Table of Contents

Contents pages

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Organization of the Paper ............................................................................................................. 3
2. Review of the Conceptual Framework................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Concepts and Definitions in Climate Change Responses ............................................................. 4
3. Review of the theoretical Literature on Climate Change Responses .................................................. 7
3.1 Adaptation and Mitigation options in the Literature ..................................................................... 7
3.2 Reducing Vulnerability through Adaptation Option ................................................................... 12
4. Analysis of Methodological Literature ............................................................................................. 17
4.1 Methods to Vulnerability Analysis in Climate Change Adaptation Intervention ....................... 17
4.1.1 Socio-Economic Approach .................................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 Biophysical Approach .......................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 The Integrated Assessment Approach.................................................................................. 18
5. Empirical Review of Climate Change Adaptation ............................................................................ 19
5.1 Vulnerability Studies in Climate Change Adaptation intervention............................................. 19
5.2 Adaptive Capacity Studies in Climate Change Adaptation Intervention .................................... 20
6. Analysis of Gaps Identified .............................................................................................................. 22
6.1 Conceptual and theoretical gaps of climate change Responses .................................................. 22
7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 24
References:............................................................................................................................................ 26

i
1.1 Introduction
Climate change is real and happening now (WWF, 2006), the average global surface
temperature has warmed 0.8°C in the past century and 0.6°C in the past three decades
(Hansen et al., 2006), in large part because of human activities (IPCC, 2001). Climate change
is a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its
variability, persisting for an extended period (Kelly and Adger, 2000; Rahman, 2012).
Whereas, (UNFCC,1994 and 2011) defined Climate Change as "a change of climate which is
attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable
time periods”. However, the IPCC (2007d) definition of Climate Change includes change due
to natural variability alongside human activity.

The warming trend observed over the past few decades continued in 2014, which World
Metrological Organization (WMO) has ranked as nominally the warmest year since modern
instrumental measurements began in the mid-1800s (WMO, 2015). The global average near
surface temperature for 2014 was comparable to the warmest years in the 165 year
instrumental record. In 2014, the global average temperature was 0.57 ± 0.09 °C above the
1961–1990 average of 14 °C. It was 0.08 °C above the average anomaly of 0.50 °C for the
past 10 years (2005–2014) (ibid). The mean temperature levels in Africa have increased
whereas precipitation levels have declined (IPCC, 2001). Overall Africa has warmed 0.7°C
th
over the 20 century and general circulation models project warming across Africa ranging
from 0.2°C per decade (low scenario) to more than 0.5°C per decade (high scenario) (Hulme
et al., 2001; IPCC, 2001; WWF, 2006). Precipitation patterns in East Africa are more
variable, according to Hulme et al., (2001), suggest that under intermediate warming
scenarios, parts of equatorial East Africa will likely experience 5-20% increased rainfall from
December-February and 5-10% decreased rainfall from June-August by 2050. Climatic
changes of this magnitude will have far-reaching, negative impacts on the availability of
water resources, food and agricultural security, human health, tourism, coastal development
and biodiversity (WWF, 2006).

1
A strong argument exists that climate change is the greatest contemporary global threat to
sustainable development, and that the risks associated with climate change will become more
severe over time (IPCC, 2001; Hansen et al., 2006; FAO, 2010; WMO, 2015). It is perhaps
one of the most serious environmental issues that today’s world population facing (Moser,
2004; Lorenzoni, et al.,2007; Grover, 2010) though the issue is not new (Vlassopoulos,
2012). Ever since it emerged in the early nineteenth century, up to late twentieth century the
issue was a topic discussed exclusively within the scientific society (Seacrest, 2000;
Vlassopoulos, 2012). In the mid to-late 1980s it first emerged on the public agenda (Moser,
2010). Since then, in one hand, it has been manifested by the believers that consequence of
human activities on world climate has reached to alarming state and posing critical threats to
physical and socio-economic structures. While there has constant debate over the degree and
agent of the change, methods to address the emerging risks but no doubt and debate over the
fact that climate has been changing from the very beginning of the Earth’s history (IPCC,
2007a).

According to FAO (2010), due to climate change and variability almost one billion people
experienced hunger in 2010 globally. The most vulnerable people cannot access enough of
the major macronutrients (carbohydrates, fats and protein). Perhaps, other billions are thought
to suffer from hidden hunger, in which important micronutrients (such as vitamins and
minerals) are missing from their diet, with consequent risks of physical and mental
impairment (Foresight, 2011).
1.

East Africa is one the most food insecure and fragile regions in the continent, due to frequent
climate risks (Slegers and Stroosnijder, 2008; Demeke et al., 2011; Gray and Muller, 2012).
The strong dependence on rainfed agriculture in these areas results in a quasilinear
relationship between grain yields, seasonal rainfall receipts and food deficits (Funk et al.,
2008). The inter-related risks that affect people’s livelihoods and wellbeing in semi-arid areas
of East Africa are; rainfall variability, drought, flood hazards, resource degradation, resource
conflict, food insecurity, human health, and plant and animal diseases (Daron, 2014).

Specifically, in Ethiopia, chronic food insecurity affects 10% of the population; even in
average rainfall years these households cannot meet their food needs and rely partly on food
assistance due to, draught, flood and degradation of the environment and loss of soil fertility
(Fraser, 2007; Demeke et al., 2011). From recent studies on vulnerability and poverty in
Africa, Ethiopia turned out to be one of the countries both most vulnerable to climate change
and with the least capacity to respond (Orindi et al., 2006; Stige et al., 2006; Solomon et al.,

2
2015). Harvest failure due to weather events is the most important cause of risk-related
hardship of Ethiopian rural households, with adverse effects on farm household consumption
and welfare, and environmental degradation (Dercon 2004, 2005; Solomon et al., 2015).
Currently, the main climate risks in Ethiopia are associated with rainfall variability interms of
timing and amount. delay in onset and/or early end of rains, intermittence, long or short dry
spells, and sometimes even the loss of the entire rainy season (World Bank, 2006; Bryan et
al., 2009; Conway and Schipper, 2011; Aberra, 2012). As a result, based on the World
Bank’s study on the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change indicates that climate
change has the potential to reduce Ethiopia’s GDP growth by 2-6% by 2015, with losses in
the worst case scenario rising to 10% by 2045 (World Bank, 2010).

1.2 Aims and Objectives

This area paper aims to present an overview of the trend of the Climate Change issue in
broader environmental discourse and specifically climate change responses. To achieve this
goal, the specific objective of the paper is analysing the history of gradual manifestation of
the climate change responses, analysing previous study gaps and predict a future path of the
climate change response interventions.

1.3 Materials and Methods

The paper approached to achieve the objectives and aims through careful review of relevant
journal papers, periodicals, recent working paper citations, books, international policy
regimes, websites and papers of different international environmental agencies.

1.4 Organization of the Paper

In the review of conceptual framework, the relationship between concepts such as climate
change impacts, drivers of climate change and climate change responses, and definitions of
terms are explained and defined.

In the theoretical literature, the evolutions of climate change responses such as mitigation and
adaptation options are justified. Besides, the relevance of applying climate change mitigation
and adaptation interventions in environmental management and essential parameters to study
these responses are described.

In the analysis of methodological literature, major conceptual approaches that should be

applied in climate change response interventions are explained with limitations of the
previous studies.

3
In the empirical review, this paper comprises of previous studies on climate change
adaptation parameters.

In the analysis of gaps identified, it summarizes gaps of knowledge interms of

methodological approach, data limitations, scopes of geographical locations, contents of
findings and measurement problems in the previous studies of climate change adaptations.

Finally, the paper concluded by summarizing the contents of the paper from conceptual
framework to analysis of gaps identified.

2. Review of the Conceptual Framework

2.1 Concepts and Definitions in Climate Change Responses

The frequency of a climate hazard is altered by a change in the climate state and has
measurable impacts on physical and social systems (Maureen and Clare, 2015).The outcomes
can be complex, resulting from direct and indirect effects of several climate and non-climate
factors. The level of impact is modulated by the sensitivity and vulnerability of the impacted
systems to climate variability and change, and the risk involved is determined by the
probability that hazard will occur. Societal and environmental vulnerability to climate change
is a function of the degree of exposure, the sensitivity of the system, and the capacity for
adaptation (IPCC, 2007b, Maureen and Clare, 2015). In the 21th century (1970-1990/2000),
the concept of climate change responses was only climate change mitigation (Rahman, 2012).
After 1990/2000, scientific communities argued that both mitigation and adaptation options
are complementary.

