Mostofi - Thesis Proposal

M.
ScinSystemScienceHoomanMostofiCamare
UniversityofOttawa
FacultyofGraduateandPostDoctoralStudies
Master'sPrograminSystemsScience
ThesisProposal
Multicriteria decision evaluation of adaptation strategies for

vulnerable coastal communities
StudentName:HoomanMostofiCamare
ThesisSupervisor:Professor.DanielE.Lane
TelferSchoolofManagement
UniversityofOttawa
April2010
M.ScinSystemScienceHoomanMostofiCamare
Abstract
According to the IPCC(2007) fourth assessment report, small islands and coastal
communities have characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the effects of
climate change, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events such as storm surge. Coastal
hazards including inundation, salinisation of the water supply, and erosion, threaten vital
infrastructure that support coastal communities. In the case of Canada, little work has been
conducted on impacts and adaptation in the coastal zones, despite having the longest coastline
in the world. The current research, part of an International Community-University Research
Alliance (ICURA) project, develops a multicriteria decision evaluation for the systems
analysis of adaptation options of small islands and coastal communities toward adapting to
environmental changes. This study estimates the vulnerability of coastal communities with
respect to their biophysical, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. The model starts
from the point of decision making of required actions toward adapting to various climate
extremes. This study applies a group version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for
identifying decisions that various stakeholders make on what are the suitable actions that
should be taken. This study develops a methodological framework that will be applicable to
various coastal and small island contexts.
Table of contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................2
1.
2.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.1
Motivation / Problem Definition ................................................................................. 4
1.2
Research questions and objectives .............................................................................. 6
1.3
Outcome of this research ............................................................................................. 6
Literature review................................................................................................................. 8
2.1
Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM).................................................................... 8
2.1.1 The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) ......................................................................... 8

2.1.2 The Weighted Product Modelling method (WPM) ................................................. 9
2.1.3 ELECTRE ................................................................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)..................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Group AHP ............................................................................................................ 14
2.2
Vulnerability.............................................................................................................. 16
2.2.1 Conceptual frameworks on vulnerability .............................................................. 16

2.2.2 Vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change....................................... 21
2.2.3 Vulnerability of Canada and Caribbean to climate change ................................... 23
2.2.4 Measuring vulnerability ......................................................................................... 25
2.3
Strategies to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to climate extremes.. 34
2.3.1 Adaptation to climate change and variability ........................................................ 34

2.3.2 Adaptive capacity .................................................................................................. 38
3.
Methodology..................................................................................................................... 43
4.
Analysis and expected results ........................................................................................... 58

4.1
Decision Model and Problem Hierarchy ................................................................... 58
4.2
Expected results......................................................................................................... 59
5.
Consideration for future research ..................................................................................... 60
6.
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 61
1.
Introduction
This document presents ongoing research in the Masters Program in Systems Science in the
form of a thesis proposal in partial fulfillment of M.Sc degree in Systems Science.
1.1
Motivation / Problem Definition
Among all the effects of climate change, the increase in sea level rise has received a great
deal of attention. Sea level rise involves elevated tidal inundation, accelerated erosion,
increased saltwater intrusion, increased flood frequency, rising water tables, and a group of
ecological changes (Dolan and Walker 2004). As the result of pending rapid rate of climate
change and potential magnitude of its impacts, coastal vulnerability assessment has received
significant international attention. However, the effects of scale on the potential inequitable
distribution of climate change impacts, particularly as it frames the vulnerability of isolated
island communities, has received considerably less attention.
In the case of Canada very little work has been conducted on impacts and adaptation in the
coastal zones, despite having the longest coastline in the world. Many coastal communities in
the Canadian Arctic are already experiencing climate change effects such as melting sea ice,
rising sea levels, coastal erosion and permafrost thawing (Dolan and Walker 2004).
According to IPCC fourth assessment report (2007), small islands, whether located in the
tropics or higher latitudes, have characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the
effects of climate change, sea-level rise, and extreme events (very high confidence) (IPCC
2007). Special characteristics of small islands such as limited size, susceptibility to natural
hazards, and external shocks enhance the vulnerability of islands to climate change. In most
cases they have low adaptive capacity, and adaptation costs are high relative to gross
domestic product (GDP).
The rise in the sea-level is expected to worsen inundation, erosion, storm surge, and other
coastal hazards, therefore threatening vital infrastructure, settlements and facilities that
support the livelihood of island communities (very high confidence) (IPCC (2007). Island
infrastructure tends to predominate in coastal locations. In the Caribbean and Pacific islands,
more than 50% of the population live within 1.5 km of the shore. Almost without exception,
international airports, roads and capital cities in the small islands of the Indian and Pacific
Oceans and the Caribbean are sited along the coast, or on tiny coral islands. Sea-level rise
will exacerbate inundation, erosion and other coastal hazards, threaten vital infrastructure,
settlements and facilities, and thus compromise the socio-economic well-being of island
communities and states.
In 2009 the UN climate change conference (COP 15) was held in Copenhagen. Research
presented at International Scientific Congress on Climate Change revealed that previous
prediction of sea level rise by the IPCC (2007) by the amount of 18-59cm by 2100 is
conservative. Based on new findings presented at this conference the upper limit of this
spectrum will be possibly more than one meter by 2100, double the amount predicted by
latest IPCC report. They also predict it is unlikely the lower level of this spectrum be much
less than 50cm by 2100. The difference between the two projections is due to the fact that the
earlier IPCC report did not take into account the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice
sheets into account.
Based on the new insights there is ice loss from Greenland and
Antarctica which contributes even more to a rise in sea level. Even an optimistic rise in sea
levels has severe impacts on exposed communities. 600 million people (about 10% of the
world population) live in low lying areas which are vulnerable to flooding.
All the participants present at COP 15 have agreed to an accord (Copenhagen Accord) which
had been agreed to be operational immediately. Article 3 is of a particular interest for this
research:
Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of
response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and
international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the
implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of
adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in
developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially
least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that
developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial
resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of
adaptation action in developing countries(UNFCCC, COP 15)
It is evident from the above statement that much attention has been put on adaptation to
climate change as well as attention on required actions for reducing the vulnerability of small
islands developing states. Climate change is serious and its impacts on coastal communities
can be devastating.
1.2
Research questions and objectives
The fundamental research questions in this research are:

How can we effectively evaluate the adaptive capacity of coastal communities that are
vulnerable to rapidly changing environmental conditions including storm surges and sea level
rise and how can we best evaluate coastal communitys options for adaptation?
With respect to the discussed issues, this research will focus on methodology development to
link impact assessment from environmental change with sustainability evaluation of
adaptation alternatives assisted by multicriteria policy analysis and multi-stakeholder
consultation for the case of vulnerable coastal communities.
In response to the research questions the associated objectives of this research are as follows:
1) To identify socioeconomic and ecological impacts of environmental change (sea level

rise and storm surges) and the potential for regional sustainability in coastal
communities.
2) To define and measure community Vulnerability Indices (VIs) to determine how

vulnerable coastal communities are to climate variations (sea level rise and storm
surges).
3) To engage multiple community stakeholders to evaluate the desirability of required

adaptation options.
1.3
Outcome of this research
The outcome of this research is to develop a methodological framework that will provide
decision making support applicable to selected coastal and small island contexts in Canada
and the Caribbean.
Although any methodological framework will be context specific, there are some aspects that
are common between these communities. The hierarchy that will be presented here will be
used as a reference for vulnerability assessment across communities. Based on the
elaboration of various stakeholders this hierarchy will be further edited to match their context
in specific communities. Community case studies will provide us with collective insight that
in turn may be generally applicable to various coastal communities and their adaptation
decisions.
1.4
Plan of the proposal
The structure of this document is as follows:

Section 1 Introduction: this current section includes the introductory information on the
critical issue of environmental change occurring to our global communities and small islands.
Section 2 Literature review: This section introduces the existing literature for multicriteria
decision making methods, conceptual vulnerability frameworks, vulnerability of coastal
communities in Canada and the Caribbean to climate extremes, vulnerability indicators and
adaptive capacity, and adaptation as strategies to decrease the vulnerability of these
communities.
Section 3 Methodology: In this section, the project methodology for multicriteria, and
multiparticipant decision making is introduced by way of an example.
Section 4 Analysis and expected results: this section includes further details on analysis
methods and expected results of this research.
Section 5 The final sections provides considerations for future research: limitations of this
research and suggestions for future research are highlighted in this section.
2. Literature review
The literature below is divided into three main sections namely: (2.1) Multicriteria Decision
Making (MCDM) (2.2) Vulnerability and (2.3) Adaptation Strategies. Each main section is
further subdivided into subsections of particular interest and literature related to this research.
2.1
Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM)
The general MCDM problem evaluates m alternatives, among n problem criteria measures
and for one or more decision makers or participants. The objective of the MCDM problem is
to determine which of the pre-specified alternatives is preferred and how the alternatives are
comparative ranked.
2.1.1
The Weighted Sum Model (WSM)
The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) is probably the most commonly used MCDM approach,
especially in single dimensional problems, i.e., where we have a same unit of measure for all
criteria (Triantaphyllou 2000). If there are m alternatives and n criteria then, the best
alternative is the one that satisfies (in the maximization case) the following expression:
n
AWSM Score = max aij w j for i = 1,2,3,....,m

i
(2.1)
j =1
where: AWSM Score is the weighted sum model of the best alternative, n is the number of
decision criteria, aij is the actual value of the ith alternative in terms of the jth criterion, and wj
is the weight of importance of the jth criterion.
The assumption that governs this model is the additive utility assumption, i.e., the total value
of each alternative is equal to the sum of the products as given by the formulation in (2.1). In
cases that we have single dimensional problems, i.e., where we have a same unit of measure
for all criteria we will not encounter problems of scale. The problem arises when we have
multi-dimensional MCDM problems, where we have criteria with different units of
measurement. In this case the additive utility assumption is violated and the result is like
adding oranges and apples (Triantaphyllou 2000).
2.1.2
The Weighted Product Modelling method (WPM)
Each alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number of ratios, one for each
criterion. Each ratio is raised to the power equivalent to the relative weight of the
corresponding criterion. The main difference between WSM and WPM methods is that
instead of addition in the WSM model we have multiplication.In general, in order to compare
AK and AL alternaties, the following formula has to be calculated:
n
R( AK / AL ) = (a Kj / a Lj ) wj
j =1
where n is the number of criteria, aij is the actual value of the ith alternative in terms of the jth
criterion, and wj is the weight of importance of the jth criterion.
n the maximization case if R(AK/AL) is greater than or equal to one, then it indicates that
alternative AK is more favaroubale than alternative AL. The preferred alternative is the one
that is better than or at least equal to all the other alternatives.
This method is sometimes called dimensionless analysis because its structure eliminates units
of measure (Triantaphyllou 2000). This gives an advantage over WSM method, since WPM
method can be used in for both single dimensional (i.e., where we have a same unit of
measure for all criteria) and multi dimensional (i.e., different units of measure for criteria)
MCDM problems. Another advantage of this method is that it can use relative values rather
than absolute values.
2.1.3
ELECTRE
The ELECTRE method stands for Elimination and Choice Translating Reality. The basic
concept behind this method is to find outranking relations by using pairwise comparisons
among alternatives under each criterion separately. An outranking relation of Ai A j - also
shown as Ai SA j - implies that Ai is preferred to Aj if Ai is at least as good as Aj on a majority
of criteria, and if it is not significantly worse on any other criteria (the difference between the
two is within a predefined threshold).
Alternatives are dominated if there is another alternative which surpass them in one or more
criteria and is equivalent in the remaining criteria. In the ELECTRE method, even if the Ai
does not dominate Aj quantitatively, the decision maker may still decide that the Ai is
preferred to Aj .
9
Using physical or monetary values denoted as g k ( Ai ) and g k ( A j ) for alternatives Ai and Aj
and also by defining threshold levels for the difference between g k ( Ai ) and g k ( A j ) the
decision maker can declare for different decisions that (Milani et al 2006):
indifference between the two alternatives
strong or weak preference of one over another
no specific preference
Establishing an outranking relation between alternatives Ai and Aj requires two sets of

