Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Bangladesh

Part of the book series: Springer Theses ((Springer Theses))

Abstract

In this chapter, the multi-method research approach is adopted in order to achieve the research objectives: (a) methodological contribution for assessing V&A in a riverine flood prone case study area; (b) failed effect of adaptation i.e. economic consequences on farmers’ households. Various kinds of research techniques are involved with the multi-method research approach, these are: structured questionnaire survey for understanding farmers’ economic consequences of flooding within the socio-economic, demographic and environmental characteristics of farmers at household level; Participatory Rapid Appraisals (PRAs) for evaluating V&A scenarios and their importance in V&A assessment. An in-depth case study, field observation, literature review and professional judgment contribute to the understanding of the autonomous cropping adjustment processes of farmers in response to bio-physical interactions with flooding and flood research scenarios in Bangladesh from 1980 to 2014. Some key methodological issues are discussed in this chapter. The issues are: reasons for choosing a case study approach for understanding V&A assessment, an overview of the epistemological debate about qualitative and quantitative paradigms, procedures of appropriate sampling in V&A assessment, how and why to conduct a structured questionnaire survey in the flood-prone case study area, appropriateness of uses of PRAs and their advantages and disadvantages, and recent advancements in V&A assessment. This chapter concludes by describing how V&A issues in a vulnerable case study area can be identified, weighted and categorized in accordance with vulnerable farmers’ opinions through PRA sessions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Harvey D (1969) Explanation in geography. Edward Arnold Ltd., p 130

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hammersley M (1992) What’s wrong with ethnography?. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Morse JM (2003) Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 189–208

    Google Scholar 

  4. Graham E (1999) Breaking out: the opportunities and challenges of multi-method research in population geography. Prof Geogr 51(1):76–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McKendrick JH (1999) Multi-method research: an introduction to its application in population geography. Prof Geogr 51(1):40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2003) Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences: then and now. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–50

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bickman L, Rog DJ (2009) Applied research design—A practical approach. In: Bickman L, and Rog DJ (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2 edns. SAGE Publication, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blaikie N (2003) Analyzing quantitative data: from description to explanation. SAGE Publications, Thousands Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yin RK (2003) Case study research—Design and methods., Applied social research methods seriesSAGE publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schramm W (1971) Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper for the Academy for Educational Development, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  11. Abercrombie N, Hill S, Turner BS (1984) Dictionary of sociology. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flyvbjerg B (2004) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium J, Silverman D (2004) Qualitative research practice. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yin R (1981) The case study as a serious research strategy. Sci Commun 3(1):97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chetty S (1996) The case study method for research in small and medium-sized firms. Int Small Bus J 15(1)

    Google Scholar 

  15. McCutcheon D, Meredith J (1993) Conducting case study research in operations management. J Oper Manage 11:239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Benbasat I, Goldstein D, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gable G (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 3(2):112–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Platt J (1992) Case study in American methodological thought. Curr Sociol 40(1):17–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stoecker R (1991) Evaluating and rethinking the case study. Sociol Rev 39:88–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Majchrzac A (1984) Methods of policy research. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yin R (2009) How to do better case studies. In: Bickman L, Rog D (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brannen J (2003) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an overview. In: Brannen J (ed) Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Ashgate, USA/England

    Google Scholar 

  24. Crang M (2002) Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy. Prog Hum Geogr 26(5):647–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Crang M (2003) Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see. Prog Human Geogr 27(4):494–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McCracken G (1988) The long interview, vol 13., Qualitative research seriesSage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Philip LJ (1998) Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to social research in human geography—An impossible mixture? Environ Plann A 30:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sale J, Lohfeld L, Brazil K (2002) Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual Quant 36:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandelowski M (2000) Focus on research methods combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health Researcher 23:246–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Foss C, Ellefsen B (2002) The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method of triangulation. Methodol Issues Nurs Res 40(2):242–248

