排序方式： 共有126条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Climate change impacts increase pressure on challenges to sustainability and the developmental needs of cities. Conventional, “hard” adaptation measures are often associated with high costs, inflexibility and conflicting interests related to the dense urban fabric, and ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) has emerged as a potentially cost-efficient, comprehensive, and multifunctional approach. This paper reviews and systematises research on urban EbA. We propose an analytical framework that draws on theory from ecosystem services, climate change adaptation and sustainability science. It conceptualises EbA in terms of five linked components: ecological structures, ecological functions, adaptation benefits, valuation, and ecosystem management practices.Our review identified 110 articles, reporting on 112 cities, and analysed them using both quantitative statistical and qualitative content analysis. We found that EbA research in an urban context is fragmented due to different disciplinary approaches and concepts. Most articles focus on heat or flooding, and the most studied ecological structures for reducing the risk of such hazards are green space, wetlands, trees and parks. EbA is usually evaluated in bio-geophysical terms and the use of economic or social valuations are rare. While most articles do not mention specific practices for managing ecological structures, those that do imply that urban EbA strategies are increasingly being integrated into institutional structures. Few articles considered issues of equity or stakeholder participation in EbA.We identified the following challenges for future EbA research. First, while the large amount of data generated by isolated case studies contributes to systems knowledge, there is a lack of systems perspectives that position EbA in relation to the wider socio-economic and bio-geophysical context. Second, normative and ethical aspects of EbA require more thought, such as who are the winners and losers, especially in relation to processes that put people at risk from climate-related hazards. Third, there is room for more forward-looking EbA research, including consideration of future scenarios, experimentation in the creation of new ecological structures and the role of EbA in transformative adaptation. 相似文献
2.
3.
The consequences of wildfires are felt in susceptible communities around the globe on an annual basis. Climate change predictions in places like the south-east of Australia and western United States suggest that wildfires may become more frequent and more intense with global climate change. Compounding this issue is progressive urban development at the peri-urban fringe (wildland–urban interface), where continued infrastructure development and demographic changes are likely to expose more people and property to this potentially disastrous natural hazard. Preparing well in advance of the wildfire season is seen as a fundamental behaviour that can both reduce community wildfire vulnerability and increase hazard resilience – it is an important element of adaptive capacity that allows people to coexist with the hazardous environment in which they live. We use household interviews and surveys to build and test a substantive model that illustrates how social cohesion influences the decision to prepare for wildfire. We demonstrate that social cohesion, particularly community characteristics like ‘sense of community’ and ‘collective problem solving’, are community-based resources that support both the adoption of mechanical preparations, and the development of cognitive abilities and capacities that reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience to wildfire. We use the results of this work to highlight opportunities to transfer techniques and approaches from natural hazards research to climate change adaptation research to explore how the impacts attributed to the social components of social–ecological systems can be mitigated more effectively. 相似文献
4.
Civil society is a critical arena both for exploring Sustainability itself and for sustaining trajectories towards it through innovation, experimentation and debate. Innovations can be mould breaking and can challenge local institutions. Concurrently, initiatives may be fragile due to the development of new working relationships, reliance on voluntary labour and goodwill, and dependence on grant funding. Here we examine different aspects of what it takes to sustain grassroots trajectories for ‘communal growing’, given the pressures that groups and intermediary organisations practicing and supporting this activity experience, and the consequential need to build qualities like ‘resilience’. Attending carefully to the definition of this otherwise slippery concept, a particular focus is given to how contrasting aspects of temporality and agency lead to divergent constructions of ‘resilience’ and strategies for sustaining growing. We draw on fieldwork that explores the practice and support of communal growing in East Sussex, England, and directly associated activities at a national level.We find important interdependencies between communal growing projects and the intermediary organisations supporting them. Additionally there is huge diversity within and between both projects and the organisations that support them, including with respect to the ends to which growing is seen as a means. These ends link growing initiatives – both antagonistically and synergistically – to food, education and health systems. This diversity can be seen positively as: a source of innovation; facilitating the open and bottom up nature of growing; and, enabling the securing of greater financial support for the endeavour. What is less clear is how this plays into framing and configuring communal growing specifically in relation to achieving a more Sustainable and localised food system. We discuss the conceptual and methodological implications of these empirically derived observations with regards future research on grassroots innovations. 相似文献
5.
Nature-triggered hazards and disasters have traditionally been treated only from the lens of geophysical and biophysical processes,
implying that the root cause of large-scale death and destruction lies in the natural domain rather than in a coupled human–environment
system. Conceptually, the physical domain has been seen as discrete and separate from human entities, and solutions were sought
in the technological intervention and control of the physical environment—solutions that often ended up being less effective
than hoped for and sometimes even counter productive. At all levels, institutions have directed and redirected most of their
financial and logistical resources into the search for scientific and engineering solutions without allocating due attention
and resources towards the assessment of effects and effectiveness of the applications of such technological outcomes. However,
over the last two decades, forceful criticisms of the ‘dominant’ technocratic approach to hazards analysis have appeared in
the literature and consequently there has not only been a shift in thinking of causation of disaster loss in terms of human
vulnerability, but also newer questions have arisen regarding distinguishing between the ‘physical exposure’ of people to
threats and societal vulnerability, and linking them with propensity to hazards loss.
Though the vulnerability/resilience paradigm has largely replaced the hazards paradigm within the social sciences and much
of the professional emergency and disaster management communities, this shift of thinking has not progressed to much of the
physical science community, decision-makers and the public, who have not yet accepted the idea that understanding and using
human and societal dimensions is equally or more important than trying to deal and control nature through the use of technology.