comparisons. One in which g k ( Ai ) is superior to g k ( A j ) and another in which g k ( Ai ) is not
superior to g k ( A j ) . Therefore the ELECTRE method separately examines both the criteria
that vote for Ai SA j and those that reject such dominance. These two sets of comparisons are
based on concordance and discordance tests. The concordance test allows the decision maker
to examine that if Ai is at least as good as Aj. The discordance test checks if there exists a
very high opposition to the outranking relation Ai SA j .
There are many variations of this method including: ELECTRE I, ELECTRE II, III, and IV.
For example the main difference between ELECTRE I and II methods is that in the latter, we
define two outranking relations instead of one - the strong outranking and the weak
outranking (Milani et al 2006). Since the ELECTRE method results in a system of binary
outranking relations between the alternatives, and the fact that this system is not necessarily
complete, the ELECTRE method is sometimes unable to identify the best alternative. It
merely identifies a set of leading alternatives (Triantaphyllou 2000).
2.1.4
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Developed by Saaty (1980), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the widely used
methods for addressing decision making problems with multiple criteria. This method is well
suited for situations where criterions can be organized into a hierarchy by dividing the
problem characteristics into sub-criteria. During the last two decades this method has been
widely used by operation researchers and decision scientist particularly in the USA. At the
same it has been criticized for some of its shortcomings involving its operations (Doumpos
and Zopounidis 2002).
There are four stages involved in Analytical Hierarchy Process method:
10
Stage1: decompose the problem into a hierarchy of more comprehensive sub problems.
Stage2: collect trade-off data input by conducting pairwise comparisons among level problem
hierarchy characteristics and problem alternatives.
Stage3: estimate relative weights of the hierarchy criteria.
Stage4: Aggregate criteria by combing relative weights to perform an overall evaluation of
alternatives.
The first stage involves structuring the problem objective to layers of sub-criteria in a form of
hierarchy. Figure 2.1 below shows the general form for such a problem hierarchy as used in
AHP.
Objectiveofthe
problem
Criteria1
Criteria2
Criterian
Subcriterion1
Subcriterion2
Subcriterionn
Alternative1
Alternative2
Alternativen
Figure 2.1: the general form of AHP hierarchy
Once the problem hierarchy is formed, in the second stage of the method, the decision maker
performs pairwise comparisons at each level of the hierarchy with respect to the higher level.
In the second level of the hierarchy shown in Figure 2.1, all the criteria will be compared
with regard to their relative importance with first level (problem objective), then the derived
11
sub-criteria in the third level will be compared to parent criteria in the second level. This
process will be continued until all the elements in the multi-level structure are compared.
These comparisons capture the relative significance of all the elements in the hierarchy for
making the final decision based on the problem objective.
The numerical values used in the pairwise comparisons are extracted from the following 9point scale table as first suggested by Saaty (1980).
Table 2.1 Sattys AHP 9 point pairwise comparison scale
Value
Definition
Explanation
Equal importance
Two activities contribute equally to the

objective.
Moderate importance
Experience and judgement moderately

favor one activity over another.of one
over another.
Essential or strong importance.
Experience and judgment strongly favor

one activity over another.
Very strong importance.
An activity is strongly favoured and its

dominance demonstrated in practice.
Extreme importance.
The evidence favouring one activity over

another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation.
2,4,6,8
Intermediate values between
These numerical values are used when

the two adjacent judgments compromise
is needed between the odd numbered
relative values.
A matrix is constructed by using the relative importances of the alternatives in terms of each
criterion. The vector (ai1, ai2, ....,ain) for each i is the principal eigenvector of an nxn
reciprocal matrix which is determined by pairwise comparisons of the impact of the m
alternatives on the ith criterion.
12
A1
`w1
A1
w1
A2 `w 2
w1
. .
. .
A N `w N
w1
A2
`w1
An
wN
. .
.
. .
.
`w N
. .
w N
. .
w2
.
. .
.
.
.
`w1
According to AHP (in the maximization case) the best alternative is indicated by the
following relationship.
n
AAHP Score = max aij w j for i = 1,2,3,......,m

i
j =1
The AHP method resemblances WSM with the deference that WSM uses actual values or
scores whereas AHP uses relative values based on decision makers pairwise comparisons.
Apart from its vast popularity there are criticism and debates surrounding this method.
Warren (2004) devoted an article to criticize some of the fundamental mathematical aspects
of this methodology.
The first issue is about rating scale type. A ratio scale should contain an absolute zero which
then enables one to perform division and multiplication, subtraction and addition. As it is
evident from the Table 2.1 (above), Sattys AHP scales do not contain any absolute zero
point. Warren (2004) debates the understanding that AHP takes ratio scales as input, when for
example A may be mildly stronger than B, then the ratio scale interpretation is A is three
times more important than B, however that is not how the numerical scale is explained to the
involved decision makers.
The other argument is justification of using the right hand principal eigenvalue and
corresponding eigenvector (Warren 2004). In AHP the dominant right eigenvector
corresponding to maximum eigenvalue is used to determine consistency. According to
Wearen (2004) alternative methods such as the Geometric Mean has been proposed in the
literature, however the various simulation attempts to highlight the merit of these methods
over one another have not shown any significant difference.
13
Another problem stated by Warren (2004) is the rank reversal problem. It refers to the
change of order of preferences of alternatives when a new alternative is added to the problem.
He discusses that this problem is due to the normalization of eigenvectors.
Overall, AHP has number of advantages that are relevant for this research. It is a relatively
simple method to describe to decision makers and the collection of pairwise comparison data,
especially in subjective cases, is an attractive aspect that involves the decision makers
directly. It can also be used for group decision making that is important for this research since different points of view of decision makers can be incorporated into the hierarchical
structure of this model. There are many commercial software packages such as Expert Choice
(http://www.expertchoice.com/) based on this methodology and use for applied decision
making. The AHP methodology and Expert Choice software has been used in many applied
research problems. For example, Tayebi (2009) has used AHP and Expert Choice software to
identify and characterize combinations of sensors and systems that will provide cost-effective
options for Arctic maritime surveillance. The Expert Choice website presents many examples
of AHP used and cases studies on a wide range of multicriteria problems.
2.1.5
Group AHP
Most of the real life situations involve a group of decision makers striving to reach a
consensus on a common objective. Most of the political and social issues involve a group of
stakeholders which their insight should be somehow captured. Climate change is no
exception. Local people, governmental institutions, NGOs and commercial organizations are
examples of different stakeholders involved in adaptation practices as a response to climate
change impacts. In these situations, the assumption of a solitary decision maker is no more
appropriate. For this reason the incorporation of a mechanism to capture all these collective
insights into our decision support system is inevitable.
AHP allows us to decompose a complex problem into a problem hierarchy. In this method,
each characteristic of the problem and the solution can be identified and evaluated with
respect to other factors of the problem. This ability to structure a complex system into a
summary hierarchy and then focus attention on individual decision components amplifies a
group decision making capabilities (Dyer et al 1992).
The AHP method can capture the group members judgments about each facet of the decision
problem. In this method, subjective judgments on individual components of the decision
14
problem are easily accommodated. In fact, AHP has been used in number of group settings
ranging from software selection (Lai et al 2001), higher education (Liberatore 1997),
environmental conflict analysis (Malczewski et al 1997), selecting merged strategies for
commercial banks (Wang el 2008) and evaluation of coastal zone sites for alternate marine
use including aquaculture or fish farming (Ozer 2007, Zhao 2004, Zhao et al 2008).
In the group version of AHP there are four approaches that group members can use to set the
weights of components of the hierarchy: 1) Consensus 2) Voting or compromise 3)
Geometric mean of the individual judgements and 4) weighted arithmetic mean (Dyer et al
1992, Ramanathan et al 1994, Lai et al 2001, Condo et al 2003, Escobar et al 2006). To
illustrate the differences between these methods consider N decision makers and in the
pairwise comparison matrix of the alternative, A, aij illustrates the comparison between
component i and j. In the consensus approach, the group members are required to reach a
consensus on aij of matrix A. If the group fails to reach a consensus they use voting and/or a
compromise approach. These two approaches may require a considerable amount of
discussion and may contain initial disagreements between the participants (Condo et al 2003).
Now let us assume that in the pairwise comparison matrix A,
aij(k) illustrates the comparison
of component i to j with respect to the k th (k =1....N) decision maker. For computing aij, the
individual judgments of all the participants are combined by using the geometric mean
where:
Now if we also include the decision makers in our model and denote the weight w(k) to the
decision maker k then we can combine the judgments of all the participants as follows:
As the method computes the group priorities using the weighted arithmetic mean of the
individual priorities (weighted by the weightings of the group members), we refer to it as the
Weighted Arithmetic Mean Method (WAMM) (Ramanathan et al 1994).
The necessity to consider multiple criteria (e.g. economical, social, environmental) when
considering adaptation strategies and involvement of various stakeholders such as NGOs,
15
regional government, local community in decision making process makes AHP and Group
AHP a potential candidate as a decision making support tool for this research.
2.2
Vulnerability
The following subsections discuss conceptual frameworks on vulnerability, vulnerability of

