ARTICLE IN PRESS
Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 539–542
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Editorial
A critical overview: Local evidence on vulnerabilities and adaptations to
global environmental change in developing countries
Understanding vulnerability to the impacts of global environ-
mental change and identifying adaptation measures to cope with
these impacts require localized investigations that can help find
actual and exact answers to the questions about who and what are
vulnerable, to what are they vulnerable, how vulnerable are they,
what are the causes of their vulnerability, and what responses
can lessen their vulnerability. Several recent studies emphasise
the importance of local assessments of vulnerability to capture
the diversity in the social, economic, and natural environment of
communities (e.g. Flint and Luloff, 2005; Schröter et al., 2005;
Ziervogel et al., 2006; Acosta-Michlik et al., 2008). Through the
various research projects of the Advanced Institute on Vulner-
ability to Global Environmental Change, local evidence on
vulnerability and adaptation to global environmental change have
been collected in developing countries. From May 2004 to January
2006, the global change SysTem for Analysis, Research, and
Training (START), in partnership with the International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the International Human
Dimensions Programme (IHDP), with the financial support of the
David and Lucille Packard Foundation, conducted an ‘‘Advanced
Institute on Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change’’.
The Advanced Institute emphasised that global environmental
changes give rise to multiple stresses that interact with each other
as well as with stresses of more localized origin to impact on
people, places, and systems, including both human and environ-
mental systems. It focused on utilising selected analytic tools to
build the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct research on
vulnerability to global environmental change. The Institute thus
aimed to advance conceptual knowledge and promote practical
applications in assessing vulnerability in different parts of the
world. The Institute had three components: a 3-week long
seminar held during 3–21 May 2004 at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria;
15-month research grants for successful Institute Fellows;
and a culminating workshop that followed completion of the
research in New Delhi, India. Results of selected research projects
of the Advanced Institute Fellows are presented in this special
issue.
The articles in this issue use a variety of vulnerability
frameworks that take into account the issues specific to the case
study areas. The diversity of frameworks raises the question of
whether the heterogeneity of communities across the world poses
a technical barrier for formalising a vulnerability concept and/or
framework, which has been emphasised in other studies (e.g.
Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell, 2005; Füssel, 2007; O’Brien et al.,
2007). In addition to qualitative analysis, quantitative techniques
0959-3780/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.001
such as statistical analysis are common tools applied to make
these frameworks operational. The papers of Kelkar et al. (2008)
and Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon (2008) also complemented the
statistical analysis and qualitative analysis with more elaborate
water and land use models (i.e. SWAT, MODFLOW, and agent-
based models). The use of standard tools in some articles in this
issue was constrained by the short-time duration (15 months) and
small-scale nature of the projects, the limitation of interdisci-
plinary research within the projects, the time required to collect
large amount of data from the communities, and the dearth of
time-series and/or cross-sectoral data. Due to the relevance of
understanding the complex relationship between humans and the
environment in the investigation of vulnerability and adaptation
(Stern et al., 1991), current debates emphasise the limitation
of available methods for identify1ing adaptation policies from
available vulnerability studies. Methods with different degrees of
sophistication have thus been applied in various studies (e.g.
O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000; Acosta-Michlik et al., 2006; Metzger
et al., 2006; Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell, 2008). The articles in
this issue discuss the implications of their methods and results for
adaptation policy taking into account the existing social, econom-
ic, and institutional infrastructures in the different case study
areas. The most important contribution of this issue to vulner-
ability research is however the rich knowledge generated from
household surveys and key informants’ consultations in local
communities in different developing countries. It presents
analysis of vulnerability and adaptation of communities from
diverse geographical locations with unique history, cultures,
traditions, and values.
The case studies focus on selected rural communities that are
vulnerable to multiple stressors in China, India, the Philippines,
Brazil, and Mexico. All articles in this issue assessed the
vulnerability of agriculture, which remains an important source
of rural livelihood and employment in many developing countries.
