An alternative or
complementary approach to
quantitative indicator studies elicits the involvement of stakeholders
in agreeing upon the main issues and responses of importance for
assessing vulnerability to climate change (Malone and Engle, 2011). It
has been suggested that such stakeholder involvement is critical in a
new model of knowledge production for vulnerability assessments that
goes beyond the traditional one-way flow of information from science
into policy (Vogel et al, 2007).
Stakeholder
involvement can
take many forms, often dependent on the scale of analysis and purpose
of the impact assessment. At community level if high resolution
vulnerability and impact assessments are required, stakeholder
participation not only enables local insights to be taken into account,
but also encourages ownership of the process. Expert judgment methods
can also be appropriate in regions where the availability of
quantitative data may be poor (Downing and Patwardhan, 2005). Here,
experts can communicate what communities are vulnerable to, who is
vulnerable, how future vulnerability may be characterised, and at what
scales. They can also offer sectoral expertise, for example relating to
health, biodiversity, and food production, depending on their
backgrounds. Stakeholders can also provide invaluable information about
non-climate stimuli that are important in mediating the potential
impacts of climate change. As it often forms a cost effective means of
eliciting inputs in locations where other appropriate data may not be
available, such participatory methods also suggested to fill data gaps
in developing world contexts (Kates et al, 2000).
Box 3-8: Overview of Knowledge
Elicitation
Theoretical assumption
The stakeholders that
will experience climate change
(depending on the
scale of analysis) have valid knowledge and experience which can be used
to add value to vulnerability assessments.
Question addressed
How can the context-appropriate knowledge of communities, and technical
expertise of experts, contribute to the robustness of the vulnerability
assessment?
Data requirements
Data on potential vulnerability drivers as appropriate to context.
Typical
result
A more robust and comprehensive vulnerability assessment.
Generic steps
1. Identification of salient domains
2. Selection of drivers and strategies by stakeholders
3. Knowledge representation |
