Different R&V Causality Pathways Based on the R&V-R Nomenclature

According to the outlined societal dimension of R&V-R (III.2) and the provisions made by the different existing vulnerability frameworks (Cf. II.3), R&V research has to focus on understanding the societal dynamics responsible for a society lacking the sustainable accomplishment of R&V-R through anticipation, prevention, and preparedness. This notion is further elaborated in the following:

 R&V as the outcome of lack of anticipation capacity: Anticipating R&V is a precondition for implementing prevention and preparedness measures. The lack of institutional and technical capacities to anticipate leads to a situation in which human systems will be surprised by hazardous events leaving them defenceless and vulnerable. The increasing emergence of R&Vs shows that the baseline for the safe anticipation and prediction of R&Vs has been lost. Uncertainty, ambiguity, and incalculability are new experiences und challenges of an ecological R&V society and pose a threat to capacity (Bohle 2008).

 R&V as the outcome of lack of prevention capacity: Preventing damage can be accomplished by the means of hazard control or mitigation, exposure prevention, accommodation of hazards, and retreat. But the increasing emergence of R&Vs shows that societies are increasingly exposed, cannot sufficiently mitigate the occurrence and accommodate a range of types of hazards, or even retreat from dangerous places as they lack the capacities to adequately accomplish these goals rooted in option specific causality paths.

 R&V as the outcome of lack of preparedness capacity: Mitigating damage can be accomplished by the means of crisis management including warning and response systems, rescue, relief, and recovery. But the increasing emergence of R&Vs shows that societies are less capable to accomplish adequate crisis management, a failure leading to mortality, livelihood deprivation, and displacement.

The types of R&V causalities presented represent the conceptualization of the “R&V-causality-analysis-frame” of the FARVAR. This framework guides R&V research with respect to how to structure and approach the analysis of a multitude of mutually influencing capacity obstructing factors, processes and dynamics within human systems, and between different social units.

These obstructing elements result in incapacities to anticipate, prevent, and get prepared, leading to varying unsafe conditions and differential risks of loss and damage such as mortality, livelihood deprivation, and displacement (Cf. IV.4.2). Hence, the framework acknowledges that by focussing on frame-specific R&V causalities, a better targeting of frame-specific solutions for R&V-R is possible. Depending on how R&V-R has been framed, research on R&V causalities also needs to take into account the influence of societal development and transformations - whether purposeful, planned, autonomous, or spontaneous - on the capacities of societies to effectively anticipate, prevent, and prepare for prevailing or emergent R&Vs. The following examples are provided, showing how to work out frame-specific R&V causality pathways (Cf.

Table 4).

Table 4 R&V causality pathways based on the provisions of the FARVAR

Lack of capacity to timely forecast upcoming threats to society

 Lack of knowledge of future hazards and potential impacts due to lack of integrated governance and inter-sectorial coordination and lack of research that altogether facilitate scenario thinking.

Lack of capacity to reflect on upcoming R&Vs

 Lack of local knowledge and awareness with regard to changing patterns of livelihoods due to e.g. high mobility, lack of reflective education, lack of communication, and due to requirements to meet daily livelihood needs.

Lack of capacity to mitigate or control hazard occurrence and magnitude

 Lack of hazard proof land use planning and construction of hazard specific protective infrastructures, or of sustainable natural protective structures.

 Lack of hazard mitigating infrastructures and their maintenance that contribute to limit hazard magnitude and distribution (e.g. drainage systems).

Lack of capacity to mitigate or control hazard occurrence and magnitude

 Hazard control as it materializes is rather a public

responsibility; whereas activities related to prevent hazards from occurring are also a responsibility of individuals (compare below).

Lack of capacity to enhance / maintain the environment

 Lack of mechanisms for environmental protection (development at the expense of environmental services) leading to increasing environmental stress / environmental degradation / depletion (e.g. deforestation, diversity, tolerance limits, endemic species).

 Lack of CO2 neutral economy (lack of technology, financial capacity, political economy) and land use leading to the prevalence of the system and a continuous increase of CO2 concentration and higher probability of weather extremes (rising air, soil, and water temperatures).

