Community Resilience to Climate Change: Theory, Research and Practice

241 mortality, including discomfort, distress, morbidity, violence, and social unrest, have received much less attention in the literature, but may also be concentrated in deprived inner-city areas (Benzie et al. 2011). Studies have found links between ethnicity and vulnerability to heat (e.g., Basu and Samet 2002, Morello-Frosch et al. 2009), depending on nonphysiological factors such as employment (Mirabelli and Richardson 2005), education, and levels of air conditioning (O’Neill et al. 2005). Many studies find a link between age and vulnerability to high temperatures (e.g., Fouillet et al. 2006), but it is also important to note the role of risk perception among all groups (Grothman and Patt 2005). Various studies show that people who do not perceive themselves to be at risk are less likely to take measures to prevent the effects of heat stress, even when they are in fact at high risk (Abrahamson et al. 2009, Wolf et al. 2010). One study looked at the links between employment and climate change vulnerability, uncovering an additional social layer of vulnerability whereby people’s occupation exposes them to a greater level of climate risk, for example lower- paid, unskilled jobs, e.g., outdoor manual laborers, train drivers, or factory workers, are higher risk than higher paid, high-skill jobs, e.g., those in air-conditioned offices (TUC 2009). One key finding of this literature is that vulnerability to climate events is highly dependent on local context, and that a better account of individuals’ and groups’ adaptive capacity is needed to understand the social nature of vulnerability in each case (e.g., Brown and Walker 2008). A socio-spatial index of vulnerability Lindley et al. (2011) identify the determinants of vulnerability to heat waves and floods and use these to develop a spatially explicit index of vulnerability that accounts for the social nature of sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity. The results constitute the first quantitative representation of the potential for future losses in well-being that take explicit account of the social nature of vulnerability. In total 8% of English neighborhoods are estimated to have extremely high flood-related social vulnerability, with a strong concentration of vulnerability in deprived urban and coastal areas (38% of the areas are within 2 km of the coast). These areas are represented as having low capacities to prepare, respond, and recover from flood events, according to the index. The specific variables that influence the distribution of social flood vulnerability include: lack of gardens and green space, which help to regulate run-off flows; a proxy measure of insurance availability, based on current flood probabilities; low income; poor knowledge; and low mobility. Lindley et al. (2011) also produced a similar index for social vulnerability to heat. A similar proportion of neighborhoods are estimated to have extremely high social vulnerability to heat as to flooding: 9% in this case. Again, there is a strong urban dimension to the results, particularly in London, which has three times the mean level of heat vulnerability compared with other regions and 40% of all of the extremely vulnerable neighborhoods in England. Interesting detail emerges in the disaggregated results, which show, for example, a low capacity to respond to high temperature events in remote rural areas that are isolated frommedical services, even though exposure is not particularly high in rural areas. There is also a strong coastal component, which is influenced by the adaptive capacity indicators rather than the signal of increased exposure from higher temperatures, underlying the dominantly social nature of vulnerability to climate change. Taken together, the two aggregate indices of social vulnerability show the significant overlap between vulnerable neighborhoods to multiple climate impacts; fully 64% of the extremely socially vulnerable neighborhoods to flooding are also classified as extremely vulnerable to heat. This has significant implications for the design of adaptation strategies: If the same social groups tend to be vulnerable to multiple climate impacts, then a key element of adaptation strategy should be to protect and build resilience among, and to consult with, these most vulnerable groups. Does adaptation protect the most vulnerable? Adaptation implementation is in its early phases in the UK. Despite a growing body of research and an improved level of awareness among decision makers of the need to adapt, specific adaptation actions are few and difficult to identify (ASC 2011). Nevertheless, the JRF program has undertaken some case studies to assess emerging lessons on whether adaptation offers protection to the most vulnerable. Planned vs. autonomous adaptation Adaptation can either be planned, usually by a national or local government, or autonomous, i.e., undertaken by private actors in response to their own calculation of costs and benefits (Smit and Pilifosova 2001). Planned adaptation should be carefully considered; the scope for considering social justice issues should be high. Autonomous adaptation may occur within narrower contexts, and the potential for maladaptation may be higher. Maladaptation is generally understood as those actions taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impact adversely on, or even increase the vulnerability of, other systems, sectors, or social groups (Barnett and O’Neill 2010). Improving water efficiency in response to drought risk The southwest of England is projected to become much drier as a result of climate change, particularly in the summer, with the upper end of climate projections (at the 10% probability level) for summer precipitation showing reductions of up to 50-70% under a high