Risk: The probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses (deaths, injuries,

property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted, or environment damage) resulting from
interactions between natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions. Risk
results from the interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard. Some disciplines also
include the concept of exposure to refer particularly to the physical aspects of vulnerability
(Macchi, 2011; IPCC, 2014) see Figure 1).

Impacts: Impacts are measurable outcomes of (or system responses to) climate dynamics
and climate hazards (IPCC, 2007a, 2014). The Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4) in its definition of climate impacts
(IPCC, 2007b) makes the distinction between potential impacts and residual impacts.

4
Depending on the consideration of adaptation, one can distinguish between potential impacts
and residual impacts;

Potential impacts: all impacts that may occur given a projected change in climate,
without considering adaptation and Residual impacts are the impacts of climate
change that would occur after adaptation (IPCC, 2007b).

Climate hazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon, or human activity

that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption, or
environmental degradation (Mehta, 2007). To determine the risk involved with a particular
hazard, it is necessary to consider the likelihood or probability of its occurrence. The risks of
climate change or climate hazards are typically defined by criteria (usually thresholds) that
link the impacts of climate change to their potential outcomes (Carter et al., 2007). These
thresholds can be defined through research or through stakeholder consultation (Conde and
Lonsdale, 2005).

Adaptation: is defined as “Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or

expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities” (Adger et al., 2003, IPCC, 2007b; Angie et al., 2009). Adaptation to climate
change refers to any actions that are undertaken to avoid threats, manage to the environment,
prepare for or respond to the detrimental impacts of observed or anticipated climate change
(Fussel and Klein, 2004, 2006).
Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory, autonomous and
planned adaptation;
- Anticipatory adaptation: Adaptation that takes place before impacts of climate change is
observed. It is also referred to as proactive adaptation.
- Autonomous adaptation: Adaptation that does not constitute a conscious response to
climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in natural systems and by market or
welfare changes in human systems. It is also referred to as spontaneous adaptation.
- Planned adaptation: Adaptation that is the result of a deliberate policy decision, based on
an awareness that conditions have changed or are about to change and that action is required
to return to, maintain, or achieve a desired state.

5
Figure 1. Summary characterizes observed impacts, vulnerability and adaptive responses
(IPCC, 2014)

Adaptive capacity: It is defined as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change

(including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage
of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (IPCC, 2001; Brooks et al., 2005). It is the
system’s ability to withstand or recover from the exposure (Ebi et al., 2006).
Mitigation: In the context of climate change, mitigation is a human intervention or actions
that limiting global climate change through reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (Fussel and Klein,
2004, 2006; UNFCCC, 2011). This can be reduced by using technological change and
substitution that reduce resource inputs and emissions per unit of output (IPCC, 2007c).

Vulnerability: A variety of definitions of vulnerability have been proposed in the climate

change literature (such as Downing and Patwardhan, 2004; Downing et al., 2005; Adger,
2006; Fussel, 2006). Vulnerability is defined as the susceptibility to physical or emotional
attack or harm (Abate, 2001) and originated as a topic of study in the field of geography and
natural hazard research. Vulnerability is now a central concept in a variety of research arenas,
including disaster management, public health, poverty, food security, ecology and climate
change research (Fussel, 2007)

6
One of the most heavily relied upon definitions of vulnerability in climate science is from the
IPCC fourth assessment report, the consensus of an expert panel of scientists followed by
extensive peer review:

“Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and
variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity”
(IPCC, 2007b).

Resilience: Resilience is the ability of a social-ecological system to absorb disturbances

without losing its fundamental structure and function (UNFCCC, 2011).

3. Review of the theoretical Literature on Climate Change Responses

This part of the review laid the foundation for this paper by presenting the main response
options for climate change policy and their respective information need.
Climate is an important environmental factor for human health and well-being. Hence, any
major change in climatic conditions is likely to have consequences for the living standards of
human population. Anthropogenic climate change is likely to increase risks in most regions
of the world. However, societies can avoid many of these impacts by implementing policies
that increase their capacity to cope with this new hazard. According to Fussel and Klein
(2004), the development of these policies touches the areas of interest of several scientific
communities, including those concerned with public health, adaptation to climate change,
natural hazards, and risk management.

3.1 Adaptation and Mitigation options in the Literature

Adaptation and mitigation are the two climate change response options to reduce the negative
impacts of climate change on the community and their environment (Fussel and Klein, 2004,
2006; Backstrand and Lovbrand (2012). Societies can respond to the threat of climate change
by theses two fundamental mechanisms or it is possible to identify two distinct responses to
the impacts from a changing climate.
In the terminology of the climate change community, mitigation is a human intervention or
actions that limiting global climate change through reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases or to take steps to slow down and moderate the pace of change. Such actions are
generally called mitigation and have been designed to lessen emissions from activity

7
generating carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (the most common greenhouse gases)
(Smit & Pilifosova, 2003; Fussel and Klein, 2004, 2006; UNFCCC, 2011). Adaptation to
climate change, in contrast, refers to any actions that are undertaken to avoid threats, manage
to the environment, prepare for or respond to the detrimental impacts of observed or
anticipated climate change (Fussel and Klein, 2004, 2006). This separation of climate change
responses options theory are also reflected in the structure of the IPCC, where mitigation is
addressed by Working Group III, whereas the assessment of adaptation lies within the
responsibility of Working Group II.

The significant method to address climate change so far has been mitigation considering
adaptation as a less important one (Füssel ,2007,IPCC,2007b), for example, Ingham et al.
(2006) argued that greenhouse gas mitigation reduces the speed of global climate change; so
that societies can gain time through investing in mitigation which intern can reduce the costs
of adaptation. Authors such as Nakicenovic and Swart, (2000); Pies and Schroder, (2002);
U.S. Energy, 2009), Gregg et al., 2008; Guan et al., 2009) are some among who gives
emphasis to climate change mitigation and provide policy recommendations as stated below.

Expanded participation in emission cutting specially including the key developing nations is
very necessary to make an effective negotiation. If not earlier, by the year 2020 the
developing countries are likely to account for more than half of global emissions
(Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000; Pies and Schroder, 2002; U.S. Energy, 2009). Only China
emitted 8 % of global anthropogenic CO2 in 1981 and about 21 % by 2008 (Gregg et al.,
2008; Guan et al., 2009). Hence, emerging economies, particularly China, India and Brazil,
should engage to limit their carbon footprints (Olmstead and Stavins, 2012). Other than this
reason, developing countries are also in a favoured position to cut emission as they provide
the greatest opportunities for low-cost emissions reductions (Cooper, 2001). This expanded
participation is likely to bring twofold advantage: first, likelihood of endorsement a new
binding target by US as promised will be done on bringing the key developing nations under
binding target (Olmstead and Stavins, 2012), and second, it could augment the adaptation
process.

On the other hand, Adaptation primarily aims at moderating the adverse effects of unavoided
climate change through a wide range of actions that are targeted at the vulnerable system
(Füssel and Klein, 2006). Authors e.g., Parry et al. (2001) maintained that mitigation and
adaptation are complementary to each other. Backstrand and Lovbrand (2012) noted climate
mitigation and adaptation has equal importance as parallel processes by giving more stress on

8
development and adaptation needs. Besides, Füssel (2007) argued that, a high emphasis
should be given to adaptation mainly due to the facts that, human activities have already
affected climate; climate change continues given past trends; the effect of emission reduction
or mitigation takes several decades; and adaptation can be undertaken at local or national
states as it is less dependent on the actions of others.

Tubiana et al. (2010) argued that the developed countries accepted to consider the adaptation
demands coming from developing countries were founded in a win-win compromise;
developed world will be willing to mobilize enough resources for adaptation if the
developing side offers something significant in exchange. To continue with an emphasis on
adaptation alongside mitigation, hence, it requires a wider participation to be ensured.
Adaptation and mitigation can be complementary, substitutable or independent of each other.
According to Rogner et al., (2007), if complementary, adaptation reduces the costs of climate
change impacts and thus reduces the needs for mitigation. Adaptation and mitigation are
substitutable up to a point, but mitigation will always be required to avoid irreversible
changes to the climate system and adaptation will still be necessary due to the irreversible
climate change resulting from current and historic rises in GHG and the inertia in the climate
system.