coastal communities to climate change, vulnerability of Canada and Caribbean to climate
change, and vulnerability measurement.
2.2.1
Conceptual frameworks on vulnerability
Various disciplines such as anthropology, economics, psychology and engineering use the
term vulnerability. It is only in the area of humanenvironment relationships that
vulnerability has common, though disputed, meaning. Human geography and human ecology
have, in particular, theorized vulnerability to environmental change (Adger 2006).
Rather than being merely a question of definitions or semantics, the interpretation of
vulnerability has consequences for how climate research is carried out within
interdisciplinary research institutes, where scientists with differing backgrounds often use
terminologies that are vaguely defined and lack shared meanings (OBrien 2005). In this
research, the concept of vulnerability is interpreted to have important implications for policy
making not only as it affects the diagnosis of the climate change problem, but also as it
affects the potential solution of the problem, where the problem is considered as the
vulnerability to climate change impacts.
Two major areas in vulnerability research acted as the basis for ideas that eventually led to
existing research on vulnerability of physical and social systems in an integrated manner.
These two antecedents are the analysis of vulnerability as the lack of entitlements and the
analysis of vulnerability to natural hazards (Adger 2006).
Many vulnerability studies draw on the entitlements literature regarding access to resources,
on political economy in explaining the factors that lead to vulnerability, and on social capital
as a means of claiming entitlements and pursuing coping mechanisms (OBrien 2005).
The impetus for research on the subject of entitlements in livelihoods has been the need to
explain food insecurity, civil strife and social upheaval (Adger 2006). In this approach the
16
most important variables for explaining vulnerabilities are social realm of institutions, well
being, social status, class and gender. From the entitlement theory perspective food insecurity
vulnerability is explained as a set of linked institutional and economic factors.
Entitlements are the actual or potential resources available to individuals based on their
own production, assets or reciprocal arrangements (Adger 2006). Vulnerability is the result of
processes in which humans actively engage and which they can almost always prevent. While
the entitlements approach to analysing vulnerability to famine often underplayed ecological
or physical risk, it succeeded in highlighting social differentiation in cause and outcome of
vulnerability (Adger 2006).
Another approach categorizes vulnerability in terms of peoples exposure to hazardous events
(e.g. storm, flood, earthquake) and the impact of these events on people and structures. These
hazardous events put people and their communities at risk; therefore the aim is to find the
vulnerable places. The physical elements of exposure, probability and impacts of hazards,
both seemingly natural and unnatural, are the basis for this approach. For many natural
hazards the vulnerability of human populations is based on where they reside, their use of
natural resources, and the resources they have to cope (Adger 2006). However the methods
aiming to reduce this risk do not necessarily lessen the subsequent damage and sometimes
they may even increase the vulnerabilities. For example, flood protection plans may not
necessarily encourage people from leaving the vulnerable locations such as flood plains; in
contrast, it may encourage further development and construction in those high risk locations
which as a result increase vulnerability.
This interpretation of the vulnerability concept in a climate change context is based on the
end point of the analysis, whereby assessment of vulnerability is the end point of a
sequence of analyses beginning with projections of future emission trends, moving on to the
development of climate scenarios, thence to biophysical impact studies and the identification
of adaptive options (OBrien 2005). Any residual consequences that remain after adaptation
has taken place define the levels of vulnerability. Vulnerability here summarizes the net
impact of the climate problem, and can be represented quantitatively as a monetary cost or as
a change in yield or flow, human mortality, ecosystem damage or qualitatively as a
description of relative or comparative change (OBrien 2005).
17
Yamin et al (2005) define this approach as natural hazards and disasters approach which
focuses on factors such as frequency, probability, intensity and nature of physical hazards and
place them as the key components of vulnerability and moreover on exposure of communities
to these physical hazards. Turner et al (2003) suggest three major drawbacks of this
approach:
1) the ways in which the systems in question amplify or attenuate the impacts of the hazard;
2) the distinctions among exposed subsystems and components that lead to significant
variations in the consequences of the hazards; and
3) the role of the political economy, especially social structures and institutions, in shaping
differential exposure and consequences.
Natural hazards and disasters approach simply ignores the existing vulnerabilities of
communities and it does not consider socio-economic conditions and power relations which
shape these vulnerabilities.
However, the merit of this approach is that it takes into account the extreme but infrequent
events and their consequent vulnerabilities.
Another perspective to vulnerability assessment is from a social point of view or so called
social vulnerability approach. This approach focuses on existing social and political
vulnerabilities in the communities prior to any physical hazard. Communities coping
strategies and socio-economic structures are centre stage in this approach. It sees people as
vulnerable and victims who are forever trying to cope with problems (Yamin et al 2005).
This perspective views vulnerability as a human relationship not a physical one - i.e.,
vulnerability is socially constructed rather than determined by the occurrence of a physical
event (Dolan and Walker 2004).Vulnerability is a function of historical circumstances and
social conditions which put people at risk to various stresses such as economical, political
and climate change. From this point of view exposure is determined by unbalanced
distribution of resources among different people. Some people may have more access to
resources such as income, education, social security and etc; therefore their vulnerability is
lower relatively. Therefore vulnerability originates from social processes which restrain the
access to these various resources that people need to cope with impacts. Protection from these
hindering social forces is as important as protection from natural hazards.
The social vulnerability approach places vulnerability as the starting point of the analysis.
Rather than defining vulnerability by future climate change scenarios and anticipated
18
adaptations, from this point of view vulnerability represents existing inability to cope with
external pressures such as sea level rise or storm surges. In this approach vulnerability is a
characteristic of social and ecological systems that is created by various factors and
processes. The assumption here is that by addressing existing vulnerability we will reduce
vulnerability under future climate conditions .One purpose of vulnerability assessments using
this interpretation is to identify policies or measures that reduce vulnerability, increase
adaptive capacity, or illuminate adaptation options and constraints (OBrien 2005). This is
achieved by understanding the underlying causes of the vulnerability. For example,
vulnerability mapping can be used to spot vulnerabilities to climate change and further case
studies can provide us with an understanding of the root causes and structures that shape
vulnerability. A critical prerequisite prior to taking actions to reduce vulnerability is to
understand the biophysical, social, cultural and political factors that contribute to climate
vulnerability.
The differences between social vulnerability and hazard and disaster approaches can be
explained by research purposes from which they originated. The end point approach to
vulnerability deals with vulnerability to climate change from a quantitative point of view. It
tries to answer questions such as What is the extent of the climate change problem? and
Do the costs of climate change exceed the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation? The focus
has often been on biophysical vulnerability, whereby the most vulnerable are considered to be
those living in the most precarious physical environments, or in environments that will
undergo the most dramatic physical changes (OBrien 2005). In contrast, the starting point
approach has origins in assessments of social vulnerability with the purpose of identifying the
character, distribution and causes of vulnerability (OBrien 2005). This interpretation of
vulnerability tries to answer questions such as Who is vulnerable to climate change and
why? and How can we reduce vulnerability?
From its origins in disasters and entitlement theories, there is a newly emerging synthesis of
systems-oriented research attempting, through advances in methods, to understand
vulnerability in a holistic manner in natural and social systems (Adger 2006). This new
perspective is called the Integrative Approach which integrates both the physical event and
the underlying causal characteristics of populations that lead to risk exposure and limited
capacity of communities to respond. Vulnerability is therefore a physical risk and a social
response within a defined geographic context (Dolan and Walker 2004).
19
One of the vulnerability assessment integrative approaches is the PAR (Pressure and Release)
model developed by (Blaikie et al 1994). They argue that disaster risk is directly affected by
the hazard produced and the degree of hazard vulnerability experienced by exposed persons
in a particular period of time and space. On one side of the PAR model natural hazards put
pressure on vulnerable people and resources. From the other side of the model dynamic
pressures, root causes and unsafe conditions additionally put pressure to vulnerable people.
Dynamic pressures channel root causes within the PAR model. Examples of dynamic
pressures in the context of this model are rapid urbanization, epidemics and war. Root causes
such as limitation of power and resource accessibility, manifest a progression in vulnerability
through dynamic pressures like inadequacies in training, local institutional systems, or ethical
standards in government (Blaikie et al 1994). These dynamic pressures create unsafe
conditions in both social and physical environments of those who are most vulnerable.
Unsafe locations and unprotected buildings are examples of a physically unsafe condition.
Local economies, inadequacies in disaster preparedness measures are examples of a socially
unsafe condition. In the PAR model, pressure can be released on those vulnerable to risk by
decreasing or eliminating the various root causes, dynamic forces, and/or present unsafe
conditions (Blaikie et al 1994). This model is depicted in Figure 2.2 below.
Hazard
Unsafe
Conditions
Root cause
(Perturbation)
Disasters
Dynamic
Pressure
Base Vulnerability
Figure 2.2: The PAR model (Source: Turner et al 2003)
PAR model captures the essence of vulnerability from both natural hazards and disasters and
social vulnerability approaches. Although the PAR model is comprehensive and it gives
20
equal weight to hazard and vulnerability as pressures, the analysis fails to provide a
systematic view of the mechanisms and processes of vulnerability (Adger 2006).
Turner; et al (2003) argue that although PAR model explicitly highlights vulnerability, the
model seems insufficiently comprehensive for the broader concerns of sustainability science.
Primarily, it does not address the coupled humanenvironment system in the sense of
considering the vulnerability of biophysical subsystems; it provides little detail on the
structure of the hazards causal sequence, including the nested scales of interactions; and it
tends to underemphasize feedback beyond the system of analysis that integrative risk/hazards
(RH) models include.
2.2.2
Vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change
IPCC (2007) defines vulnerability to climate change as the degree to which geophysical,
biological and socio-economic systems are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse
impacts of climate change .From the perspective of this research proposal, the term
vulnerability refers to the vulnerable system itself (coastal cities , low-lying islands) or the
impact to this system (flooding of coastal cities and agricultural lands or forced migration) or
the mechanism that cause these impacts (disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet).
In case of small islands socio economic, natural resources and space limitations are among
the factors contributing to the vulnerability of these communities (IPCC 2007). The socioeconomic pressures on small island communities include term of trade , the effect of
globalization (positively and negatively), poverty, unemployment, the increasing difference
between different levels of society, over exploitation of fisheries, forests and beaches for the
sake of economical growth, rapid urbanization, weakening social capital and economic
stagnation, financial crisis, debt, international conflicts, political instability and rapid
population growth all together with interactions among each of these factors. These external
and internal processes are related and interact in complex ways to increase the vulnerability
of islands to climate change.
The rapid and unplanned migration of the population from rural areas to urban areas have
caused over condensation of major centers and this will eventually cause the lack of access to
the resources and also the increasing of vulnerability to these populations in the case of storm
surge or sea level rise (World Bank 2006).
21
Most of the small islands resources are located near the shore. Infrastructures such as port,
governmental buildings, roads and airports are mainly located in coastal areas. This means
that most of these communities are over dependant on coastal resources and this increases
their vulnerability in case of any hazard which requires immediate access to these resources.
Most small islands have limited amount of freshwater. Atoll and limestone islands have no
surface water and they purely rely on rainfall and ground water. Many small islands are under
pressure with the current amount of rainfall (IPCC 2007, Burns 2000).
Small islands have special characteristics which make them prone to a number of impacts as
the result of climate change. Fresh water resources are limited in small islands because most
of them do not have lakes or permanent water courses (Burns 2000). The increase in sea
levels may shift the watertables to the surface, causing evaporation and eventually
diminishing this vital resource (IPCC 2007). Sea-level rise is not the only threat posed to
water resources by climate change. Storm surges precipitated by ocean warming could
damage freshwater supplies through salinization of freshwater supplies including near shore
lakes, aquifers, and dug wells (Burns 2000).
The coastlines of small islands are diverse and rich in resources providing the community
with a range of essential goods and services. Key impacts as the result of sea level rise will
certainly include coastal erosion, increased flooding and saline intrusion to freshwater lenses
(IPCC 2007). An extreme example of abandonment of Chesapeake Bay as the result of rise in
sea level has been shown by Gibbons and Nicholas (2006).
The effect of beach erosion and storms together can cause the erosion or inundation of other
coastal systems. In Louisiana for example as the result of sandy barrier island erosion, wave
heights in coastal bays have increased and these have enhanced erosion rates of bay
shorelines, tidal creeks and adjacent wetlands (IPCC 2007).
Traditionally small islands have depended on subsistence and cash crops for living. The
intrusion of sea water into coastal soils will damage the fertility of these resources and as
result reduce the crop yield. Shoreline erosion will also disrupt crop production in coastal
areas (Burns 2000).
22
In the case of small islands, important infrastructures such as airport, governmental buildings,
and roads are located at or vicinity of the coasts. The likelihood of more extreme events such
as hurricanes and storm surges, along with anticipated rates of sea level rise and flooding,
puts vital infrastructures such as roads, airports, port facilities, health and social services,
essential utilities such as water and power, coastal protection structures and tourism facilities
at increased risk (Hay et al 2003).
Tourism is a major economic sector in many small islands (IPCC 2007). Due to this
significant independence on tourism, the impact of climate change can have significant direct
and indirect effects (Bigano 2005). Small island tourist attractions mostly comprise of
beaches, coral reefs and mangroves and cultural heritage. It is projected that sea level rise
will accelerate beach erosion, degrade the natural costal defenses such as coral reefs and
mangroves and effect the loss of cultural heritage sites as the result of flooding and
inundation (IPCC 2007). Depletion of these attractions will impact the tourism industry of
these communities.
2.2.3
Vulnerability of Canada and Caribbean to climate change
In this section the vulnerability of Caribbean and Canada to climate change effects are
discussed.
Caribbean: As the result of increase in temperatures, ocean water warms and expands, ice
sheets and glaciers melt and therefore sea levels rises. This rise in sea levels lead to more salt
water intrusions into aquifers that supply fresh water, a resource that is already in short
supply on some islands, especially in the Eastern Caribbean (Bueno et al 2008). Warmer
waters also cause stronger hurricanes, which is a serious concern for a region already affected
by hurricanes causing extensive economic and physical damage as well as many deaths on an
almost annual basis.
The Caribbean population is mostly located in coastal areas where much of the infrastructure
may not be able to endure extensively stronger winds, deeper incursions from more forceful
ocean surges, and heavier rains. The predicted climate changes will speed up the erosion
of coastal beaches, land and protective mangroves. Coastal buildings and infrastructures such
as houses, hotels, roads etc as well as people who live or work there are vulnerable - even
23
mainland U.S. infrastructure in coastal regions is highly vulnerable to such effects, as

