1 The three overlapping elements of climate vulnerability (source: Gabrielsson 2012) Clearly, these elements are highly inter-related and there are broad social, economic, political and ecological conditions that affect all three elements to varying degrees. Complexity is thus a key feature of vulnerability in this dynamic system of interlinked components in continuous flux. Uncertainty is also a critical factor affecting the system, since we are studying not only present vulnerabilities but also future potential impacts, where our knowledge is limited because data are based on anticipated

LGK-974 order changes, rather than actual. This temporal dilemma can be tackled by using the actual context-specific and process-sensitive empirical

material already available to us and analyzing it through theoretically informed reasoning, i.e., what is known as ‘retroduction’ (Ragin 2011). There are (at least) two distinctive camps in vulnerability research. The first, referred to as outcome vulnerability (O‘Brien et al. 2007), has grown out of various PXD101 risk-hazard and impact frameworks (see Füssel and Klein 2006). It focuses on the impacts of climate change in Torin 2 ic50 terms of measurable units on various sectors in society. The second, contextual vulnerability, proceeds from the constructivist literature on entitlements and livelihoods frameworks (see Dreze and Sen 1991; Sen 1999; Watts and Bohle 1993; Ribot et al. 1996; Adger 2006). It focuses on the variation and dynamics of vulnerability Methane monooxygenase within and between social groups in society, thus emphasizing aspects of inequality and distribution. Our conceptualization of climate vulnerability draws upon both of these frameworks in an effort to relate exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to each other in an integrated manner, as called for by Hinkel (2011). This is demonstrated in our interactive work on seasonal calendars

(see section below on Seasonal pattern of hardship and coping), which we see as a novelty and thus a contribution to the vulnerability debate in climate change research. Analytical framework and integration of field methods Drawing on Schröter et al. (2005) and adapted to our study context, five criteria guide our climate vulnerability analysis. First, we include a multitude of different types of data, thus necessitating and allowing for interdisciplinary research and the inclusion of non-scientists. Second, and following Cutter et al. (2003), we understand vulnerability as place-based and context-specific, hence the need to pay attention to the nesting of scales. Third, we recognize multiple socio-ecological stressors and feed-back mechanisms, which we attempt to capture in the seasonal calendars. Fourth, we allow for differential adaptive capacities and thus identify the barriers and constraints within the human-environment system that make it possible for some to adapt but others not.