Figure 2. Structure of revolution of the Climate Change discourse with proposed measure of
environmental management beyond 2012 (Adapted from Rahman, 2012)

9
Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is vital in order to reduce its impacts.
Adaptation to climate change did not receive much attention in the first years of the
international climate change studies, where there was more focus on mitigation and impacts
(Kates, 2000, Mertz et al.,2009; Backstrand and Lovbrand 2012), but adaptation has recently
been covered more extensively and has an important place in the fourth assessment report of
the IPCC (2007b). As a result, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change have identified adaptation as one of the key building block required to
strengthen future response to climate change (ICCIC, 2014). In the face of these challenges
the paradigm is envisaged to advance beyond 2012 successfully with incorporation of some
initiatives and rearrangement (Rahman, 2012)

In many scientific literatures, adaptation to climate change is given increasing international

attention as the confidence in climate change projections is getting higher. For example
according to Mertz et al.,(2009),developing countries have specific needs for adaptation due
to high vulnerabilities, and they will in this way carry a great part of the global costs of
climate change although the rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are mainly the
responsibility of industrialized countries.

There are many reasons or convincing arguments for a more comprehensive consideration of
adaptation as a response measure to climate change. Firstly, given the amount of past
greenhouse gas emissions and the inertia of the climate system, we are already bound to some
level of climate change, which can no longer be prevented even by the most ambitious
emission reductions (Füssel and Klein, 2006). Second, the effect of emission reductions takes
several decades to fully manifest, whereas most adaptation measures have more immediate
and sustainable benefits (Rahman, 2012)

Third, adaptations can be effectively implemented on a local or regional scale such that their
efficacy is less dependent on the actions of others, whereas mitigation of climate change
requires international cooperation. Fourth, most adaptations to climate change also reduce the
risks associated with current climate variability, which is a significant hazard in many world
regions. Both adaptation and mitigation can help to reduce the risks of climate change to
nature and society. However, the benefits of adaptation are largely local to regional in scale
but they can be immediate, especially if they also address vulnerabilities to current climate
conditions (IPCC, 2007b, 2014). The increasing interest in adaptation to climate change is
reflected in the evolution of the theory and practice of climate change vulnerability
assessments (IPCC, 2007b; Rahman, 2012, IPCC, 2014).
10
Table 1.Summarised Characteristics of Mitigation and Adaptation

Mitigation of climate Adaptation to climate change

change
Benefited systems All systems Selected systems
Scale of effect Global Local to regional
Life time Centuries Years to centuries
Lead time Decades Immediate to decades
Effectiveness Certain Generally less certain
Ancillary benefits Sometimes Mostly
Monitoring Relatively easy More difficult
Source: Adapted from Füssel and Klein (2006).

In addition to the above emphasised description of adaptation over mitigation of climate

change response, the importance of adaptation and knowledge gaps with possible
recommendations are supported by recent international environmental organizations’ working
papers and policy briefs such as IDRC,(2009); World Bank (2011), CIAT,(2014); Daron,
(2014), and Robert,(2015) are described as follows;
According to IDRC (2009), academic research to understand the implications of climate
change has generally failed to effectively link with local or national policy-making for
adaptation interventions, such that it has not contributed to significantly enhancing the
capacity of decision-makers, government personnel, resource managers, or vulnerable
populations to understand climate change and act on that knowledge. Based on studies
conducted by World Bank (2011), Existing information deficiencies with possible
recommendations are outlined below;

A better understanding of the local dimensions of vulnerability is essential to developing

appropriate adaptation measures that will mitigate these adverse consequences. This requires
detailed vulnerability assessments to be conducted in the most vulnerable arid, semi-arid, and
dry sub-humid lowland communities.

An improved understanding of traditional mechanisms for coping with climate hazards,

coupled with effectively designed strategies for dissemination of indigenous knowledge,
could support vulnerability reduction for the country’s population. According to East African
scientific study on climate change adaptation (Daron, 2014), there is deficiency of knowledge
about scientific information on vulnerability and adaptation interventions.

11
In recent years, climate change impact assessment, adaptation research and adaptation action
have emerged as priority issues on the agenda of governments throughout the world (ICCIC,
2014), but there is deficiency of knowledge about scientific information on vulnerability used
for adaptation interventions (Daron, 2014).There is numerous knowledge gaps related to
climate change adaptation that poses challenges to the successful implementation of
adaptation measures (CIAT, 2014). Africa lags dangerously behind on climate adaptation
strategies and implementation. Scattered and incoherent climate related policies exist but are
not sufficient to give the continent a survival chance under adverse climate change impacts
(Robert, 2015).

3.2 Reducing Vulnerability through Adaptation Option

Many regions and groups are increasingly vulnerable due to climate change impacts (Burton
et al., 2002; Pielke & Sarewitz, 2003; IPCC, 2007b). Adaptation in the context of human
dimensions of global change usually refers to a process ,action or outcome in a
system(household, community, group, sector, region ,country) in order for the system to
better cope with, manage or adjust to some changing conditions , stress, hazard, risk or
opportunity(Barry and Johanna ,2006).

Adaptation interventions are activities that aim to reduce climate change vulnerability at
different levels – household, community, group, sectoral local or national (Barry and
Johanna, 2006). They are based on the assumption of inherent adaptive capacity which can be
used to lower its sensitivity to climate exposure. Such measures include efficient irrigation
systems to overcome water scarcity and improvements to tillage systems for combating soil
erosion. Adaptation measures can also target the increase of adaptive capacity itself (Kelly
and Adger, 2006).

“Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and
variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity”
(IPCC, 2007b). According to Kerstin et al. (2014), there are three vulnerability
parameters in climate change that will be addressed through adaptation;

Sensitivity: it is the degree, to which the system is susceptible to direct or indirect climatic
impacts (Parry et al., 2007). Sensitivity determines the degree to which a system is adversely
or beneficially affected by a given climate change exposure. Sensitivity is typically shaped by

12
natural and/or physical attributes of the system including the geographical characteristics
(e.g., fertility of land and location in hazard prone site, access to fire wood, health access,
food and nutrition, the capacity of different soil types to resist erosion, land cover type(
Kerstin et al., 2014).it also refers to human activities which affect the physical constitution of
a system, such as tillage systems, water management, resource depletion and population
pressure (Parry et al., 2007).

Exposure: Of all the components which contribute to vulnerability, exposure is the only one
directly linked to climate parameters, that is, the character, magnitude, and rate of change and
variation in the climate. Typical exposure factors include temperature, precipitation, evapo
transpiration and climatic water balance, as well as extreme events such as heavy rain and
meteorological drought. Changes in these parameters can exert major additional stress on
systems (Kerstin et al., 2014). Exposure is considered to consist of the impacts or potential
impacts of rainfall distribution and climatic events.

Exposure and sensitivity in combination determine the potential impact of climate change.
For instance, heavy rain events (exposure) in combination with steep slopes and soils with
high susceptibility to erosion (sensitivity) will result in erosion (potential impact). Climate
change impacts can form a chain from more direct impact (e.g. erosion) to indirect impact
(e.g. reduction in yield, loss of income) which stretches from the biophysical sphere to the
societal sphere. In many developing countries, direct dependency on natural resources means
that the link between biophysical impacts of climate change and human activities and well-
being is particularly strong (Kerstin et al., 2014).
Adaptive capacity: It is defined as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change
(including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage
of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (IPCC, 2001; Brooks et al., 2005). It is the
system’s ability to withstand or recover from the exposure (Ebi et al., 2006).

13
Figure 3: Vulnerability components and adaptation measures
Source: Adelphi/EURAC 2014 cited by Kerstin et al., 2014)

Assessments of the vulnerability to climate change are aimed at informing the development
of policies that reduce the risks associated with climate change (Fussel and Klein, 2006).
In discussing climate change adaptation, the concept of vulnerability can help us understand
what lays behind adverse climate change impacts and also to identify hotspots that are most
susceptible towards climate change. Highly and major effective way of identifying and
prioritising adaptation interventions is to conduct a vulnerability assessment (Kerstin et al.,
2014). While local people are often involved in planning processes and in vulnerability
assessment, the relevance of those processes as regards their livelihood strategies and
environmental management practices (the context of their vulnerability) is often neglected
(Dodman & Mitlin, 2011).

