Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-spj7j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T06:08:55.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Establishing vulnerability observatory networks to coordinate the collection and analysis of comparable data

from Part III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

By
Colin Polsky ,
Rob Neff  and
Brent Yarnal
Edited by
Brent Yarnal ,
Colin Polsky  and
James O'Brien
Brent Yarnal
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Colin Polsky
Affiliation:
Clark University, Massachusetts
James O'Brien
Affiliation:
Kingston University, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Vulnerability has emerged in recent years as one of the central organizing concepts for research on global environmental change (e.g., Downing 2000; O'Brien and Leichenko 2000; Turner et al. 2003; Schröter et al. 2005; Parry et al., 2007). This concept is appealing because it is inclusive. From this perspective, humans and the natural environment are not independent systems, homogeneous and unable to adapt to threats, be they anticipated, realized, or perceived but not realized. Instead, human and natural systems are viewed as intimately coupled, and differentially exposed, sensitive, and adaptable to threats. This logic, followed to its natural conclusion, means that adopting a “vulnerability” perspective demands a thorough investigation of biophysical, cognitive, and social dimensions of human–environment interactions. Strictly speaking, to conduct a vulnerability assessment means that no element of the human–environment system may be simplified away or considered a mere boundary condition.

This conceptual inclusiveness complicates the analytical task (compared to the simpler impacts-only approach), which partially explains why there are few, if any, studies that deeply engage this vast set of intellectual dimensions. This inclusiveness also raises important methodological questions. Consider two vulnerability assessments that examine local-scale vulnerabilities associated with hydroclimatic variability. Mustafa (1998) examines flood-related vulnerabilities in five Pakistani farming communities; Hill and Polsky (2005) assess drought-related vulnerabilities in ten non-farming Massachusetts (USA) towns. Can the vulnerability indicators produced by these assessments be easily compared such that potential common findings on how exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity contribute to local vulnerabilities may be identified?

Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainable Communities on a Sustainable Planet
The Human-Environment Regional Observatory Project
 , pp. 83 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, W. N., 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under transition in Vietnam. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4): 738–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, W. N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, W. N., and Kelly, P. M., 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4(3/4): 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, J., and Eyles, J., 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview anaysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22: 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (eds.), 2002. Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Blaikie, P., and Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation and Society. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Böhle, H. G., Downing, T. E., and Watts, M., 1994. Climate change and social vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4(1): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., and Kelly, P. M., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15(2): 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T. R., Parry, M. L., Harasawa, H., and Nishioka, S., 1994. IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations, 59. London: Department of Geography, University College London; and Tsukuba, Japan: Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K., 2000. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., pp. 509–536. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, G. E., Moser, S., Ratick, S., Dow, K., Meyer, W. B., Emani, S., Jin, W., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., and Schwarz, H. E., 1998. Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storm: the case of Revere, MA, USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, W. C., and Dickson, N. M., 2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100(14): 8059–8061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutter, S., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20(4): 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, S., 2001. A research agenda for vulnerability science and environmental hazards. International Human Dimensions Program Update 01(2): 8–9.Google Scholar
Cutter, S., 2003. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., and Scott, M. S., 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4): 713–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), 2002. The Qualitative Inquiry Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRef
Dow, K., O'Connor, R. E., Yarnal, B., Carbone, G. J., and Jocoy, C. L., 2007. Why worry? Community water system managers' perceptions of climate vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 17: 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, T. E., 1991. Vulnerability to hunger in Africa: a climate change perspective. Global Environmental Change 1: 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, T. E., 2000. Human dimensions research: toward a vulnerability science?International Human Dimensions Program Update 00(3): 16–17.Google Scholar
Downing, T. E., Butterfield, R., Cohen, S., Huq, S., Moss, R., Rahman, A., Sokona, Y., and Stephen, L., 2001. Vulnerability Indices: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation, Policy Series No. 3. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Accessed at www.unep.org/library/Default.asp?catid=6.
Easterling, W. E. and Polsky, C., 2004. Crossing the complex divide: linking scales for understanding coupled human–environment systems. In Scale and Geographic Inquiry, eds. McMaster, R. and Sheppard, E., pp. 55–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Finan, T., West, C., Austin, D., and McGuire, T., 2002. Processes of adaptation to climate variability: a case study from the US Southwest. Climate Research 21(3): 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, H. J., 2005. The Causes and Progression of Desertification. London: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Geist, H. J., and Lambin, E. F., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52: 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G., 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., pp. 163–188. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gunderson, L. H., 2001. Managing surprising ecosystems in southern Florida. Ecological Economics 37: 371–378.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, T. and Polsky, C., 2005. Suburbanization and adaptation to the effects of suburban drought in rainy central Massachusetts. Geographical Bulletin 47(2): 85–100.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S., 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, eds. Clark, W. C. and Munn, R. E., pp. 292–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, B., Leary, N. A., Jones, R., and Smith, J., 1999. Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1399–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, M. A., Schoon, M. L., Ke, W., and Borner, K., 2006. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 16: 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperson, R., 2001. Vulnerability and global environmental change. International Human Dimensions Program Update 01(2): 2–3.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W., 1985. The interaction of climate and society. In Climate Impact Assessment: Studies of the Interaction of Climate and Society, eds. Kates, R. W., Ausubel, J. H., and Berberian, M., pp. 3–36. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W., Ausubel, J. H., and Berberian, M. (eds.), 1985. Climate Impact Assessment: Studies of the Interaction of Climate and Society. Chichester: John Wiley.
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G. C., Gruebler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N. S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B. III, O'Riordan, T., and Svedin, U., 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292: 641–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, P. M., and Adger, W. N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change 47: 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. J. T., and MacIver, D. C., 1999. Adaptation to climate change and variability: methodological issues. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4(3/4): 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. J. T., Nicholls, R. J., and Mimura, N., 1999. Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC Technical Guidelines be applied?Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4(3/4): 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liverman, D. M., 1990. Drought impacts in Mexico: climate, agriculture, technology, and land tenure in Sonora and Puebla. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80(1): 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. H., Brenkert, A. L., and Malone, E. L., 2001. Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Quantitative Approach. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Mustafa, D., 1998. Structural causes of vulnerability to flood hazard in Pakistan. Economic Geography 74: 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,National Research Council (NRC), 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability. Board on Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
O'Brien, K. L., and Leichenko, R., 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change 10: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L., and West, J., 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14: 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, R. E., Yarnal, B., Neff, R., Bord, R., Wiefek, N., Reenock, C., Shudak, R., Jocoy, C. L., Pascale, P., and Knight, C. G., 1999. Weather and climate extremes, climate change, and planning: views of community water system managers in Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1411–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, R., Yarnal, B., Dow, K., Jocoy, C. S., and Carbone, G., 2005. Feeling at-risk matters: water managers and the decision to use forecasts. Risk Analysis 25: 1265–1275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ojima, D., Moran, E., McConnell, W., Smith, M. Stafford, Laumann, G., Morais, J., and Young, B. (eds.), 2005. Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Science/Research Plan, IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. Stockholm: IGBP Secretariat.
Oreskes, N., Schrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K., 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences. Science 263(5147): 641–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parry, M. L., 2001. Viewpoint: Climate change – where should our research priorities be?Global Environmental Change 11: 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, P. J., and Hansen, C. E. (eds.), 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polsky, C., 2004. Putting space and time in Ricardian climate change impact studies: the case of agriculture in the U.S. Great Plains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(3): 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsky, C., and Cash, D., 2005. Reducing vulnerability to the effects of global change: drought management in a multi-scale, multi-stressor world. In Drought and Water Crises: Science, Technology, and Management Issues, ed. Wilhite, D., pp. 215–245. Amsterdam: Marcel Dekker.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsky, C., Neff, R., and Yarnal, B., 2007. Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: the Vulnerability Scoping Diagram. Global Environmental Change 17: 472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Project for Public Spaces (PPS), 2005. Accessed at www.pps.org/.
Ragin, C. C., 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rudel, T. K., 2005. Tropical Forests: Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration in the Late 20th Century. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudel, T. K., 2008. Capturing regional effects through meta-analyses of case studies: an example from the global change literature. Global Environmental Change 18: 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. H., Easterling, W. E., and Mearns, L. O., 2000. Adaptation: sensitivity to natural variability, agent assumptions and dynamic climate changes. Climatic Change 45: 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröter, D., Polsky, C., and Patt, A., 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10(4): 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. J. T., and Street, R., 1999. The science of adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4(3/4): 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithers, J., and Smit, B., 1997. Human adaptation to climatic variability and change. Global Environmental Change 7(2): 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorrensen, C., Polsky, C., and Neff, R., 2005. The Human–Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) Project: undergraduate research findings from four study sites. Geographical Bulletin 47(2): 65–72.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100: 8074–8079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, B. L., Geoghegan, J., and Foster, D. R. (eds.), 2004. Integrated Land-Change Science and Tropical Deforestation in the Southern Yucatán: Final Frontiers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cummings, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G. D., and Pritchard, R., 2002. Resilience management in social–ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1):14 (online). Accessed at www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14/main.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F. M., 1986. Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, S.-Y., Yarnal, B., and Fisher, A., 2002. Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: a case study of Cape May County, New Jersey. Climate Research 22: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarnal, B., O'Connor, R., Dow, K., Carbone, G., and Jocoy, C., 2005. Why don't Community Water System managers use weather and climate forecasts? Preprints of the 15th Conference on Applied Climatology, Savannah, GA, June 2005. Accessed at www.ametsoc.org/.
Yarnal, B., Heasley, A. L., O'Connor, R. E., Dow, K., and Jocoy, C. L., 2006. The potential use of climate forecasts by Community Water System managers. Land Use and Water Resources Research. Accessed at www.luwrr.com.
Young, O., Lambin, E. F., Alcock, F., Haberl, H., Karlssone, S. I., McConnell, W. J., Myint, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., Polsky, C., Ramakrishnan, P. S., Scouvart, M., Schroeder, H., and Verburg, P. H., 2006. A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human–environment interactions. Ecology and Society 11(2): 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×