demonstrated by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the destruction of the city of
New Orleans and surrounding area (Bueno et al 2008).
Regardless of greater rainfall during storms and other peak periods, in this century longer and
more frequent droughts are expected in some parts of the Caribbean. This can have negative
impacts on health. Greater heat stress for vulnerable populations such as older people, worse
sanitation conditions as the result of limited water supplies or water contamination as the
result of floods, and also conditions that can cause the spread of water and vector-borne
diseases (e.g. malaria, dengue fever and diarrhea). All of these will put greater demand on
public health resources, many of which already are strained by inadequate resources as they
are dealing with high incidence of HIV and AIDS.
Coral reefs are very important to many island economies since they provide fishing grounds,
coastal protection and tourist attraction. Warmer weather will have severe consequences on
agriculture and ecosystems. Therefore, as these coral reef habitats become stressed by
warmer waters important commercial fisheries will be at risk. Coral reefs in the area have
already been under stress from other human impacts and climate change now emerges as a
major new threat (Bueno et al 2008).
The Caribbean is one of the worlds most tourism-dependent regions (Bueno et al 2008). The
tourism industry generates 15 percent of the regions gross domestic product (GDP). This
figure is more than two thirds in several of the smaller countries. This industry is totally
dependent on beaches and other attractive natural areas as well as comfortable weather.
Finally, energy and food security are pressing concerns for a region that is highly susceptible
to rising world prices for fuel and food (Bueno et al 2008). In the Caribbean, approximately
90 percent of used energy is obtained from crude oil, which, with the exception of oil-rich
Trinidad and Tobago, is imported. Food security is also a concern because of the
vulnerability and limited scale of Caribbean agriculture, which is already facing uncertain
impacts from temperature and precipitation changes (Bueno et al 2008). Islands such as
Jamaica, Barbados and Puerto Rico are very much dependent on imported food and
agricultural products therefore very vulnerable to changes in world food prices. These prices
24
may increase as climate changes intensify floods and droughts in the worlds major
agricultural producing regions.
Canada: In a sensitivity analysis along the coast of Canada Shaw et al (1998) concluded that
the most sensitive region constituted most of the coasts of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island
and New Brunswick. The major impacts of sea level rise would be higher rates of coastal
erosion and retreat. They also concluded that many small settlements are in sensitive
locations.
The Atlantic region of Canada is subject to impacts from a wide range of interannual and
seasonal events such as tropical cyclones, winter cyclonic storms, summer heat and drought,
late or early season frost, thaw event, winter rain, river ice jams and flooding (Vasseur et al
2008). During the past 15 years storm surges have caused significant damages in all of the
Atlantic Provinces.
Parts of the eastern New Brunswick are especially susceptible to storm surges. In the
Beaubassin area of southeastern New Brunswick claims from the government for the
damages made to houses, wharves, cottages and etc as the result of a storm surge in January
2000 exceeded 1.6million dollars. Historical events such as Great Hurricane of 1775 in
eastern Newfoundland and Saxby Gale of 1869 in the Bay of Fundy all provide strong
evidence of storm surges in the Atlantic Canada (Vasseur et al 2008). For example, Hurricane
Juan in 2003 was most economically damaging event in Atlantic Canada history - 8 people
died and Prince Edward and Nova Scotia incurred around 200million dollars in damages.
Sections of the Atlantic Coast are among the most sensitive areas to sea level rise. Areas such
as the coast of south-eastern New Brunswick may experience sea level rise up to 70cm during
the current century. Continued sea level rise will amplify storm surges and flooding in the
Atlantic region of Canada (Vasseur 2008).
2.2.4
Measuring vulnerability
Indicators are quantitative measures intended to represent a characteristic or a parameter of a

system of interest using a single value. In this regard, vulnerability indices can guide policy
25
development on vulnerability reduction at national and sub-national scales, and serve as a

means of measuring progress towards that specific goal (Cutter et al 2009).
However, there are some common problems that make the development of indexes of
vulnerability very difficult. Indexes require a coherent model of vulnerability on which the
selection of indicators can be based, but since vulnerability along with processes that create it
are very complex and the distinction between processes and outcomes is often blurred,
underlying models of vulnerability are inevitably flawed (Barnrett et al 2008). Cutter et al
(2009) also discusses that because of the definitional ambiguity along with the dynamic
nature and changing scale of analysis (temporal and spatial) constructing a global
measurement tool for vulnerability assessments across all disciplines is a difficult task.
The selection of indicators is another difficulty since the ideal data might be unavailable or
available but with a low usable quality. The model might also lead to redundancy of
indicators, implying that indexes should utilize fewer indicators based on widely available
and robust data (Birkmann 2007, Barnett et al 2008).
The scale of the system has important implication for vulnerability assessment. Systems with
larger scales are favoured because of their perceived policy relevance, however the larger the
scale of the system, the less the specificity of risks and outcomes (Barnett et al 2008). In
systems with large scales, diverse values and risk perceptions of communities become so
aggregated that vulnerability becomes a generic condition that has little relevance or meaning
to anyone (Birkmann 2007). In addition, the processes that determine vulnerability become so
numerous that the availability and quality of data on which to base indicators become
significant limitations, and weighting, aggregating and standardizing of the data also gets
more difficult. Moreover, at larger scales the underlying model of socialecological
interactions needs to be so complex that uncertainties compound to the point that the resulting
index is excessively erroneous (Birkmann 2007).
Therefore a major impetus for downscaling global approaches is to support high-risk
countries with information and capacities to identify hotspots at national and sub-national
level in order to prioritize risk-reduction strategies and to show that evidence on risks and
losses can improve risk management (Birkmann 2007).
The question of how useful a global indicator is for a lower scale system depends on the
specific function that it intends to fulfil. Therefore, an important challenge in downscaling of
indicators is to contextualise the global indicators and vulnerability assessment approaches to
26
the sub-national and local levels. Contextualisation means to adjust indicator and index
approaches to the specific socioeconomic context they are applied to and to the function (e.g.
spatial comparison, guiding risk-management actions, evaluation of policy interventions)
they are intended to serve (Birkmann 2007).
One way to make a more meaningful local scale indicator is to incorporate input from those
most knowledgeable about or who have the greatest stake in the exposure unit in the form of
their involvement in the weighting of various subcomponents of an index (Birkmann 2007).
This is to ensure the inclusion of the knowledge and values of stakeholders who otherwise
would have been populated implicitly in the index and to increase the legitimacy of the index
to the stakeholders.
The relevant literature on indicators of vulnerability is discussed below and summarized in
Table 2.2.
Concept
Increase(+)/Decrease(-)
Socioeconomic status (income,

political power,
prestige)
High status(+/-) Low income or status (+)
Gender
Gender (+)
Race and Ethnicity

Age
Nonwhite (+) Non-Anglo (+)

Elderly (+) Children (+)
Commercial and industrial

development
Employment Loss
Rural/urban
High density (+) High value (+/-)
Residential Property
Infrastructure and lifelines
Renters
Mobile homes (+)

Extensive infrastructure (+)
Renters (+)
Occupation
Professional or managerial (-) Clerical or

laborer (+)
Service sector (+)
Little education (+) Highly educated (-)
Education
Family Structure
Employment loss (+)

Rural (+) Urban (+)
Population Growth
Medical services
High birth rates (+) Large families (+)

Single-parent households (+)
Rapid growth (+)
Higher density of medical (-)
Social Dependence
Special needs Populations
High dependence (+) Low dependence (-)

Large special needs population (+)
27
Table 2.2: Social vulnerability concepts and metrics (Source: Cutter et al 2003)
Social vulnerability describes those characteristics of the population that influence the
capacity of the community to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards and disasters
(Cutter et al 2009).
Socioeconomic status influences the ability of individuals and communities to absorb the
losses from hazards (Cutter el al 2003, 2009). In general, people living in poverty are more
vulnerable than the wealthy to hazard impacts (Adger 1999). Poverty is an important factor of
vulnerability since it determines both the baseline vulnerability and also the inability of
coping to any extreme event (Adger 1999). Poor people do not have as much money as
wealthy people to spend on emergency supplies, preventative measures and recovery efforts.
Although comparatively the monetary value of the losses of the wealthy people may be
greater than poor people however the losses sustained by the poor are far more devastating in
relative terms (Cutter et al 2009). It is more likely that poor people live in below par housing,
which can be a major disadvantage. Moreover, during disasters poor people are less likely to
have access to critical resources such as transportation and communication.
Demographic factors are also important indicators of vulnerability. For example, women may
be more vulnerable than men to disasters since women, especially single mothers, are more
likely to live in poverty. Moreover, comparing to men women are more likely to work in low
status jobs in service industry, which often disappear after a disaster strikes (Cutter et al
2003, 2009). Being mothers and having family responsibilities also make women more
vulnerable to disasters since when disaster strikes, women ability to seek safety becomes
restricted by their responsibilities to the very young and the very old, both of whom require
help and supervision (Cutter et al 2009).
Race and class (socioeconomic status) has a long history of producing social inequalities
(Cutter et al 2009). Discrimination plays an important role in increasing the vulnerability of
racial and ethnic minorities. Real estate discrimination may cause minorities to reside in
certain areas that are prone to hazards or prohibit them to obtain insurance from more reliable
companies. Minorities are often economically and geographically isolated from jobs, services
and institutions (Cutter et al 2009). Moreover non English speaking minorities may be more
vulnerable to disasters.
28
Without outside support young and the elderly people may not be able to respond to disasters.
Children who do not have sufficient support from their families are at a major disadvantage
for disaster response. Disruptions created by a disaster can have significant psychological and
physical impacts on children (Cutter et al 2009). Moreover, the elderly may not have enough
access to physical and economic resources to respond effectively to a disaster. They also tend
to stay home and are reluctant to leave their resident in case of disasters. Furthermore, people
with physical or mental disabilities may not be able to respond effectively to disasters and
additional assistance in preparing them for and recovering them from disasters may be
required.
The density of industrial and commercial buildings is an indicator of the economic health of a
community. Therefore, it indicates the potential losses in the business community in case of a
disaster and longer-term issues with recovery after an event (Cutter el al 2003). The
additional unemployment as the result of a disaster adds to the pool of unemployed
community, further slowing down the recovery from disasters.
Rural residents may be more vulnerable due to lower incomes and more dependency on
locally based resource extraction economies (e.g., farming, fishing). High-density areas
(urban) complicate evacuation out of harms way (Cutter et al 2003).
The density, quality and value of the residential infrastructure influences the potential losses
and recovery from hazards. For example, expensive homes on the coast are costly to replace
and mobile homes can be easily destroyed by a disaster, and therefore they are less resilient
to hazards.
Significant damage to or loss of important infrastructures such as bridges, sewers, water,
communications, roads etc, significantly increase the vulnerability of the community. These
losses may place an overwhelming financial burden on smaller communities that lack the
financial resources to rebuild (Cutter el al 2003).
People that rent do so because they are either transient or do not have the financial resources
for home ownership (Cutter el al 2003). They often do not have enough access to financial
aid information during recovery. In the most extreme cases, when accommodation becomes
uninhabitable or too costly to afford renters will not have adequate shelter options.
29
Education is linked to socioeconomic status (Adger et al 2004, Cutter et al 2003) and higher
educational achievement results in more lifetime earnings. Lower education limits the ability
to understand warning information and access to recovery information.
Single parent families as well as families with large number of dependants often lack
financial resources to outsource their responsibilities to outside care. This results in their
juggling between their work and home responsibilities, which in turn affects the resilience to
and recovery from hazards.
Communities with rapid population growth may lack available quality accommodation, and
the social services network may not have had time to adjust to increased populations (Cutter
el al 2003).
Health care providers such as hospitals, physicians, nursing homes are important sources of
recovery from disasters. The lack of proximate health care providers will lengthen immediate
and longer-term recovery from disasters. People with poor health and people who are
undernourished, are more vulnerable to the immediate and secondary impacts of extreme events,
whether it be a direct physical injury or another impact (e.g. food shortage or famine) (Adger et al
2004)
Those parts of the community who for their living and survival are totally dependent on
social services are already considered as socially and economically marginalized and
therefore they require additional support after the disaster.
Special needs populations (infirm, institutionalized, transient, homeless), while difficult to
identify and measure, are disproportionately affected during disasters and, because of their
invisibility in communities are mostly ignored during recovery (Cutter el al 2003).
Institutions play an important role in determining vulnerability. Poverty, access to resources,
and the asset and income distribution within a community are determined by institutions, and
because of this it is essential to a political economy analysis of vulnerability. It is the formal
political institutions that plan and implement the legal enforcement of property rights and
30
therefore all economic structures can be conceptualized as dependent on the institutional