The field of climate vulnerability assessment has emerged to address the need to quantify
how communities will adapt to changing environmental conditions. It will help full
researchers to try to bridge the gap between the social, natural, and physical sciences and
contributed new methodologies that confront this challenge (Polsky et al., 2007). These will
rely heavily on the IPCC working definition of vulnerability as a function of exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2001). Exposure in this case is the magnitude and
duration of the climate-related exposure such as a drought or change in precipitation,

14
sensitivity is the degree to which the system is affected by the exposure, and adaptive
capacity is the system’s ability to withstand or recover from the exposure (Ebi et al., 2006).
Table 2: Dimensions of adaptive capacity with description

Dimensions of adaptive Description

capacity
Knowledge This refers to general levels of education and awareness about
issues such as climate change and its impact on the environment as
well as dissemination of information on climate and weather
conditions.
Technology This includes the availability of and access to technological
options for adaption and the technological stage in the
development of a system
Institutions This covers a multitude of governance, institutional and legal
concerns, including the capacities and efficiency of key
institutions, enforcement of environmental laws, transparency of
procedures and decision making. This dimension could further
include accountability and participation practices in ensuring
sustainable management of natural, financial and human resources.
Economy Includes GDP, employment/unemployment rate (in rural or urban
areas), share of GDP for a given economic sector, and a country’s
dependency on food and energy imports. At a micro level this can
also include household income, food expenditure & housing and
dependency ratios.
Source: Adger et al. (2004)
Numerous institutions and individuals have a pressing need for information on the challenges
caused by climate change. They include policy and decision makers at all levels, donor
organisations and other stakeholders from civil society, industry and other sectors. According
to Kerstin et al. (2014), Vulnerability assessments fulfil diverse purposes:
Identifying current and potential hotspots: Vulnerability assessments can compare
susceptibility to climate change in multiple systems. They also allow better understanding of
the factors driving the vulnerability of particular climate change hotspot (e.g. a specific
geographical area or community, which is more severely affected by climate change than
others).
Identifying entry points for intervention: information on the factors underlying a system’s
vulnerability can serve as a starting point for identifying suitable adaptation interventions.
Adaptation can reduce vulnerability by increasing a system’s adaptive capacities and by
decreasing its sensitivity to climate change (see Figure 3).

15
 Tracking changes in vulnerability and monitoring & evaluation of adaptation: A
relatively new approach is to use vulnerability assessments to track changes in climate
change vulnerability over time. This complements existing methods for monitoring and
evaluation of adaptation measures and generates additional knowledge on the effectiveness of
adaptation. There is no one single approach to adaptive capacity as its components are highly
dependent on the system at stake. There have been numerous attempts to structure the
ingredients of adaptive capacity and to introduce standard indicators to assessments

Figure 4: Conceptual framework for vulnerability assessments Source: Adapted from

Füssel and Klein (2006)
The most important factors shaping the adaptive capacity of individuals, households and
communities is their access to and control over natural, human, social, physical, and financial
resources (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Hahn et al., 2009)

Table 3. Examples of resources that may be important to adaptive capacity would be:
Human capital Environmental education, knowledge and skills, good health to enable labour
Social capital Comprises networks and connections, relationships of trust and mutual support, formal and
informal groups, common rules and sanctions, collective representation, mechanisms for
participation in decision making, and leadership
Physical
Consists of infrastructure, tools, and technologies
Natural capital Encompasses access to land and produce, wild foods and fibres, water and aquatic
resources, biodiversity, trees and forest products, environmental services, and wildlife
Financial Micro-insurance, diversified income sources, savings, credit, remittances, pensions, and
capital wages
Source: adapted from (Chambers and Conway, (1992); DFID 1999,; Hahn et al. (2009).

16
4. Analysis of Methodological Literature

4.1 Methods to Vulnerability Analysis in Climate Change Adaptation Intervention

There are three major conceptual approaches to analysing vulnerability to climate change: the
socio-economic; the biophysical and the integrated assessment approaches (Füssel and Klein,
2006; Füssel, 2007).

4.1.1 Socio-Economic Approach

The socio-economic vulnerability assessment approach mainly focuses on the socio-
economic and political status of individuals or social groups (Adger 1999; Füssel 2007).
Individuals in a community often vary in terms of: education; gender; wealth; health status;
access to credit; access to information and technology; formal and informal (social) capital;
political power; and so on. These variations are responsible for the variations in vulnerability
levels. In this case, vulnerability is considered to be a starting point or a state (i.e. a variable
describing the internal state of a system) that exists within a system before it encounters a
hazardous event (Allen, 2003; Adger and Kelly, 2000). Thus, vulnerability is considered to
be constructed by society as a result of institutional and economic changes (Adger and Kelly
1999). In general, the socio-economic approach focuses on identifying the adaptive capacity
of individuals or communities based on their internal characteristics. A study by Adger and
Kelly (1999) is an example of this approach. In their study, the environmental factor in
district coastal lowlands of Vietnam was taken as given, and vulnerability was analysed based
only on variations in socio-economic attributes of individuals and social groups.

The main limitation of the socio-economic approach is that it focuses only on variations
within society (i.e. differences among individuals or social groups). In reality, societies vary
not only due to socio-political factors but also to environmental factors. Two social groups
having similar socio-economic characteristics, but different environmental attributes can have
different levels of vulnerability and vice versa. In general, this method overlooks or takes as
exogenous the environment-based intensities, frequencies and probabilities of environmental
shocks, such as droughts and floods. It also does not account for the availability of natural
resource bases to potentially counteract the negative impacts of these environmental shocks.
For example, areas with easily accessible underground water can better cope with droughts
by utilising this resource.

17
4.1.2 Biophysical Approach
The biophysical approach assesses the level of damage that a given environmental stress
causes on both social and biological systems. For instance, the monetary impact of climate
change on agriculture and degradation of the environment can be measured by modelling the
relationships between climatic variables and farm income (Mendelsohn et al. 1994; Polsky
and Esterling 2001; Sanghi et al. 1998). Similarly, the yield impacts of climate change can be
analysed by modelling the relationships between crop yields and climatic variables (Adams
1989; Kaiser et al. 1993; Olsen et al. 2000). Other related impact assessment studies include
the impact of climate change: on human mortality and health terms (Martens et al. 1999); on
food and water availability (Du Toit et al. 2001; Xiao, 2002); and on ecosystem damage
(Forner, 2006; Villers-Ruiz and Trejo-Vázquez, 1997). The damage is most often estimated
by taking forecasts or estimates from climate prediction models (Kurukulasuriya and
Mendelsohn 2008a; Martens et al. 1999) or by creating indicators of sensitivity by identifying
potential or actual hazards and their frequency (Cutter et al. 2000,Deems,2010); flood risk
(Eakin, 2010). The major limitation is that the approach focuses mainly on physical damages,
such as, soil erosion and environmental degradation, impact on yield. For example, a study on
the impact of climate change on yield can show the reduction in yield due to simulated
climatic variables, such as increased temperature or reduced precipitation. In other words,
these simulations can provide the quantities of yield reduced due to climate change, but they
do not show what that particular reduction means for different people.

Similarly, research on climate change and malaria incidences analyses how climate change
favours or disfavours the reproduction (expansion) of main mosquito species of malaria in
different geographical settings (Martens et al. 1999). But these types of research do not
distinguish between people who have access to medication or preventive measures (such as
vaccination) and those people without. In general, the biophysical approach focuses on
sensitivity (eg. change in yield, income, health) to climate change and misses much of the
adaptive capacity of individuals or social groups.

4.1.3 The Integrated Assessment Approach

The integrated assessment approach combines both biophysical components
(exposure and sensitivity) to socio-economic component (adaptive capacity)
determine vulnerability. Füssel (2007) and Füssel and Klein (2006) argued that the
IPCC (2001) definition, which conceptualises vulnerability to climate as a function
of sensitivity and exposure, and adaptive capacity accommodates the integrated

18
approach to vulnerability analysis. According to Füssel and Klein (2006), the risk-
hazard framework (biophysical approach) corresponds most closely to sensitivity in
the IPCC terminology. Adaptive capacity (broader social development) is largely
consistent with the socio-economic approach (Füssel, 2007). In the IPCC
framework, exposure has an external dimension, whereas both sensitivity and
adaptive capacity have an internal dimension, which is implicitly assumed in the
integrated vulnerability assessment framework (Füssel, 2007). This approach has
much to offer in terms of policy decisions as it is integrated.

The IPCC AR4 (IPCC, 2007d) defines an integrated impact assessment as:

“An interdisciplinary process of combining, interpreting and communicating

knowledge from diverse scientific disciplines so that all relevant aspects of a
complex societal issue can be evaluated and considered for the benefit of decision-
making.” Therefore the use of single measurement in climate change study will not
address the desired outcome unless it is analysed in integrated analysis measurement
and research approaches.

5. Empirical Review of Climate Change Adaptation

In this empirical review part, this paper reviews the information and studies currently
available concerning the climate change adaptation. The point is to do two things. First, it is
to demonstrate thorough understanding of the study of climate change adaptation in which
future research will require. Second, it is to show that the problem being studied has not been
done before or has not been done before in the way as expected and to fill such knowledge
gaps.

