2015
DOI: 10.1111/1745-5871.12137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Socio‐Economic Vulnerability to Climate Change Impacts and Environmental Hazards in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia

Abstract: This article systematically reviews and synthesises academic, peer-reviewed literature to assess the state of knowledge concerning socio-economic vulnerability to climate change impacts and environmental hazards in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia. It focuses upon empirical research that identifies socioeconomic factors associated with vulnerable subpopulations. Using systematic review methods, 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles are analysed according to their general characteristi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study did not seek to understand individuals', landowners' or communities' wildfire risk perceptions, an approach used in previous studies (Fischer et al, 2014;Nielsen-Pincus et al, 2015;Olsen et al, 2017;Paveglio et al, 2017). It rather implemented a broader spatial scale approach using the SOVI index, comprised of ACS block group attributes that are generally acknowledged to reflect social vulnerability to wildfires (Cutter et al, 2003;Smith, Keys, Lieske, & Smith, 2015;Wigtil et al, 2016). Using a single or just a few social vulnerability metrics can create discrepancies and can be misleading, e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study did not seek to understand individuals', landowners' or communities' wildfire risk perceptions, an approach used in previous studies (Fischer et al, 2014;Nielsen-Pincus et al, 2015;Olsen et al, 2017;Paveglio et al, 2017). It rather implemented a broader spatial scale approach using the SOVI index, comprised of ACS block group attributes that are generally acknowledged to reflect social vulnerability to wildfires (Cutter et al, 2003;Smith, Keys, Lieske, & Smith, 2015;Wigtil et al, 2016). Using a single or just a few social vulnerability metrics can create discrepancies and can be misleading, e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shifting the policy perspective to this holistic focus on cross-sectoral outcomes would facilitate more efficient and effective delivery of resources; however, the impetus for this approach is currently lacking. For example, events arising from an increasingly dynamic climate, such as drought, impact the individuals and businesses across the economy, not only agriculture (Hanigan, Schirmer, & Niyonsenga, 2018;Kiem & Austin, 2013;Smith, Keys, Lieske, & Smith, 2015), yet these events continue to be considered in the limited policy context of agriculture (Australian Government, 2018b;Stone, 2014). This may reflect the absence of appropriate strategic policy making structures within government or fundamental political considerations related to the cultural importance of agriculture in the Australian context (Samnakay, 2017).…”
Section: F I G U R E 2 Implementation Of the Conceptual Capability Approach (Ca) Policy Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst the review does not represent the overall body of evidence on vulnerability factors, it is worth noting that its findings are in line with the literature on the distributional effects of extreme events, heat-stress in particular [12,48]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%