MODELING VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE TO CLIMATECHANGE: A CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATESANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT and ELIZABETH L. MALONEJoint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, 8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201,College Park, MD 20740, U.S.A.E-mail: e.malone@pnl.govAbstract. ThevulnerabilityofIndiaandIndianstatestoclimatechangewasassessedusingtheVulnerability-Resilience Indicator Prototype (VRIP). The model was adapted fromthe global/countryversion to account for Indian dietary practices and data availability with regard to freshwater resources.Results (scaled to world values) show nine Indian states to be moderately resilient to climate change,principally because of low sulfur emissions and a relatively large percentage of unmanaged land. Sixstates are more vulnerable than India as a whole, attributable largely to sensitivity to sea storm surges.Analyses of results at the state level (Orissa, and comparisons between Maharashtra and Kerala, andAndhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh) demonstrate the value of VRIP analyses used in conjunctionwith other socio-economic information to address initial questions about the sources of vulnerabilityinparticularplaces. Themodelingframeworkallowsanalystsandstakeholderstosystematicallyevaluate individual and sets of indicators and to indicate where the likely vulnerabilities are in thearea being assessed.1. IntroductionIndia is one of the most important countries in the world with regard to climatechange sources and impacts. With a large and growing population, Indias emis-sions of greenhouse gases are increasing. At the same time, potential climate im-pactsinIndiaaresevere; theyincludesealevel rise, changesinthemonsoon,increased severe storms and ooding, and more drought. Recently, climate vari-abilityintheformofoodsandcycloneshasresultedindestructionofcrops,property and infrastructure, as well as in negative impacts on human health andwell-being.Alloftheseimpactssetbackgeneralsocio-economicdevelopment.Andcontinuingdependenceuponagriculturefor foodandlivelihood(25%ofGDP and 60% of the labor force, 2002 and 1999 estimates) (CIA, 2003) makesthe Indian people particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change. Moststudiesproject decreasedyieldsinnon-irrigatedwheat andinrice, andalossinfarm-levelnetrevenuebetween9and25%foratemperatureincreaseof23.5C(Tata, 2002). Thecostsof a1-msealevel risecouldincludeupto7millionpeopledisplaced, and5764sqkmoflandand4200milesofroadlost(Tata, 2002).Since the Indian economy is intrinsically linked with the annual monsoon cy-clethroughitsdependenceonagriculture, abetterunderstandingofthefutureClimatic Change (2005) 72: 57102DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-5930-3 c Springer 200558 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONEbehavior of the monsoon and its variability is warranted for disaster mitigation andfor developing adaptation strategies to cope with climate variability and climatechange (Lal, 2001). Rainfall in India is highly variable both in time and space, andshows signicant interannual variation. Linear trends of monsoon rainfall during18711998 at each of over 300 observing stations spread over India show variousstatistically signicant trends in some broad contiguous areas.Thetwomonsoonseasons(thesouthwest monsoonduringJuneSeptemberand the northeast monsoon during NovemberDecember) bring forth rainsmanytimes in intensities and amounts sufcient to cause serious oods, creating haz-ardous (andoftendisastrous) situations. Cyclonicstorms inthepre-monsoonmonths(AprilMay) andthepost-monsoonmonths(OctoberNovember) maycause large-scale inundation and destruction. The eastern coast of India along Ben-gal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh is especially prone to such tropical cyclones.An analysis of seasonal and annual surface air temperatures for India, using datafor 18812001 for 25 or more stations, shows a signicant annual mean warming of0.68Cper hundred years. The warming is mainly contributed by the post-monsoonand winter seasons. The monsoon temperatures do not show a signicant trend inmost parts of the country except for a signicant negative trend over NorthwestIndia. Maximum daytime temperatures show more of a trend than minimum night-time temperatures (Lal, 2001), in contrast to general expectation. Almost 67% ofthe glaciers in the Himalayan mountain ranges have retreated in the past decade(Lal, 2001).Intense deforestation activities have taken place along the foothills of Himalayasand in the Assam region, and land use patterns have undergone denite changesover parts of Rajasthan and Punjab (Northwest India). Surface cooling with sig-nicant increaseinrainfall hasbeenobservedintheperipheral regionsoftheRajasthan desert; increased area under irrigation may be one of the main causalfactors (Lal, 2001).Observed trends in the mean sea level along the Indian coast indicate a risingtrend of about 1 cm per decade, which is close to that recorded in other parts ofthe globe. Today, coastal regions in India and Bangladesh are subjected to strongerwind and ood damage than in the past because of storm surges associated withmore intense tropical storms (Lal, 2001).The diversity and extremes of Indias climate and geography are characteristicof its society as well. Religious and cultural diversity is a major feature of Indianlife.ThestrongHindutraditionshavebeensynthesizedwithandchallengedbyotherreligions,notablyIslam,Christianity,andSikhism.Thereareatleast300known languages in India, 24 of which have at least one million speakers each.There are differences, sometimes amounting to estrangement, between the North,withitshistoryofgrand-scaleinvasions, andtherelativelystableSouth. Reli-gious