Citation Context

... The public’s perceived attribution of the source of stress and the significance of exposure to its local manifestations. Finally, it is essential to note that exposure to variability and to extreme events is an important source of vulnerability. In fact, systems typically respond to variability and extreme events before they respond to gradual changes in the mean. In summary, the vulnerability cum adaptation literature recognizes explicitly that systems’ environments are inherently variable from day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, and so on [see Mearns, et al. (1997), Karl and Knight (1998) and Berz (1999)]. It follows that changes in the mean conditions that define those environments can actually be experienced most noticeably through changes in the nature and/or frequency of variable conditions that materialize across short time scales and that adaptation necessarily involves reaction to this sort of variability. This is the fundamental point in Hewitt and Burton (1971), Kane, et al. (1992), Yohe, et al. (1996), Downing (1996) and Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “haz...

Citation Context

...eriods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significant consequences are not observed [see Downing, et al (1997) or Pittock and Jones (2000)]. There 4 are, however, limits to resilience for even the most robust of systems. As a result, it is important to understand the boundaries of systems’ coping ranges – thresholds beyond which the consequences of experienced conditions become significant. Coping ranges are not necessarily fixed over time, of course. Indeed, de Vries (1985), de Freitas (1989) and Smit, et al. (2000) all make it clear that judging adaptive capacity depends critically upon both defining a coping range and understanding how the efficacy of any coping strategy might be expanded by adopting new or modified adaptations 2. Adding Detail and Context to the Vulnerability Structure. The broad relationship between vulnerability, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity illustrated in the river flow example can be expressed in its most general form with a little notation. Let V denote vulnerability, E denote exposure, S denote sensitivity, and A denote adaptive capacity, and let Di index each of the eight...

Citation Context

...o decade, and so on [see Mearns, et al. (1997), Karl and Knight (1998) and Berz (1999)]. It follows that changes in the mean conditions that define those environments can actually be experienced most noticeably through changes in the nature and/or frequency of variable conditions that materialize across short time scales and that adaptation necessarily involves reaction to this sort of variability. This is the fundamental point in Hewitt and Burton (1971), Kane, et al. (1992), Yohe, et al. (1996), Downing (1996) and Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “hazard” to capture these sorts of stimuli, and claim that adaptation is warranted whenever either changes in mean conditions or changes in variability have significant consequences. For most systems, though, change and variability over short periods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significant consequences are not observed [see Downing, et al (1997) or Pittock and Jones (2000)]. There 4 are, however, limits to resilience for even the most robust of ...

Citation Context

...th, year to year, decade to decade, and so on [see Mearns, et al. (1997), Karl and Knight (1998) and Berz (1999)]. It follows that changes in the mean conditions that define those environments can actually be experienced most noticeably through changes in the nature and/or frequency of variable conditions that materialize across short time scales and that adaptation necessarily involves reaction to this sort of variability. This is the fundamental point in Hewitt and Burton (1971), Kane, et al. (1992), Yohe, et al. (1996), Downing (1996) and Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “hazard” to capture these sorts of stimuli, and claim that adaptation is warranted whenever either changes in mean conditions or changes in variability have significant consequences. For most systems, though, change and variability over short periods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significant consequences are not observed [see Downing, et al (1997) or Pittock and Jones (2000)]. There 4 are, however, limits to resilience for eve...

Citation Context

...nerability cum adaptation literature recognizes explicitly that systems’ environments are inherently variable from day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, and so on [see Mearns, et al. (1997), Karl and Knight (1998) and Berz (1999)]. It follows that changes in the mean conditions that define those environments can actually be experienced most noticeably through changes in the nature and/or frequency of variable conditions that materialize across short time scales and that adaptation necessarily involves reaction to this sort of variability. This is the fundamental point in Hewitt and Burton (1971), Kane, et al. (1992), Yohe, et al. (1996), Downing (1996) and Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “hazard” to capture these sorts of stimuli, and claim that adaptation is warranted whenever either changes in mean conditions or changes in variability have significant consequences. For most systems, though, change and variability over short periods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significan...

Citation Context

...re inherently variable from day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, and so on [see Mearns, et al. (1997), Karl and Knight (1998) and Berz (1999)]. It follows that changes in the mean conditions that define those environments can actually be experienced most noticeably through changes in the nature and/or frequency of variable conditions that materialize across short time scales and that adaptation necessarily involves reaction to this sort of variability. This is the fundamental point in Hewitt and Burton (1971), Kane, et al. (1992), Yohe, et al. (1996), Downing (1996) and Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “hazard” to capture these sorts of stimuli, and claim that adaptation is warranted whenever either changes in mean conditions or changes in variability have significant consequences. For most systems, though, change and variability over short periods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significant consequences are not observed [see Downing, et al (1997) or Pittock and Jones (2000)]. T...

Citation Context

... Yohe and Schlesinger (1998). Some researchers, like Smithers and Smit (1997), Smit, et al. (1999), and Downing et al (1997), use the concept of “hazard” to capture these sorts of stimuli, and claim that adaptation is warranted whenever either changes in mean conditions or changes in variability have significant consequences. For most systems, though, change and variability over short periods of time fall within a “coping range” – a range of circumstances within which, by virtue of the underlying resilience of the system, significant consequences are not observed [see Downing, et al (1997) or Pittock and Jones (2000)]. There 4 are, however, limits to resilience for even the most robust of systems. As a result, it is important to understand the boundaries of systems’ coping ranges – thresholds beyond which the consequences of experienced conditions become significant. Coping ranges are not necessarily fixed over time, of course. Indeed, de Vries (1985), de Freitas (1989) and Smit, et al. (2000) all make it clear that judging adaptive capacity depends critically upon both defining a coping range and understanding how the efficacy of any coping strategy might be expanded by adopting new or modified adaptatio...