structure (Adger 1999).
Inefficient or corrupt state institutions are associated with a lack of sufficient healthcare,
housing, sanitation and low levels of general development (Adger et al 2004). It is also
possible that a weak, inefficient or corrupt institutional infrastructure leads to neglecting
physical infrastructure and to increase of inequality since specific groups may be favored
through systems of patronage. Moreover, these weak and corrupt institutions will lead to
inefficient and insufficient responses to disaster events and the probability that calls for
international assistance being delayed and aid not necessarily going to those who need it
most. Table 2.2 summarizes social vulnerability concepts and their metrics.
An important national level vulnerability assessment study was conducted by Adger et al
(2004). Some of the variables discussed are only applicable on national basis, nevertheless it
is a very complete study and some of the aspects may be contextualized at local level if
appropriate. Most of the rationale behind choosing the indices have already been discussed in
previous paragraphs. The vulnerability indices and their proxies as discussed by Adger et al
(2004) is presented below.
1.
Economic wellbeing:
At national level economic well being (EC) may be represented by the following proxy
variables:
GDP per capita,
Gini Index,
Debt repayments as a percentage of GDP.
Possible extension to local scale:
-
Per capita income (Cutter et al 2003, 2009)
Percent of owner-occupied households with mortgages 35 percent or more of

household income (Clark et al 1998)
Housing tenure (ownership) (% renters, % homeowners) (Cutter et al 2009, Wu et al

2002)
2.
Health and nutrition:

31
The health and nutrition (HN) may be represented by the following proxy variables:
Health expenditure per capita (USD PPP or % of GDP)
Disability adjusted life expectancy
Calorie intake per capita
AIDS/HIV infection (% of adults)
Possible proxies at local scale:
-
Number of residents without family doctor
Number of hospitals/clinics/health care facilities per capita (Cutter et al 2009)
3.
Education:
The education (EDU) may be represented by the following proxy variables:

Education expenditure (% government expenditure or % of GNP)
Literacy rate (% of population over 15)
Possible proxies at local scale:
4.
Percentage of education less than high school (Cutter et al 2009, Clark et al 1998)
Physical infrastructure:
This category may be represented by the following proxy variables:

-
Roads, km, scaled by inhabited land area - isolation of rural communities will depend
on the nature of transport networks, and may be captured by the density of the road
network.
5.
Population without access to sanitation (%)
Rural population without access to safe water (%)
Institutions, governance, conflict and social capital
Governance-related factors by the following proxies:

Internal refugees (% of population)
Control of corruption
Government effectiveness
Political stability
32
Regulatory quality
Rule of law
Voice and accountability
6.
Geographic and demographic factors
The demographic and geographical factors may be represented by the following:

Km or coastline (scaled by land area)
Population within 100 km of coastline (%)
Population density
Race (e.g. African/American, Hispanic and etc) (Cutter et al 2003, Clark et al 1998)
Family structure (% single parent households) (Cutter el 2003)
Special needs population (% homeless, nursing home residents etc) (Cutter et al 2009,
Clark 1998)
Number of females (Wu et al 2002)
Number of people over 60 (Wu et al 2002)
7.
Dependence on agriculture
The major impact of climate change on agriculture industry will be through drought which is
not directly related to sea level rise or storm surge. However, they can result in coastal
inundation, and intrusion of seawater into water resources, which can have an adverse effect
on agriculture.
The following proxies are useful in representing dependence on agriculture (AG):
Agricultural employees (% of total population)
Rural population (% of total)
Agricultural exports (% of GDP)
This can be expanded to single sector dependence of the population:
(% employed in hyper active industries) (Cutter et al 2003)
Factors related to natural resources and ecosystems may be represented by the following
proxies:
Protected land area
33
Per cent forest cover

Water resources per capita
Groundwater recharge per capita
Unpopulated land area (%)
Forest change rate (% per year)
8.
Technical Capacity
Adaptation will depend to a certain extent on the ability of a country to undertake quantitative
and qualitative studies of the processes that determine vulnerability (Adger 2004). Proxies
include:
R&D investment (% GNP)
Scientists and engineers in R&D per million population
Tertiary enrolment
2.3
Strategies to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to climate extremes
In this section adaptive capacity and adaptation as strategies to reduce the vulnerability is
discussed.
2.3.1
Adaptation to climate change and variability
The role of adaptation to climate change and variability is increasingly considered in

academic research, and its significance is being recognized in national and international
policy debates on climate change (Smit et al 2000). Adaptation to climate change and
variability is important for two distinct and dependant reasons:
1) climate change is taking place and its impacts can be dangerous. This danger can be
modified by different kind of adaptation. Most impact studies now make assumptions about
expected adaptations in the system of interest (Smit et al 2000). This is a predictive
perspective toward adaptation and the key question involved here is what adaptations are
expected? How and under what circumstances the adaptation is expected to occur? The
challenge here is to determine what might be regarded as dangerous. The extent that societies
are exposed to risk of climate change is partly related to magnitude and rate of this change
and partly related to the capacity of the system to adapt to these changes. In order to judge the
34
dangerousness of climate change, the adaptive capacity of the system should be explicitly
addressed when we are conducting impact assessments of the system. Such adaptations are
what distinguish "initial impacts" from "residual impacts" (Smit el al 2000). Therefore, for
impact assessment, the main interest is in understanding adaptations, estimating the

circumstances under which they can be expected, and forecasting their implications for the
systems or regions of interest (Smit el al 2000).
2) Adaptation is considered as an important policy option or response strategy to concerns
about climate change (Smit el al 2000). Adaptation to climate extremes and their impacts is
receiving growing attention as a complementary or an alternative response strategy to
mitigation strategies (reducing greenhouse gases net emissions). This is an advisory
perspective and the key question involved here is what adaptations are recommended?
Furthermore this exercise requires information on possible adaptation strategies or measures
and also principles for evaluation their merit.
Compared to the analysis of adaptation as part of impact assessment, the formulation and
implementation of adaptation policies and measures involves one additional analytical step.
For both implementation and assessment purposes it is important to know the forms of
adaptation and the conditions under which they are expected to occur. However, analysis for
implementation also requires an evaluation of measures, strategies or options (Smit el al
2000). For implementation purposes, it is not sufficient to specify an adaptation and its
likelihood. We also require some judgement on how good or appropriate the adaptation is
such that we recommend adaptations that are in accordance with the goals of public policy.
Adaptation to climate change is already taking place, but on a limited basis (very high
confidence) (IPCC 2007). Societies have a long history of adapting to climate change through
a various practices such as irrigation, water management, disaster risk management, crop
diversification and insurance. However climate change often exposes societies to something
higher than they can usually adapt to. Impacts as the result of drought, heatwave, hurricane,
flood, accelerated glacier retreat poses huge risks on societies beyond their range of
experience.
Adaptation to climate change is undertaken by reducing vulnerability or increasing resilience
of societies. Adaptation can be related to ecological, physical and human systems. It involves
35
changes to environmental and social processes, practices to reduce the potential damages and
taking advantage of opportunities, perceptions of climate risk. Adaptations include public and
private initiatives, reactive and anticipatory actions and also anticipated changes in
temperatures and other climate variations that have a potential to be altered as the result of
climate change. The important point here is that adaptation is an ongoing process and is not
specific to climate change and can encompass many stresses and factors.
Adaptation has been differentiated and categorized in different ways. Based on their timing
adaptation can be categorized as reactive or anticipatory. Based on the degree of spontaneity,
they can be autonomous or planned. Adaptation can refer to socio-economic or natural
systems and be targeted at different climatic variables or weather events .Adaptations can
also take economic, technological, institutional and legal forms (Smit et al 2000).
We can differentiate adaptations practices along several dimensions (IPCC 2007):
-
Spatial scale: national, regional, local.
Sector: agriculture, tourism, water resources, health and etc.
Type of action: technological, physical, investment, regulatory market.
Actor: national or local government, international donors, NGO, private sector, local
communities and individuals.
Climate zone: floodplains, dryland, Arctic, mountains and etc.
By income or development level of the system they are being implemented to: leastdeveloped countries, middle income countries and developed countries.
Current estimation on the cost of the climate change impacts on developing countries and
adaptation measures are scarce and the ones available are rather simplistic. This is largely
because the economics of adaptation is a new research area and methodologies have not
evolved appreciably in this area. An understanding of all the available adaptation options
such as institutional and policy changes are essential for any prioritisation.
The concept of adaptation costs is hard to operationalize. First difficulty comes from the level
of adaptation. One possibility is to attempt to adapt fully, so that society is at least as well off
as it was prior to climate change. Another possibility is to do nothing, i.e., to suffer (or enjoy
the benefits of) the full impact of climate change. Another option and most interesting one is
to invest in adaptation using the same criteria as for other development projects and
36
programsand this could lead to either an improvement or deterioration in social welfare