divisions became geographical divides when Muslim Pakistan (1947), thenBangladesh (1971), were created, but ethnic strife among groups persists. However,the extended family is a core feature of Indian life. Together with a sense of civilCASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 59Figure 1. Map of income estimates by state (http://www.mapsondia.com/maps/india).societys claims on individuals and families, the extended family knits the societytogether and emphasizes interdependence (Gannon et al., 1994).Since 1990, India as a country has moved aggressively froma centrallyplannedeconomytoprivateownershipof businesses andtradeliberalization.It hasdevelopedadiversiedindustrial baseandsophisticatednancial sec-tor.Itssoftwaresubsectoroneofthemostdynamicintheworldhasexperi-encedasustainedandrapidgrowth(WorldBank, 2002). Indiahasmadesub-stantialstridesinreducinginfantmortality, increasinglifeexpectancy, andim-proving literacy. Yet poverty (see Figure 1) and malnutrition (World Bank, 2002)continuetoplagueIndia, aswell asseriousenvironmental issues. Inaddition,the ongoing dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir and ethnic strife claim nationalattention.Indiasbroadspectrumofhighlyarticulatednationalpoliciesincludesgoalsintheareasofeconomicdevelopment,humandevelopment,andenvironmentalprotection. India has put in place its tenth Five-Year Plan, and each state prepares anannual plan that is commented on by the National Planning Commission. National60 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONEgoals are, of course, differentially implemented in each of Indias 28 states, whichexhibit widely varying degrees of social and economic development.At thenational level, Indias climatechangepolicies aresubsumedinitseconomic-industrial and human development policies, which come rst. Local poli-cies have had some success in limiting a signicant urban air pollution problem.Substantial improvementsinlocal airqualityinDelhi, forexample, havebeencaused by recent government programs to improve the quality of petrol and dieselfuels,introductionofemissionsstandardsforvehicles,andconversionofbusesand three wheelers to compressed natural gas fuel.1Generally speaking, climatechange policy has been reactive rather than proactive and focused largely on theenergysector. InIndia, coal accountsfor55%ofprimary, commercial energy,andenergydemandisgrowingquickly;burningcoalisalsoamajorsourceofgreenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. For the rst time, in the eighth 5-YearPlan (19921997), funds were provided for energy efciency measures. Accord-ing to reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)andthePewCenter(ParikhandParikh, 2002, p. 25; Chandleret al.,2002); India, through normal policy developments, is making signicant progressinlimitinggreenhouseemissionsthroughenergyefciencyimprovementsandenvironmentallyfriendlyenergydevelopment. Moreaggressivemeasures, Indiafeels, should be nanced by developed nations as they lead by reducing their ownemissions.In the area of disaster mitigation, much has been done to document conditionsleading to vulnerability. For example, there are a Flood Atlas of India and a Disasterand Vulnerability Atlas of India;2the latter assesses the vulnerability of housingand infrastructure to earthquakes, cyclones and oods to improve zoning and con-struction.Internationally, India has played a key role in climate negotiations at severalpoints. India broke the impasse at the rst Conference of the Parties by leading thedevelopment of a common statement that became the basis for the Berlin Mandate.More recently, India hosted the eighth Conference of the Parties to the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change in 2002. India, bolstered by nongovernmental or-ganizations such as the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) and the Centre forScience and Environment (CSE), focuses on per capita emissions (low in India andhigh in most developed countries) and on cumulative emissions (also low in devel-oping countries and high in developed countries), as the indicators that developedcountries should undertake mitigation rst. Government ofcials press developednations to establish and conformto emissions reduction goals and to engage in tech-nology transfer to developing countries. Researchers at CSE authored the widelycited report, Global Warming in an Unequal World (Agarwal and Narain, 1991).CSErebuttedthesecondWorldResourcesReport(AgarwalandNarain,1992),making the distinction between subsistence emissions of the poor (mostly in de-veloping countries) and the luxury emissions of the rich (mostly in developedcountries). CSE has also characterized green policies dictated by the North (e.g.CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 61debt-for-nature swaps) as unwarranted interference in other nations, as exacerbatinginequality among nations, and as likely to foster unsustainable management. Indiahas criticized the control of Global Environmental Fund by developed countries,and has not submitted its national communication under the Framework Conventionon Climate Change.In this context, assessing the vulnerability to climate change in India is an impor-tant component of formulating adaptation strategies both nationally and internation-ally. A vulnerability assessment can point to areas and sectors where vulnerabilityis high and thus adaptation strategies should be developed. A structured approachto vulnerability assessment should provide comparability among regions, so thatcommon and integrated adaptation policies can be identied.2. Assessing VulnerabilityVulnerability to climate change, as a research concept, is both overdetermined andunderspecied. The literature is replete with alternative denitions of vulnerability(Downing et