-making make these impacts enormous (Nogues-Bravo et al.
2007). Coupled with mountain specificities, these situations create devastating impacts on the
food insecure population (one third of the total) of the mountains (Kohler and Maselli 2009).
The mountain specificities are classified as constraining features, such as accessibility,
marginality, and fragility; and enabling features, such as diversity, niche, and human
adaptive capacity. The accessibility captures elements of distance, mobility, and availability
of risk in management options. In mountain system marginality, the relative “endowments”
is often very evident and is created by slope and altitude, low resource productivity and
reinforced by lack of social and political capital (Jodha 1992; Hoermann et al. 2010).
Fragility can best be understood as the diminished capacity of a social or ecological
system to buffer shocks. Ecologically, mountains are fragile due to low carrying capacity,
slope and relief. Fragility has social dimensions as well, because people live precariously on
scattered, scarce and periodically unavailable livelihood resources. Diversity, niche and
adaptive capacity capture different coping abilities and strategies that emerge from natural
resource management patterns, livelihood endowments, and cultural practices (Jodha 1992).
The Hindu Kush-Himalayas, a highly heterogeneous in geographical features with a rich
biodiversity depository (Schickhoff 2005) is not an exception in this respect and
investigation is underway to understand the nexus between climate change and mountain
vulnerability (ICIMOD 2011). The present study also assesses the community vulnerability
through defining an index.

2 Profile of study region

The spatial focus of the study was Srinagar, a district of Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The
district Pauri Garhwal is situated in the central part of Garhwal Himalaya and western part
of Himalayas and lies between 29°20′ N-30°15′N latitude and 78°10′E-79°20′E longitudes
lies at an elevation of 1,650 m above sea level and encompasses an area of 5,440 sq. km.
(Rajwar 1993). The region has a sub-temperate to temperate climate, with mean monthly
temperature ranges from 25°C to 30°C (maximum of 45°C in June and minimum of 1.3°C
in January), average annual rainfall of 218 cm (90% receives during monsoon), and 54 to
63% of relative humidity with some snow in winter at the higher reaches.
Soils of the region have been formed either through pedogenetic processes or are transported
soils and fertility. The topography is by and large rugged and the entire region is mountainous.
The cross profiles of the fluvial valleys show convex form with steep valley sides, interlocking
spurs descending towards the main channel, hanging valleys, waterfalls and rapids and
terraced agricultural fields on the gentle slopes on the valley sides. The clustering of
villages is confined mainly on the gentle slopes of the ridges on the fluvial terraces.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 491

The region contain a unique set of ecological characteristics over a complex variety of
systems such as, meadows, savannah grasslands, marshes and rivers (Alaknanda and
Nayyar), wildlife, geology and several other phyto-geographically distinctive peculiarities.
Forests dominate in the phyto-geography and also constitute the most valuable natural
resource of the district. These variations create spatially diverse but locally narrow
constraints on the types of production system and forest resources utilization. Most of the
part of the region is approachable by road, which is prone to land slips, and slides.
The districts of Uttrakhand located at hilly region are less developed in terms of
infrastructure, i.e., electricity, roads and irrigation (Mittal et al. 2008). However, being the
administrative headquarter, the near to the district headquarter (NDH) region should have
more access to the infrastructural facilities than the away from the district headquarter
(ADH) region. Considering State/district as a unit and doing inter-regional analysis has a
serious limitation: it will not be able to capture the intra-State/district impacts due to
disparities in economic and social development that exists today at one side and micro and
macro level adjustment under the prevailing conditions and settings of available resources
at local level at other side. The macro level analysis, therefore, is expected to deliver a
better analysis when it comes about understanding the social impacts of climate change
among the villages for applying suitable policy instruments for adaptive and coping
strategies. These were the premises, which form the basis of selection of two regions within
district, as a surrogate of comparative development.

3 Description about the index

In the present study, a Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI) specific to mountainous settings has
been proposed. The CVI will provide a realistic approach to recognize climate change
vulnerability role on social and natural factors at the village or community level in the
mountainous settings in light of various interacting fabrics of social and economic relationships.
The proposed climate vulnerability comprises various dimensions of vulnerability by including
eight major components such as: socio-demographic profile, livelihood strategies, social
network, health, food, water, natural disaster and climate variability.
Components are case specific and may be qualitative characteristics of the system with the
potentiality of expressed as quantitative factors through the use of proxies (Deems 2010).
Each component contains relevant subcomponents based on specificity of mountainous
livelihood requirements and environment. The multidimensional issues may be quantified
by using indicators as proxies and these are often combined into a composite index
allowing diverse variables to be integrated (Hahn et al. 2009). These parameters (indicators
and sub-indicators) were used to define various components as well as the indices required
to address the issue. Indicators for major components and sub-components based on
specificity to the system (community) are used for determining the vulnerability score.
CVI uses primary data from household surveys to construct the index and presents a
framework for grouping and aggregating indicators on the spatial level, which leads to
development and adaptation planning. By using primary household data, this approach
helps avoid the pitfalls associated with using secondary data and refrain the dependency
from the climatic models, which despite recent advances are still presented at too large a
scale to provide accurate projections at levels useful for community development planning
(Patz et al. 2005; Hahn et al. 2009).
The desired information of the vulnerability due to climate change revolves
around the various dimensions such as Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive capacity.
492 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

