Climate Change and the Experience of Poverty - Essay Example

?Implications of community projects that prepare disadvantaged communities for extreme weather events Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name (Day, Month, Year) Outline Outline 1 Introduction 3 2) Description of the chosen methodological approach 5 a)Methods 5 b) Strengths and weaknesses 6 c)Why other methods are less appropriate 7 3) Description of how methods chosen will be put into practice 8 a) Size and location of data sample 8 b) How to know when enough data has been collected 9 c) How different methods will be connected to each other through the stages of data collection 10 d) Pilot testing 10 4. Description of how the data will be analysed 11 5) Ethical considerations 11 6) A timetable for research 12 7) Concluding statement 12 Implications of community projects that prepare disadvantaged communities for extreme weather events Introduction Stakeholders have the option of responding to extreme weather events, which stem from climate change through adaptation or mitigation. Mitigation encompasses reducing the impact that one has on the environment through reduction of one’s carbon footprint among other activities. Conversely, adaptation involves dealing with consequences of climate change by say, establishing methods of coping with regular floods. A gap exists in current literature on the relationship between climate change and poverty. Several analysts tend to focus on mitigation at the community level. Institutions have been formed to minimise energy use through transport. Others have addressed housing and urban development (Berrang-Ford et. al., 2011). While these efforts may contribute to long term solutions for the country in general, they do not address the direct challenges that disadvantaged community members face when dealing with extreme weather events. The New Economics Foundation (2009) notes that poor people tend to be the worst hit when environmental disasters occur, yet their contribution to the problem of climate change is significantly lower than other members of society. Therefore, issues of environmental justice must be addressed when studying the link between climate change and poverty. The most vulnerable in society should not be left to deal with the effects of negative environmental choices (Lindley et.al., 2011). It is imperative for stakeholders at the national, corporate and local levels to target this group when creating interventions. Extreme weather events (Such as floods, storms, and cyclones) are a manifestation of climate change and have adverse effects on disadvantaged communities. Poor people live in less-robust settlements that often leave them defenceless against these situations. Furthermore, they lack information of how to protect themselves during such events. Demetriades and Esplen (2008) note that actions are necessary in order to strengthen the resilience of the vulnerable during extreme weather events. Stakeholders may empower the disadvantaged through information dissemination, infrastructural preparedness, housing tenure agreements, among others (McCright, 2010. One of the ways in which these changes are manifested is through community projects. Nongovernmental organizations and special interest groups may carry out community projects to build resilience among disadvantaged communities. It is imperative to understand why such groups are performing this role, and whether their activities arose from gaps in policy interventions from the national and local governments. Community projects are insufficient as a coping strategy for disadvantaged communities (Zsamboky et. al., 2011). However, they represent an attempt by non-state actors to participate in an issue of grave national consequences. Their presence in deprived areas indicates that policy-makers may not be doing enough to prepare these communities for extreme weather conditions. Runhaar et. al. (2012) carried out a study in the Netherlands to assess the stimuli and barriers to climate change adaptations in urban areas. They found that a gap existed between the likelihood of extreme weather conditions in certain places and responses by policy makers and urban planners. These findings thus show that stakeholders may intervene in order to account for those gaps. The focus of this paper will be on community projects funded by nongovernmental actors, as an alternative to nationally-sponsored action. The key research question is “What are the implications of community projects that prepare disadvantaged communities for extreme weather?”. This research question will attempt to determine why these projects arise in the first place, their mechanisms of action as well as the impact that they have on these communities. The following are the specific research questions: 1) Why are community projects on preparation for extreme weather present in disadvantaged communities? 2) What are some of the activities on which these projects focus? 3) How are sponsors tackling barriers to extreme weather coping? 4) In what ways is their presence a result of the lack of involvement by policy-makers? As mentioned earlier, the research questions are a response to gaps that exist in current literature on climate change and poverty. Few papers have tackled community projects and their role in extreme weather events. Many researchers tend to dwell only on environmental justice with regard to the poor (New Economics Foundation, 2009). Others prefer to tackle community projects that dwell on long term measures (Matthews and Pratt, 2012). Alternatively, some have looked into impacts of extreme weather events on the poor (Adger, 2009). Some prefer to study perceptions that cause non action from policy makers in deprived settings (Runhaar et. al., 2012). This study will attempt to bring together most of these perspectives. It will address environmental justice, extreme weather coping, vulnerability of disadvantaged communities and adaptation mechanisms by alternative players. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is interested in sponsoring research that amalgamates social justice and climate change issues. The idea is to have an evidence base for existence of this relationship. This paper will contribute directly to the above goal. 2) Description of the chosen methodological approach a)Methods The research will be a qualitative one in which key community project initiatives around the UK will be identified. These projects need to revolve around adaptation to extreme weather events caused by climate change. The sponsors of the project will be identified and selected for interviews. Thereafter, they will be invited for a focus group analysis on the same phenomenon. Personal interviews will be the starting point and all the information collected from this phase of the research will be audio recorded and analysed. The subjects will each answer similar questions in the interviews. Therefore, to a certain extent, the interviews will be structured. Nonetheless, their open-ended nature will allow for directness and freedom of response. This approach is necessary because it will streamline the data analysis process. Also, when all subjects respond to the same questions, then they are less likely to be influenced by contextual issues. This strategy will minimise biases and strengthen the research findings. However, because some participants may have perspectives that are limited by their circumstances, it is necessary to use another method of collecting information in order to counter these weaknesses. Therefore, focus groups will be a way of collecting comparative data to cross check the information received from the personal interviews. The focus group will be homogenous because it will consist of sponsors of community projects for extreme weather coping. They will act as a quality control measure in the analysis. Each participant will act as a check on another participant thus minimising extreme views that tend to arise when only one subject is involved. b) Strengths and weaknesses One of the key advantages of the interview and focus groups is that it leads to openness. The approach will allow subjects to talk freely about their experiences. As a result, they may cause the investigator to recognise new phenomenon. If findings carry certain common patterns, then they may lead to development of solid theories on the subject. Focus groups will be useful because they may stimulate members to think about some things and even revaluate their initial positions. Some individuals may be intimidated by the intrusive nature of a personal interview. To them, this may feel like some sort of evaluation by the interviewer. However, the focus group diffuses these tensions and thus leads to more open discussions. The methods chosen will also provide rich data that will inform other stakeholders on the depth of the subject. Since the investigator will be interacting with the subject, then it will be possible to get clarification on some issues as well as study some non verbal forms of communication. One of the key weaknesses of qualitative research, in general, is that it is not perceived as objective. Findings only relate to what the subjects regard as true, and may not be applicable to several other individuals. Furthermore, interviews tend to be susceptible to the limitations of the investigator. If a person lacks the skill to ask the right questions or phrase them in the right way, then he or she will only get standard responses from the participants. There is always the danger that the recording equipment could malfunction. Such an occurrence would force the interviewer to note down responses. Focus groups may be problematic when group dynamics come into play. Some members of the group may attempt to outdo each other or dominate others. In response, other participants may resist this control and thus jeopardise the discussion. Alternatively, some personality types are not suited to focus group interviews. These individuals may not feel comfortable about expressing their views in public. c)Why other methods are less appropriate The nature of the research question demands that qualitative research be used. This study aims at establishing the implications of community projects among disadvantaged communities. It is a question that seeks to unravel why stakeholders behave the way they do. In other words, it attempts to unravel the reasons behind community sponsors’ actions. These are answers that cannot be speculated; they need to be informed directly from participants. Consequently, a qualitative research analysis is the best alternative. Additionally, the research seeks to determine how the sponsors of these community projects deal with the challenges of directing such an enormous task. Qualitative research is usually preferable when one intends on analysing complex scenarios such as these. The experiences of community sponsors are unique to the group, so it is only appropriate to get that information from them directly. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative analyses allow for diversity in responses. This approach will cause the investigator to delve deeply into the details of a social situation like poverty and climate change. A standard questionnaire or some other form of quantitative analysis would simply be limited to the researcher’s technical knowledge. Sometimes investigators may not recognise particular phenomenon that relate to the subject matter. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has noted that a need exists for new theories on the relationship between climate change and social justice. Usually, when trying to establish new theories, it is preferable to abandon one’s preconceptions or views about the matter. A qualitative analysis would be the starting point for this kind of objective. 3) Description of how methods chosen will be put into practice a) Size and location of data sample Only fifteen members will be selected for the interview, and seventy five for the focus group; therefore, it is imperative to select the right category of individuals. 5 focus groups consisting of 15 members each will be conducted. It may be stated that the population size for this analysis consists of all the community project sponsors in the UK. Some of them include London Sustainability Exchange and Community Flood Plans. These must be individuals who focus on disadvantaged groups and extreme weather coping. To select the right subjects for the topic, a list of projects of this nature will be made. This will depend on data collected from newspapers, online sources as well as other media platforms like television. Thereafter, sponsors of these projects will be identified and the ones who have sponsored a large number of initiatives will be selected. Each of the names will be arranged in a manner that reflects the quantity of work that they have done in the area of concern. Only the top fifteen institutions will be contacted for the interview. It is from this number that the seventy five members of the focus group will come from. Each institution must name the person that they think will be the most appropriate for the discussion. They will also forward the names of four other people to take part in the focus groups. It is likely that they may select the organisational head or spokesperson. Either way, the interviewee’s name will depend on the institution’s choice. Communication between the investigator and the informants are likely to occur a few weeks before the interviews in order to confirm participation. b) How to know when enough data has been collected Enough data will have been collected if the informants have answered all the questions in the structured, open-ended interview. Members will be prodded on their responses. If it appears like they are too short or have not generated sufficient information for coding, then questions will be paraphrased and asked again. Furthermore, if the respondent appears to have gone off-topic, then a different way of phrasing the questions will be used. The focus group discussions are likely to be less structured than the interviews but will still follow a similar format. The moderator will initiate a topic that relates to the research objectives, and then allow them to talk about it. Once at least half of the respondents have spoken, and sufficient angles concerning the issue have been tackled, then members will move to the next thing. (Charmaz, 2006). c) How different methods will be connected to each other through the stages of data collection The focus group will be manifested as a meeting of community project sponsors. It will bring together representatives from relevant institutions, and will allow them to discuss the research question. These focus groups will be a form of value addition to the subject matter as not all the information may be reliable from the interviews. The group will consist of ten members, and they are likely to be seated in a comfortably-sized room. Members will receive a brief about the research topic from the investigator. They will learn about the primary objective of the study. This person will moderate the responses as well as guide discussions. Prior to actual conversations, participants will introduce themselves. As the discussions proceed, the investigator will try to restore balance into each analysis. The person will ensure that as many participants as possible get involved in the conversation. d) Pilot testing Interviews are likely to elicit the most valuable data for the interview as each respondent is going to make a contribution to the analysis. Not all members will speak in the focus groups, so this might be limiting. It is for this reason that a pilot test will be done for the interviews. Five knowledgeable colleagues will be selected for the pilot. They will respond to the same questions that the subjects are supposed to answer in similar settings. After completion of the interviews, they will give suggestions on some of the things that they found objectionable in the study. They may talk about clarity of questions, and their ability to decipher what each one means. Participants may give pointers on whether the questions were leading them on or if they were ambiguous. They will talk about their relation to the research aims and how they can be improved. Additionally, they may discuss some of the body language and non-verbal components of the interview. 4. Description of how the data will be analysed Since this analysis will be a qualitative analysis, coding will be the strategy of choice. The responses are probably going to be rich and diverse. Therefore, only the investigator needs to look into their plausibility through the use of patterns. Here, consistencies will be examined in order to know whether common trends exist. The researcher will use similarity, causation, sequence, frequency and correspondence. 