(World Bank 2008).
The adaptation level we choose has significant implications for how to allocate ones limited
resources to an abating climate change while meeting other societal needs as well.
Moreover the amount of feasible adaptation and desirable adaptation is dependant on the
level of income and of course they both depend on the expected impacts of climate change.
Another complication is that from the social planner perspective the amount of adaptation
desirable depends on the amount of autonomous adaptation already taking place, which may
not be known at hand to the government.
In general adaptation measures can be categorized as (a) providing public goods, (b) making
public infrastructure more resilient, (c) enabling or promoting private adaptation, and (d)
providing a safety net for the most vulnerable (World Bank 2008).
Adaptation measures that constitute category (a), public goods include (World Bank 2008):
1) Investments in variety of early warning systems (better weather forecasts to farmers;
enhanced surveillance and monitoring programs for waterborne diseases; more targeted
support for surveillance of fires, pests, and diseases in forests; etc.)
2) and investments in new technology development (more drought-resistant crops vaccines
for dengue and other vector borne diseases, etc.); (c) public infrastructure (water storage,
rainwater harvesting, sea-walls, etc.); and (d) helping populations in situations of extreme
vulnerability and climate stress to relocate.
Adaptation measures falling under category (b), public infrastructure generally require
modifications of infrastructure investments in order to make them more resilient.
Adaptation measures falling under category (c), private adaptation are those that promote
autonomous adaptation. For example policy initiatives by the government to develop
insurance markets can give farmers access to weather-indexed insurance which enables them
to cope with weather-related productivity shocks (World Bank 2008).
Adaptation measures implemented by both private and state agents may be inadequate to
allow households to cope with the impacts of extreme climate hazards. Therefore, it is
important that governments also create institutions to help with disaster relief and devise
37
plans that can provide an additional income for vulnerable. Programs such as employment
creation schemes which guarantee a certain number of days of employment (typically at the
minimum wage) and construction of emergency shelters in cyclone-prone regions are
examples of such safety net adaptation measures (World Bank 2008). Measures such as these
will fall under category (d).
2.3.2
Adaptive capacity
IPCC (2007) defines adaptive capacity as the ability or potential of a system to respond
successfully to climate variability and change which includes adjustments in behaviour,
resources and technologies.
Studies involved in the facilitation of adaptation strategies and improvement of adaptive
capacities, usually start with vulnerability assessment of the system of interest to climate
change. There is a broad agreement that vulnerability of a system is linked to both its
exposure to climate change effects and on its capacity to cope or deal with those risks (Smit
and Pilifosova 2003).
A system that is more exposed to a specific climate stimulus is more vulnerable and a system
that has more adaptive capacity is generally less vulnerable to climate change effects, since it
can better moderate those effects.
Vulnerability to climate change can be reduced by increasing the adaptive capacity and/or
reducing the exposures (Smit and Pilifosova 2003). Exposure reduction opportunities such as
resettlement and development control can be limited in many countries. In this case
enhancing adaptive capacity becomes a priority. Adaptive capacity is similar to or closely
related to a host of other commonly used concepts, including adaptability, coping ability,
management capacity, stability, robustness, flexibility, and resilience (Smit and Wandel
2006).
The forces that influence the ability of the system to adapt are the drivers or determinants of
adaptive Capacity (Smit and Wandel 2006). Systems have specific characteristics that
influence their ability to adapt. These so called determinants of adaptive capacity are:
technology, economic wealth, infrastructure, institutions, information and skills, social capital
38
and equity. While these determinants can be considered separately, in practice they are
closely interconnected.
Economic wealth of nations, whether expressed in terms of assets, financial means, capital
resources or etc can facilitate the preparation and recovery process, hence they are a major
determinant of adaptive capacity. Technology is also an important determinant since it can
expand or impede the range of access to adaptations strategies. Efficient cooling systems,
desalination technologies, improved seeds and other solutions are examples of adaptation
options that can lead to improved outcomes and increased coping under conditions of climate
change. Although technological capacity is an important determinant of adaptive capacity of
nations, many technological responses to climate change are closely associated with a
specific impact such as decreased rainfall or higher temperatures (IPCC 2007).
There should also be a sense of necessity for adaptation, awareness of available options,
capacity for assessment and the ability to implement the most suitable options (Smit and
Pilifosova 2003).
Ability to adapt is dependant on effective social networks and infrastructure. Furthermore
adaptation is related to stability and capacity of institutions to manage the risks associated
with climate change. Adaptive capacity is higher also when political institutions ensure that
access to resources and allocation of power is distributed equitably (Smit and Pilifosova 2003).
Some determinants of adaptive capacity are mainly local (e.g. the presence of a strong
kinship network which will absorb stress) while others reflect more general socio-economic
and political systems (e.g. the availability of state subsidized crop insurance) (Smit and
Wandel 2006).
The determinants of adaptive capacity are dependant. For example, the presence of a strong
kinship network may increase adaptive capacity by allowing more access to economic
resources, supplying supplementary labour, increasing managerial ability, and buffering
psychological stress (Smit and Wandel 2006). Access to economic resources may facilitate
the development of new technology, providing access to training and may even increase the
political influence. Therefore the determinants of adaptive capacity are not independent of
each other. Adaptive capacity is generated by the interaction of determinants which vary in
space and time (Smit and Wandel 2006). Adaptive capacity determinants function and exist
39
differently in different contexts. For example, a strong kinship network may play an
important role in a subsistence-based society and quite a different role in a developed world
agribusiness context where financial and institutional structures will influence adaptability
(Smit and Wandel 2006).
Adaptive capacity is context specific; it varies from community to community, country to
country, among individuals and social groups and it also varies over time. It varies both in
value and its nature. These scales are not independent of each other. For example capacity of
a household to adapt or cope to risks of climate change is dependent on enabling environment
of the community and this environment is also dependent on the processes and resources of
the region (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Most communities and sectors can adapt to or cope with normal climatic conditions and
moderate deviations from the norm; however extreme events may expose communities to
risks outside their coping range or their adaptive capacity. Some authors use the term
coping ability for short term capacity or the ability to just survive, and use the term
adaptive capacity for long term capacity and more sustainable adjustments use
adaptability for the short term coping and potentiality for the long term capacity (Smit
and Wandel 2006).
A systems coping range and adaptive capacity are not static. They are flexible and react to
changes in social, political, economic, and institutional conditions over time. For example,
depletion of resources and population pressure may slowly reduce a systems coping ability
and limit its coping range, on the other hand economic growth, technology or institutions
improvements may lead to an increase in adaptive capacity (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Figure 2.3 shows that for a variety of reasons the coping range (in this case to deal with
drought) can decrease or increase over time. Political and external socio-economic factors
such as war, loss of a key decision-maker, the collapse of an institution such as a crop
insurance program may lead to a narrower coping range (Smit and Wandel 2006). The
collective effects of increased frequency of events close to the systems coping range limit
may decrease the threshold to a point that the system can not cope or adapt. For instance, two
successive years of high moisture deficit which are not necessarily over the limits of the
normal coping range of the system, may not considered to be a serious problem now,
however they necessitate consumption of resources, and the reduction of resources may
40
subsequently narrow the coping range until they can be built up again, therefore a longer
lasted deficit of moisture with the same magnitude may well go beyond the currently smaller
coping range.
Figure 2.3: Coping range and extreme events (Source: Smit and Wandel 2006)
Furthermore, conditions which are within the coping range may also introduce unpredicted
side effects which will narrow the coping range (Smit and Wandel 2006). For example a wet
and warm year may be considered as an ideal time for crop production and lead to higher
production. However, subsequent warm and wet years can lead to the development of pest
and fungal outbreaks and eventually decrease production and consequently the coping range
is reduced. A catastrophic event beyond the limit of the coping range may permanently alter
the systems normal coping range if it is not able to recover from it (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Consider a system that relies on water for irrigation which is captured by a dam. A wet year
which is far beyond the normal conditions may cause the dam to fail, and therefore the
systems previous coping range can not be returned to in a subsequent average year.
The discussion above leaves us no doubt on the seriousness of climate change and its severe
consequences for small islands and coastal communities. The impacts such as coastal erosion,
inundation and flooding, saline intrusion and etc can have severe consequences on various
sectors (tourism, agriculture, water, health and etc) of these communities. Some of these
communities are highly dependant on tourism and agriculture as a major income source and
they are also in lack of fresh water. Any sever impact on these resources can put the
livelihood of these people to a serious danger.
41
Moreover we discussed about conceptual frameworks of vulnerability and we showed that

how this concept has evolved from merely considering vulnerability as the result of impacts
of climate change (IPCC 2007) toward considering social vulnerability of communities
(Adger 2006, Yamin et al 2005) and eventually integrated approaches (Blaikie et al 1994,
Turner et al 2003). Apart from the uncertain future impacts and their consequences the
vulnerability can have root causes in the society regardless of any impact. We discussed that
issues such as poverty, external and internal pressures on the community, lack of access and
entitlement to resources, institution and etc can have their shares on a given communitys
vulnerability. Any vulnerability assessment without taking these two sides into consideration
is not complete. We also showed how the vulnerability assessment approaches have moved
from a single view approach toward a more integrated approach.
Then we discussed that increasing adaptive capacity ((Smit and Pilifosova 2003, Smit and
Wandel 2006) and adaptation practices (Smith et al 2000) can reduce the vulnerability of a
given community.
Adaptation is considered as an important policy option or response strategy to concerns about
climate change. Moreover that analysis for implementation of adaptation practices also
requires an evaluation of measures, strategies or options. It is not sufficient for this
implementation role to specify an adaptation and its likelihood; it also requires some
judgement as to how appropriate or good it is, such that adaptations are recommended in
accordance with the goals of public policy.
Vulnerability indices (Cutter et al 2009, Cutter et al 2003, Adger et al 2004) can be used to
evaluate available strategies of communities to reduce their vulnerability to climate extremes.
Finally, various MCDM methodologies were reviewed and it is concluded that Analytical
Hierarchy Process method will be used for this research. The importance of engaging
stakeholders in ranking the various adaptation options available to them requires a method
which is easy to use andinterpret. Also, using a hierarchical model to break down vulnerable
sectors to their elements is a valuable and useful option. The availability of the Expert Choice
software is an added advantage to ease the method computations.
42
3. Methodology
This section presents the proposed research methods to be used in this research. The research
methods are based on an extensive analysis of the literature discussed in the previous section.
As noted in the literature review, the AHP group analysis model will be used to support
multicriteria decision making. The vulnerability modelling, and measurement will take the
approach of the holistic, systemic view of the local coastal community context. In this
section, the methods are described using illustrative examples devised for this research.
In order to introduce the notion of Analytical Hierarchy Process in a group setting, consider
the following illustrative example.
Consider that the coastal community X is an exposed system to climate extremes such as
sea level rise and storm surge. In the past, the community had experienced severe damages to
its coastal infrastructure as the result of storm surges. Moreover, as the result of gradual sea
level rise the community is experiencing coastal erosion and intrusion of sea water in their
water resources. The community has a limited budget and therefore it is obligated to allocate
its limited financial resources toward its prioritized options. There are number of stakeholders
involved and their definition of what options or actions are appropriate differs. Consider the
community stakeholders are: 1) local and regional government officials; 2) the local
community business sector; and 3) NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations).
The adaptation options community stakeholders are considering to implement are:
1) early warning system
2) investment in new technology, e.g., geothermal, coastal engineering options and
3) retreat including moving properties a ways from potential flood zones, protect coastal
infrastructure.
The hierarchy for the planning problem is depicted as follows:
43
Adaptation
Economical
Social
Early warning
system
Environmental
Institutional
Investment in new
technology
Retreat
Figure 3.1 AHP Example Hierarchy
Regional Government Data Collection
First, the pairwise comparisons for the importance of the hierarchy items are captured from
each stakeholder. Tables 3.1 to 3.5 present the criteria comparison data for the Regional
Government decision makers. Table 3,1 below shows the pairwise comparison results of the
adaptation options for the Regional Governments group with respect to the Economic
dimension . To normalize we first calculate the total of the column and then divide each cell
value by this total. This will give us the normalized matrix. A simple average will give us the
row average.
Table 3.1: Evaluating Regional Government adaptation options re Economical criterion
Economical
Early warning
system
Early
Investment
warning in new
system technology Retreat
1
0.619
0.284
0.096
Investment in
new technology
1/3
Retreat
1/5
1/4
1.533
4.250
Total
10.000
44
Row
Average
Table 3.2: Evaluating adaptation options by Regional Government with respect to

Social criterion
Social
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
1/3
Retreat
1/4
1/3
1.583
4.333
Total
4
0.608
3
0.272
1
0.120
8.000

Environmental criterion
Early
warning
Environmental system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
Investment in
new technology
Retreat
8.000
Total
1/3
1/4
0.123
1/2
0.320
0.557
3.333
1.750
45

