Objective. County-level socioeconomic and demographic data were used to construct an index of social vulnerability to environmental hazards, called the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) for the United States based on 1990 data.

Methods. Using a factor analytic approach, 42 variables were reduced to 11 independent factors that accounted for about 76 percent of the variance. These factors were placed in an additive model to compute a summary score—the Social Vulnerability Index.

Results. There are some distinct spatial patterns in the SoVI, with the most vulnerable counties clustered in metropolitan counties in the east, south Texas, and the Mississippi Delta region.

Conclusion. Those factors that contribute to the overall score often are different for each county, underscoring the interactive nature of social vulnerability—some components increase vulnerability; others moderate the effects.

/pdf/social-vulnerability-to-environmental-hazards-32dddb7u13.pdf

Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards

Human institutions—ways of organizing activities—affect the resilience of the environment. Locally evolved institutional arrangements governed by stable communities and buffered from outside forces have sustained resources successfully for centuries, although they often fail when rapid change occurs. Ideal conditions for governance are increasingly rare. Critical problems, such as transboundary pollution, tropical deforestation, and climate change, are at larger scales and involve nonlocal influences. Promising strategies for addressing these problems include dialogue among interested parties, officials, and scientists; complex, redundant, and layered institutions; a mix of institutional types; and designs that facilitate experimentation, learning, and change.

/pdf/the-struggle-to-govern-the-commons-5a060zxyju.pdf

The Struggle to Govern the Commons

This first report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment describes the conceptual framework that is being used in the MA. It is not a formal assessment of the literature, but rather a scientifically informed presentation of the choices made by the assessment team in structuring the analysis and framing the issues. The conceptual framework elaborated in this report describes the approach and assumptions that will underlie the analysis conducted in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The framework was developed through interactions among the experts involved in the MA as well as stakeholders who will use its findings. It represents one means of examining the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being that is both scientifically credible and relevant to decision-makers. This framework for analysis and decision-making should be of use to a wide array of individuals and institutions in government, the private sector, and civil society that seek to incorporate considerations of ecosystem services in their assessments, plans, and actions.

/pdf/ecosystems-and-human-well-being-a-framework-for-assessment-4qlt46fj9i.pdf

Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment

For over 50 years, hazards researchers have focused on a series of fundamental 
questions:• What is the human occupancy of hazard zones? 
• How do people and societies respond to environmental hazards and whatfactors influence their choice of adjustments? 
• How do you mitigate the risk and impact of environmental hazards?

Vulnerability to environmental hazards

Vulnerability is an emerging concept for climate science and policy. Over the past decade, efforts to assess vulnerability to climate change triggered a process of theory development and assessment practice, which is reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This paper reviews the historical development of the conceptual ideas underpinning assessments of vulnerability to climate change. We distinguish climate impact assessment, first- and second-generation vulnerability assessment, and adaptation policy assessment. The different generations of assessments are described by means of a conceptual framework that defines key concepts of the assessment and their analytical relationships. The purpose of this conceptual framework is two-fold: first, to present a consistent visual glossary of the main concepts underlying the IPCC approach to vulnerability and its assessment; second, to show the evolution of vulnerability assessments. This evolution is characterized by the progressive inclusion of non-climatic determinants of vulnerability to climate change, including adaptive capacity, and the shift from estimating expected damages to attempting to reduce them. We hope that this paper improves the understanding of the main approaches to climate change vulnerability assessment and their evolution, not only within the climate change community but also among researchers from other scientific communities, who are sometimes puzzled by the unfamiliar use of technical terms in the context of climate change.

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking

Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change

Clarification of several issues in the human dimensions of global environmental change is essential to the creation of a balanced research agenda. Global environmental change includes both systemic changes that operate globally through the major systems of the geosphere-biosphere, and cumulative changes that represent the global accumulation of localized changes. An understanding of the human dimen sions of change requires attention to both types through research that integrates findings from spatial scales ranging from the global to the local. A regional or meso-scale focus represents a particularly promising avenue of approach.

Two types of global environmental change: Definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions

Change in climate and other portions of the globalenvironmentwill have uneven consequences across countries and regions. These changes already may be underway, will remain highly uncertain, and will prove challenging to diagnose. The geographical separation between the sources of human driving forces and the affected areas is a potential source of international tension and conflict. Some of these changes will exacerbate existing social and economic inequities and threaten sustainable development. This article examines the major equity prob lems arising from the interaction of geographical discontinuities, uncertainty, and international development.

Kirstin M. Dow

Papers

Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change

Two types of global environmental change: Definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions

Developmental and Geographical Equity in Global Environmental Change: A Framework for Analysis