Lack of capacity to enhance / maintain the environment

 Lack of mechanisms to change patterns of livelihoods in favour of the sustainable utilization of environmental services (no livelihood alternative, no incentives, no assets available for transformation), leading to increasing environmental stress / environmental degradation / depletion (e.g. deforestation, diversity, tolerance limits, endemic species).

 Lack of CO2 neutral consumption habits (lack of livelihood maintaining alternatives) leading to the prevalence of the system causing a continuous increase of CO2 concentration, resulting in a higher probability of weather extremes (rising air,

Governance structures Population

Lack of capacity to protect public and private assets, entities of relevance

 Lack of sector-specific knowledge and protective capacity (e.g. building codes, protection of crops from heat waves, floods).

 Lack of law enforcement of existing regulations to protect relevant assets.

Lack of capacity to govern transformational change of susceptible elements of human activity to increase their resistance

 Lack of disaster resistant sector-specific infrastructures and land use (lack of “hazard proofing” in different sectors, e.g. construction / building codes, agriculture /drought resistant crops).

Lack of capacity to protect privately owned assets and property

 Lack of the individuals’ awareness of the need for protection.

 Lack of access to financial resources to invest in protection infrastructures (e.g. mobile protection of owned property against floods, cyclones, drought).

Lack of capacity of individuals and groups to initiate and engage and participate in transformational change

 Lack of opportunity to change patterns of livelihoods and property owned physical structures to increase the level of resistance to hazards once they materialize (change cropping systems, planting periods, drought resistant crops).

Lack of exposure prevention

Hazardous areas are populated and human activity will prevail.

Lack of capacity to prevent settlement in exposed areas

 Lack of instruments and implementation of sector-specific “hazard proofing” (where to allow settlement /economic activity) – (no interest, corruption in land registration etc.), leading to human activities in threatened areas.

 Lack of population control and growth management (socio-economic development deficits, social security provisions, culture), leading to accelerated population growth and urbanization.

 Lack of provision of livelihood security to the population ensuring living in healthy and safe environments (in contrast to marginality), leading to an increase of socially weak parts of the population living in exposed areas.

Lack of capacity to settle in safe areas

 Lack of hazard knowledge or adequate cost-benefit judgments of exposed living (perceived dominance of opportunities over R&Vs), leading to investments into livelihood assets in exposed areas.

 Lack of choice not to live or not to settle in exposed areas (marginality, poverty, informal sector employment, dependency on “risky livelihoods”), leading to socially stratified (e.g. gender, age, profession, income) exposure to hazards.

Lack of retreat Lack of capacity to manage resettlement Lack of capacity to manage resettlement

Governance structures Population

 Lack of financial resources to make provisions for communities to resettle, leading to low participation rates in resettlement programmes.

 Lack of strategic and management skills to accomplish resettlement (low level of institutional performance), leading to displacement and

livelihood deprivation in the course of resettlement.

resettlement.

 Lack of willingness to resettle (attachment to place of origin, culture, and dependency on local livelihood and environmental services), leading to low participation rates / resistance to resettle, and conflicts.

 Lack of hazard detection infrastructure (lack of technology, and access thereto), leading to unexpected and unprepared for surprise hazards causing damage / mortality in their course.

 Lack of warning dissemination mechanisms (lack of vertically

institutionalized coordinated mechanisms between different authorities), leading to damage / mortality in the course of a hazardous event.

 Lack of hazard-specific response mechanisms (evacuation systems, shelters, stocking facilities), leading to damage / mortality in the course of a hazardous event.

Lack of adequate reaction to the occurrence of hazards

 Lack of accessing warnings (no communication, no infrastructure available at the place where people live and work).

 Lack of knowledge, guidance, and mechanisms for action giving instructions on what to do in case of emergence of a hazardous event.

 Lack of ability to save lives due to unfavourable hazard characteristics, spatial settings of the places, and physical conditions of individuals (age, gender, health).

 Lack of R&V transfer / insurance mechanisms for compensation and schemes to finance recovery.

Lack of capacity to survive and attain livelihood security

 Lack of physical strength and self-rescue contingencies to survive the physical impact during an extreme event (age, gender, health).

 Lack of physical strength to survive injury after an event without access to basic needs, such as food, shelter, medical treatment (age, gender, health).

 Lack of human and financial resources to manage recovery (poverty, damage, no insurance, land tenure insecurity).