al., 2003; McCarthy et al., 2001; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Comfort etal., 1999; Vogel, 1997; Cutter, 1996; Ribot, 1996; Bohle et al., 1994; Cannon, 1994;Watts and Bohle, 1993; Dow, 1992; Downing, 1991, 1992; Chambers, 1989).Cutter (1996) identies three distinct clusters of denitions for vulnerability:as risk of exposure to hazards, as a capability for social response (what we callcopingoradaptivecapacity),andasanattributeofplaces(e.g.vulnerabilityofcoastlines to sea level rise). Cutter (1996, p. 532) proposes a hazards of placemodel that bridges various denitions and states: Vulnerability is the likelihoodthat an individual or group will be exposed to and adversely affected by a hazard. Itis the interaction of the hazards of place (risk and mitigation) with the social proleof communities. She ultimately argues (1996, p. 536) that it is place that formsthe fundamental unit of analysis for vulnerability.The multiple meanings of vulnerability are attributable, at least in part, to itsrelativenewnessasanareawithinclimatechangeresearch. Researchonvul-nerabilitytoclimatechangeextendsimpactsresearch.Impactsaretypicallyas-sessedonnatural systemsandmanagedresourcesystems, suchasagriculture.Vulnerability-resilience assessment focuses on societal systems and individual hu-mans. This difference in emphasis parallels the difference between research intoclimate change, which has typically focused on physico-chemical systems, and sus-tainability research, which has emphasized social systems (see Cohen et al., 1998;Robinson and Herbert, 2000).Studies have often conated impacts and vulnerability, assuming that changesin the environment are self-evident problems for human systems and for humansthemselves. For example, changes in the timing or amount of precipitation may beassumed to cause damage to agriculture and, thus, to food security and the liveli-hood of farmers. In part, such a conation reects assumptions that a static world is62 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONEbetter than a changing world and that any change will carry costs. Another commonassumption is that negative impacts of climate change will be so great that projec-tions of these impacts would drive mitigation policies. Although many instances oflarge-scale, high-cost environmental change can be cited, the general assumptionscould be countered by examples of favorable changes. Both the physical and thesocial worlds changeand have changedfor the better.In vulnerability research, analysts are committed to some level of relatednessbetween information about the environment and information about society. Thereare several possibilities:Vulnerability assessment may be virtually indistinguishable from impacts as-sessment (e.g. Smith et al., 2001).Vulnerability assessmentwas initiallyan extensionof (climate) impactas-sessment; second-generation vulnerability assessment includes evaluation ofimpacts on goods and services (F ussel and Klein, 2003).Vulnerability assessment may be virtually indistinguishable from sustainabil-ity assessment.Case studies may be the method for integrating mostly data descriptions ofspecic places and their geographical characteristics, considered together withhuman systems such as agriculture (e.g. Ribot et al., 1996).Indicators and indexes may be used to integrate quantitative information aboutboth the environment and the society (e.g. Downing, 1991; Moss et al., 2001).This study is an example of moving from descriptive impacts of climate andclimate change to quantitative indicator sets that allow comparisons of regional,country, stateorprovinces, orsmallerlocalitiesintermsoftheirvulnerabilityand resilience to current and changing climate. It employs a set of indicators ofboth environmental and human factors, aggregated into sectors, which are furtherclassiedintosensitivityorcoping/adaptivecapacity. Themethodisexplainedmore fully in the following section.3. Methodology for Vulnerability AssessmentVulnerability-resilienceanalysis(whichisassociatedwithadaptationtoclimatechange) does not merely extend impacts research but also changes the focus fromrelativelymorephysical andquantiableimpactstomeaningful consequencesforhumansocieties. Researchonvulnerabilityispart oftheshift fromphysi-cal/economic representations of climate changes, emissions-producing activities,andeffectsof cropyieldsandwater availabilityto(usuallymorequalitative)representations of human attributes and institutions such as land tenure systems,modes of production, and governance. The tools of impacts research were predom-inantly models; the tools for vulnerability research have been predominantly casestudies.CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 63Both qualitative and quantitative studies contribute to the analysis ofvulnerability. A major focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) is on analyzing candidate methods to summarize and compare socioeco-nomic and environmental conditions that contribute to vulnerability. However, nogenerallyagreed-uponmethodologyorframeworkhasappeared. Criteriaforaframework include the following:capturing the important aspects of vulnerability (the subject of many debateswithin the research community);allowing for comparison among countries, regions, and smaller geopoliticalareas;using quantied indicators where possible to facilitate comparisons and inte-grated analysis;utilizing a transparent methodology so that users of the framework understandthe results and are able to analyze them with qualitative information.One area of research concerns the development of indices of vulnerability, basedon sets of indicators of vulnerabilitys various aspects. Summary numbers must beused with caution, of course, since it is difcult to boil down complex cultural-social-economic-resource-political