Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- 5 Establishing vulnerability observatory networks to coordinate the collection and analysis of comparable data
- 6 Comparative assessment of human–environment landscape change
- 7 Landsat mapping of local landscape change: the satellite-era context
- Part IV
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
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
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- 5 Establishing vulnerability observatory networks to coordinate the collection and analysis of comparable data
- 6 Comparative assessment of human–environment landscape change
- 7 Landsat mapping of local landscape change: the satellite-era context
- Part IV
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
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 PlanetThe Human-Environment Regional Observatory Project, pp. 83 - 106Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
- 1
- Cited by