5.1 Vulnerability Studies in Climate Change Adaptation intervention

The knowledge of vulnerability of different social systems and the adaptation measures taken
assist policy in vulnerability reduction through strengthening adaptive capacity. Climate
change impacts and adaptation responses at the household scale are important for adaptation
research because many investment and consumption decisions that affect individual
vulnerability to climate hazards, as well as system resilience, are made at this scale (Eakin
and Wehbe , 2009, Waitt et al., 2012).

19
Studies have been conducted to measure impact of climate change on social vulnerability
(Adger et al., 1999); water resources (Deems,2010; Kinfe, 1999; Lijalem et al. 2006;
Deksyos and Abebe , 2006); flood risk (Eakin, 2010) and farmers’ beliefs and concern in
adaptation and mitigation (Gordon, 2013); adaptation to climate change (Mertz et al.,2009);
vulnerability to hunger (Downing, 1991); agriculture ( Fischer et al., 2005; Deressa
,2007,2010; NMSA, 2001; Kidane et al. 2006), vulnerability and resilience (Brenkert, 2005).
These studies are conducted some are at country and continental level with secondary data
(Mertz, 2009; Downing, 1991; Deressa, 2007, 2010). Limited indicators, and single approach
(such as, Deems, 2010; Adger et al., 1999; Kinfe, 1999; Lijalem et al. 2006; Deksyos and
Abebe, 2006; Eakin, 2010; Gordon, 2013). Studies on agriculture analysed monetary or yield
impacts of climate change and suggested adaptation measures, but did not analyse factors
affecting the choice of the suggested adaptation methods.
Studies conducted by regional or continental level will not show the real vulnerability level of
the community at household level. For example, “Future research should focus on local
levels, especially district or village levels, where actual dynamics of vulnerability to climate
change take place” (Deressa, 2010).
Other studies have attempted to analyse the impact of climate change and influences of
factors affecting the choice of adaptation methods in crop, livestock and mixed crop-livestock
production systems (Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn 2008b; Seo and Mendelsohn 2008;
Hassan and Nhemachena 2008), perceptions and adaptation to climate change (Maddison,
2006 ) in Africa at regional level. Results from these studies are highly aggregated and the
parameters have limited value in identifying country-specific impacts and adaptation
methods, insufficient methodology employed and insufficient variables used. Additionally,
these studies were based on data that did not take into account influences of social capital on
farmers’ adaptive capacities.

5.2 Adaptive Capacity Studies in Climate Change Adaptation Intervention

Enhancing adaptive capacity requires the design and implementation of adaptation strategies
and responses in order to either reduce the likelihood of adverse events or lessen the scale of
negative impacts. Importantly adaptation requires the capacity to learn from past experience
in order to cope with current or future events, both known and unknown (Brooks et al.,
2005). The adaptive capacity of communities is determined by the inter-relationships between
communities and their infrastructure, ecosystems and changes in physical environment, social

20
features such as availability of social networks and institutional features such as decision-
making processes and policy/regulatory interventions (Simpson, 2008).

As evidenced by IPCC (2007b), the substantial works on adaptive capacity is done after the
publication of IPCC third assessment report in 2001, which identified adaptive capacity as a
component of vulnerability. Many of the initial studies have focused on the adaptive capacity
at the national level (Yohe & Tol, 2002;Haddad, 2005; Adger & Vincent, 2005; Brooks et al.,
2005; Adger et al., 2004) and few of the studies have been focused at the sub national level
(Jakobsen, 2011; Nelson, et al., 2010; Gbetibouo & Ringler, 2009). The earlier national level
studies are aimed at comparative assessment of adaptive capacity at the national level to
identify the countries with lowest adaptive capacity, thereby assisting in the adaptation
related investment decisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).

The sub national studies are done with the objective of identifying the regional variations
within the country, thereby facilitating specific target-group oriented resource allocations. All
of these studies have contributed to form a conceptual basis for defining adaptive capacity by
throwing an insight on the possible social and economic indicators of adaptive capacity.

The limitations in these studies are; all of these variables are not quantifiable and can only be
qualitatively described. Some of the studies select the indicators of adaptive capacity based
on subjective /personal judgments while others promoted selection of indicators based on
some theoretical underpinnings.

Studies such as Grothmann and Patt (2005), Tucker et al., (2010), Harvatt et al.,(2011),
Linnekamp et al., (2011) are based only on an initial assessment of adaptive capacity as a
function of the availability of particular assets or the household’s perception of risk.
Adaptive capacity cannot be measured directly, but the social, educational, institutional,
place-specific and other factors which determine adaptive capacity can be assessed. The
assessment of adaptive capacity requires the identification of both the systems and the
hazards involved i.e., “who adapts and to what extent?” (Brooks et al., 2005). The IPCC
(2001) identifies eight determinants of adaptive capacity indicators, namely:
(i) Available technological options to manage the environment
(ii) Natural resources,
(iii) The structure of critical institution and decision making authorities,
(iv) The stock of human capital,

21
(v) The stock of social capital including the definition of property rights,
(vi) The system’s access to risk-spreading processes,
(vii) Information management and the credibility of information supplied by decision makers,
(viii) The public’s perceptions of risks and exposure.

6. Analysis of Gaps Identified

6.1 Conceptual and theoretical gaps of climate change Responses

The frequency of a climate hazard is altered by a change in the climate state and has
measurable impacts on physical and social systems. This is evidenced by (Maureen and
Clare, 2015) and other scientific theoretical literatures.
In the 20th century, the major climate change response option was mitigation by considering
adaptation as a less important one. In the 21th century, climate change adaptation becomes an
emerging method to reverse climate change impacts. As a result, the scientific community
argued that mitigation and adaptation are complementary to each other.

In the near past emphasis is given to climate change adaptation due to the fact that; the earth
already bound to some of climate change which cannot longer be prevented even by most
ambitious emission reductions, adaptation to climate change can be implemented on a local
or regional scale. Whereas, mitigation requires international cooperation. Besides, the rising
of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are mainly the responsibility of industrialized
countries. However, developing countries have specific needs for adaptation due to high
vulnerabilities. The concept of vulnerability was originated as a topic of study in the field of
geography and natural hazard research. In the near past, vulnerability is central a concept in
the food security, public health, disaster management, and climate change research.
6.2 Methodological Gaps
The use of single measurement in climate change study will not address the desired outcome
unless it is analysed by using integrated analysis measurements. Vulnerability assessment
describes a diverse set of methods used to systematically integrate and examine interactions
between humans and their physical and social surroundings (Hahn, 2009). There are three
types of research approaches to study vulnerability and climate change adaptation. As it is
extensively described in the methodological review above, previous studies used only a
single methodological approach.

22
6.3 Gaps in the Empirical Studies
Key knowledge gaps in the previous climate change response studies include scale of study,
methods used to select variables and indicators, affected groups, methodological approaches
employed and non quantifiable results. Studies conducted by World Bank (2011) stated that,
adaptation strategies are likewise difficult to formulate unless detailed vulnerability and
impact assessment studies are undertaken. Different studies have been conducted to measure
the impacts of climate change on different systems. These studies did not analyse factors
affecting the choice of adaptation methods and vulnerability levels for further policy
intervention.

Other studies have attempted to analyse the impact of climate change and influence factors
affecting the choice of adaptation methods. But these studies are in crop, livestock and mixed
crop –livestock production systems only. Besides, these studies have other limitations; the
studies are highly aggregated and the parameters have limited values in identifying country
specific impacts and adaptation methods. At the same time, these studies did not take into
account influence of social capital on communities adaptive capacities, the methodology they
employed are not sufficient and the results are not empirical or quantified.

One of the parameter that used to study climate change adaptation is adaptive capacity.
Studies have been attempted on adaptive capacity at national level and sub national level to
identify the countries with lowest adaptive capacity, there by assisting in the adaptation
related investment decision under the UNFCC. In these studies, the social, educational,
institutional, natural resources are not considered. As a result, the study results are not
quantifiable and only qualitatively described. In addition to studies described in the empirical
review part, there are studies about knowledge gaps with possible future study.

Recent studies show there is deficiency of knowledge on vulnerability studies in Africa as

well as globally. According to East African scientific study on climate change adaptation
(Daron, 2014), there is deficiency of knowledge about scientific information on vulnerability
and adaptation interventions. It is stated as, ‘despite a wealth of research and investigation
reported in both academic and grey literatures for East Africa, we contend that deficiencies
in knowledge on vulnerability and response to climate-related social-ecological risks remain
wide and diverse. Many facets of these issues remain poorly explored” (Daron, 2014). This
deficiency of knowledge in climate change adaptation is problem of the global community,

23
(as evidenced by Boko et al., 2007; IDRC, 2009; World bank, 2014; ICCIC, 2014; Daron,
2014; CIAT, 2015).