structuresintoonenumber or evenaset ofnumbers. TheIPCCThirdAssessmentReportreviewstheeffortsmadetoper-form vulnerability assessments using indicators (Ahmad et al., 2001). This paperis an addition to that research.Previously, we developed a Vulnerability-Resilience Indicator Prototype (VRIP)model to compare national vulnerability-resilience indices against a global index(Mosset al., 2001). Acountrysorregionsvulnerabilitytoclimatechangeisassumed to be a function of three factors (see Figure 2):Exposurethe nature and extent of changes that a places climate is subjectedto with regard to variables such as temperature, precipitation, extreme weatherevents, sea level; exposure is location-dependent.Figure 2. Aclimate change andvariabilityimpacts framework: The Vulnerability-Resilience IndicatorPrototype (VRIP).64 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONESensitivityhowsystems couldbe negativelyaffectedbythe change inclimate,e.g., how much land could be inundated by sea level rise, how much mightcrop yields change, or how much might human health be affected.Adaptive capacityhow much capability a society has to adapt to the changesso as to maintain, minimize loss of, or maximize gain in welfare.To assess vulnerability we look at the response to climate exposure, expressedas sensitivities to climate, and societal coping and adaptive capabilities.Evaluation of a societys coping and adaptation capacity is based on societyshuman resources, economic capacity and natural capital. Sensitivity of a society toclimate variability and change is based on an evaluation of its food and water secu-rity, its settlement security, aspects of the health of people, and natural resources.Weusedsixcriteriatodesignandevaluateamethodologyforvulnerabilityassessment:Relevant aspects of potential vulnerability of both physical and social systemsshouldbe included, but emphasis shouldultimatelybe placedonsocial systemsand their expected changes over time with and without considering climatechange.Proxies ought to represent in quantitative form the qualitative concepts of therelevant potential sensitivities to change and the capacities to respond.Ahierarchical aggregation of proxies may be formulated as well as the explicitweighing of proxies, based on well-described assumptions.Quantitative vulnerability indicators should provide assessments of vulner-ability to a rst approximation. Results of such an assessment ought to beabletobeusedtoidentifyimportantplayersintheformofleadingprox-ies that may help direct further research and analysis toward sectors whereresilience-building and adaptive strategies are relative priorities.The quantitative model should be transparent in its sources, processes, andresults in order to be useful to policymakers.The methodology should be usable at multiple spatial and time scales.The VRIP model calculates indicators of sensitivity to climate change and ofcoping and adaptive capacity. It aggregates these into an overall indicator of vul-nerability in a three-level, transparent process. Indicators are grouped into sectors;forexample, thefoodsecuritysectorcomprisestwoindicators: cereal produc-tion/agricultural land and animal protein demand per capita. The sectors are classi-ed as either sensitivity (food security, water resources, settlement/infrastructure,human health, and ecosystems) or as capacity for coping and adaptation (environ-mental capacity, economic capacity, and human and civic resources). The (negative)sensitivities and the (positive) coping/adaptive capacities are aggregated to a singlevulnerability index.The primary building blocks for the model are the indicators. Indicators, whichare observable and measurable, are proxies for aspects of vulnerability and adaptiveCASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 65capacity, which are not directly measurable or observable. Each indicator shouldsimplify or summarize a number of important properties and be quantiable, prefer-ably based on existing data.The selection of individual indicators, what they represent and the behavior asasetareimportant.Moreover,theinterrelatednessofalltheindicatorsmustbeconsidered to identify potential gaps or overlaps. One possibility, for example, isthat many indicators based on per capita data would overemphasize population asa factor in vulnerability.Because of interrelatedness, the structure of the VRIP may implicitly weightindicators, as described. A separate issue is the possibility of ascribing an initialweighttoindicators.Inthisstudy,allindicatorsaregivenequalinitialweights,since there are no theoretical reasons to ascribe different weights. Other studiesmay give different initial weights to individual indicators, based on the goals ofthe study, scenario analysis, or particular circumstances of the area or sector understudy.Specic indicators used in the VRIP are given in Table I, grouped into sectorsand classied as either coping/adaptive capacity or sensitivity.We describe, below, our approach to proxy evaluation based on our previousresearch (Moss et al., 2001) and present work on Indias states. Where relevant, wedescribe where and howour comparison of Indias states led to different approaches.The national data and the data of Indias states were scaled (indexed) against theirworld counterparts. National data used were in general obtained from the WorldBank (1998) unless otherwise noted. The data sources for India can be found in theappendix.4. Coping and Adaptive Capacity IndicatorsThe socio-economic conditions that bear on coping and adaptive capacity includedemographic characteristics, economics, politics/governance, management of nat-ural resources and civil society.4.1. ECONOMIC CAPACITYWealth generally provides access to markets, technology, and other resources thatcan be used to adapt to climate variability and change. Hence