These all are dynamic and system specific (Smit and Wandel 2006) and explained as
follows.
Vulnerability ¼ f ðExposure; Sensitivity; Adaptive capacityÞ
The relationship between all three independent endogenous elements is not specified, and
governed by local circumstances. However, vulnerability is a positive function of the system’s
exposure and sensitivity and a negative function of the system’s adaptive capacity (Ford and
Smit 2004). The relevant parameters to address the issue under consideration has been selected
based on the literature across the world on similar issues (IPCC 2001; Patnaik and Narayanan
2005; Hahn et al. 2009; Urothody and Larsen 2010), interactions with the peers as well as
prominent people of the region and pilot study including local socio-economic studies directly
or indirectly addressing the impact of stress on resources (ICIMOD 2011, Pandey 2010).
The details of such parameters has been collected from households as per defined
methodology and reported in Table 1. Each sub components contributes equally to Major
components and the major components contribute equally to the overall index by
converting immeasurable parameters to measurable parameters through indexing or simply
by proportions. Each of the sub-components is measured on a different scale; therefore,
they are first standardized through index (Hahn et al. 2009). It provides an outline for
combining and aggregating indicators at village or community level. The index has been
formed through the following approach for each sub-component of each major component.

Sv  Smin
Indexsv ¼
Smax  Smin

Where,
Sv is the sub-component or indicator value for vth village/community
Smax and Smin is the maximum and minimum value of sub-component.
After standardization for all sub-components, each major component was calculated as
follows.
Pn
Indexsvi
Mv ¼ i¼1
n
Where,
Mv is one of the major components for CVI,
Indexsvi is ith sub-component value, belonging to major component Mv for vth village or
community,
n is the number of sub-components in the major component.
These major components have been segregated as per the three dimensions of
vulnerability. These were ‘adaptive capability, which include socio-demographic profile,
livelihood strategies, and social networks due to the nature and content of this component.
The dimension of ‘sensitivity’ was dealt with health, food, water components; however,
‘exposure’ was due to the natural disasters and climate variability.
Several methods have been proposed in the literature to assign the weights. Democratic
principles in terms of expert opinion and stakeholder discussion were recommended to
determine weighting schemes (Sullivan et al. 2002; Vincent 2004, 2007). The equal
weighing approach has been criticized by the Eakin and Bojorquez-Tapia (2008) due to the
Table 1 Description of major and sub-components of CVI parameters in survey questionnaire
Major components Sub-components
Socio- Family dependency index
demographic
Profile
House type diversity index
Family decision index.
Livelihood Percent of household with
strategies migrated members.
Percent of household changes
crop variety.
Percent of household introduced
new crop.
Percent of household reported
change in sowing/planting time.
Fodder and fuelwood collection
index.
Percent of household dependent
solely on agriculture as a
source of income
Natural resource diversification index The inverse of (the number of
Percent of household reported
reduction in volume or
quality of natural resource.
Explanation of
sub-components
Ratio derived on population upto
18 and above 55 to the
population 19–54.
The inverse of (type of house +1)
reported by a Household.
Percentage of household where head
of household is literate male
with more than 50 years of age.
Percentage of household in which at
least 1 member has migrated
for earning.
Proportion of household who has
not change crop variety.
Percentage of household not
introducing new crop.
Percentage of household reported forward/ Any change or forward/backward
backward sowing/planting time.
Amount of fodder and fuelwood
collected by household.
Percentage of households with
agriculture as an only
source of livelihood.
activities dependent on natural
resource +1) reported by
a household.
Percentage of household reported
increase in time or distance of
source of natural resources
from residence.
Survey questions
Household age distribution.
Type of house.
Head of household.
Members migrated for earning.
Change in crop variety.
Introduced new crop
sowing or planting time.
Quantity of fodder and fuelwood
collected by household daily.
Type of primary and secondary
profession.
Number of livestock and collect
of fodder and fuelwood
from forest.
Time required for fuelwood and fodder Components of natural resources
collection, natural water quality
change, intensity and frequency
of forest fire and access time
Potential limitations
Confusion about age of household
member in some cases.
No issue.
Definition of literate (Whether
educated or able to understand)
Unavailability of reliable data from
household, where family has already
migrated with earning member,
though rarely.
Lack of knowledge about crop variety.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506
Cultivation is traditional, thus
introducing new crop is very rare.
Happens, but commonly no actual
records available.
Lack of information about accurate
quantity.
Variability in volume among
households cannot be appreciated.
Ranking of primary and secondary
professions, which are same
for both and contribute differently.
may get affected temporarily
at particular sites but may
remains unaffected at other
493
Table 1 (continued)
Major components Sub-components
Social network Percent of household received
or seek assistance through
social networks.
Percent of household provide
help to others.
Percentage of household
with money transaction
between friends.
Profession diversity index.
Health Percent of household with
recent death of infant.
Percent of household with
recent death
Percent of household with
disease due to climatic factor.
Percent of household
reported stress due to climatic
factors.
Percent of household having
new disease.
