Adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Another prominent concept relative to policy focuses on a system’s adaptive capacity to respond and the vulnerability of functions that cannot adapt to changing climate. More specifically, adaptive capacity, Burton et al. (2002) argue, is “the ability of a system to adjust to climate change, including climate vulnerability and extremes, to moderate potential damages, to take advantages of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences” (p. 149). That is, there are built in coping mechanisms that allow for a system to evolve in order to maintain functional capacity. Therefore, systems have coping abilities and thresholds that may adapt and flourish within a certain range until it reaches a point when the
…show more content…
When evaluating climate change impacts and adaptation, academic and technical documents employ two main approaches, the hazards based and vulnerability based approach. Addressed more frequently in the literature, the hazards based approach is concerned predominantly with micro impacts from climate change and producing quantitative projective models (Füssel, 2007). For example, these constitute a focus on hazards such as “observed and expected changes in average climate, climate variability, and climate extremes” (Füssel, 2007, p. 266). In relying heavily on results from projection models, many documents are employing this approach such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United States Country Studies Program, and United Nations Environment Programme. Füssel (2007) argues that there are particular challenges associated with this approach including the inability to consider present risks (rather than long term risks), as well as social and economic risks such as adaptive capacity and sustainable economic development. Therefore, one approach to conceptualizing climate change is based on identifying potential future hazards and this method has been used by a variety of academic scholars, as well as governmental and non-governmental …show more content…
Füssel (2007) argues that this method evaluates projected climate change by considering present climate issues. That is, instead of projecting the future through quantitative models, the vulnerability based approach incorporates “social factors that determine the ability to cope with climatic hazards” (Füssel, 2007, p. 271). Further, this approach is founded in the belief that “assessments start from the experience with managing climate risks in the past, and they involve stakeholders from the outset, linking adaptation to climate change directly to their activities” (Füssel, 2007, p. 271). Therefore, in approaching climate change impacts in this way, it allows for a ‘no-regrets’ method which develops strategies that aim to manage current and projected issues in order to hedge bets. As with the hazards based approach, the vulnerability-based approach has some critiques. Füssel (2007) argues that this approach relies heavily on a high degree of expertise due to the qualitative perspective. Thus, these two approaches are founded in different epistemological bases in order to create possible projections of the
When evaluating climate change impacts and adaptation, academic and technical documents employ two main approaches, the hazards based and vulnerability based approach. Addressed more frequently in the literature, the hazards based approach is concerned predominantly with micro impacts from climate change and producing quantitative projective models (Füssel, 2007). For example, these constitute a focus on hazards such as “observed and expected changes in average climate, climate variability, and climate extremes” (Füssel, 2007, p. 266). In relying heavily on results from projection models, many documents are employing this approach such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United States Country Studies Program, and United Nations Environment Programme. Füssel (2007) argues that there are particular challenges associated with this approach including the inability to consider present risks (rather than long term risks), as well as social and economic risks such as adaptive capacity and sustainable economic development. Therefore, one approach to conceptualizing climate change is based on identifying potential future hazards and this method has been used by a variety of academic scholars, as well as governmental and non-governmental …show more content…
Füssel (2007) argues that this method evaluates projected climate change by considering present climate issues. That is, instead of projecting the future through quantitative models, the vulnerability based approach incorporates “social factors that determine the ability to cope with climatic hazards” (Füssel, 2007, p. 271). Further, this approach is founded in the belief that “assessments start from the experience with managing climate risks in the past, and they involve stakeholders from the outset, linking adaptation to climate change directly to their activities” (Füssel, 2007, p. 271). Therefore, in approaching climate change impacts in this way, it allows for a ‘no-regrets’ method which develops strategies that aim to manage current and projected issues in order to hedge bets. As with the hazards based approach, the vulnerability-based approach has some critiques. Füssel (2007) argues that this approach relies heavily on a high degree of expertise due to the qualitative perspective. Thus, these two approaches are founded in different epistemological bases in order to create possible projections of the