7. Conclusions
Any major change in the climate conditions is likely to have consequences for the living
standards of human population and the environment. The analysis of climate change
discourse shows that the issue from its initial perspective of an entirely scientific issue moved
to be the cause of environmental degradation and finally in recent time has turned something
much larger and going beyond environmental degradation. The major climate change impacts
are; variability of rainfall, drought, flood hazards, environmental resources degradation,
resources conflict, food insecurity, human health, plant and animal diseases.

There is a constant debate over the degree and agent of the climate change and methods to
address the emerging risks. Societies can avoid these impacts by implementing polices that
increase their capacity to cope with new hazard. These climate change responses are
mitigation and adaptation options. In the 20th century (1970-1990/2000), emphasised method
of climate change response was mitigation. While, in the 21st century (since 1990), the
emerging and most acceptable method of climate change repose is adaptation option.

It is concluded that although many useful steps have been taken in the direction of ensuring
adequate adaptation in developing countries, much work still remains to fully understand the
drivers of past adaptation efforts, the need for future adaptation, and how to mainstream
climate into general development policies. Identifying the choice of adaptation methods is
necessary for designing appropriate policy measures to enhance adaptation capacities of
vulnerable communities.
In order to study climate change adaptation, there are two major parameters. These
parameters are vulnerability and adaptive capacity. In the analysis of vulnerability, there are
three conceptual approaches. These are; socio economic approaches, biophysical approaches
and integrated asesement approaches. Previous studies conducted in the vulnerability of
climate change uses only either socio economic or biophysical approaches. The use of single
measurement in climate change study will not address the desired outcome unless it is
analysed by using integrated analysis measurement (both socio economic and biophysical
approaches). The results from these studies were not quantifiable as supposed to be.

24
Previous studies conducted to measure the impact of climate change in different systems and
scales did not analyse factors affecting the choice of adaptation methods of the community.
Other studies conducted on influencing factors of the choice of adaptation methods are
studied in specific systems only such as crop and livestock production systems. At the same
time results from these studies are highly aggregated. The study parameters have limited
values in identifying country specific impact and adaptation methods. Additionally, these
studies are not sufficient interms of methodology and use of insufficient variables. The study
results are not quantifiable.

After the IPCC third asesement, adaptive capacity is considered as one of the component in
studying adaptation interventions. Adaptive capacities are studied at national level to identify
the countries with lowest adaptive capacity based on secondary data gained form courtiers
statistical agencies. The sub national studies are done with the objective of identifying
regional variations within the country. But all of these studies are described qualitatively. At
the same time some of these studies select indicators of adaptive capacity based on personal
judgment.

According to many of scientific literatures, one region may be more sensitive to climate
change than another as a result of environmental stress, conflict over resources, ineffective
management structures and, lack of regulation. For example a community dependent on rain
fed agriculture is much more sensitive than one where the main livelihood strategy is labour
in a mining facility. As a result, there is a growing demand for detailed accounts of local
adaptation to climate change, to serve as a starting point for knowledge exchange on
successful practices among vulnerable populations and to support rational policymaking in
vulnerable areas.

25
References:

Abate F.R., Jewell, E.J., (2001). The new Oxford American dictionary. F.R. Abate, E.J.
Jewell (Eds). Oxford University Press, New York.

Aberra, Y. (2012). Perceptions of Climate Change among Members of the house of Peoples
Representatives, Ethiopia’, Journal of Risk Research 15 (7): 771–785.
Adams, R.M. (1989). Global climate change and agriculture: An economic perspective.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics ,71(5): 1272–1279.
Adger, W. N., & Vincent, K. (2005). Uncertainty in Adaptive Capacity. C R Geoscience, 337,
399 - 410.
Adger, W.N. (2004). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity – Technical
Report 7. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.: available at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/it1_11.pdf [Accessed 23 August2015]
Adger, W.N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam.
World Development, 27(2):249–269.
Adger, W. N. and Kelly, P. M.: (1999), ‘Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the
Architecture of Entitlements’, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 4,
253–256
Adger, W.N. & Kelly, M. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate
change and facilitation adaptation. Climatic Change, 47(4):925–1352
Adger, W.N. (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 (2006) 268–281

Adger, WN; Huq, S; Brown, K; Conway, D; Hulme, M (2003) .Adaptation to climate change
in the developing world’. Progress in Development Studies, 3 (3):179-195. Available
at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/adgerwn/ProgDevStudies2003.pdf [accessed 01
September 2015]

Allen, K.( 2003). Vulnerability reduction and the community-based approach: A Philippines
study, in Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World, edited by M.
Pelling. New York: Routledge.
Angie, D., Kaia A, and Charles., E. (2009). Climate vulnerability and Capacity Analysis
Handbook. The Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Available at: http://www.careclimatechange.org [accessed
12March2015].

26
Backstrand, K. and Lovbrand, E (2012). Climate governance beyond 2012: Competing
discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civil
environmentalism.
Barry Smith and Johnna wandel (2006).Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability
concepts, Journal of global environmental change 16(2006)282-292.
Boko, M., Niang, I., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany, M., Osman-Elasha, B.,
Tabo. R. & Yanda, P. 2007. Africa. In Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Paluitkof, J.P., van
der Linden, P.J. & Hanson, C.E. (eds.). Climate Change( 2007). Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge: 433-467.
Brenkert, A., Malone, E.L., (2005). Modelling Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate
Change: A Case Study of India and Indian States. Clim Change 72:57–102

Brooks, N. (2005). Vulnerability, Risk and Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework. Working

Paper 38. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Bryan, E., Deressa, T. T., Gbetibouo, G. A., Ringler, C. (2009). Adaptation to climate change
in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints, Environmental Science &
Policy 12(4): 413-426.
Burton, I., Huq, B. Lim, Pilifosova, O. & Schipper, E. L. (2002). from impacts assessment to
adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy, Climate Policy, 2, pp. 145–159.
Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A.
Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, (2007). New Assessment Methods and the
Characterisation of Future Conditions. 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, 133-171.
Chambers, R., Conway, G., (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the
21st Century, Institute of development Studies, UK
CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical). (2014). Climate change adaptation in
the Andes: What do we not know yet? Identifying and prioritizing knowledge gaps.
CIAT Policy Brief No. 21. Cali, Colombia.

27
Cooper, R (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: A flawed concept. FEEM Working Paper No. 52.,
available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278536,[accessed22july 2015]
Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale (2005). Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process.
Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies
and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 47-66.
Conway, D., Schipper, E.L.F. (2010). Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and
opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environ Change. 21(1): 227-237.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J. & Shirley, W.L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental
hazards. Social Sciences Quarterly 84(2):243–261.
Daron, J.D. (2014).Regional Climate Messages: East Africa, Scientific Report from the
CARIAA- Adaptation at Scale in Semi-Arid Regions (ASSAR) Project, December
2014.
Deems.H(2010). Vulnerability of rural communities in the Mediterranean region to climate
change and water scarcity: Mediterranean region.
Deksyos, T. & Abebe, T. (2006). Assessing the impact of climate change on the water
resources of the lake Tana sub-basin using the watbal model. CEEPA Discussion
Paper No. 30. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. Pretoria:
University of Pretoria.
Demeke, A.B., Keil, A. and Zeller, M. (2011).Using panel data to estimate the effect of
rainfall shocks on smallholders food security and vulnerability in rural Ethiopia’,
Climate Change, 108: 185–206.
Dercon.,S.(2004).Growth and Shocks: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia.” Journal of
Development Economics, 74(2):309–329.
Dercon, S. (2005). Risk, Poverty and Vulnerability in Africa” Journal of African Economies,
14(4):483-488.
Deressa, T. T. (2010). Assessment of the vulnerability of Ethiopian agriculture to climate
change and farmers’ adaptation strategies, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Deressa, T.T. (2007).Measuring the economic impact of climate change on Ethiopian
agriculture: Ricardian approach. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 4342.
World Bank, Washington, DC.