5) Ethical considerations Some questions always arise when conducting poverty research as is the case in this study. The beneficiaries of the community projects under discussions will not be consulted in the analysis. Some stakeholders may object to this approach because they may feel that it does not empower disadvantaged communities. When users are involved in research projects, then they are regarded as agents not as mere victims of their circumstances. Furthermore, some individuals may feel that this research approach is perpetuating the power relations that caused environmental injustice in the first place (Narayan et. al., 2001). In response to such ethical concerns, stakeholders who object to the practice should note that climate change is a national issue that involves all manner of individuals. It is true that poor communities bear the brunt of these ill-informed decisions. However, their resource, power and information constraints limit the input they can make in coping with extreme weather events. This is why it is imperative to engage with other bodies that have the resources and power to cause change. Furthermore, in order to dissect such a complex and politically-charged issue, like environmental justice, it is necessary to talk to persons who have a holistic perspective on the matter. Other ethical issues may arise in relation to the nature of qualitative research. Participants will be informed about the voluntary nature of the research. Confidentiality will also be adhered to. (Ord et. al., 2001). 6) A timetable for research Task Targeted completion date Phase 1 Joseph Rowntree Submission January 2014 Joseph Ronwtree Approval June 2014 Pahse 2 Compilation of data sample July 2014 Pilot testing of interview questions August 2014 Reorganisation of questions September 2014 Contacting research participants November 2014 Phase 3 Administration of interviews February 2015 Administration of focus group discussion May 2015 Phase 4 Data cleaning June 2015 Data coding August 2015 Statistical analysis of codes and themes November 2015 Compilation of report Mid December 2015 Submit findings to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation December 2015 7) Concluding statement This study will be limited to the perspectives of nongovernmental stakeholders in the topic of poverty and climate change. It is likely that some government authorities may also offer insights on existence of gaps in climate adaptation. Therefore, their perspective will have to be foregone. Additionally, the research will only address environmental justice issues in relation to reactive measures; this may not deal with long term repercussions of climate change. The paper will also not include members of poor communities, yet they may have certain insights about the presence of community initiatives. The study is likely to spark debates on the existence of gaps concerning adaptation to extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. It may cause more stakeholders from the public authority or the government to take up these roles (Knox, 2009). Disadvantaged communities will be empowered through greater information as well as infrastructural support if other bodies read about the role and challenges faced by sponsors. References Adger, W.N., 2009. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27(2): pp. 249-269.Narayan, D., Patel, R., Rademacher, A., Schafft, T. and Koch-Schulte, S., 2001. Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us? Oxford: OUP. Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. and Paterson, J., 2011. Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change, 21(1): pp. 25-33. Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Routledge Demetriades, J., and Esplen, E. 2008. The gender dimensions of poverty and climate change Adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 39(4): pp. 24-31. Ord, A., Eisenhauer, L. And Wynaden, D., 2001. Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), pp. 93-96. Knox, K., 2009. Climate Change and Poverty Programme. [e-book] London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available through Joseph Rowntree website. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/climate-change-projects- 2009.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2013] Lindley, S., J. O’Neill, J. Kandeh, N. Lawson, R. Christian and M. O’Neill, 2011. Climate Change, Justice and Vulnerability. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Matthews, S. and Pratt, J., 2012. Community-led responses to climate change: A scoping study. [online] Available at: http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biglotteryfund.org.uk%2F-%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FResearch%2520Documents%2Fer_climate_change.pdf&ei=bkODUrO6N6G60wX62YD4BA&usg=AFQjCNGLQD9EzpQVCVOQsumyAsUOPkTvig&sig2=Ngjo2v8V_WBj3UCPJjzBUg&bvm=bv.56343320,d.d2k [Accessed 13 November 2013] McCright, A.M., 2010. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32: pp. 66-87. New Economics Foundation, 2009. Tackling Climate Change, Reducing Poverty. The first report of the Roundtable on Climate Change and Poverty in the UK. [ebook] London: New Economics Foundation. Available through New Economic foundation http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/tackling-climate-change-reducing- poverty. [Accessed 13 November 2013] Runhaar,H., Mees, H., Wardekker, A., Slujis, J. and Driessen, P., 2012. Adaptation to climate change-related risks in Dutch urban areas: Stimuli and barriers. Reg. Environ. Change, 12: pp. 777-790. Zsamboky, M., A. Fernandez-Bilbao, D. Smith, J. Knight and J. Allan, 2011. Impacts of Climate Change on Disadvantaged UK Coastal Communities. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available through Joseph Rowntree website http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/8363/disadvantage-communities-climate-change-full.pdf[Accessed 13 November 2013] Read More