Although the authors consider drought or water stress as the main
source of physical exposure (except Saldaña-Zorrilla, who also
considers high precipitation), they highlight the role of social,
economic, and institutional factors in vulnerability and adapta-
tion. Water stress is defined as the intensity, extent, timing, and
duration of a change in normal water resource availability that
disrupts economic and human activities (Acosta-Michlik et al.,
2008). By focusing on specific environmental stress (i.e. because
different stresses require different responses) and comparing
communities from diverse geographical locations and with
different socio-economic attributes, the authors are able to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
540 Editorial / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 539–542
present interesting and valuable evidence on the causes of
vulnerability and the responses for adaptation of the farmers in
these communities. Toni and Holanda (2008) compared vulner-
ability of farmers who utilise ‘‘fundo de pasto’’ or common
property pasturelands with those whose farming system is based
on private pasturelands in Brazil. His analysis contradicts the
claims that traditional farming systems such as ‘‘fundo de pasto’’,
which are less capital and technology intensive, make farmers
more vulnerable to droughts. There is adaptation inherent in this
farming system due to the choice of drought-resistant animals,
collective use of resources, reduction of farming investment,
provision of subsistence and nutritional needs, and preservation
of common pasturelands. Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon (2008),
Kelkar et al. (2008), and Liu et al. (2008) selected communities in
which capacity to develop new or improve existing irrigation
systems is restricted not only by their socio-economic attributes,
but also by their geographical locations. Acosta-Michlik and
Espaldon (2008) clustered the farmers in three communities in
the Philippines to find evidence of different levels of vulnerability
as a result of differences in socio-economic attributes. They reveal
that the location of the farmers with respect to market and
irrigation facilities is a more important determinant of vulner-
ability than their socio-economic attributes. Liu et al. (2008)
present opposite evidence for China. Although the selected
communities in China have different locations with respect to
the river and thus different levels of exposure to the low-flow
events, farmers who act as strategic managers of their complex
asset and portfolios could easily adapt irrespective of their
locations. Liu et al. (2008) discuss how Chinese farmers success-
fully shift and adapt their management strategies with an increase
in intensity of water stress over time. There is also some evidence
of shifts in adaptive strategies to drought in the communities in
India, particularly in relation to water sources and pattern of use.
Kelkar et al. (2008) point out that the types of coping responses
used by farmers in India such as taking loans from moneylenders
or seeking non-agricultural jobs in the city may not only have
temporary but also contrary impacts on reducing vulnerability.
For example, reports reveal that growing indebtedness to money-
lenders has already caused many farmers to take their lives in the
past years (Jafri, 2000; Farooq, 2004). Local evidence on vulner-
ability and adaptation presented in this issue aims to reveal how
communities respond to the same type of environmental stress in
different ways.
In addition to their experience in adapting to water stress,
these communities in Asian and Latin American countries have
gone through similar socio-economic developments. Among the
most important developments that are related to vulnerability
and adaptation to global environmental change are: (i) the
influence of historical evolution of land tenure system on adaptive
capacity, (ii) the effects of policy and market responses to global
trade on vulnerability, and (iii) migration as ultimate solution to
chronic adaptation failures.
As land tenure systems in these countries evolved, the farms
have become fragmented and smaller in size, resulting in a decline
in economies of scale and an increase in subsistence farming.
Saldaña-Zorrilla (2008) mentioned that in Mexico, small farm
sizes prevent farmers from realizing savings or reinvesting
to upgrade technology. According to Toni and Holanda (2008),
the farming activities of private smallholders in the case study
areas in Brazil are more market oriented than those of farmers
who use common pasturelands, but the lack of economies of scale
results in higher production costs caused by high labour and
capital investment. In China, Liu et al. (2008) mentioned that
small fragmented plots have prevented some farmers from
applying coping measure such as reduction of water use. Similarly,
in the case study areas in India, Kelkar et al. (2008) point out that
the fragmentation of land holdings creates challenges for adopting
agricultural measures such as irrigation and pest management.
Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon (2008) explain that in the Philip-
pines, traditional and subsistence farmers who have small farms
and are located away from urban areas are very vulnerable to
water stress because they not only face high production and
marketing costs but also lack alternative non-agricultural jobs.
Although all the agricultural communities in these countries are
confronted by problems associated with the lack of economies of
scale, their level of vulnerability varies because their adaptation to
multiple stresses differs. The experience of farmers in the ‘‘fundo
de pasto’’ system of agriculture revealed that collective farming,
which still exists in the case study areas in Brazil and which
allows farmers to share the costs of production inputs, is a
successful measure of reducing vulnerability to environmental
stress. After the collapse of collective agriculture in China in the
early 1980s, a similar system through consolidation of fragmented
plots has been revived by some farmers in the early 1990s. They
increased their reliance on collective actions and community
resources to secure water. The experience in China revealed,
however, that collective farming is successful only at a certain
level of environmental stress. With the increase in intensity of
water stress and thus in irrigation costs, the farmers have to adopt
additional measures to improve irrigation efficiency. The farmers
in the case study areas in India and the Philippines are not
currently involved in any form of collective farming system,
although farming cooperatives do exist in these countries. In
Mexico, the farms of more than 80 percent of the surveyed
farmers are on a communal basis, but the article does not
elaborate as to how the communal farming system contributes to
adaptation.