    Google Scholar 

  31. Winchester H (1999) Interviews and questionnaires as methods in population geography: the case of lone fathers in newcastle, Australia. Prof Geogr 51(1):60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Firestone W (1987) Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educ Researcher 16(16)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Howe K (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Researcher 17(10)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yin R (1989) Case study research: design and methods, Revised edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  35. Platte J (1988) What can case studies do? Stud Qual Methodol 1:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Znaniecki F (1934) The method of sociology. Farrars and Rinehart, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Denzin N (1970) The research act in sociology. Butterworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mitchell CJ (1983) Case and situation analysis. Sociol Rev 31(2):187–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Burgess RG (1982) Multiple strategies in field research. In: Burgess RG (ed) Field research a sourcebook and field manual. George Allen and Unwin, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Burgess RG (1984) In the field: an introduction to field research. George Allen and Unwin, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Spradely J (1979) The ethnographic interview. Rinehart Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24:602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jick TD (1983) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. In: Van Maanen J (ed) Qualitative methodology. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  45. Webb E, Campbell D, Schwartz R, Sechrest L, Grove J (1981) Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hammersley M (1984) The researcher exposed. In: Burgess R (ed) The research process in educational settings: ten case studies. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Borman K, LeCompte M, Goetz J (1986) Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn’t work. Am Behav Sci 31(1):42–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fielding N, Fielding J (1986) Linking data. Sage, Newbury Park

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Fielding NG, Fielding JL (1986) Linking data: qualitative research network series 4. Sage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Sohier R (1988) Multiple triangulation and contemporary nursing research. West J Nurs Res 10(6):732–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Knafl K, Breitmayer B (1989) Triangulation in qualitative research: issues of conception, clarity, and purpose. In: Morse JM (ed) Qualitative nursing research: a contemporary dialogue. Aspen, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  52. Leedey P (1993) Practical research: planning and design, 5th edn. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bickman L (2009) Applied research design. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  54. Maxwell J (2009) Designing a qualitative study. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mitchell ES (1986) Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in nursing science, 8(3):18-26

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bryman A (1988) Quantity and quality in social research. Unwin Hyman, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Berg BL (2001) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. A Pearson Education Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  58. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ (2003) Making paradigmatic sense of mixed-method practice. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  59. Johnson B, Onwuegbuzie A (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Researcher 33(7):14–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rao V, Woolcock M (2004) Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in program evaluation. In: Bourguignon F, Silva L (eds) The impact of economic policies on poverty and income distribution: evaluation techniques and tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  61. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2006) A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Res Schools 13(1):12–28

    Google Scholar 

  62. Collins K, Onwuegbuzie A, Jiao Q (2007) A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):267–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Creswell J, Plano C (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, Thousands Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sandelowski M (2003) Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 321–350

    Google Scholar 

  65. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2009) Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) The sage handbook of applied social research methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rossman G, Wilson B (1985) Numbers and words: combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Eval Rev 9(5):627–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Robins C, Ware N, dosReis S, Willging C, Chung J, Lewis-Fernandez R (2008) Dialogues non mixed—Methods and mental health services research: anticipating challenges, building solutions. Psychiatr Serv 59(7)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Bryman A (1984) The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method or epistemology? Br J Sociol 35(1):75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Darbyshire P, MacDougall C, Schiller W (2005) Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: more insight or just more? Qual Res 5(4):417–436

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bryman A (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):8–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Morgan D (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):48–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McEvoy P, Richards D (2006) A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. J Res Nurs 11(1):66–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res 6(1):97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McLafferty SL (2003) Conducting questionnaire surveys. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  75. Henry G (2009) Practical sampling. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  76. Fowler F (2002) Survey research methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  77. Chadwick BA, Bahr HM, Albrecht SL (1984) Social science research methods. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  78. Brewer J, Hunter A (1989) Multimethod research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  79. Fowler F, Mangione T (1990) Standardized survey interviewing: minimizing interviewer-related error. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  80. Fowler Jr FJ, Cosenza C (2009) Design and evaluation of survey questions. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) The Sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sudman S, Bradman NM (1982) Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  82. Dillman D (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cornwall A, Jewkes R (1995) What is participatory research. Soc Sci Med 41(12):1667–1676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rifkin S (1994) Participatory research and health. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on participatory research in health promotion, Liverpool School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