This special issue is intended to further the idea that the aspects of community and peoples’ power to mitigate, to improve
coping mechanisms, to respond effectively, and recover with vigor against the environmental extremes are of paramount conceptual
and policy importance. 相似文献
6.
Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships 总被引：7，自引：1，他引：7
Coleen Vogel Susanne C. Moser Roger E. Kasperson Geoffrey D. Dabelko 《Global Environmental Change》2007,17(3-4):349-364
Vulnerability, adaptation and resilience are concepts that are finding increasing currency in several fields of research as well as in various policy and practitioner communities engaged in global environmental change science, climate change, sustainability science, disaster risk-reduction and famine interventions. As scientists and practitioners increasingly work together in this arena a number of questions are emerging: What is credible, salient and legitimate knowledge, how is this knowledge generated and how is it used in decision making? Drawing on important science in this field, and including a case study from southern Africa, we suggest an alternative mode of interaction to the usual one-way interaction between science and practice often used. In this alternative approach, different experts, risk-bearers, and local communities are involved and knowledge and practice is contested, co-produced and reflected upon. Despite some successes in the use and negotiation of such knowledge for ‘real’ world issues, a number of problems persist that require further investigation including the difficulties of developing consensus on the methodologies used by a range of stakeholders usually across a wide region (as the case study of southern Africa shows, particularly in determining and identifying vulnerable groups, sectors, and systems); slow delivery of products that could enhance resilience to change that reflects not only a lack of data, and need for scientific credibility, but also the time-consuming process of coming to a negotiated understanding in science–practice interactions and, finally, the need to clarify the role of ‘external’ agencies, stakeholders, and scientists at the outset of the dialogue process and subsequent interactions. Such factors, we argue, all hinder the use of vulnerability and resilience ‘knowledge’ that is being generated and will require much more detailed investigation by both producers and users of such knowledge. 相似文献
7.
The Philippines is highly susceptible to both geophysical and climate-related disasters. This article explores Filipinos knowledge and perception of climate change and their association with what action Filipinos take to prepare for rapid onset natural hazards such as typhoons. Data for this study were collected from a nationally representative random survey of 5,184 adults conducted between March and April of 2017. Filipinos self-report relatively low levels of knowledge of climate change and cited increased temperatures, shifts in seasons, and heavier rains as the most likely consequences. Levels of disaster preparedness in the Philippines differ widely by region. Although most Filipinos perceive that natural hazards are a risk to them, only a third of Filipinos undertake measures to prepare for disasters. Filipinos who perceive climate-related changes directly impacting their households report taking greater action to prepare for disasters. Filipinos who believe they have been directly impacted by climate-related changes are also more likely to prepare for disasters, take planning actions, and undertake material actions to prepare, such as dwelling improvements. Other factors associated with disaster preparedness include gender, membership in an association, wealth, risk perception, and prior exposure to and losses due to disasters. The findings imply that, while posing different challenges and requiring different responses, adaptation to climate change and disaster preparedness are inherently associated and potentially mutually reinforcing. Policies and programs would arguably benefit from a more unified intervention framework that links climate change adaptation and disaster preparedness. 相似文献
8.
Human–environment interactions are studied by several groups of scholars who have elaborated different approaches to describe, analyze, and explain these interactions, and eventually propose paths for management. The SETER project (Socio-Ecological Theories and Empirical Research) analyzed and compared how “flag-holders” of distinct school of thought in human–environment scholarship approached a number of empirical problems of environmental management. This paper presents the findings from this experiment by concentrating on how representatives of four schools of thought approached one of these case studies: the plant health crisis in greenhouse tomato production in south of France. Our analysis suggests that these approaches share a common conceptual vocabulary composed of four explanatory elements of change (Power, Incentives, System and Adaptation-PISA). We argue that what distinguishes these schools from one another is the syntax—the “rules” by which researchers in each of the sub-disciplines tend to organize the components of this shared conceptual vocabulary. In other words, the schools under scrutiny are differentiated not so much by what they speak of, but rather in what order, or hierarchy, do they tend to rank the importance and/or the sequence of each of these concepts in human–environment explanations. The results of our experiment support the view that communication and cooperation across the diverse human–environment traditions is possible and productive. At the same time, however, we argue that it is the distinctiveness of the claims yielded by these different schools of thought that augment our collective understanding of complex socio-ecological problems. Attempts to integrate these perspectives in one unitary approach would undermine the intellectual wealth necessary to meet the challenges of the Anthropocene. 相似文献
9.
10.
《Geoforum》2015
The concept of resilience has emerged out of a complex literature that has sought to make sense of an increasingly interconnected world that appears ever more beset by crises. Resilience’s appeal is reflected by the burgeoning mass of literature that has appeared on the subject in the past five years. However, there is ongoing debate surrounding its usage, with some commentators claiming that the term is inherently too conservative a one to be usefully applied to situations of vulnerability in which more radical social change is required. This article extends existing efforts to formulate more transformative notions of resilience by reframing it as a double-edged outcome of the pre-reflective and critical ways in which actors draw upon their internal structures following the occurrence of a negative event, thus reproducing or changing the external structural context that gave rise to the event in the first place. By employing a structuration-inspired analysis to the study of small-scale farmer responses to a flood-induced resettlement programme in central Mozambique, the article presents a systematic approach to the examination of resilience in light of this reframing. The case study findings suggest that more attention should be paid to the facilitative, as well as constraining, nature of structures if vulnerable populations are to be assisted in their efforts to exert transformative capacity over the wider conditions that give rise to their difficulties. 相似文献