The overall effects of global trade agreements and the
corresponding domestic policies in response to these agreements
have been quite similar in the selected countries in the two
regions. The abolition of trade tariffs and reduction of production
support caused a drastic decline in the price of traditional crops
(e.g. rice, wheat, corn, sugarcane), which have been the main
source of income for many farmers in these countries. In the
absence of, or with limited, support from the government, the
small subsistence farmers have insufficient capacity to cope with
the negative impacts of environmental stress like low yield or bad
harvest. One of the most common responses of the farmers in the
case study areas in both Asia and Latin America is shifting land
use from water- and labour-intensive traditional crops to high-
yielding and high-value cash crops, especially fruits and vege-
tables. The success of this adaptive measure varies between
different communities. In India and the Philippines (Acosta-
Michlik and Espaldon, 2008; Kelkar et al., 2008), limited access to
transportation and storage facilities or lack of proximate markets
for perishable goods, which require either immediate selling or
appropriate storing after harvest, hinder some farmers in their
attempts to adapt to changes in the global market. A World Bank
study indicated that Mexican agriculture has comparative and
competitive advantage in fruit and vegetable production, but
according to Saldaña-Zorrilla (2008), lack of coordination from the
government authorities impedes them from receiving accurate
information and knowledge required to shift their land use to
these crops. However, if farmers were to obtain the required
knowledge, whether or not the success of land use conversion to
cash crops would be guaranteed needs further investigation,
considering that the selected communities in Mexico suffer not
only from extreme poverty and occasional droughts, but also from
regular occurrence of heavy rains and flooding. In Brazil, Toni and
Holanda (2008) explained that cash crops are popular only among
farmers whose farming system is based on private pasturelands
but, as mentioned earlier, the average net income from these
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Editorial / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 539–542
crops is not significantly higher than the traditional crops because
of higher production costs. The experiences in shifting land use to
cash crops (i.e. vegetables and winter dates) in the case study
areas in China have been very promising. Liu et al. (2008) imply
that specialization, which is another important adaptation
strategy besides diversification, is the key to the success
of improving the well-being of the farmers. Producing a specialty
cash crop such as dates, or raising specific livestock, by the
majority of the farmers in a village draws traders from outside.
Hence, unlike in India and the Philippines, the farmers in China
do not appear to have problems about the lack of storage
and transportation because, by attracting traders, a market is
created inside the village. Liu et al. (2008) point out, however, that
the success of creating a specialty economy depends also on
the local leaders and innovators with entrepreneurial spirit
for promoting the produce outside the village. This spirit
of entrepreneurship, which is inherent in the character of many
Chinese people, is perhaps lacking in the other case study
communities.
When all available and accessible adaptation measures fail,
migration tends to be the ultimate solution by farm households to
permanently adapt to water stress problems in some of the case
study areas in Asia and Latin America. In Mexico, migration within
and outside the country is an economic phenomenon. Saldaña-
Zorrilla (2008) argues that there is evidence that migration is an
important coping strategy in the surveyed communities. His
analysis shows that the correlation of ‘‘plans to emigrate’’ to
‘‘number of natural disasters’’ and ‘‘relatives migrated due to
natural disasters’’ is statistically significant. The importance of
migration as a coping strategy in Mexico relative to the other
countries could be ascribed to the availability of opportunity for
the people to move abroad, particularly to the USA. This
opportunity is created through the support of the relatives
already living abroad and the presence of informal ‘‘travel
agencies’’ arranging transportation. Similar development of
migration overseas exists in other countries. However, they are
not necessarily directly caused by the impacts of environmental
stress, but rather by the general poverty problems both in rural
and urban areas in developing countries. With a household
member living or working abroad, the remittance to the family
becomes a useful coping measure to different forms of stresses,
not only environmental stress. Nevertheless, the survey in the
case study areas in the Philippines reveals that a few farmers also
consider it as an adaptation measure specific to water stress
(Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon 2008). More farmers still prefer,
however, to send a family member to migrate and work in the city
than abroad. In India, Kelkar et al. (2008) explain that migration to
the city to seek non-agricultural employment in response to
climate stress and economic pressures may make the migrants
more vulnerable due to negative consequences like dislocation.
However, the communities in the case study areas in India believe
that agriculture in its present form is not anymore a viable
livelihood for future generations. Growing migration out of rural
communities in many developing countries in search for non-
agricultural employment is thus a signal for the need to diversify
sources of livelihood in rural areas, combining agricultural and
non-agricultural sources of income of household members. If rural
communities are to be preserved in the future, then non-
agricultural livelihoods such as eco-tourism and agri-business
industries should be made possible in these or in nearby
communities. The authors in this issue provide evidence that
the vulnerable farmers in the communities are those who lack
money or knowledge, or both. They thus need external support
either from the government or private sector to create or gain
access to value-added agricultural and non-agricultural liveli-
hoods in their communities. When appropriate support is
541
extended to vulnerable farmers, the case study presented by Liu
et al. (2008) shows that farmers can adapt to water stress through
livelihood diversification.