Institutional criterion
Early
warning
Institutional system
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
Retreat
Total
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
4
1/3
0.265
7
0.656
1/4
1/7
0.080
4.250
1.476
12.000
Next, the evaluation of each criterion compared with other criteria are used to calculate
weights on each criterion for the Regional Government decision maker as provided in Table
3.5 below.
Table 3.5: Comparing each criterion with other criterion (Regional government)
Criterion
Environmental Social
Row
Economical Institutional Average
Environmental
Social
1/3
0.398
1/4
1/4
0.085
Economic
1/2
1/2
0.218
Institutional
1/2
0.299
2.333
12.000
5.250
3.750
Total
46
Now, to calculate adaptation option priority accordingly to the Regional Government

decision makers, the multiplication of the objective weights times the corresponding criteria
values of the alternative provides weighted results by alternative. For example, the overall
priority of early warning system is calculated as follows:
(0.398)(0.123) + (0.085)(0.608) + (0.218)(0.619) + (0.299)(0.265) = 0.315
(3.1)
Repeating the same calculation for the other options gives the following rankings:
Option
Value
Ranking
Overall early warning system

option priority:
0.315
Overall investment in new

technology option priority:
0.408
Overall retreat option priority:
0.277
From the Regional Governments point of view the best adaptation option is to investment
in new technology.
Similarly, the data and analysis for the local Community business sector is provided in Tables
3.6 to 3.10 below.
47
Community business
They will go through the same process as regional government to derive the overall ranking
of each alternative.
Table 3.6: Evaluating adaptation options by community business with respect to

Economical criterion
Early
warning
Economical system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
Retreat
10.000
4.250
1.533
Total
1/4
Row
Average
1/5
0.096
1/3
0.284
0.619
Table 3.7: Evaluating adaptation options by Community Business with respect to Social
criterion
Social
Early
warning
system
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
Retreat
10.000
Total
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
1/6
1/3
0.113
1/3
0.347
0.540
4.167
1.667
48
Table 3.8: Evaluating adaptation options by Community Business with respect to

Environmental criterion
Early
Investment
warning in new
Environmental system technology Retreat
Early warning
system
Investment in
new technology
Retreat
10.000
Total
1/5
0.096
1/3
0.284
0.619
4.250
1.533
Table 3.9: Evaluating adaptation options by Community Business with respect to

Institutional criterion
Early
warning
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
4
2
0.530
Investment
in new
technology
1/4
Retreat
1/2
1/5
1.750
5.200
8.000
Total
5
0.320
49
0.150
Table 3.10: Evaluating criterion by Community Business with respect to criterion
Criterion
Environmental
Row
0.503
Social
1/3
0.273
Economical
1/4
1/3
0.145
Institutional
1/4
1/3
0.079
1.833
4.583
8.333
12.000
Total
The ranking result for the local community business sector is provided in the table below.
Option
Value Ranking
Overall early warning system

option priority:
0.135

0.304
Overall retreat option priority:
0.561
From the community business point of view, the best adaptation option is Retreat.
Similarly, the data and analysis for the local Community business sector is provided in Tables
3.11 to 3.15 below.
50
NGOs
Table 3.11: Evaluating NGOs adaptation options with respect to Economical criterion
Early
warning
Economical system
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
1/5
Retreat
1/5
Total
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
5
Row
Average
5
0.703
1/2
0.115
1.400
8.000
6.500
0.182
Table 3.12: Evaluating adaptation options by NGO with respect to Social criterion
Social
Early
warning
system
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
Retreat
7.000
Total
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
1/3
1/3
0.142
1/2
0.334
0.525
3.333
1.833
51
Table 3.13: Evaluating adaptation options by NGO with respect to Environmental

criterion
Early
warning
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
Investment in
new technology
1/6
Retreat
1/3
1/2
1.500
7.500
Total
0.656
0.193
0.152
6.000
Table 3.14: Evaluating adaptation options by NGO with respect to Institutional

criterion
Early
warning
Early
warning
system
Investment
in new
technology
Retreat
Total
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
1/4
6
0.334
2
0.523
1/6
1/2
5.167
1.750
9.000
52
0.143
Table 3.15: Evaluating criterion by NGO with respect to Criterion
Criterion
Environmental
Row
1/3
1/3
0.145
1/2
1/4
1/3
0.098
Economical
1/2
0.327
Institutional
0.430
7.500
10.000
3.583
2.167
Social
Total
The ranking results for the NGO community are provided in the table below.
Options
Value Ranking
Overall early warning

system option priority:
0.483

0.323
Overall retreat option

priority:
0.194
From the NGO point of view the best option is the early warning system. Thus, based on
the 3 decision makers, their individual rankings select different adaptation options, Therefore,
the problem of ranking the options remains, The section below illustrates how these
inidividual rankins can be consolidated to achieve an overall results for all the decision
makers.
Group AHP
From the previous calculations we drived the individual point of view of each decision maker
toward adaptation options with respect to each criterion. Each decesion maker has their own
preference with respect to each objective and eventually its final choice may be the same or
diffrent from other participants. For considering all these perspectives and deciding on a
53
single alternative as a group , we need to use the combination of these individual

perspectives. This combining is done by the use of Geometric Mean with respect to the
individual input data sets.
The geometric mean approach is the most common approach used by groups to set priorities
(Dyer et al 1992, Ramanathan et al 1994, Condo et al 2003). Second, this feature has been
incorporated in the Expert Choice software which will be used throughout this research.
Thirdly, this approach preserves the reciprocal property in the combined pairwise comparison
matrix (Dyer et al 1992, Condo et al 2003).
Each input cell in the matrices is calculated by using geometric mean of each Decision
Makers individual ranking for the corresponding criterion. After these matrices are built,
the best choice will be chosen based on the standard AHP calculations.
For example, consider the following input vector (3, 1/4, 5) and the resulting geometric mean
value of 1.55.
Geometric mean =
3 * 1 / 4 * 5 = 1.55
(3.2)
Similarly, these values have been computed using the geometric mean of each decision maker
ranking on the corresponding criterion (, e.g., Economical criterion early warning system
versus investment in new technology importance):
Table 3.16: the geometric mean of all decision makers ranking on the Economical,
Social, Environmental and Institutional criterion respectively.
Economical
Early warning
system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
1.00
1.55
1.71
Investment in
new technology
0.64
1.00
0.87
Retreat
0.58
1.14
1.00
Total
2.228
3.698
3.584
54
Row Average
0.449
0.268
0.284
Social
Early warning
system
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
1.00
0.55
0.76
Investment in
new technology
1.82
1.00
0.79
Retreat
1.31
1.26
1.00
Total
4.127
2.810
2.557
Early warning
1.00
0.79
0.53
Investment in
new technology
1.26
1.00
0.69
Retreat
1.88
1.44
1.00
Total
4.142
3.236
2.225
Institutional
0.386
0.242
0.308
0.450
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
1.00
0.69
3.63
Investment in
new technology
1.44
1.00
4.12
Retreat
0.28
0.24
1.00
Total
2.717
1.936
8.756
55
0.369
Investment
in new
technology Retreat
Early warning
system
Early warning
system
0.246
0.380
0.506
0.114
Criterion
Economical Institutional Row Average
Environmental
1.00
2.62
1.39
1.39
0.357
Social
0.38
1.00
0.57
0.69
0.149
Economical
0.72
1.75
1.00
0.91
0.247
Institutional
0.72
1.44
1.10
1.00
0.247
Total
2.824
6.810
4.060
3.989
Table 3.17: the geometric mean of all decision makers ranking on criterion with respect
to criterion.
The ranking results based on geometric mean inputs are provided in the table below.
Options
Value
Ranking

0.328

0.356
Overall retreat option

priority:
0.316
Accordingly, the Investment in new technology is supported as the best adaptation option
among the grouped decision makers.
Another way to derive the overall ranking of adaptation options is scoring the average outputs
as follows:
Adaptation Options
Regional
Government
Commercial
Business Sector
NGO
Row
Average

0.315
0.135
0.483
0.311
Overall investment in
new technology option
priority:
0.408
0.304
0.323
Overall retreat
option priority:
0.277
0.561
0.194
56
0.345
0.344
The table above shows that by considering all the participants output rankings, it can be
concluded that the best option is Investment in new technology. However, we note that the
Retreat options scores very close to the Investment option. This, of course, would need to
be taken into consideration by the group in determining the final option.
These approaches represent different means of reconciling the group input and differences.
The overall ranking of adaptation options are made by:
(1) average the inputs (as above) and come up with a single ranking; alternatively,
(2) score the average outputs.
Both of these methods can be used for this purpose and their result may not be the same.
57
4.
Analysis and expected results
In this section the expected results of the proposed model for this study are discussed.
4.1
Decision Model and Problem Hierarchy
As previously mentioned, before the various steps involved in the AHP method may be
applied, a complete formulation of the coastal community problem including adaptation
options for evaluation need to be presented. This problem hierarchy is developed further in
Figure 3.3 below.
Stage1: decomposing the problem on hand to a hierarchy of more comprehensive sub
problems. The proposed problem hierarchy for coastal communities in Canada and the
Caribbean can be depicted as follows:

Adaptation
Strategy
Level1
Level2
Ecological
Water
resources
Coralreefs
Economic
Social
Mangroves
Action1
Action2
Level3
Tourism
Agriculture
Unemployment
Fisheries
Foodsecurity
Human
settlements
Health
Infrastructures
Poverty
Social
Networks
Figure 3.2 AHP Coastal Community Problem Formulation
58
Institutional
Figure 3.2 shows that each criteria can be further subdivided to subcriteria and therefore
provide more depth for evaluating adaptation options. For example the economical criteria
can be subdivided to tourism, agriculture, fisheries, human settlements and infrastructures.
Stage2: Data input by conducting pair wise comparisons
This input will be collected from stakeholders through a workshop. The potential
stakeholders of this project are comprised of:
1) Local Community business sector
2) Local NGO and community lobby groups
3) Local and regional governmental organizations
4) Local public works groups including energy, services
5) Local professional groups: planners, engineers, scientists
Stage3: estimation of relative weights of the evaluation criteria

These data will be collected from a subset of the Canadian and Caribbean communities
through participants involvement in workshops planned for the overall research project.
Stage4: Aggregation of criteria, i.e. combination of relative weights to perform an

overall evaluation of alternatives.
These data will be calculated by the illustrated technique of geometric mean in group AHP.
All the required computations of Analytical Hierarchy Process will be conducted using the
Expert Choice software and the group decision making options and analyses.
4.2
Expected results
The expected results will be in the form of adaptation rankings gathered from the
stakeholders throughout the previously mentioned process. The results of rankings for
particular communities of interest will provide evidence of the utility of the decision support
approach for these complex problem situations re climate change and the coastal community
priorities. The rankings will enable us to make a decision among available options (e.g. do
nothing vs relocate), as well as provide the community leaders with a structured process
for complex decision making.
59
5. Consideration for future research