Food Percent of households dependent
on agriculture for food.
Percent of households with
insufficient food form farm.
Explanation of
sub-components
Percentage of household reported to
have received help from friends,
government and NGOs.
Percentage of households
reported that they help others.
Percentage of households reported
borrowed or lend money from friends.
The inverse of (profession of head
of household +1) reported by
a household.
Percentage of household
reported death of an infant.
Percentage of household reported
death of any individual.
Percentage of household reported
disease due to climate variability.
Percentage of household reported
some sort of stress due to
temperature and rainfall.
Percent of household observed
new disease in last 6 years.
Percentage of households that
get their food primarily
from agriculture.
Percentage of households that do
not get sufficient food
Survey questions
for natural water source
Assistance obtained during
extreme event.
Assistance provided to others
during calamities.
Money transaction among
community.
Type of profession
Any infant death in your family.
Death of any individual from
your family.
Disease due to climatic factor.
Stress due to temperature/rainfall.
Any new disease observed due
to climatic factor
Source of food.
Food sufficiency across the
year i.e. 0–3, 3–6, 6–9,
494
Potential limitations
sites in the same region.
Government support is treated as
part of process, therefore,
generally overlooked.
No considerations for services
without payment or exchange
Chances of manipulated information
against the ostentatious behavior.
No clear demarcation for different
members’ earnings in a household.
People don’t appreciate such
questions. Collection of
information is difficult due
to sentiments.
Sensitive issue, actual cause may
not be known at remote locations
Clear cut demarcation is problematic.
Sometimes, not easily distinguished.
Lack of knowledge about the
symptoms of new diseases.
Ambiguous as household can have
multiple sources of food.
No clear understanding about food
sufficiency and may not reflect
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506
Table 1 (continued)
Major components Sub-components
Percent of households with
decreasing food production.
Percent of household with
reductions in nutrition.
Percent of household using pesticide.
Percent of household using fertilizer.
Percent of household with loss
of agricultural land.
Water Percent of households with problem
for access of potable water.
Percent of households with problem
for access of irrigation water.
Percent of households utilizing
natural water source.
Natural disaster Percent of household with
an injury or death due
to natural disaster.
Percent of household losses
Explanation of
sub-components
across the year.
Percentage of households that
reported decrease in
food production.
Percentage of household having
decreased nutritious food
items like diary, fruit,
legumes, meat and fish.
Percentage of household
using pesticides
in crop field.
Percentage of household
using fertilizer in
agricultural field.
Percentage of household reported
loss of agricultural land
due to extreme event.
Percentage of households did
not get portable water
across the year.
Percentage of households
did not get irrigation water
across the year.
Percentage of households that
report spring as their
primary water source.
Percentage of households that report
that injury or death due to
landslide, drought, cloudburst
or any extreme climatic event.
Percentage of household reported loss
Survey questions
9–12 months.
Impact of changing climate
on food production.
Any increase, decrease, no
change and uncertainty
in your daily food item.
Pesticides application to crop.
Fertilizer application to crop.
Impact of extreme event on
agricultural land.
Availability portable water
across the year.
Availability irrigation water
across the year.
Source of portable water.
Impact of extreme event (rainfall,
drought, cloudburst, and
landslide) on life.
Impact of extreme event (rainfall,
Potential limitations
overall trend of food.
Decrease in food production may be
due to other reasons.
Poor recalling by people about
change in quantity of food item.
Confusion about use of pesticides,
and locally available
biological agents.
Sometimes, no consideration
to farmyard manure
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506
No clear cut information about the
causes of loss of land.
Sufficiency criterion for potable
water is not well understood.
Requirement of households depend
on size of land holdings.
No issue.
Death or injury may be due to other
factors but not clearly defined
causes.
Disaster cause may not be clearly
495
Table 1 (continued)
Major components Sub-components
housing or property
due to natural disaster.
Percent of household reported high
forest fire frequency.
Percent of household reported
increase in forest fire
intensity.
Climate variability Temperature and hot months
perception index
Rainfall and rainfall pattern
perception index
Hailstorms and cold waves
perception index
Explanation of
sub-components
of house or property i.e. breaking
of wall, sliding of balcony,
subsidence, livestock loss,
loss of agricultural land etc.
due to extreme event.
Percentage of household reported
that frequency of forest fire
is increased.
Percentage of household reported
that intensity of forest
fire is increased.
The inverse of (change +1)
reported by a household.
The inverse of (change +1)
reported by a household.
The inverse of (change +1)
reported by a household.
Survey questions
drought, cloudburst, and
landslide) on property,
agricultural land, finance,
employment.
Response for frequency of forest fire.
Response for intensity of forest fire.
Perception about temperature
and hot months.
Perception about rainfall and
rainfall pattern.
Perception about cold waves
and hailstorms.
496
Potential limitations
understood as developmental
activities are going on.
No issue.
No issue.
Generalization to whole year,
sometimes may not
be actual.
Generalization to whole year,
sometimes may not be actual.
Generalization to whole year,
sometimes may not be actual.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 497

