Assessing Drought Vulnerability Using the Livelihood Vulnerability Index Approach in a Mid-Hill Region of Nepal

Climate and Development ISSN: 1756-5529 (Print) 1756-5537 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcld20 Mapping the need for adaptation: assessing drought vulnerability using the livelihood vulnerability index approach in a mid-hill region of Nepal Janardan Mainali & Narcisa G. Pricope To cite this article: Janardan Mainali & Narcisa G. Pricope (2018): Mapping the need for adaptation: assessing drought vulnerability using the livelihood vulnerability index approach in a mid-hill region of Nepal, Climate and Development, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1521329 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1521329 View supplementary material Published online: 20 Sep 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 17 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcld20 CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1521329 RESEARCH ARTICLE Mapping the need for adaptation: assessing drought vulnerability using the livelihood vulnerability index approach in a mid-hill region of Nepal Janardan Mainali a,b and Narcisa G. Pricope a aDepartment of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA; bResearch and Development Society, Kirtipur, Nepal ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY For effective development and adaptation interventions in resource-poor regions to take place, it is critical Received 18 October 2016 to identify, at the highest spatial scale possible, regions of higher priority based on current needs and Accepted 28 August 2018 vulnerabilities. The index-based assessment of vulnerability to climate change and variability is typically KEYWORDS used to identify administrative-level regions of high vulnerability using various socioeconomic and Biophysical; socioeconomic; biophysical datasets. One method that combines both approaches at the community level consists of resilience; development collecting highly resolved socio-economic data and using the livelihood vulnerability index (LVI) to needs; climate change assess population vulnerability to increased climate variability and shocks. We use this mixed-methods approach in mapping climate vulnerability of ten drought-prone villages in the central-east mid-hill region of Nepal. We integrate data from over 900 household surveys and national-level databases and identify spatial patterns in the different components of climate vulnerability. We assess to what extent climatic extremes or people’s socioeconomic capacity contribute to vulnerability and may shape development needs at the sub-district scale. We find that the majority of our study area falls in the high vulnerability category with significant spatial variation. In some villages, there are different vulnerability classes in different wards, indicating that even within the lowest administrative units, there is a significant spatial variation in the level of vulnerability. Livelihood strategies, water availability, and topographic components played the most important role in determining overall vulnerability and we measure strong interconnections among different components. The interconnectedness nature of different vulnerability components is creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral of vulnerability that traps local communities in a state of heightened vulnerability. We conclude that adaptation strategies in highly vulnerable regions should include careful consideration of different livelihoods and environmental components, their fine-scale spatial variations, and interconnections. 1. Introduction Development Index (HDI) to classify countries based on Climate vulnerability is the characteristic of a system deter- their gross national product, their education index, and life mined by its exposure-character, magnitude, and rate of cli- expectancy at birth (Anand & Sen, 1994; HDI, 2016). Environ- mate variation, sensitivity- system’s susceptibility or harm mental aspects are also now being increasingly considered in associated with environmental and social changes and adaptive order to understand how they alter and control the quality of capacity- the system’s capacity to withstand variability and life as human life is inherently linked to the surrounding changes (Adger, 2006; Field et al., 2014). The climate vulner- environment. Early on, Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley (2003) pro- ability concept comprises information related to the physical posed a social vulnerability index to assess human vulnerability environment such as the rate of temperature change, precipi- to environmental hazards. This approach was then used in the tation change, hazard frequency and concurrently uses other assessment of vulnerability to various hazards such as hurri- socioeconomic information such as income level, occupation, canes, floods, and droughts (Bjarnadottir, Li, & Stewart, 2011; resource access, and others to determine the vulnerability status Flanagan, Gregory, Hallisey, Heitgerd, & Lewis, 2011; Rygel, of people living in a particular location. Climate vulnerability O’Sullivan, & Yarnal, 2006; Tucker et al., 2015). Typically, science is now receiving increased attention as a result of its social vulnerability assessments include either socioeconomic ability to contribute to identifying, monitoring, and estimating or biophysical or both type of indicators, based on the type the extent of harm to social and economic systems (Stern, Ebi, of assessments. A more inclusive concept that encapsulates Olson, Steinbruner, & Lempert, 2013). both such components, usually as a single numeric value, is Researchers and development practitioners are using var- the climate vulnerability index (Sullivan & Meigh, 2005). This ious approaches to quantifying the quality of life of human approach also uses more or less similar indicators and aggrega- populations. The United Nations has been using the Human tion methods as that of the social vulnerability index but uses CONTACT Janardan Mainali [email protected] Department of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA Research and Development Society, Kirtipur, Nepal Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1521329. © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 J. MAINALI AND N. G. PRICOPE data collected from primary sources belonging to a variety of LVI with the Livelihood Effect Index and reported a valid socioeconomic and biophysical indicators. The vulnerability reflection of vulnerability in the villages compared in Mustang status of a region is assessed by interpreting the vulnerability district, Nepal. Gentle, Thwaites, Race, and Alexander (2014) index and recommendations for adaptation activities to dimin- also compared communities in Lamjung district Nepal using ish vulnerability and enhance resilience are then made based on the LVI approach. A modification of this approach as this assessment. Multidimensional Livelihood Vulnerability Index has The spatial variation of this vulnerability index and com- recently been used to analyze household level vulnerability ponents can be assessed using geographic information system in different parts of Hindu Kush Himalaya region (Gerlitz (GIS) in order to spatially and explicitly prioritize the adap- et al., 2017). tation need of a community (Preston, Yuen, & Westaway, The LVI approach was proposed by Hahn et al. (2009)asa 2011). Different indicators of climate vulnerability like climatic modified form of the Sustainable Livelihood Approach pre- variables, hazards, the condition of land, socioeconomic con- viously employed by the United Nations. The Sustainable Live- ditions and access to resources are broadly classified as bio- lihood approach uses the natural, social, financial, physical, and physical and socioeconomic factors (Füssel, 2007). These human capital to design development programing at the com- factors act in conjunction to determine the characteristic of munity level (Chambers & Conway, 1991; Hahn et al., 2009). any socio-ecological system towards the susceptibility or The livelihood vulnerability index approach integrates climate harm due to the climatic variability and hazard. These factors exposure and accounts for household adaptation practices on are location specific and vary from household to household, top of the sustainable livelihood approach (Chambers & Con- community to community, and country to country. Therefore way, 1991; Hahn et al., 2009.). It uses multiple indicators to regions that appear socio-economically similar may be experi- assess exposure to natural disasters and climate variability, encing different levels of vulnerability if they are located in social and economic characteristics of households that affect different places (Turner et al., 2003). The location-specific adaptive capacity, and current health, food, and water resource information regarding the factors contributing it is of foremost characteristics that determine sensitivity to climate change importance to understanding climate vulnerability. Recent impacts. The LVI approach relies heavily on data collected advances in GIS technology and availability of digital data in from primary sources with indicators divided into the socio- the public domain have made collection and analysis of demographic profile, livelihood, health, social networks, food, spatially explicit data for climate vulnerability assessments water, and natural disasters and climate variability. more feasible (Preston et

Load more