5.1
Summary of Proposed Research
The aim of this research is to evaulate the adaptive capacity of coastal communitis to climate
change stresses (seal level rise and storm surge) and their subsequent impacts and
consequently evaluate the adaptation options available to them. This research will result in a
methodological framewrok wich can be applicable to various small island context namely
Canada and Caribbean. This framework depicts the major vulnerable sectors of these
communities to climate change impacts and will accordingly measure the extent of these
vulnerabilities as the result of various climate change scenarios. The inclusion of scenarios is
important since the vulnerability of various sectors and their contained resources can be
considered as a function of these impact scenarios. Equipped with the information on current
level of vulnerability and adaptive capacity and as further guided by the climate change
impact analysis the various stakeholders are able to better evaluate and devise adaptation
options as a way to increase their adaptive capacity.
5.2
Research Extensions
Although we are considering two of the most important climate stresses applicable to coastal
communities (storm surge and sea level rise), there are other stresses such as heatwaves and
change of rainfall patterns which have been studied in the literature. Adding stresses such as
these will make the climate change impact analysis more complete. As mentioned in the
previous subsection we will consider coastal communities located in Canada and Caribbean
for applying our vulnerability framework, however the extension and possible modification
of such a framework to other coastal communties will add to the applicability and
generalization of such a framework.
The scenario analysis used in this research for impact analysis will be based on the latest
emission scenarios adopted from IPCC report (2007). Therefore one possible extension can
be to replicate this research with different scenarios and compare and contrast the results.
Moreover we are considering Analythical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as our decision support
tool and we have provided evidence from the literature about the appropriateness of this
method. However, a possible extension can be to devise a different MCDM method to
conduct such a study and compare the results with this AHP based research.
60
6. Bibliography
Adger, W.N (1999). Social vulnerability to climate chnage and extrems in coastal
Vietnam, World Development Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 249269, 1999.
Adger, W. N., N. Brooks, G. Bentham, M. Agnew and S. Eriksen (2004). New indicators of
vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research. Accessed 02.02.10:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/theme3/final_reports/it1_11.pdf
Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. OBrien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B.
Smit and K. Takahashi, (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options,
constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 717-743.
Adger W.N. (2006). Vulnerability, Global Environmental Change. 16, 268281.
Barnett, J., S. Lambert, and I. Fry (2008). "The hazards of indicators: Insights from the
Environmental Vulnerability Index." Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 98(1): 102-119.
Bettencourt, Croad. R, Freeman. P, Hay. J, Jones. R, King. P, Lal. P, Mearns. A, Miller.
G, Pswarayi-Riddihough. I, Simpson. A, Teuatabo. N, Trotz. U, Van Aalst. M
(2006). Not if but when Adapting to natural hazards in the Pacific Islands Region
A policy note. World Bank, East Asia and pacific region.
Bigano,A., J.M. Hamilton and R.S.J. Tol, (2005).The impact of climate change on
domestic and international tourism: a simulation study.Working Paper FNU-58,
HamburgUniversity and Centre forMarine and Atmospheric Science,Hamburg.
Accessed 20.01.10: http://www.uni hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/
htm12wp.pdf.
Birkmann, J. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability,
usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7 (1): 20-31.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples
Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London.
61
Bueno, R, Herzfeld, C, Stanton A.E, Ackerman, F (2008). The Caribbean and the climate
change- The cost of inaction, Tufts University. Accessed 10.12.09 http://www.seius.org/climate-and-energy/Caribbean_Inaction_Cost.htm
Burns,W.C.G (2000). The impact of climate change on Pacific island developing
countries in the 21st century. Climate Change in the South Pacific: Impacts and
Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States,A. Gillespie and
W.C.G. Burns, Eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 233-251.
Clark, G., S. Moser, S. Ratick, K. Dow, W. Meyer, S. Emani, W. Jin, J. Kasperson, R.

Kasperson and H. Schwartz (1998). "Assessing the vulnerability of coastal
communities to extreme storms: The case of Revere, MA, USA." Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3 (1): 59-82.
Condon E, Golden B, Wasil E (2003). Visualizing group decisions in the analytic
hierarchy process.Computer Operation Research. 30(10):14351445.
Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff and W. L. Shirley (2003). "Social vulnerability to environmental
hazards." Social Science Quarterly 84(1): 242-261.
Cutter S.L, Emrich C.T, Webb J.J, and Morath D (2009). Social Vulnerability to Climate
Variability Hazards: A Review of the Literature. Final report to Oxfam America.
Accessed 05.02.10 : adapt.oxfamamerica.org/resources/Literature_Review.pdf
Dolan A.H. and Walker I.J (2004). Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to
climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 39.
Accessed 10.11.09
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/blast/Publication%20PDFs/Dolan%26Walker-ICS042.pdf
.
Doumpos, Michael and Zopounidis, Constantin (2002). "Multicriteria Decision Aid
Classification method" KLUWER, 252 Pages.
Dyer, R. F. and E. H. Forman. (1992). Group Decision Support with the Analytic
Hierarchy Process,.Decision Support Systems. 8, 99124.
Escobar MT, Moreno-Jimenez JM (2006). Aggregation of individual preference
structures in AHP group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation.
16:287301.
Gibbons, S.J.A. and R.J. Nicholls (2006). Island abandonment and sea level rise: an
historical analog from the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Global Environ. Chang., 16,4047.
Hay, J., N.Mimura, J. Cambell, S. Fifita, K. Koshy, R.F.McLean, T. Nakalevu, P.
Nunn and N. deWet (2003). Climate Variability and Change and Sea level Rise in
the Pacific Islands Region: A Resource Book for Policy and Decision Makers,
Educators and Other Stakeholders. South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme. (SPREP),Apia, Samoa, 94 pp.
62
Lai, Vincent S. et al (2002). Group Decision Making in a Multiple Criteria Environment:

A Case Using the AHP in Software Selection, European Journal of Operational
Research. Volume 137, Issue 1,Pages 134-144.
Liberatore, M.J. and Nydick, Robert L (1997) Group Decision Making in Higher
Education Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Research in Higher Education,
38. Pages 593-614.
Malczewski, J. et al (1997). Multi-criteria Group Decision-making Model for
Environmental Conflict Analysis in the Cape Region, Mexico, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 40(3), 349-374.
Milani, A.S, Shanian, A and El.Lahham, C (2006). Using different ELECTRE methods in
strategic planning in the presence of Human Behaviour Resistance. Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences ,Volume 2006, Article ID 10936, 1-19
Mimura, N., L. Nurse, R.F. McLean, J. Agard, L. Briguglio, P. Lefale, R. Payet and G. Sem
(2007). Small islands. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 687-716.
OBrien, K., S. Eriksen, A. Schjolden and L. Nygaard (2004). Whats in a word?
Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research.Working
Paper 2004:04, Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo,
University of Oslo, Oslo, 16 pp.
Ozer, Ibrahim (2007). Multi-criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated WebBased Decision Support Systems. University of Ottawa, Masters Thesis in
Systems Science.
Ramanathan, R. and L. S. Ganesh. (1994). Group Preference Aggregation Methods
Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process of Deriving Members
Weightages, European Journal of Operational Research 79, 249265.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
Sullivan, C. and J. Meigh (2005). "Targeting attention on local vulnerabilities using an
integrated index approach: The example of the climate vulnerability index." Water
Science & Technology 15(5): 69-78.
Shaw, J, Taylor, R.B, Forbes, D.L, Ruz, M.H. and Solomon, S (1998). Sensitivity of the
coasts of Canada to sea-level rise. Geological Survey of Canada, Report No. 505,
Ottawa. 79 p.
63
Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O (2003).From adaptation to adaptive capacity and

vulnerability reduction. In: Smith, J.B, Klein, R.J.T. and Huq, S. (eds.), Climate
change, adaptive capacity and development. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, pp.
1-20.
Smit, B, Burton, I, Richard, J.T.K and Wandel, J. (2000). An anatomy of adaptation to
climate change and variability. Climate change 45:223-251. Kluwer academic
publishers.
Smit, B and Wandel J (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability Global
environmental change. 16: 282-292.
Tayebi, Noosha (2009). Identification and characterization of a cost-effective combination
of systems for Arctic surveillance: The Northern Watch project, University of
Ottawa, Masters Thesis in Systems Science.
E. Triantaphyllou (2000). "Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study",
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Turner II., B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell,R.W., Christensen,
L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A.,Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A.,
Schiller, A (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US 100, 80748079.
Vasseur L, Catto N (2008), Atlantic Canada; in From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a
changing climate 2007. edited by D.S.Lemmen, F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix and
E.Bush; Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, P119-170.
Wang T.C and Lin Y.L (2008). Using a Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making
Approach to Select Merged Strategies for Commercial Banks. Group Decision and
Negotiations 18:519536.
Warren, Lewis. (2004). Uncertainties in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. DSTO-TN0597. Technical note, Defence Science and Technology Organization. Salisbury
(Australia). Available online: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA431022 (26 August
2008).
World Bank (2008) The economics of adaptation to climate change.
Accessible 02.02.10:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCC/Resources/MethodologyReport0209.pdf
Wu, S., B. Yarnal and A. Fisher (2002). "Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level
rise: A case study of Cape May County, New Jersey, USA." Climate Research 22:
255-270.
Yamin, Farhana; Rahman Atiq; Huq Saleemul (2005). Vulnerability, adaptation and
Climate disasters: A conceptual overview, Institute of development studies, Vol
36, No. 4. Page 1-14.
64
Zhao, Yanlai (2004), integrated systems analysis for coastal aquaculture, University of
Ottawa, Masters Thesis in Systems Science.
Zhao, Z., Lane, D.E., Michalowski, W., Stephenson, R., and Page F (2008) Integrated
Systems Analysis for Coastal Aquaculture, American Fisheries Society
Symposium 49:797-813.
Zeleny, Milan (1982). Multi criteria decision making. MacGraw-Hill.
Weblink references :
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Accessed 10/01/10: http://unfccc.int/2860.php
COP15 Copenhagen 2009. Accessed 03/01/10: http://en.cop15.dk
Rising sea levels set to have major impacts around the world
Accessed: 03/01/10: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/rising_sealevels/
Sea rise to exceed projections. Accessed 03/01/10:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7935159.stm
65

Mostofi - Thesis Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mostofi - Thesis Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.

Multicriteria decision evaluation of adaptation strategies for

Motivation / Problem Definition ................................................................................. 4

Research questions and objectives .............................................................................. 6

Outcome of this research ............................................................................................. 6

Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM).................................................................... 8

2.1.1 The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) ......................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Conceptual frameworks on vulnerability .............................................................. 16

Strategies to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities to climate extremes.. 34

2.3.1 Adaptation to climate change and variability ........................................................ 34

Analysis and expected results ........................................................................................... 58

Decision Model and Problem Hierarchy ................................................................... 58

Consideration for future research ..................................................................................... 60

Motivation / Problem Definition

Research questions and objectives

The fundamental research questions in this research are:

1) To identify socioeconomic and ecological impacts of environmental change (sea level

2) To define and measure community Vulnerability Indices (VIs) to determine how

3) To engage multiple community stakeholders to evaluate the desirability of required

Outcome of this research

Plan of the proposal

The structure of this document is as follows:

Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM)

The Weighted Sum Model (WSM)

AWSM Score = max aij w j for i = 1,2,3,....,m

The Weighted Product Modelling method (WPM)

Using physical or monetary values denoted as g k ( Ai ) and g k ( A j ) for alternatives Ai and Aj

indifference between the two alternatives

strong or weak preference of one over another

Establishing an outranking relation between alternatives Ai and Aj requires two sets of

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Figure 2.1: the general form of AHP hierarchy

Table 2.1 Sattys AHP 9 point pairwise comparison scale

Two activities contribute equally to the

Experience and judgement moderately

Essential or strong importance.

Experience and judgment strongly favor

Very strong importance.

An activity is strongly favoured and its

The evidence favouring one activity over

Intermediate values between

These numerical values are used when

AAHP Score = max aij w j for i = 1,2,3,......,m

aij(k) illustrates the comparison

The following subsections discuss conceptual frameworks on vulnerability, vulnerability of

Conceptual frameworks on vulnerability

Figure 2.2: The PAR model (Source: Turner et al 2003)

Vulnerability of coastal communities to climate change

Vulnerability of Canada and Caribbean to climate change

mainland U.S. infrastructure in coastal regions is highly vulnerable to such effects, as

Indicators are quantitative measures intended to represent a characteristic or a parameter of a

development on vulnerability reduction at national and sub-national scales, and serve as a

Socioeconomic status (income,

High status(+/-) Low income or status (+)

Race and Ethnicity

Nonwhite (+) Non-Anglo (+)

Commercial and industrial

High density (+) High value (+/-)

Mobile homes (+)

Professional or managerial (-) Clerical or

Employment loss (+)

High birth rates (+) Large families (+)

High dependence (+) Low dependence (-)