implicit judgment about the degree of influence of each indicator and recommended for a
more objective approach. The balanced weighted average approach (Sullivan et al. 2002)
was used for CVI due to the various hidden and ambiguous shares and relationships of
different components with each other. In CVI, each sub-component contributes equally to
the overall index even though each major component is comprised of a different number of
sub-components as also used in various other indices (Hahn et al. 2009). The aim of equal
weighting revolves around the resource poor settings of the respondents in terms of
infrastructure, remoteness, marginality, fragility etc. of mountainous region, besides being
simple in approach and interpretation. These components have been directly and indirectly;
linearly and non-linearly related with the individual family’s inherent quality, resources
availability and accessibility. Thus, the dimensions of vulnerability were assessed at the
scale of 0 to 1 with equal weighing to all associated sub-components.
The index for exposure (Exp) containing Natural Disaster (ND) and Climate Variability
(CV), has been calculated as follows.
We1 ND þ We2 CV
Exp ¼
We1 þ We2
Where,
We1 and We2 is the weight for natural disaster and climate variability, in present study,
it was number of indicators under the sub-components.
The index for sensitivity (Sen) has been calculated as follows:
Ws1 H þ Ws2 F þ Ws3 Wa
Sen ¼
Ws1 þ Ws2 þ Ws3
Where,
Ws1, Ws2, and Ws3 is the weight for Major-components as Health, Food and Water
respectively, in present study, it was number of indicators under
the sub-components.
The index for Adaptive Capability (Ada. Cap) has been calculated as follows.
Wa1 SD þ Wa2 LS þ Wa3 SN
Ada:Cap ¼
Wa1 þ Wa2 þ Wa3
Where,
Wa1, Wa2, Wa3 is the weight for socio-demographic profile, livelihood strategies and social
network, respectively.
The weightage of CVI has been assigned with the objective to draw inference on per unit
basis of relevant parameters. The inverse relationship for sensitivity has been considered
keeping in view of analyzing the per unit strength of the system bearing capability on
absolute performance under the climate threats. The CVI defines the capability of the
society to attain the no vulnerability status.
N1 Exp  N2 Ada:Cap » 1
CVI ¼ 1  jf gj f g
ðN1 þ N2 Þ Sen
Where,
Ni is the number of Major Components in the ith dimensions of vulnerability for all i=1(1)3.
498 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

The value of each dimension will attain at the most 1 and at least to zero. The number of
components for Sensitivity (Sen) has been cancelled out each other (Denominator and
Numerator), therefore not included in the CVI index. Based on the analogy of mathematical
logic, the higher the value of Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI), the systems will be less
vulnerable i.e. high CVI reflects low vulnerability.
The CVI focuses on quantifying the strength of current livelihood including the
dependence of natural resources and available infrastructures besides the prevailing local
adaptive capability of communities. This may lead to suggest and provide sufficient tools to
improve the capacity of communities to alter these strategies in response to climate-related
exposures through assessing the ground level information. The CVI will act as a
instruments and developed with a view to provide an informed decision for the policy
makers, and development organisations with a practical tool to understand demographic,
social, economic, health and disposal of resource availability factors contributing to climate
vulnerability at the spatial scale. In addition to the overall composite index, the CVI can
also be segregated to identify readily available potential areas for intervention for adaptive
measures. The other dimension of CVI includes the feature of mathematical amenability for
future uses with different weights based on scientific techniques.
The quantitative information about the exposure parameters were not derived based on
the two premises. The existing knowledge of the climatic characteristics of the Himalayan
region is limited, in general, by both paucity of observations and the limited theoretical
attention paid to the complex interaction at spatial scales in weather and climatic
phenomenon (ICIMOD 2011). This non-availability of precise climatic data for the region
coupled with serious implications of use of guess value was the premises to obtain
perception based information about the exposure rather than the qualitative information
about the trend in climatic variability.

4 Sample selection and household survey

The study area is stratified on the basis of the development and approach to village.
Villages were selected randomly under two category based on distance to district
headquarter. Villages such as Melatha, Dangchaura, Gahar, Dhari, Dungri, Khirshu, Kotki
fall under the category of away from the district headquarter (ADH) and villages such as
Barkot, Kileshwar, Thapli, Supana are under near to the district headquarter (NDH). From
these villages, households were selected at random to collect the data with the protocol that
interviews would be conducted only with head of household, through questionnaire to
avoid the disadvantages of secondary data and dependency on climate models, followed by
informal and formal meetings and discussions with the other members. Interviews were
conducted in Hindi by researchers themselves with the support of one local fellow,
wherever necessary, after obtaining the verbal consent of each head of household. Each
interview lasted on average of 30 min. Confidentiality protocol was ascertained with the
identifying information limited to the village name and the questionnaire number.
Discussions were held with peers and locals to gain sufficient knowledge about the
prevailing livelihood mechanism and climatic fluctuation in the region.
The survey questionnaire consisted of three broad sections: Exposure, Sensitivity and
Adaptive Capability. The Exposure section contains information pertaining to ‘Natural
disaster and Climate variability’, however Sensitivity consists of ‘Health’, Food’, and
‘Water’. At last the Adaptive Capability includes Socio-demographic profile, Livelihood
strategies, and Social networks.
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 499

Internal quality control procedures were established by proper understanding and

interpretations of each question with the agreements between researchers. Twenty five
households in each region were surveyed due to limited resources. Data were coded and
cleaned, and analyzed by using SPSS 7.5 (SPSS Inc. 1997).