    Google Scholar 

  85. Scott RA, Shore AR (1979) Why sociology does not apply: a study of the use of sociology in public planning. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  86. Mukherjee A (2004) Participatory rural appraisal—Method and applications in rural planning, essays in honour of robert chambers. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  87. Tumwine JK (1989) Community participation as myth or reality: a personal experience from Zimbabwe. Health Pol Plann 4:157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Akua A (1992) Malaria: ethnomedical perceptions and practice in an Adangbe farming community and implications for control. Soc Sci Med 35:131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Rahman MA, Fals-Borda O (1991) A self-review of PAR. In: Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. International Technology Publication, London

    Google Scholar 

  90. Breitbart MM (2003) Participatory research methods. In: Clifford N, Valentine G (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  91. Pain R (2004) Social geography: participatory research. Prog Hum Geogr 28(5):652–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Theis J, Grady H (1991) Participatory rapid appraisal for community development, a training manual based on experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, Save the Children Federation, Funded by the Ford Foundation

    Google Scholar 

  93. Chambers R (1994) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): analysis of challenges, potentials and paradigms, experience. World Dev 10:1437–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Freire P (1968) Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Seabury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  95. Gilbert E, Norman D, Winch F (1980) Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. MSU Rural Development Paper No. 6. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

    Google Scholar 

  96. Shaner W, Philipp P, Schmehl W (1982) Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  97. Gypmantasiri P, Wiboonpongse A, Rerkasem B (1980) An interdisciplinary perspective of cropping systems in the Chiang Mai Valley: key questions for research. Multiple Cropping Project, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  98. Conway G (1985/1987) Rapid rural appraisal and agroecosystem analysis: a case study from Northern Pakistan. In: KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 international conference on rapid rural appraisal, Rural Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects, Khon Kaen. University of Khon Kaen, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  99. Conway G (1986) Agroecosystem analysis for research and development. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development

    Google Scholar 

  100. Agricultural administration (1981) 8(6)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Longhurst R (ed) (1981) Rapid rural appraisal. IDS Bull 12(4)

    Google Scholar 

  102. KKU (1987) Proceedings of the international conference on rapid rural appraisal, Rural System Research and Farming Systems Research Projects, Khon Kaen, University of Khon Kaen, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  103. Chambers R (1992) Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed, and participatory. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. HELP, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  104. Mandelson L, Aaby P (1992) Can anthropological procedures be applied to tropical diseases? Health Pol Plann 7:46

    Google Scholar 

  105. Mergler D (1987) Worker participation in occupational health research: theory and practice. Int J Health Serv 17:151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Cornwall A, Gujit I, Welbourn A (1993) Acknowledging process: challenges for agricultural research and extension methodology, IDS Discussion Paper, 333, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  107. Rajaratnam J, Gamesan C, Thasian H, Babu N, Rajaratnam A (1993) Validating the wealth ranking of PRA and formal survey in identifying the rural poor, RUSHA Department, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Tamil Nadu

    Google Scholar 

  108. Pottier J (1992) Agrarian change at the household level: a note on investigative styles in research on Mambwe agriculture (Northern Zambia). In: Kaarsholm P (ed) Institutions culture and change at local community level, International development studies, Occasional paper, No. 3, Roskildy University Centre, Denmark, pp 61–74

    Google Scholar 

  109. van Steijn T (1991) Rapid rural appraisal in the Philippines: report of a study on the application of RRA by Philippines NGOs, GOs and University Institutes

    Google Scholar 

  110. Chamber, Robert (1994a) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience, world development, 22(9):1253-1268

    Google Scholar 

  111. Scrimshaw NS, Gleason GR (eds) (1992) Rapid assessment procedures-qualitative methodologies for planning and evaluation of health related program, Library of Congress. ISBN 0-9635522-0-1

    Google Scholar 

  112. Pretty J (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev 23(8):1247–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Mosse D (1995) Authority, gender and knowledge—Theoretical reflections on participatory rural appraisal. Econ Polit Wkly 30(11)

    Google Scholar 

  114. Leurs R (1996) Current challenges facing participatory rural appraisal. Public Adm Dev 16:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Martin A, Sherington J (1997) Participatory research methods-implementation, effectiveness and institutional context. Agric Syst 55(2):195–216