we include GDP (mar-ket) per capita as one of the proxies for national economic capacity. For Indias stateswe found 19901991 state income and converted these to US dollars. However, insocieties where the distribution of wealth or income is very unequal, coping capacitywill also be unequally distributed. Thus we include unequal distribution of wealthincome within a society, indicated by the Gini coefcient as a component of our in-dicator of coping/adaptive capacity for our national comparisons3(from Deininger66 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONETABLEIData-basedindicators,groupedintosectorsandintocoping/adaptivecapacityandsensitivitySectorIndicators/dataProxyforFunctionalrelationshipCoping&adaptivecapacityEconomiccapacityGDP(market)/capitaDistributionofaccesstomarkets,technol-ogy,andotherresourcesusefulforadapta-tionCoping/adaptivecapacityasGDPpercapitaAnincomeequitymea-sureRealizationofthepotentialcontributionofallpeopleCoping/adaptivecapacityaspovertyorin-equityHumanandcivicresourcesDependencyratioSocialandeconomicresourcesavailableforadaptationaftermeetingotherpresentneedsCoping/adaptivecapacityasdependencyLiteracyHumancapitalandadaptabilityoflaborforceCoping/adaptivecapacityasliteracyEnvironmentalcapacityPopulationdensityPopulationpressureandstressesonecosys-temsCoping/adaptivecapacityaspopulationdensitySO2/stateareaAirqualityandotherstressesonecosystemsCoping/adaptivecapacityasSO2%LandunmanagedLandscapefragmentationandeaseofecosystemmigrationCoping/adaptivecapacityas%unman-agedland?SensitivitySettlement/infrastructuresensitivityPopulationatoodriskfromsealevelrisePotentialextentofdisruptionsfromsealevelriseSensitivityaspopulationatriskPopulationnoaccesscleanwater/sanitationAccessofpopulationtobasicservicestobufferagainstclimatevariabilityandchangeSensitivityaspopulationwithnoaccess(Continuedonnextpage.)CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 67TABLEI(Continued).SectorIndicators/dataProxyforFunctionalrelationshipFoodsecurityCerealsproduc-tion/croplandareaDegreeofmodernizationintheagriculturesector;accessoffarmerstoinputstobufferagainstclimatevariabilityandchangeSensitivityasproductionProteinconsump-tion/capitaAccessofapopulationtoagriculturalmar-ketsandothermechanisms(e.g.,consump-tionshift)forcompensatingforshortfallsinproductionSensitivityasconsumptionEcosystemsen-sitivity%LandmanagedDegreeofhumanintrusionintothenaturallandscapeandlandfragmentationSensitivityas%landmanagedFertilizeruse/croplandareaNitrogen/phosphorusloadingofecosystemsandstressesfrompollutionSensitivityisifuse100kg/ha;neutralwhenuse60andsector indicesgeometric mean of proxies > sectorindicesgeometric means of indices >sensitivity or coping/adaptivecapacitygeometric means of indices >sensitivityor coping/adaptive capacityaddition of negative sensitivityand positive coping/adaptivecapacity > VRIP indexgeometric mean of sensitivity andcoping/adaptive capacity indices >VRIP2 indexSensitivity index after calculation >negative value kept as positive valueIndexing based on global values based on the range of valuesLog transforms None income (per capita GDP)sulfur depositionwater sensitivityDetermination ofthe scaled proxy100 PPworldShift +100 (P Pmin)(Pmax Pmin)value; alternatives100 PworldPShift +100 (Pmax P)(Pmax Pmin)depend on its valueP is the country or states proxy or indicator value; Pworld is the value of that indicator for the entireworld; Pmin and Pmax are the minimum and maximum proxy values seen in any country in the world;Shift is a shift value that must be used to avoid scores very close to 0. Results were found to be notvery sensitive to the shift value as long as it is larger than one.TABLE VIIIIndias ranking in different indexing methodologiesMethod India rankingVRIP world indexing 101/103VRIP2 range method 74/103comparisons are made at the country or state levels or among any other geopoliticalentities. Table VII summarizes the comparison in methodologies.TableVIII illustrates theimpact of therevisedmethodonIndias rankingamong 103 countries around the world. The change in ranking is due to the changein method that affects the ranking of all countries, including India. Indias relativeranking improved because several countries rank lower in the VRIP2 methodologycompared to India; Indias indicator values remained relatively consistent in bothmethods.96 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONE12. A Final WordOur mainpurposehas beentodeveloparobust tool for useinvulnerabilityassessment. Such a tool allows for comparative analysis and enables more in-depthexploration of the qualitative conditions that contribute to the quantitative results.Exercising any developing tool and critically examining the results are necessaryto improve such a tool. This study of India and Indian states demonstrates the valueof the VRIPmethodology given that it provides insights into vulnerability at countryand state levels, enabling analysts to ask the next level of questions and exploredirections for specic policy options that may mitigate climate impacts.The studyalsoledtoimprovements inthe methodology. The method, aspresently developed, integrates potential response of the natural system, the man-aged landscape and the socioeconomic system; and goes beyond F ussel and Kleins(in press) second-generation vulnerability assessment which describes the inclu-sionoftheevaluationofimpactsongoodsandservices. Themodelrepresentsa comprehensive framework that can be elaborated on or reduced when used forspecic purposes and provides for a means to go beyond evaluating exposure tohazard while retaining Cutters (1996) argument that location with all its specicsof geography and climate forms the fundamental unit of analysis for vulnerability.Because we have a robust framework and methodology to evaluate current vul-nerability and resilience, we have a basis on which to begin developing crediblescenarios and analyses for projections of future vulnerability to climate changes.Such scenarios must integrate information about current climate dependencies andsocioeconomic well-being, accounting for geographic differences, then project thisintegrated and differentiated information into the future. It may be precisely in thisarea that the most progress could be made in combining the more quantitative andmore qualitative approaches to vulnerability.AcknowledgementsMany thanks to Joel Smith for giving us the opportunity to perform this analysisof Indias vulnerability-resilience to climate change. We also appreciate very muchthe material contributions of Sangamitra Ramachander in gathering the data nec-essary for the modeling exercise described in this report. Ramachander, a graduatestudent in economics at the University of Maryland, assisted in locating, prepar-ing, and interpreting available datasets. Greg Brinkman, graduate student in publicaffairs at the University of Maryland helped us nail down the VRIP2 methodologyand his systematic approach to pursuing answers to questions greatly enriched theunderstanding of the impact of methodology. Richard Moss initiated the quest forquantication of vulnerability to climate change. Working with him on the initialformulation of the VRIP inspired us to pursue the work at the Indian states level.We thank both Richard and Greg very much. Finally, the thoughtful comments andcritiques of the reviewers helped us improve the analysis in important ways.CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 97AppendixSector Proxies SourcesCoping/adaptivecapacity (+)EconomiccapacityGDP per capita http://economywatch.com/database/income7.htm & http://www.indiainfoline.com/econ/andb/nia/nia3.htmlIncome distributionequityhttp://www.wws.princeton.edu/rpds/Downloads/poverty-inequality-india-july8-2002.pdf.18Deininger and Squire 1996, 1998& www.worldbank.org/research/growth/dddeisqu.htmHuman and civicresourcesDependence ratio(calculated from% population inthe workforce)www.indiastat.com: Table: Statewiseworkforce participation rate byrural/urban (93-94)http://www.indiainfoline.com/Illiteracy (calculatedform literacy data)http://www.cs.colostate.edu/malaiya/india.html#StatesEnvironmentalcapacity% Non-managedlandhttp://agricoop.nic.in/statistics/st3.htmSO2 emissions(calculated)GEIAhttp://weather.engin.umich.edu/geia/ & CDIAC http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/home.htmlPopulation density http://www.economywatch.com/database/population4.htm &http://www.cs.colostate.edu/malaiya/india.html & http://www.cyberjournalist.org.in/census/cenden0.htmlSensitivity() Settlement/InfrastructureSea level riseresulting innumber of peopleat riskClimate Change in Asia:http://www.ccasia.teri.res.in/country/india/impacts/tables.htm &http://www.envfor.nic.in/cc/adaptation/coastal.htm & DelftHydraulics, 1993% Population withaccess to safewaterhttp://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/resources/statistics/stat531.htm% Population withaccess tosanitationwww.indiastat.com: Table: State wisePer Capita (Public Sector)Expenditure on Health (Medicaland Public Health) including WaterSupply and Sanitation and FamilyWelfare (During 19851986 to19891990).(Continued on next page)98 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONE(Continued)Sector Proxies SourcesFood security Cereal production/agricultural landhttp://agricoop.nic.in/statistics/ stpart3d.htmfor food crops &http://www.andhrapradesh.com/apwebsite/tables/statisticsstate/table-4.htmfor production and areas & FAOSTAT98Total protein demandper capita (animal +vegetable + pulses)http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8F173e/8F173E08.htm & FAOSTAT98Human health Fertility rate http://www.censusindia.net/srs1.htmlLife expectancy http://www3.who.int/whosis/hale/hale.cfm?path=whosis,hale&language=englishEcosystems % Managed land http://www3.who.int/whosis/hale/hale.cfm?path=whosis,hale&language=englishFertilizer use/areacroplandhttp:/agricoop.nic.in/statistics/consum4a.htmWater resources Water sensitivity,based on availabilityand consumptionwww.indiastat.com: Table: Statewisegroundwater resources and irrigationpotentialhttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/293.htm: for annual renewableAdditionalinformationWorld Bank, 1998Notes1Delhis CNG success inspiring many countries: Naik, December 11, 2002. OutlookIndia.com.Available at: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti 11news.asp?id=103516.2http://www.bmtpc.org/disaster.htm.3data from: www.worldbank.org/research/growth/dddeisqu.htm.4See http://www3.who.int/whosis/hale/hale.cfm?path=whosis,hale&language=english.5Net Domestic Product of States at current prices 19801981 to 19971998 (Rs.bn): http://www.economywatch.com/database/income7.htmpopulation estimates: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/malaiya/india.html#States: Literacy & Population by Religion.6http://www.indiainfoline.com/econ/ andb/nia/nia10.html).7Example fromthe Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 2001, http://pib.nic.in/archieve/ppinti/ppioct2001/agriculture.html.8Example from the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 2001,http://pib.nic.in/archieve/ppinti/ppioct2001/agriculture.html.9Cited in Soa Checa, Inequality in Three Indian States, unpublished paper, 2001.10Calculated from data in the Annual Report 19992000, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. ofIndia.11www.indiastat.com.CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 9912http://www.e-greenstar.com/India/Andhra-Pradesh-info.htm. Information excerpted fromthe Mi-crosoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000, http://www.encarta.msn.com/products/.13http://www.cnie.org/pop/pai/water-30.html.14http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/293.htm.15Water