Executive Summary

Actions that range from incremental steps to transformational changes are essential for reducing risk from weather and climate extremes (high agreement, robust evidence). [8.6, 8.7] Incremental steps aim to improve efficiency within existing technological, governance, and value systems, whereas transformation may involve alterations of fundamental attributes of those systems. The balance between incremental and transformational approaches depends on evolving risk profiles and underlying social and ecological conditions. Disaster risk, climate change impacts, and capacity to cope and adapt are unevenly distributed. Vulnerability is often concentrated in poorer countries or groups, although the wealthy can also be vulnerable to extreme events. Where vulnerability is high and adaptive capacity relatively low, changes in extreme climate and weather events can make it difficult for systems to adapt sustainably without transformational changes. Such transformations, where they are required, are facilitated through increased emphasis on adaptive management, learning, innovation, and leadership.

Evidence indicates that disaster risk management and adaptation policy can be integrated, reinforcing, and supportive – but this requires careful coordination that reaches across domains of policy and practice (high agreement, medium evidence). [8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7] Including disaster risk management in resilient and sustainable development pathways is facilitated through integrated, systemic approaches that enhance capacity to cope with, adapt to, and shape unfolding processes of change, while taking into consideration multiple stressors, different prioritized values, and competing policy goals.

Introduction

Vulnerability is a concept that captures the dynamic interactions between complex human systems and complex environmental systems. Thus, a vulnerability assessment that produces a static view of human–environment interactions (i.e., by examining one place at one time) will likely provide only limited – and potentially misleading – insight into how the coupled system works. Of course, such static pictures are common in this research domain because it is challenging to establish the temporal evolution of vulnerability (i.e., one place or many places over time). Especially in the context of having limited resources to conduct a vulnerability assessment, a solution to this challenge is to ignore variations over time in favor of examining variations over geographic space (i.e., many places at one time; see Mendelsohn et al. 1994; Carbone 1995; Polsky 2004). We argue that executing a many-places-at-one-time approach requires that all the places adopt a common research protocol; to our knowledge such a networked vulnerability assessment has yet to be reported in the literature. In this chapter, we report results from our effort to examine vulnerabilities – using a rapidly executable and commonly executed methodology – in four distinct study sites in the United States.

As explained in Chapter 1, the HERO project sought to develop infrastructure for studying and monitoring human–environment interactions at individual sites and to enable cross-site comparisons and generalizations. To test how well these concepts and tools work in practice, the project addressed the question, “How does land-use change influence vulnerability to droughts and floods?

Introduction

Among the four areas investigated as part of the HERO project, semi-arid southwestern Kansas is the most reliant on agriculture. This region faces far different issues with respect to land-use/land-cover change, vulnerability to environmental stress (including hydroclimatic variability and change), and sustainability than do densely settled areas and those locales with low economic reliance on agriculture. In both this region and other non-urban parts of the country, populations in many rural counties and small towns are declining, adjustments to economic globalization are taking place, and fluctuations in forcing by coupled human and natural systems are continuing to affect agricultural success. Changes faced by farming regions also vary among those places with generally sufficient rainfall to grow most important crops, those that receive little rain and lack supplemental sources of water, those reliant on renewable surface water sources, and those reliant on declining groundwater sources. Much of southwestern Kansas is reliant on declining groundwater resources, but some areas lack sufficient ground and/or surface water for use in farming.

The name High Plains–Ogallala (HPO-)HERO recognizes this agricultural region's physical identity and its reliance on the Ogallala and other aquifers. Over the last 30 years, the research site has developed a rich literature that connects the people and land of southwestern Kansas (e.g., Worster 1979; Warren et al. 1982; Reisner 1986; Sherow 1990; Kromm and White 1992, 2001; White 1994; White and Kromm 1995; Opie 2000; Bloomquist et al. 2002; Harrington et al. 2003; Broadway and Stull 2006).

Introduction

As described in preceding chapters, one of the overarching HERO research activities was to establish a set of methodological protocols for vulnerability assessments. Within the methodological research plan were two principal activities, as introduced in Chapter 8: the development and testing of a Rapid Vulnerability Assessment methodology, and the development and testing of an Vulnerability Assessment Evaluation methodology, designed to validate, or assess the accuracy, of our work. Chapter 9 summarized our efforts on the former task; this chapter presents the results of the latter task. Accordingly, at the end of this chapter, we will be in a position to posit some synthetic conclusions about vulnerability in and across the four HERO sites.

Accuracy assessments are difficult to conduct in many research domains, but they are particularly challenging in the domain of vulnerability because the multidimensional nature of this concept makes it difficult for an individual researcher to observe and measure the principal variable of interest. The multi-site context, where the number of places and researchers is larger, amplifies this challenge. Clearly, then, conducting vulnerability research in a networked environment will present particular challenges to validating the research. In this light, a methodology for validating – or what we term evaluating – our research findings is needed.

Methods and data

There are two datasets involved in the application of our Vulnerability Assessment Evaluation methodology: the reference dataset and the validation dataset.

Greenhouse gas emissions arise from the acts of people in their local environments, and the sources of greenhouse gases and the driving forces behind their emissions are as varied as the localities included in the Global Change and Local Places project. These different mixes of emission sources and driving forces produce a range of local vulnerabilities, including different perceptions of the magnitude and nature of the problem, and different potential solutions. In order to reduce these emissions, a one-size-fits-all strategy may not work. Instead, analysts and policy makers may be faced with multi-faceted solutions that require an understanding of the dimensions of local vulnerabilities as well as local opportunities for prevention or reduction of emissions. These opportunities may not be realized, in large part because of differing perceptions of risks to different localities. Not only are there perceptual differences on the issue within and among economic sectors and governments, but there is also a significant degree of public indifference to the issue at local, state, and national levels.

Perceptions of climate change: thinking globally and mitigating locally?

Both lay and expert perceptions lead to different evaluations of the nature, extent, and scientific certainty regarding the existence or probability of climate change and its possible impacts (Redclift 1998; Stehr and von Storch 1995). These perceptions are often framed within highly localized sociocultural or sociopolitical contexts, which undoubtedly vary from place to place. In the same way, the willingness of local residents, industries, and businesses to reduce emissions may vary among places.

Landscape, life, and livelihood

The Southwestern Kansas study area (Figure 2.1) lies within the American High Plains, a semi-arid region west of the 100° meridian that extends northward from West Texas through Kansas and Nebraska to the Dakotas. Characterized by nineteenth century explorers as the ‘Great American Desert,’ the first European-American landholders introduced cattle ranching to this nearly treeless shortgrass prairie. Through the Homesteading Act and the efforts of railroads, much of the High Plains was settled by crop farmers in the late nineteenth century. The area of land successfully cultivated varied with precipitation cycles, however, and the particularly long dry spell that occurred in the 1930s resulted in land abandonment through much of the region, lending the High Plains a new name: The Dust Bowl.

The study site lies at the center of the High Plains and in the heart of the former Dust Bowl. Its six counties encompass an area of approximately 14,120 square kilometers (5,450 square miles), inhabited by slightly more than 90,000 people and over 900,000 cattle. The three principal settlements are Garden City (2000 population of 28,451), Dodge City (25,276), and Liberal (19,666). Southwestern Kansas lies at relatively high elevation: 610–1,070 m (2,000–3,500 ft) above sea level, but contains little internal topographical relief.

The study area's climate is semi-arid with mean monthly temperatures ranging from -1 to +27°C (30–80°F). Precipitation averages less than 58 cm (23 in) per year, most of which falls as spring and summer rain (Goodin et al. 1995).