5 Results and discussions

The result of the data analysis for both the regions is reported in two parts. The first deals with
the assessment of individual major components along with respective sub-components
(Table 2), and the second addresses various dimensions of vulnerability with estimated value
of CVI (Table 3). The result showed varied response to CVI in NDH and ADH regions.
The socio-demographic profile had similar response for both regions; however the
contributing indicators had differential share for both the regions. The family dependency
index for NDH (0.33) was much higher than ADH (0.18) because people from NDH had
higher education status due to better educational facilities. House type diversity index was
almost similar due to homogeneity in the status of type of houses in both the regions. NDH
(0.73) is less pronounced for family decision index compared to ADH (0.82), due to
relatively young head of household in ADH region (Table 2).
The livelihood strategies of NDH (0.44) were less diversified than ADH (0.54). The
ADH households had more opportunity for adjustment within the faming system due to
their traditional knowledge about the climate change responses. The NDH households had
better accessibility in terms of facilities and livelihood options than ADH household,
therefore, opted for crop variety change and introduction of new crops. Household reported
change in planting and sowing time due to extreme event was more pronounced in ADH
(0.25) as compared to NDH (0.18) due to having traditional knowledge about the response
of crops with weather fluctuation, probably due to better equip in terms of practical
knowledge gains since generations about the cropping pattern against the stress. The
households of both the regions were primarily derived fodder and fuelwood from nearby
forests therefore had the similar response for forest derived products. Households reported
relying solely on agriculture household from NDH was much lower because they get more
opportunities of earning on the other hand, the ADH households had only options i.e.
faming. The ADH (0.90) reported depletion in natural resources than the NDH households
in terms of increase in distance from forest to village and source of natural water; and
increase in intensity and frequency of forest fire. The migrated members for earning in both
areas were approximately same due to the intricacies of the mountainous setting. As
opportunities for better livelihood options are limited across the mountainous region
(Table 2).
The social network status was similar in both the regions, probably due to the
mountainous specificities. This shows that these households were interdependent and seek
co-operations among themselves, as observed during survey. The profession diversity index
governed the status of households, and liable for co-operation among themselves, was more
favored to NDH due to availability of diversified opportunities of income earning (Table 2).
Infant mortality and recent death of household member was 5% and 10%; and nil and
6%, in NDH and ADH regions, respectively. The households of both the region reported
that climatic factor is responsible for health problem mainly due to cold. The high level of
stress due to climate was noted in ADH, probably due to their high dependency on the
natural resources and therefore more exposure. The households of NDH reported
occurrence of more new diseases than the ADH, probably due to better communication
500 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

Table 2 Indexed major components, sub-components for assessing climate vulnerability

Major components Sub-components Sub- Major

components components

NDH ADH NDH ADH

Socio-demographic Family dependency index 0.33 0.18 0.51 0.49

Profile House type diversity index 0.47 0.48
Family decision index 0.73 0.82
Livelihood strategies Percent of household with migrated members 0.08 0.07 0.44 0.54
Percent of household not changes crop variety 0.70 0.90
Percent of household not introduced new crop 0.85 0.93
Percent of household reported change in sowing/ 0.18 0.28
planting time
Fodder and fuelwood collection index 0.43 0.45
Percent of household sole dependent on agriculture 0.35 0.60
Natural resource diversification index 0.21 0.21
Percent of household reported depletion in natural 0.76 0.90
resource
Social network Percent of household obtained/seek help from social 0.25 0.25 0.67 0.66
networks
Percent of household provide help to others 0.95 0.97
Percent of household with money transaction between 0.95 0.97
friends
Profession diversity index 0.53 0.48
Health Percent of household with recent death of infant 0.05 00 0.46 0.36
Percent of household with recent death 0.10 0.06
Percent of household reported disease due to climatic 0.80 0.73
factor
Percent of household reported stress due to climatic 01 0.83
factor
Percent of household having new disease 0.35 0.20
Food Percent of households dependent on agriculture for 0.35 0.60 0.34 0.48
food
Percent of households with insufficient food form farm 01 0.93
Percent of households with decreasing food production 0.75 0.83
Percent of household with reductions in nutrition 0.17 0.27
Percent of household using pesticides 00 0.20
Percent of household using fertilizer 0.03 0.47
Percent of household having loss of agricultural land 0.10 0.10
Water Percent of households with problem in availing potable 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.25
water
Percent of households with problem in availing 0.80 0.30
irrigation water
Percent of households utilizing natural source of water 0.03 0.37
Natural disaster Percent of household faced injury or death due to 00 00 0.47 0.52
natural disaster
Percent of household losses property due to natural 0.09 0.24
disaster
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 501