28
DFID (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: Department for International
Development www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section1.pdf (accessed 3
August 2015)
Dodman, D., & Mitlin, D. (2011). Challenges for Community Based Adaptation: discovering
the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development.
Downing, T.; Patwardhan, A.; Klein, R.; Mukhala, E.; Stephen, L.; Winograd, M.; Ziervogel,
G. (2005). Assessing Vulnerability for Climate Adaptation, Chapter 3, In: Lim, B.;
Spanger-Siegfried,E. (eds). Adaptation Policy Framework for Climate Adaptation:
Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. UNDP, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Downing, T.E., (1991). Vulnerability to hunger in Africa: A climate change Perspective,
Global Environ. Change 1, 365-380.
Downing, T.E., Patwardhan, A., (2004). Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation.
Technical Paper 3, UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework. Available at:
http://www.undp.org/cc/apf.htm [accessed 15July2015].
Du Toit, M.A., Prinsloo, S. & Marthinus, A. (2001). El Niño-southern oscillation effects on
maize production in South Africa: A preliminary methodology study. In
Rosenzweig, C., Boote, K.J., Hollinger, S., Iglesias, A. & Phillips J.G. (eds.)
Impacts of El Niño and climate variability on agriculture. ASA Special Publication
63. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy: 77-86
Ebi, K., Kovats, R.S., Menne, B., (2006). An approach for assessing human health
vulnerability and public health interventions to adapt to climate change.
Environmental Health Perspectives 114, 1930–1934
Eakin, H. C., and M. B. Wehbe.( 2009). Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in
a resilience framework: two cases from Latin America. Climatic Change 93(3-
4):355-377. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10584-008-9514-x[accessed 01
September 2015]
FAO (2010).Food Safety and Climate Change. Rome, Italy.

Fischer, G., Shah, M., Tubiello, N.F., van Velhuizen, H., (2005). Socio-economic and climate
change impacts on agriculture: , 1990–2080. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 360 (1463): 2067-2083.

Foresight(2011).The Future of food and farming: The Government Office for Science.
London.

29
Forner, C. (2006). An introduction to the impacts of climate change and vulnerability of
forests. Background document for the South East Asian meeting of the Tropical
Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA) project. Bogor, West Java, 29-
30 May.
Funk, C., Dettinger, M.D., Michaelsen, J.C., Verdin, J.P, Brown, M.E., Barlow, M. and
Hoell, A. (2008). Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern
African food security but could be mitigated by agricultural development’, PNAS –
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105(32): 11081-11086
Fussel, H.M., (2007). Vulnerability: A Generally Applicable Conceptual Framework for
Climate Change Research Global Environmental Change 17(2):155-167

Füssel, H.M., and R. Klein, J. T. (2006).Climate change vulnerability assessments: An

evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 75(3): 301–329.
Fussel and Klein. T.J (2004).Conceptual frameworks of adaptation to climate change and
their applicability to human health, Germany, ISSN 1436-0179
Fussel and Klein (2006).Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of
conceptual thinking, journal of Climatic Change Spring (2006) 75: 301–329 DOI:
10.1007/s10584-006 0329-3.
Fraser, E.D.G. (2007). Travelling in antique lands: using past famines to develop an
adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate
change, Climatic Change, 83 (4): 495–514.
Gbetibouo, G. A., & Ringler, C. (2009). Mapping South African Farming Sector
Vulnerability to Climate Change and Variability. A Subnational Assessment. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00885. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI).
Gordon,. J. Arbuckle Jr. & Lois Wright Morton &Jon Hobbs(2013). Farmer beliefs and
concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation:
Evidence from Iowa
Guan, D.; Peters, G.P.; Weber, C.L. and Hubacek, K(2009). Journey to the world top emitter:
An analysis of the driving forces of China’s recent CO2 emissions surge.
Geophysical Research Letters 36(4), L04709, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036540, [accessed 15July2015]
Gregg, J.S.; Andres, R.J. and Marland, G(2008). China: Emissions pattern of the world leader
in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production. Geophysical

30
 Research Letters 35(8), L08806, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032887, [accessed25june2015].
Gray, C. and Mueller, V. (2012). Drought and population mobility in rural Ethiopia, World
Development, 40 (1): 134–145.
Grover, H(2010). Local response to global Climate Change : The role of local development
plans in Climate Change management. Texas A&M University, ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, available at:
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2010-08
8461/GROVERDISSERTATION. pdf?sequence, [accessed 23June2015].
Grothmann, T., and A. Patt.( 2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of
individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(3):199-
213. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002 [accessed 01
September 2015]
IDRC (International Development Research Centre). (2009). Innovating for Development:
Strategic Framework 2010-2015, IDRC, Canada.
Haddad, B. M. (2005). Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when
socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change,15(2), 165-176.

Hahn, M.B., Riederer, AM. & Foster, S.O (2009). The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A
Pragmatic Approach to Assessing Risks from Climate Variability and Change - A
Case Study in Mozambique. Global Environment Change, 19: 74–88.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo. (2006).NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, 10025, USA. Available at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp[accessed [accessed15May2015].
Hassan, R., and C. Nhemachenas .(2008). Determinants of African farmers‟ strategies for
adapting to climate change: multinomial choice analysis‟ African Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2 (1): pp. 83–104.
Harvatt, J., J. Petts, and J. Chilvers. (2011). Understanding householder responses to natural
hazards: flooding and sea-level rise comparisons. Journal of Risk Research
14(1):63-83. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.503935
[accessed 01 September 2015]
Hulme M., Doherty, R.M., Ngara, T., New, M.G. & Lister, D (2001). African climate change:
1900-2100. Climate Research, 17:145–168.
Macchi, M (2011) Framework for community-based climate vulnerability and capacity
assessment in mountain areas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

31
ICCIC (Israeli Climate Change Information Center). (2014).Adaptation to climate change in
Israel Recommendations and knowledge gaps.
Available at http://www.sviva.gov.il/infoservices/reservoirinfo/doclib2/publications/p0701-
p0800/p0739.pdf [accessed 01 September 2015]

Ingham, A.; Ma, J. and Ulph, A(2006). How do the costs of adaptation affect optimal
mitigation when there is uncertainty, irreversibility and learning? Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 74, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester.
IPCC (2014). Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA.
IPCC (2007a). Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M.B.,
LeRoy Mil H., (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press
IPCC (2007b). Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change: Climate
Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. [Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf, [accessed 12 December
2014].
IPCC (2007c). Climate Change Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz,
O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., XXX pp.
IPCC (2007d). AR4 Climate Change: Synthesis Report available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm, [accessed 15August2015]
IPCC (2001). Climate change: The scientific basis. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/,
[accessed 27 November 2014].
IPCC (2007). Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change: Climate
Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Available at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf, [accessed 12 December 2014].
Jakobsen KT, Halsnæs K.(2011). Living with poverty and climate change – a study on
vulnerability to climate-related shocks on household level. UNEP Risø Centre on

32
 Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, Risø DTU National Laboratory for
Sustainable Energy.
Kates RW (2000) Cautionary tales: adaptation and the global poor. Climatic Change 45:5–17
Kaiser, H.M., Riha, S.J., Wilks, D.S., Rossiter, D.G. and Sampath, R.K. (1993). A farm-level
analysis of economic and agronomic impacts of gradual warming. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 75:387–98.
Kelly., P.M., Adger W.N (2000).Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate
change and facilitating adaptation. Journal of climate change 47,325-352
Kerstin Fritzsche, Stefan Schneiderbauer, Philip Bubeck1, Stefan Kienberger, Mareike Buth,
Marc Zebisch and Walter Kahlenborn (2014). The Vulnerability Sourcebook
Concept and guidelines for standardised vulnerability assessments: Special unit
‘Climate’, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
Kidane, G., Abebe, T. & Degefie, T. (2006). Estimating crop water use and simulating yield
reduction for maize and sorghum in Adama and Miesso districts using the cropwat
model. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 31. Centre for Environmental Economics and
Policy in Africa. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Kinfe, H. (1999). Impact of climate change on the water resources of Awash River Basin,
Ethiopia. Climate Research, 12:91–96.
Kurukulasuriya, P. & Mendelsohn, R. (2008a). A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate
change on African cropland. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 2 (1):1–23.
Linden, P.J. & Hanson, C.E. (eds.). Climate Change (2007). Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge: 433-467.
Linnekamp, F., A. Koedam, and I. S. A. Baud. (2011). Household vulnerability to climate
change: examining perceptions of households of flood risks in Georgetown and
Paramaribo. Habitat International 35(3):447-456. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2010.12.003 [accessed 01septemeber2015].
Lijalem, Z., Jackson, R. & Dilnesaw, A.C. (2006). Climate change impact on Lake Ziway
watershed‟s water availability, Ethiopia. Paper presented at the Prosperity and
Poverty in a Globalised World - Challenges for Agricultural Research conference,
Trope tag, 11- 13 October.

