Self and Place Constructs in Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: Gaps and Recommendations

Abstract

In the United States, climate change vulnerability assessments are usually conceived as objectified exercises, based on theoretical orientations such as rational choice or systems theory. They adopt sectorial or population-level frames of reference and are operationalized by means of aggregating mathematical models, geospatial analytical platforms, and advanced visualization tools. While vulnerability assessments are intended to inform decision making, they often lack process-based mechanisms that enable them to be framed in terms of localized knowledge and perspectives. This is a weakness because occupant attitudes regarding places can spark unyieldingly negative reactions to expert-generated, objectivist vulnerability assessment processes and their outputs. In this paper, I attempt to demonstrate the salience of self and place constructs and explore the implications of their tendency to block serious reflection about the nature of potential vulnerabilities and risk management interventions. If acknowledged and addressed in a manner that is empathetic and context sensitive, it may be possible to channel these perspectives to elevate and deepen dialog about climate change and help to identify and compile circumstantially appropriate menus of adaptation policy interventions.