Table 2 (continued)

Major components Sub-components Sub- Major

components components

NDH ADH NDH ADH

Percent of household reported high frequency of forest fire 0.80 0.87

Percent of household reported increase in intensity of 01 01
forest fire
Climate variability Temperature and hot months perception index 0.57 0.49 0.49 0.43
Rainfall and rainfall pattern perception index 0.56 0.48
Hailstorms and cold waves perception index 0.35 0.34

NDH Near district headquarter; ADH Away district headquarter

and awareness about health hazards. Based on the data, it can be presumed that the NDH
households had better health status than ADH households (Table 2).
Low proportion of households relying in agriculture in ADH (0.35) compared to ADH
(0.60) as faming was primary profession for most of ADH households. However, 100%
household from NDH reported insufficient food from farm due to either low availability of
agriculture land or due to their engagement in other income sources. Only 7% households from
ADH obtained sufficient food from farm, in spite of fact that majority of households of the
region was farmer. These farmers were better off and have more agriculture land, as noted
during the survey. The ADH (0.83) households reported decrease in food production in
comparison to NDH (0.75), probably due to poor rainfall pattern, as reported by them. A higher
percentage of reduction in nutritious food was reported in ADH (0.27) because of decreasing
food production, and decrease in the volume of the nutritious food from the forests due to
depletion of forest resources besides their engagement in cash crops production. Application of
insecticides and fertilizers was high in ADH region due to better understanding of the
cultivation mechanism. The loss of agriculture land due to land slide and slips was low in both
the strata, due to rebuilding of farms after the natural incidents. The overall food was low for
NDH than ADH due to low dependency on farm cultivation (Table 2).

Table 3 Indexed dimensions of vulnerability NDH and ADH regions

Vulnerability components Major components Vulnerability components

NDH ADH

Adaptive capacity Socio-demographic profile 0.51 0.56

Livelihood strategies
Social network
Sensitivity Health 0.37 0.39
Food
Water
Exposure Natural disaster 0.47 0.48
Climate variability
Climate vulnerability index 0.69 0.64
–
ADH
502 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

NDH also had lower vulnerability score for water component than ADH. In NDH only
3% household reported using natural source of water and 97% household getting water
from pump or government supply contrary to 37% household from ADH depends on
natural source of water. The 10% households of both the regions were reported problem in
availing potable water, whereas problem of irrigation water was higher in NDH (0.80) as
compared to ADH (0.30). Moreover, the ADH households had developed their own
irrigation facilities as observed during the survey (Table 2).
Natural disaster due to extreme event was high in the ADH household, as these
households were more prone to mountain specificity in terms of fragility, marginality and
accessibility besides poor infrastructure. The household from NDH (0.09) was less affected
by loss of property due to relatively better equip for natural disaster being the near to
district head quarter than for ADH (0.24) because of restricted and sometimes no response
for re-addresal for disaster mitigation from government machinery. The frequency of forest
fire during summer was high in ADH (0.87), as observed by the households (Table 2).
Climate variability perceptions, was more pronounce in the NDH households due to
better communication, awareness and strategic settings being near to town. The perception
about temperature and hot months of NDH households (0.57) was greater than households
of ADH (0.49). Rainfall and rainfall pattern perception was high in NDH than ADH,
respectively and the perception about cold waves and hailstorm was more or less similar in
both the regions (Table 2). The visualization by the NDH households was due to better
communication facilities, which elaborate about the climatic fluctuations.
The response of major components of the two regions was depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 for
better clarity. This shows that the socio-demographic profile and social networks was similar
in both the regions due to co-operation among the community members, similar traditions and
similar physical settings of households. The high response for natural disaster by ADH was
due to low facilities and support from external sources besides high dependency on natural
resources, however, low climatic variability by them was due to better resilience and close
linkage with the nature. In general, the ADH response was favoured for those indicators,
which governed by the natural resources due to their high dependence on these. However, the
poor response was for poor provisions of infrastructural services (Fig. 1).
The various dimensions of vulnerability were reported in the Table 3. It is apparent that the
adaptive capability and sensitivity of ADH households was higher than NDH, however, the
exposure realization was more pronounced in the NDH households. The overall vulnerability

Fig. 1 Spider diagram of major components of CVI for NDH and ADH regions
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 503

Fig. 2 Vulnerability triangle

diagram of the dimensions of
vulnerability of CVI

was more for the NDH, probably due to relatively high sophistication about the understanding
of climatic responses (Table 3). This advocates that the sensitivity components should be
addressed for tackling the adverse impacts of climate change, besides improving adaptive
capabilities in the regions. No contrast differences were observed between the regions. This
was probably due to similar settings of resources in terms of edaphic factors. Contrary to this,
CVI could able to capture the differences prevails between the regions.