    Google Scholar 

  116. Kesby M (2000) Participatory diagramming: developing qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area 31(4):423–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Temu AE, Due MJ (2000) Participatory appraisal approaches versus sample survey data collection: a case of smallholder farmers well-being ranking in Njombe District, Tanzania. J Afr Economies 9(1):44–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Takasaki Y, Barham BL, Coomes OT (2000) Rapid rural appraisal in humid tropical forests: an asset possession-based approach and validation methods for wealth assessment among forest peasant households. World Dev 28(11):1961–1977

    Google Scholar 

  119. Campbell J (2001) Participatory rural appraisal as qualitative research: distinguishing methodological issues from participatory claims. Human Organ 60(4):380–389

    Google Scholar 

  120. Kapoor I (2002) The Devil’s in the theory: a critical assessment of Robert Chambers’ work on participatory development. Third World Q 23(1):101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Chambers R (2002) Relaxed and participatory appraisal: notes on practical approaches and methods for participants in PRA/PLA-related familiarization workshops, Participation Resource Centre at IDS, Participation Group, IDS, University of Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  122. Campbell J (2002) A critical appraisal of participatory methods in development research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 5(1):19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Bhandari BB (2003) Participatory rural appraisal, Module 4. IGES. http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/contents/eLearning/waterdemo/bhandari_m4.pdf

  124. Munyua H, Stilwell C (2009) A mixed qualitative-quantitative-participatory methodology: a study of the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) of small-scale farmers in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. In: International conference qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries, Chania Crete, Greece, 26–29 May 2009

    Google Scholar 

  125. Wikipedia (2009) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_rural_appraisal

  126. Canter LW (1996) Environmental impact assessment. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, pp 106, 545, 566

    Google Scholar 

  127. Dee N, Baker JK, Drobney NL, Duke KM, Whitman I, Fahringer D (1973) An environmental system for water resource planning. Water Resour Res 9(3):523–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Barrow CJ (1997) Environmental and social impact assessment—An introduction. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  129. GOB (Government of Bangladesh) (1997) Jamalpur project refinement study (FAP-3.1), Final project refinement and EIA report—R3, Ministry of Water Resources, Water resources Planning Organisation, May 1997

    Google Scholar 

  130. Baker D, Rapaport E (2005) The science of assessment: identifying and predicting environmental impacts. In: Hanna KS (eds) Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. Oxford University Press, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ying LG, Liu YC (1995) A Model of objective weighting for EIA. Environ Monit Assess 36(2):169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick (2005): Introduction to environmental assessment, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  133. Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB (2007) New assessment methods and the characterization of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–171

    Google Scholar 

  134. Downing TE, Patwardhan A (2005) Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. In: Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E, Burton I, Malone E, Huq S (eds) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 138

    Google Scholar 

  135. Patt AG, Klein R, de laVega-Leinert A (2005) Taking the uncertainties in climate change vulnerability assessment seriously. C R Geosci 337:411–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Ionescu C, Klein RJT, Hinkel J, Kavi Kumar KS, Klein R (2005) Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info

  137. Metzger M, Schröter D (2006) Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Reg Environ Change 6:201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. O’Brien K, Vogel CH (2006) Who can eat information? Examining the effectiveness of seasonal climate forecasts and regional climate-risk management strategies. Climate Res 33:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Ericksen S, Owuor B, Nyukuri E, Orindi V (2005) Vulnerability to climate stress—Local and regional perspectives. In: Proceedings of two workshops, 27–28 Jan 2005. World Agro forestry Centre and Feb 14: KEFRI Research Centre, CICERO report

    Google Scholar 

  140. Eriksen SH, Brown K, Kelly PM (2005) The dynamics of vulnerability: locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geogr J 171:287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Moss RH, Brenkert AL, Malone EL (2001) Vulnerability to climate change: a quantitative approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geography, Environment and Population, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Md Aboul Fazal Younus

Authors
  1. Md Aboul Fazal Younus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Aboul Fazal Younus .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Younus, M.A.F. (2014). Research Methodology. In: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Bangladesh. Springer Theses. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5494-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation