Vulnerability to climate change: Difficulties in using indicators in two basins of Argentina and Colombia ; Vulnerabilidad al cambio climático: Dificultades en el uso de indicadores en dos cuencas de Colombia y Argentina
This article meets methodological and theoretical difficulties in using social indicators to assess vulnerability to climate change and contributes to enhance methodological strategies for addressing this phenomenon. Most of the studies of vulnerability to climate change define vulnerability as an expression of three dimensions: the exposures of the systems to climatic events, the sensitivity to these risk conditions and the adaptive capacity to cope with the impacts. These three dimensions enable the operationalization of the concept trough biophysical and social indicators whose main purpose is to quantify the phenomenon and establish causal relationships between events and resources. From a different wiew of this conceptualization, another way of understanding vulnerability is to understand it as a dynamic process strongly shaped by social, cultural, economic, political and institutional conditions. From this approach, climate change is suposed to impact on previous and long-term vulnerabilities mainly defined by access to resources. Vulnerability is then defined as a complex process which does not support quantifications or generalizations between causes and effects as those proposed in indicators systems. Based upon a research experience in Mendoza, Argentina, and Chinchiná, in Colombia this article demonstrates the limitations of the use of indicators of social vulnerability to applied social research. Through the analysis of public statistical data in Argentina and Colombia and in-depth interviews in the study areas, the authors reconstruct the difficulties faced in the building process of these indicators to demonstrate the weaknesses of each indicator to account the complexity of vulnerability. Income, land tenure, access to water, technology, infrastructure, technical assistance, education and associativism indicators particularly discussed. At the end, the authors presents an alternative proposal to adress the complexities of vulnerability. ; Este artículo evidencia las dificultades metodológicas y teóricas en el uso de indicadores sociales para evaluar la vulnerabilidad al cambio climático y de esta forma contribuye a refinar las estrategias metodológicas para el abordaje de este fenómeno. La mayoría de los estudios de vulnerabilidad al cambio climático la definen como una expresión de tres dimensiones: la exposición de los sistemas a los fenómenos climáticos, la sensibilidad a esas condiciones riesgosas, y su capacidad para afrontar los impactos que los afectan. Estas tres dimensiones facilitan la operacionalización del concepto a partir de indicadores biofísicos y sociales cuya principal finalidad es cuantificar el fenómeno y establecer relaciones de causalidad entre eventos y recursos. Frente a esta conceptualización, otra manera de entender el fenónemo es definirla como un proceso dinámico determinado procesos sociales, económicos, políticos, culturales e institucionales. Desde este enfoque el cambio climático impacta sobre una serie de vulnerabilidades previas y de largo plazo definidas principalmente por el acceso a los recursos. La vulnerabilidad se define entonces, como un proceso cuya complejidad no admite cuantificaciones ni generalizaciones entre causas y efectos como las que proponen los sistemas de indicadores. A partir de una experiencia de investigación concreta en las cuencas de los ríos Mendoza, en Argentina, y Chinchiná, en Colombia este artículo demuestra las limitaciones que el uso de indicadores de vulnerabilidad social conllevan para la investigación social aplicada. Con base en el análisis de datos estadísticos de uso público disponible en Argentina y en Colombia y de entrevistas en profundidad en las areas de estudio, los autores reconstruyen las dificultades enfrentadas al momento de construir dichos indicadores para demostrar las debilidades de cada indicador para dar cuenta del complejo fenómeno de la vulnerabilidad. Se analizan en particular los indicadores de nivel de ingresos, tenencia de la tierra, acceso al agua, infraestructura tecnológica, asistencia técnica, asociativismo y nivel educativo. Para finalizar, se presenta una propuesta alternativa para dar cuenta de las complejidades propias del fenómeno de la vulnerabilidad. This article meets methodological and theoretical difficulties in using social indicators to assess vulnerability to climate change and contributes to enhance methodological strategies for addressing this phenomenon. Most of the studies of vulnerability to climate change define vulnerability as an expression of three dimensions: the exposures of the systems to climatic events, the sensitivity to these risk conditions and the adaptive capacity to cope with the impacts. These three dimensions enable the operationalization of the concept trough biophysical and social indicators whose main purpose is to quantify the phenomenon and establish causal relationships between events and resources. From a different wiew of this conceptualization, another way of understanding vulnerability is to understand it as a dynamic process strongly shaped by social, cultural, economic, political and institutional conditions. From this approach, climate change is suposed to impact on previous and long-term vulnerabilities mainly defined by access to resources. Vulnerability is then defined as a complex process which does not support quantifications or generalizations between causes and effects as those proposed in indicators systems. Based upon a research experience in Mendoza, Argentina, and Chinchiná, in Colombia this article demonstrates the limitations of the use of indicators of social vulnerability to applied social research. Through the analysis of public statistical data in Argentina and Colombia and in-depth interviews in the study areas, the authors reconstruct the difficulties faced in the building process of these indicators to demonstrate the weaknesses of each indicator to account the complexity of vulnerability. Income, land tenure, access to water, technology, infrastructure, technical assistance, education and associativism indicators particularly discussed. At the end, the authors presents an alternative proposal to adress the complexities of vulnerability.