6 Discussions and conclusions

This longitudinal analysis of rural indigenous mountainous community’s response to climate

change impacts reveals the vulnerable status and adaptive capabilities of these communities.
The possibility of enhance social-ecological resilience and improve livelihoods may be
important to for reorientation of natural resources, agricultural production, renewed social
cohesion through honest, free and ethical networking, in addition to the creation of more diverse
income-generation strategies with conservation and sustainable use of primary forest resources.
Present study results into the following critical issues to address the climatic impacts, resilience
and adaptation mechanism of the mountainous rural community.

6.1 Rural poor resilience – strategies to address the climate change impacts

Much empirical evidence suggests that poverty begets vulnerability; that covariate shocks tend
to deepen the poverty of the poorest (Zimmerman and Carter 2003). However, over the
centuries, human societies have developed the capacity to adapt to environmental change
through various strategies such as shift in cultivation, adopting new crop varieties and
modifying natural resource utilisation patterns. Therefore, agriculture and forestry management
can play a key role in mitigating the impacts of climate change and in promoting adaptation at
the local level. Besides this, the rural poor should be compensated through payment/reward for
environmental services for their activities that lead to mitigation.

6.2 Household internal adjustment - poor’s ability against climate change impacts

Much of the current literature on the rural poor’s potential to adapt to climate change focuses on
household level adjustments to investments and productive activities. These poor people of the
504 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

studied region were also practicing the similar trajectories of livelihood. External support is thus
often considered vital to the engineering of transformative institutional change that will enable
poor communities to better cope with climate shocks (Ostrom 2007).

6.3 Traditional knowledge – a basis of adaptation to climate change

Poor’s institutional innovation through traditional knowledge in the wake of disaster

exemplifies adaptive capacity, demonstrated the ability to learn, and to make use of crisis
(Pelling and High 2005). This study observed that sources of vulnerability at one point in
time are sources of resilience in another such as adjustments in crop cultivation during
adverse conditions i.e. landslides, draught etc. as also reported by Nelson et al. (2007).

6.4 Collective action - an agency to address climate change impacts

These mountainous communities follow traditional lifestyles and practicing community

approach for cultivation as well as natural resource collection. This approach leads to better
strategy to adopt during adverse condition.

6.5 Improved infrastructure - strength of adaptive capabilities

The specificities of mountains act as catalyst and makes communities more vulnerable.
Therefore strategies must be evolved to reduce the problems created due to specificities.
Thus, infrastructure in terms of communication, transportation and amenities may facilitate
adaptation to the communities.

7 Caveats, assumptions and limitations of the index

The modified index (CVI) for mountainous region is data sensitive and may response
precisely with proper representation of samples. The high dependency on nature and
flexibility in number of sub-components makes the index more apt and thus, versatile. The
index has potential to be applied in other similar situations, provided suitable components
may be identified and defined. The weightage of different components and sub-components
may be data sensitive. Appropriate statistical techniques based on variability may address
the problem. The index is computed with assumptions that the responses obtained from the
respondents are unbiased and fair. This may be addressed by ensuring the quality of
response as well as insurance against the non-responses.
The CVI may also be used to assess the future vulnerabilities of the communities. The
index may be applied into the wider scale and used for the diverse communities of the
region defined by socio-economic or any other characteristics of household. The historical
weather data of the spatial region should be compared with the perception of respondents,
and compensated, if needed. This provides validity to the index.

8 Implications

The study suggests that investigation on rural communities should be continued to suggest
the coping strategy against the impact of climate change through adjudging the suitable
options, which appears to perform well across the spatio-temporal scale. The coping
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506 505

strategies and adaptation mechanisms, thus devised will be best suited against the risk of
adverse impacts of climate change, as it is based on long term realizations/observations of
households with prevailing internal and external settings.
Moreover, the customized approach of vulnerability assessment may help to achieve the
intended objectives of explaining the linkage of climate impacts between climatic factors
and social adjustments. This is required as long term lag climatic data are not available for
remotely located regions. Moreover, context-specific vulnerability method of assessment
leads to ascertain the resultant outcome to human societies against the multiple driving
forces in relation to specific settings of the spatial region.