in India: nor any drop to drink. August 24, 2002. The Economist, volume 364, issue8287: 3132.16http://www.andhrapradesh.com&sol.17For coping and adaptive capacity the geometric mean responds well to its mathematicalconsequenceswithhighproxyorsub-indexvaluesweighinglessthanlowvalues, resultinginaconservative estimate. The same does not hold for sensitivity, however, which in the VRIP methodis based on large negative values representing high sensitivities and low negative values representingsectors of low sensitivity. The impact of using high proxy values for highly sensitive sectors mayhaveunderestimatedthenal vulnerability-resilienceindexvaluegiventhat ageometricmeanweighslargevalueslessthansmallvalues. Arithmeticmeansarenotananswer, however, giventhat theyimplyperfect substitutionbetweensectors(seealsoSagarandNajam1998), whichiscontrary to common sense; deciency in one sector cannot always be offset by another sector. Thearithmetic mean and the geometric mean are two ways to average a set of numbers. Arithmetic mean:(X1 +X2 +X3 + +Xn)/n. Thearithmeticmeanisanadditivemethodsincesectorvaluesare added to determine the total, which is divided by the number of sectors. Geometric mean: (X1X2 X3 Xn)(1/n). The geometric mean is a multiplicative or product method becausesectorvaluesaremultipliedbyeachothertodeterminetheirproduct, whichistakentothe1/npower.18Poverty and Inequality in India: A Reexamination, by Angus Deaton and Jean Dreze, ResearchProgram in Development Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University and Delhi Schoolof Economics. (July, 2002). Table 5 55th Round adjusted values. (Corresponding to the NationalSample Survey: 19992000).ReferencesAandahl,G.andKaren,OBrien:2001,VulnerabilitytoclimatechangesandeconomicchangesinIndianagriculture, PaperpresentedatWatersofHope. TheRoleofWaterinSouthAsianDevelopment,BiannualConferenceoftheNordicAssociationforSouthAsianStudies,2022September 2001.AcostaMoreno, A., Skea, J., Gacuhi, A., Greene, D. L., Moomaw, W., Okita, T., Riedacker, A.,and Tran Viet, L.: 1995, Industry, energy, and transportation: Impacts and adaptation, ClimateChange, op.cit.Adger, W. N., Khan, S. R., and Brooks, N.: 2003, Measuring and enhancing adaptive capacity, Tech-nical Paper 7, UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework, http://www.undp.org/cc/apfoutline.htm.Agarwal, A. and Narain, S.: 1991, Global Warming in an Unequal World, Centre for Science andEnvironment, New Delhi.Agarwal, A. and Narain, S.: 1992, Towards a Green World: Should Global Environmental Manage-mentbeBuiltonLegalConventionsorHumanRights?CentreforScienceandEnvironment,New Delhi.Ahmad, Q. K., Warrick, R. A., Downing, T. E., Nishioka, S., Parikh, K. S., Parmesan, C., Schneider,S. H., Toth, F., and Yohe, G.: Methods and tools, in McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary,N. A., Dokken, D. J., and White, K. S. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Allen-Diaz, B., Chapin, F. S., Diaz, S., Howden, M., Puigdef abregas, J., and Smith, M. S.: 1995,Rangelands in a changing climate: Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation, Climate Change, op.100 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONEcit.; Everett, J. T., Krovnin, A., Lluch-Belda, D., Okemwa, E., Regier, H. A., and Troadec, J.-P.:1995, Fisheries, Climate Change, op. cit.Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., and Watts M. J.: 1994, Climate change and vulnerability: Toward asociology and geography of food insecurity, Global Environ. Change 4, 3748.Brenkert, A. L. and Malone, E. L.: Vulnerability and Resilience of India and Indian States to ClimateChange: A First-Order Approximation, Washington, DC, Joint Global Change Research Institute,http://www.pnl.gov/globalchange/projects/vul/index.htm.Cannon, T.: 1994, Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of natural disasters, in Varley, A. (ed.),Disasters, Development and Environment, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1330.Chambers, R.: 1989, Editorial introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy, IDS Bulletin 21, 17.Chandler, W., Schaeffer, R., Dadi, Z., Shukla, P. R., Tudela, F., Davidson, O., and Alpan-Atamer, S.:2002, Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, SouthAfrica, and Turkey, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC.CIA World Factbook: July 2001, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html.Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. andRothman, D.: 1998, Climatechangeandsustainabledevelopment: Towards dialogue, Global Environ. Change 8(4), 341371.Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S., Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K., Oliver-Smith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham,M., PeacockW., andKrimgold, F.:1999, Reframingdisasterpolicy:theglobalevolutionofvulnerable communities, Environ. Hazards 1, 3944.Cutter, S. L.: 1996, Vulnerability to environmental hazards, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 20, 529539.Deininger, K. and Squire, L.: 1996, A new data set measuring income inequality, World Bank Econ.Rev. 10(3) 565591.Deininger, K. and Squire, L.: 1998, New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and growth, J.Dev. Econ. 57, 259287.Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands: 1993, Sea Level Rise: A Global Vulnerability Assessment. TidalWater Division, Rijkswaterstaat, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,the Netherlands, Table B-3.Dow,K.:1992,Exploringdifferencesinourcommonfuture(s):Themeaningofvulnerabilitytoglobal environmental change, Geoforum 23, 417436.Downing,T.E.:1991,VulnerabilitytohungerinAfrica:Aclimatechangeperspective,GlobalEnviron. Change 1, 365380.Downing, T. E. andPatwardhan, A.:2003, Vulnerabilityassessmentforclimatechangeadapta-tion, Technical Paper 3, Adaptation Policy Framework, United Nations Development Program.http://www.undp.org/cc/apfoutline.htm.Edmonds, J., Wise, M., Pitcher, H., Richels, R., Wigley, T., and MacCracken, C.: 1997, An integratedassessment of climate change and the accelerated introduction of advanced energy technologies:anapplicationofMiniCAM1.0,MitigationandAdaptationStrategiesforGlobalChange 1,311339.Eischen,K.:2003,AndhraPradesh:Lessonsforglobalsoftwaredevelopment,Computer 36(6),3137.FAO[FoodandAgricultureOrganization]: 1999, FAOSTAT98[CD-ROM], SalesandMarketingGroup, FAO, Rome.FreedomHouse: 2003, Freedomin the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties2003, Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2000/index.htm.F ussel, H.-M. and Klein, R. J. T.: in press, Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolutionof conceptual thinking, Clim. Change.Gannon, M. J., and Associates: 1994, Understanding Global Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Cali-fornia.Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E. and Turner II, B. L. (eds.): 1995, Regions at risk: InternationalComparisons of Threatened Environments, UNU Press, Tokyo.CASE STUDY OF INDIA AND INDIAN STATES 101Kelly, P. M. and Adger, W. N.: 2000, Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate changeand facilitating adaptation, Clim. Change 47, 325352.Lal, M.: 2001, Global climate change-Indias monsoon and its variability: Vulnerability and adap-tationissues, Report onCountryStudies VulnerabilityandAdaptation, WorkAssignment402Task11underStratusConsultingContract 68-W6-0055, Washington, DC, U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency.Lal, M., Cubasch, U., Voss, R., and Waszkewitz, J.: 1995, Effect of transient increases in greenhousegases and sulphate aerosols on monsoon climate, Curr. Sci. 69(9), 752763.Moss, R. H., Brenkert, A. L., and Malone, E. L.: 2001, Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Quan-titative Approach, PNNL-SA-33642, Pacic Northwest National Laboratory, Washington, DC,http://www.pnl.gov/globalchange/projects/vul/index.htm.Nakicenovic, N., et al.: 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press.Parikh, J. K. andParikh, K.:2002, ClimateChange:IndiasPerceptions, Positions, PoliciesandPossibilities, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Prescott-Allen, R.: 2001, The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Lifeand the Environment, Washington, DC, Island Press.Reilly, J., et al.: 1995, Agriculture in a changing climate: Impacts and Adaptation, Climate Change,op. cit.Ribot, J. C.:1996, Introduction, inRibot, J. C., Magalh aes, A. R., andPanagides, S. S. (eds.),Climate Variability, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Ribot, J. C., Magalh aes, A. R., and Panagides, S. S. (eds): 1996, Climate Variability, Cli-mateChangeandSocialVulnerabilityintheSemi-AridTropics,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Robinson, J. and Herbert, D.: 2000, Integrating climate change and sustainable development, inMunasinghe, M. and Swart, R. (eds.), Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development, Equity,and Sustainability, LIFE, Columbo, Sri Lanka; RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands; and World Bank,Washington, DC, pp. 143162.Sagar, A. D. and Najam, A.: 1998, The human development index: A critical review, Ecol. Econ.25, 249264.Scott, M. J., Aguilar, A. G., Douglas, I., Epstein, P. R., Liverman, D., Mailu, G. M., and Shove, E.:1995, Human Settlements in a change climate: Impacts and adaptation, Climate Change, op.cit.Smith, J. B., Schellnhuber, H. J. and Monirul Qader Mirza, M.: 2001, Vulnerability to climate changeand reasons for concern: A synthesis, in McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken,D.J.,andWhite,K.S.(eds.), ClimateChange2001:Impacts, AdaptationandVulnerability,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Stern, P. C. andEasterling, W. E. (eds.): 1999, MakingClimateForecastsMatter:Panel ontheHumanDimensionsofSeasonal-to-InterannualClimateVariability, NationalAcademyPress,Washington, DC.Tata Energy Research Institute, http://www.ccasia.teri.res.in/country/india/impacts/impacts.htm.Vogel, C.: 1997. Vulnerability and global environmental change, LUCC Newsletter 3, http://www.lucc.vogel.vuln.review.article.html.Water in India: nor any drop to drink. August 24, 2002. The Economist 364(8287), 3132.Watson, R., Zinyowera, M. C., Moss, R. H., and Dokken, D. J.: 1998, The Regional Impacts of ClimateChange, an Assessment of Vulnerability. A special report of IPCC working group II, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Watts, M. J. and Bohle, H. G.: 1993, The space of vulnerability: The causal structure of hunger andfamine, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 17, 4367.102 ANTOINETTE L. BRENKERT AND ELIZABETH L. MALONEWorld Bank: 1998, World Development Indicators 1998 [CD-ROM], International Bank for Recon-struction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.World Bank: 2002, Country Brief: South Asia Region (SAR)India, http://www.Worldbank.org.WorldResources19941995: 1996, Aguidetotheglobal environment. Areport byTheWorldResources Institute in collaboration with The United Nations Environment Programme and TheUnited Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press.[YCELP and CIESIN]: 2002, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Center for Interna-tional Earth Science Information Network, Environmental Sustainability Index: An Initiative ofthe Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum, New Haven,CT, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.(Received 31 March 2003; in revised form 22 July 2004)