"Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity": Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface

The issue of "measuring" climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity by means of indicators divides policy and academic communities. While policy increasingly demands such indicators an increasing body of literature criticises them. This misfit results from a twofold confusion. First, there is confusion about what vulnerability indicators are and which arguments are available for building them. Second, there is confusion about the kinds of policy problems to be solved by means of indicators. This paper addresses both sources of confusion. It first develops a rigorous conceptual framework for vulnerability indicators and applies it to review the scientific arguments available for building climate change vulnerability indicators. Then, it opposes this availability with the following six diverse types of problems that vulnerability indicators are meant to address according to the literature: (i) identification of mitigation targets; (ii) identification of vulnerable people, communities, regions, etc.; (iii) raising awareness; (iv) allocation of adaptation funds; (v) monitoring of adaptation policy; and (vi) conducting scientific research. It is found that vulnerability indicators are only appropriate for addressing the second type of problem but only at local scales, when systems can be narrowly defined and inductive arguments can be built. For the other five types of problems, either vulnerability is not the adequate concept or vulnerability indicators are not the adequate methodology. I conclude that both the policy and academic communities should collaboratively attempt to use a more specific terminology for speaking about the problems addressed and the methodologies applied. The one-size-fits-all vulnerability label is not sufficient. Speaking of "measuring" vulnerability is particularly misleading, as this is impossible and raises false expectations. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.