EXPERIENCIAS INTERNACIONALES SOBRE LA RESTAURACIÓN DE TURBERAS

2.7.3.1 Vulnerability

Although the concept of vulnerability has been used in different research traditions, a proper agreement over its meaning is still to be arrived at (Gallopín, 2006). The Inter- Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined vulnerability as “the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes” (Parry et al., 2007). It further identified vulnerability as “a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity”. The International Strategy for disaster Reduction (UNISDR, 2009) defined vulnerability as “the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard”. These two definitions deal with climate change and natural disasters respectively, but not specifically in an EWE context.

Vulnerability, in this research, is identified as “the characteristics and circumstances of humans and human systems that determine how susceptible they are to the impact of EW hazards” (Hallet, 2013). Thus, in a SME context, vulnerability can be identified as “the characteristics and circumstances of SMEs that determine how susceptible they are to the impact of EW hazards”. In a broader term, it relates to the extent to which a particular SME can be harmed by a hazard.

2.7.3.2 Adaptation and adaptive capacity

Adger (2000b) defined institutional adaptation as “the net outcome of the evolution of institutions within the wider social environment along with institutional inertia”. The term institutions here includes “both socialised ways of interacting and underlying worldviews,

80 as well as structures and organisations that influence resource allocation” (Adger, 2000b). Adger (2000b) argued that the adaptation of organisations can be observed by actual resource allocations, processes of decision making and non decision making, and changing perceptions of vulnerability. Bleda and Shackley (2008) identified adaptation as “the response to the impacts of both ‘physical’ events (precipitation, floods, droughts, etc.) and to changes in the organisation's institutional environment brought about by climate change (e.g. changes in mitigation policies, in media trends, or in the scientific community's perspective on climate change)”. The definition attempts to address adaptation of organisations to climate change impacts both in their physical and institutional environments. Bleda and Shackley (2008) identified belief in climate change and the risks involved as major factors affecting organisational adaptation. In this research adaptation is identified as “initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of humans and human systems to actual or expected climate change effects, including increases in the intensity or frequency of EWEs” (Hallet, 2013).

AEA Technology (2009) identified adaptive capacity as the “ability of an individual, group or sector to adjust to climatic changes, curb potential damage, cope with the consequences of impacts, or profit from new opportunities”. Hertin et al (2003) identified that adaptive capacity in an organisation is related to an awareness of the need to adapt, ability to make decisions regarding which measures to implement, and capacity to implement and control the process of adaptation. They considered adaptive capacity to be a result of the internal capabilities and external relationships of an organisation. In this research, adaptive capacity is considered to be “the ability of a system to implement effective adaptation measures” (CREW Working Terminology).

81

2.7.3.3 Coping capacity and coping strategies

Whilst adaptation and adaptive capacity are terms that appear prominently in climate change literature, hazard literature seems to use the terms coping and coping capacity to denote similar concepts. As discussed by Brooks et al (2005), vulnerability to hazards related to weather extremes that may occur in the immediate future is more related to existing short-term coping capacity rather than the ability to pursue long-term adaptation strategies. Further, Gallopín (2006) pointed out that coping capacity is used to denote short term capacity or the ability to survive, whereas adaptive capacity is used to denote long term adjustments. Considering the nature of EWEs and the shorter strategic horizons of SMEs the term coping capacity, in relation to resilience, will be used in this research. UNISDR (2009) defined coping capacity as “the ability of people, organisations and systems, using available skills and resources, to face and manage adverse conditions, emergencies or disasters”. This involves resource management to cope up with hazards before, during and after the occurrence of a hazard. Coping capacity, in this research, is defined as “the ability of people or organisations to limit adverse consequences of EW hazards, using available resources and capabilities” (Hallet, 2013). From a SME context, this can be defined as “the ability of a SME to limit adverse consequences of EW hazards, using available resources and capabilities”. This definition is in line with the definition of resilience applicable to this research; however it depicts a rather reactive approach whereas the resilience definition also embraces a proactive approach. This definition, like that of ISDR, also highlights the importance of management of resources and abilities, in this case available to SMEs. Coping strategies are defined as “actions that increase the ability to prevent, tolerate and/or recover from the impacts of EWEs” (Hallet, 2013) in this

82 research. These may include both physical and non-physical actions such as obtaining business interruption insurance, business continuity planning, flood defences etc.