References

Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281

Adger WN, Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337:399–410
Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C et al (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science
309:1036–1039
Ahmed SA, Diffenbaugh NS, Hertel TW (2009) Climate volatility deepens poverty vulnerability in
developing countries. Environ Res Lett 4:034004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/034004
Beniston M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts. Climate Change 59:5–31
Brodnig G, Prasad V (2010) A view from the top: vulnerability in mountain systems. Social Development
Notes No. 128, Social Dimensions of Climate Change, World Bank, Washington
Chambers R, Conway G (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century, Rep.
No. 296. IDS, Brighton
Deems HJ (2010) Vulnerability of rural communities in the Mediterranean region to climate change and
water scarcity: the case of Cyprus. Dissertation, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona
Deressa T, Hassan RM, Ringler C (2008) Measuring Ethiopian farmers’ vulnerability to climate change
across regional states. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/
IFPRIDP00806.pdf. Cited 26 Oct 2011
Eakin H, Bojorquez-Tapia LA (2008) Insights into the composition of household vulnerability from
multicriteria decision analysis. Glob Environ Chang 18:112–127
Eriksen SH, O’Brien K (2007) Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures. Clim
Policy 7:337–352
Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob
Environ Change 16:253–267
Ford JD, Smit B (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic
to risks associated with climate change. Arctic 57:398–400
Füssel HM (2007a) Adaptation planning for climate change: concept, assessment approaches, and key
lessons. Sustainability Science 2(2):265–275
Füssel HM (2007b) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research.
Glob Environ Chang 17:155–167
Gallopin G (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Chang 16
(3):293–303
Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO (2009) The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing
risks from climate variability and change - a case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ Chang 19(1):74–88
Hoermann B, Choudhary D, Kollmair M (2010) Integrated value chain development as a tool for poverty
alleviation in rural mountain areas: an analytical and strategic framework. ICIMOD, Kathmandu
Huq S (2007) Community-based adaptation: an IIED Briefing. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London
ICIMOD (2011) Framework for Community-Based Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment in
Mountain Areas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD
IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: summary for policymakers.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed from http://
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Jodha NS (1992) Mountain perspective and sustainability: a framework for development strategy. In:
Sustainable Mountain Agriculture (Eds) New Delhi
506 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:487–506

Karma T, Sharma E, Chettri N, Shrestha A (2010) Climate change vulnerability of mountain ecosystems in
the Eastern Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu
Klein R, Nicholls R, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ
Hazards 5(1–2):35–45
Kohler T, Maselli D (2009) Mountains and climate change - from understanding to action (eds) Geographica
Bernensia, Bern
Korner C (2004) Mountain biodiversity, its causes and function. Ambio Supplement 13:11–17
Lemos MC, Boyd E, Tompkins EL, Osbahr H, Liverman D (2007) Developing adaptation and adapting
development. Ecol Soc 12:1–26
Mearns R, Norton A (2010) Social dimensions of climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warming
world. World Bank, Washington
Mittal S, Tripathi G, Sethi D (2008) Development strategy for the hill districts of Uttarakhand. Working
Paper No. 217, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi
Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience
framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:395–419
Nogues-Bravo D, Araujo MB, Errea MP, Martınez-Rica JP (2007) Exposure of global mountain systems to
climate warming during the 21st Century. Glob Environ Chang 17:420–428
O’Brien K, Quinlan T, Ziervogel G (2009) Vulnerability interventions in the context of multiple stressors:
lessons from the Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI). Environ Sci Policy 12:23–32
Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15181–15187
Paavola J, Adger WN (2006) Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol Econ 56:594–609
Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pandey R (2010) Quantitative estimation of livestock feed from forest in Uttaranchal Himalayas.
Unpublished report, CSO, New Delhi
Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural
systems. Nature 421(6918):37–42
Patnaik U, Narayanan K (2005) Vulnerability and climate change: an analysis of the Eastern Coastal Districts
of India. Human security and climate change: an international workshop, asker
Patz JA, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley JA (2005) Impact of regional climate change on human
health. Nature 438:310–317
Pelling M, High C (2005) Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive
capacity? Glob Environ Change 15:308–319
Rajwar GS (1993) Garhwal Himalaya: ecology and environment. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi
Reid P, Vogel C (2006) Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa-Glimpses from
KwaZulu-Natal. Glob Environ Chang 16:195–206
Schickhoff U (2005) The upper timberline in the Himalayas, Hindu Kush and Karakorum: a review of
geographical and ecological aspects. In: Broll G, Keplin B (eds) Mountain ecosystems. Studies in tree
line ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–354
Smit B, Pilifosova O (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and
equity. In: McCarthy J, Canziani OF, Leary NF, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate Change 2001:
impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 876–912
Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):282–292
SPSS Inc (1997) SPSS Base statistics. Version 7.5. SPSS Inc, Chicago
Sullivan C, Meigh JR, Fediw TS (2002) Derivation and testing of the water poverty index phase 1, Final
Report. Department for International Development, UK
Urothody AA, Larsen HO (2010) Measuring climate change vulnerability: a comparison of two indexes.
Banko Jankari 20(1):9–16
Vincent K (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa. Working Paper 56,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and School of Environmental Sciences. University of East
Anglia, Anglia
Vincent K (2007) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Glob Environ Chang 17:12–24
Vincent K, Cull T (2010) A Household Social Vulnerability Index (HSVI) for evaluating adaptation projects
in developing countries. PEGNet Conference 2010: policies to foster and sustain equitable development
in times of crises, 2–3 rd September 2010, Midrand
Viviroli D, Weingartner R (2004) Hydrological significance of mountains: from regional to global scale.
Hydrological Earth Systems Science 8(6):1016–1029
Wisner B (2010) Climate change and cultural diversity. Int Soc Sci J 61:131–140
Zimmerman FJ, Carter MR (2003) Asset smoothing, consumption smoothing and the reproduction of
inequality under risk and subsistence constraints. J Dev Econ 71:233–260