33
Lorenzoni, I; Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L(2007). Barriers perceived to engaging
with Climate Change among the UK public and their policy implications.
Global Environmental Change 17(3-4), 445-459,
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004.,[Accessd12June2015].
Martens, P., Kovats, R., Nijhof, S., de Vries, P. Livermore, J., & Bradley, D. (1999). Climate
change and future populations at risk of malaria. Global Environmental Change,
9(1):89–107.
Maddison, D. (2006). The perception and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA.
Discussion Paper No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa.
Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Maureen., A and Clare .G (2015). Common Tools and Central Datasets: Developing a
conceptual framework, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK
Mehta, M (2007).Gender matters: Lessons for disaster risk reduction in South Asia.
Kathmandu: ICIMOD
Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W. & Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming on
agriculture: A Ricardian analysis. American Economic Review 84:753–771.
Mertz Æ Kirsten Halsnæs Æ Jørgen E. Olesen Æ Kjeld Rasmussen(2009). Adaptation to
Climate Change in Developing Countries, journal of Environmental Management
(2009) 43:743–752 DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9259-3
Mertz O, Mbow C, Reenberg A, Diouf A (2009) .Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and
agricultural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. Environmental Management. doi:
10.1007/s00267-008-9197-0
Moser, S.C (2010). Communicating Climate Change: history, challenges, process and future
directions. WIley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(1), 31-53, available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11,[accesssed 15July2015].
Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L(2004). Making Climate Hot: Communicating the urgency and
challenge of Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
development 46(10), 32-46, 2004, Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139150409605820, [Accessed 27August2015].

Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R., eds (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios.
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Nelson, R., Kokic, P., Crimp, S., Meinke, H., & Howden, S. M. (2010). The Vulnerability of
Australian Rural Communities to Climate Variability and Change: Part I -

34
 Conceptualizing and Measuring Vulnerability. Environmental Science and Policy,
13, 8 - 17.
NMSA (National Meteorological Services Agency).(2001). Initial National Communication
of Ethiopia to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). NMSA, Addis Ababa.
Olmstead, S. and Stavins, R.N (2012). Three key elements of a post-2012 international
climate policy architecture. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(1),
65-85,
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer018,[accessed 25May2015].
Olsen, J.E., Bocher, P.K. & Jensen, Y. (2000). Comparison of scales of climate and soil data
for aggregating simulated yields in winter wheat in Denmark. Agriculture,
Ecosystem and Environment, 82(3):213–228.
Orindi, V., Ochieng, A.,Otiende, B., Bhadwal, S., Anantram, K., Nair, S., et al. (2006).
Mapping climate vulnerability in poverty in Africa. Climate change and poverty in
Africa. Report to the Department for International Development. Nairobi: ILRI.
Parry, M.L. Canziani, O.F, Palutikof, J.P. Linden van der and Hanson C.E (2001). Millions
at risk: defining critical Climate Change threats and targets, Global Environmental
Change 11(3), 181-183, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-
3780(01)00011-5,[accessed 26june2015].
Pies, I. and Schroder, G (2002). Causes and consequences of global warming: How rational is
our policy on Climate Change? Policy Consult, Munich.
Pielke, R., Jr.&Sarewitz, D. (2003).Wanted scientific leadership on climate change,
Perspectives, Winter, pp. 27–30.
Polsky, .C. and Yarnal, B.,(2007). Building comparable global change vulnerability
assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Global Environmental Change 17,
472–485.
Polsky, C.& Esterling, W.E. (2001). Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US
Great Plains: A multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agriculture,
Ecosystem and Environment, 85(3):133–144.
Rahman M.I. (2012). Climate change: a theoretical review, Interdisciplinary Description of
Complex Systems 11(1), 1-13, DOI: 10.7906/indecs.11.1.1
Robert Mburia (2015). Africa Climate Change Policy: An adaptation and development
challenge in a dangerous world. Available at

35
:http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/resources/AFRICA%20CLIMATE%20CHA
NGE%20POLICY-CEI.pdf [accessed 01 September 2015]
Rogner, H.-H., Zhou, D., Bradley, R., Crabbé P., Edenhofer, O., Hare B., (Australia),
Kuijpers, L., Yamaguchi, M.,(2007). Introduction. In Climate Change: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch,
R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press.
Sanghi, A., Mendelsohn, R., and Dinar, A.: 1998, 'The Climate Sensitivity of Indian
Agriculture’, in Dinar, A., Mendelsohn, R., Evenson, R., Parikh, J., Sanghi, A.,
Kumar, K., McKinsey, J., and Lonergon, S. (eds.), Measuring the Impact of
Climate Change on Indian Agriculture, World Bank Technical Paper No. 402,
Washington, D.C.
Seacrest, S. Kuzelka, R. and Leonard, R (2000). Global Climate Change and Public
Perception: The Challenge of Translation. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 36(2), 253-263
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04265.x, [accessed 25july 2015].
Seo, N., & Mendelsohn, R. (2008). Animal husbandry in Africa: climate change impacts and
adaptations. African Journal of Agricultural and resource Economics, 2(1):65–82.
Simpson, M.C., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M. and Gladin, E. (2008) Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices.
UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO: Paris, France.
Smit, B. & Pilifisova, O. (2003).From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability
reduction, in: S. Huq, J. Smith & R. T. J. Klein (Eds) Enhancing the Capacity of
Developing Countries to Adapt to Climate Change (London, Imperial College
Press).
Solomon A., Manuela, C and Leslie L (2015). Adaptation to Climate Risk and Food Security:
Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia.
Slegers, M.F.W. and Stroosnijder, L. (2008). Beyond the Desertification Narrative: A
Framework for Agricultural Drought in Semi-arid East Africa’, Ambio, 37(5): 372-
380.
Stige, L.C., Stave, J., Chan, K., Ciannelli, L., Pattorelli, N., Glantz, M., Herren, H. and
Stenseth, N. (2006). The Effect of Climate Variation on Agro-Pastoral Production in
Africa.PNAS, 103: 3049-3053.

36
Tucker, C. M., H. Eakin, and E. J. Castellanos. (2010). Perceptions of risk and adaptation:
coffee producers, market shocks, and extreme weather in Central America and
Mexico. Global Environmental Change 20(1):23-32. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2009.07.006 [accessed 01septemeber 2015]
Tubiana, L.; Gemenne, F. and Magnan, A (2010). Anticipate to adapt. The new issue of
climate change. In French. Pearson Education, Paris.
UNFCCC (2011) Glossary of climate change acronyms. Bonn: UNFCCC avail babe at:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php#M (accessed 24
August 2015)
UNFCC (2011).United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Fact sheet:
Climate Change science – the status of Climate Change science today.
UNFCCC (1994). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bonn:
UNFCCC available at:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php (accessed 15 July2015)
U.S. Energy Information Administration: International Energy Outlook (2009). Report No.
DOE/EIA-0484, Energy Information Administration, Washington.
Villers-Ruiz, L. & Trejo-Vázquez, I. (1997). Assessment of the vulnerability of forest
ecosystems to climate Change in Mexico. Climate Research, 9:87–93, December.
Vlassopoulos, C.A.(2012). Competing definition of Climate Change and the post-Kyoto
negotiations. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management
4(1), 104 118, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17568691211200245.
Waitt, G., P. Caputi, C. Gibson, C. Farbotko, L. Head, N. Gill, and E. Stanes. (2012).
Sustainable household capability: Which households are doing the work of
environmental sustainability? Australian Geographer 43(1):51-74.avaialabe at:
http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00049182.2012.649519[ accessed 01 September 2015]
WMO (2015).Statement on the status of the global environment, Geneva, Switzerland.
WMO-No. 1152.
World Bank (2011). Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change:
Ethiopian Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile, 1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433.
World Bank (2010). Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

World Bank (2006) Ethiopia: Managing water resources to maximize sustainable growth,
World Bank, Washington DC. USA
World Bank (2006). Adaptation of water infrastructure investments to changing demands and

37
 Climate variability: A systems approach. First National Expert and Stake-holder
Workshop on Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, Virginia.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2006.) Climate Change Impacts on East Africa, A
Review of the Scientific Literature, Gland, Switzerland of conceptual thinking.
Climatic Change 75(3): 301–329.
Xiao, X., (2002). Transient climate change and potential croplands of the world in the 21st
century. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Global Change, Report No. 18. Cambridge.
Yohe G and Tol RSL (2002). Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving
toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global and Environmental
Change 12: 25-40.

38