We hope that by highlighting how vulnerability is influenced
by the diverse social, economic, and physical contexts of
farmers, this special issue can contribute to greater understanding
of adaptation needs at the community level. We thank the
contributors and reviewers of the articles in this special
issue and gratefully acknowledge the support of institutions
(i.e. START, IHDP and IIASA) and people who organised and
funded the research activities of the Advanced Institute on
Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change. We would
like to express our special appreciation to the assistance
provided by the Advanced Institute Co-Directors Neil Leary, Jill
Jaeger, and Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer in the preparation of this
special issue.
References
Acosta-Michlik, L., Espaldon, V., 2008. Assessing vulnerability of selected farming
communities in the Philippines based on a behavioural model of agent’s
adaptation to global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, this
issue, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.006.
Acosta-Michlik, L., Rounsevell, M., 2005. From generic indices to adaptive agents:
shifting foci in assessing vulnerability to the combined impacts of globaliza-
tion and climate change. IHDP Update 1/2005, pp. 14–16.
Acosta-Michlik, L., Rounsevell, M., 2008. An agent-based framework for assessing
vulnerability futures. In: Patt, A., Schröter, D., Klein, R.J.T., de la Vega-Leinert,
A.C. (Eds.), Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change: Making
information useful for adaptation policy and Decision-Making. Earthscan,
London.
Acosta-Michlik, L., Eierdanz, F., Alcamo, J., Klein, R.J.T., Kumar, K., Campe, S., Carius,
A., Tänzler, D., Krömker, D., 2006. How vulnerable is India to climatic stress?
Measuring vulnerability to drought using the Security Diagram concept. Die
Erde 137 (1), 223–252 (special volume on Climate Change and Human
Security).
Acosta-Michlik, L., Kavi Kumar, K.S., Klein, R.J.T., Campe, S., 2008. Application of
fuzzy models to assess susceptibility to droughts from a socio-economic
perspective. Regional Environmental Change 8, 151–160.
Farooq, O., 2004. Suicide spree on India’s farms. BBC NEWS June 3, 2004. /http://
news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3769981.stmS, 17/09/08.
Flint, C.G., Luloff, A.E., 2005. Natural resource-based communities, risk, and
disaster: an intersection of theories. Society and Natural Resources 18,
399–412.
Füssel, H., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for
climate change research. Global Environmental Change 17, 155–167.
Jafri, S.A., 2000. More farmers’ suicides in Andhra Preash. Rediff.com. Hyderabad,
India. /http://www.indiaabroad.com/news/2000/sep/27jafri.htmS, 01/27/04.
Kelkar, U., Narula, K.K., Sharma, V., Chandna, U., 2008. Vulnerability and adaptation
to climate variability and water stress in Uttarakhand State, India. Global
Environmental Change, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.003.
Liu, C., Golding, D., Gong, G., 2008. Farmers’ coping response to the low-flows
in the Lower Yellow River: A case study of temporal dimensions of vulner-
ability. Global Environmental Change, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2008.09.002.
Metzger, M.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R., Schröter, D.,
2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 114, 69–85.
O’Brien, K.L., Leichenko, R.M., 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of
climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environ-
mental Change 10, 221–232.
O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L.P., Schjolden, A., 2007. Why different
interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate
Policy 7 (1), 73–88.
Saldaña-Zorrilla, S.O., 2008. Stakeholders’ views of reducing rural vulnerability to
natural disasters in Southern Mexico: Hazard exposure and coping and
adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, this issue, doi:10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2008.09.004.
Schröter, D., Polsky, C., Patt, A.G., 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of
global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change 10 (4), 573–595.
Stern, P.C., Young, O.R., Druckman, D., 1991. Global environmental change: under-
standing the human dimensions. Committee on the Human Dimensions of
Global Change, National Research Council. /http://www.nap.edu/openbook/S.
Toni, F., Holanda, E., 2008. The effects of land tenure on vulnerability to droughts in
Northeastern Brazil. Global Environmental Change, this issue, doi:10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2008.08.004.
Ziervogel, G., Bharwani, S., Downing, T.E., 2006. Adapting to climate variability:
pumpkins, people and policy. Natural Resources Forum 30, 294–305.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

542 Editorial / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 539–542

Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik Ulka Kelkar

School of Environmental Science and Management, The Energy and Resources Institute, Domlur,
University of the Philippines at Los Banos, Philippines Bangalore 560071, India
E-mail address: lilibeth.acosta@uclouvain.be E-mail address: ulka.kelkar@gmail.com

Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik Upasna Sharma

Centre for the Study of Environmental Change and Sustainability, Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management,
University of Edinburgh, UK Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
E-mail address: lilibeth.acosta@uclouvain.be Mumbai 121007, India
E-mail address: upasna.Sharma@gmail.com

Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik
Unité d’économie rurale, Université catholique de Louvain,
Croix du Sud 2/15, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
E-mail address: lilibeth.acosta@uclouvain.be