Conceptualizing Climate Vulnerability in Complex Adaptive Systems

Abstract

This Perspective develops a novel approach for assessing the vulnerability of complex adaptive systems to climate change. Our characterization focuses on the dynamic nature of vulnerability and its role in developing differential risk across multi-dimensional systems, communities, or societies. We expand on past conceptualizations that have examined vulnerability as processual rather than a static or binary state and note the necessary role of complexity and complex adaptive systems theory as a basis for effective vulnerability assessment. In illustrating our approach, we demonstrate the importance of factors such as modulation (connectedness), feedback mechanisms, redundancy, and the susceptibility of individual components within a system to change. Understanding the complexity of potentially vulnerable systems in this manner can help unravel the causes of vulnerability, facilitate the identification and characterization of potential adaptive deficits within specific dimensions of complex adaptive systems, and direct opportunities for adaptation. ll

Harnessing the potential of vulnerability assessments for managing social-ecological systems

“…• Use multiple indicators from various data sources and knowledge systems for triangulation and maximum accuracy (5-8). (Hinkel 2011, Debortoli et al 2018, Cochrane et al 2019, Naylor et al 2020) •…”

“…This type of information can potentially be incorporated within a framework for systematic prioritization, for instance via Marxan or prioritizer. Fully aggregated vulnerability outputs are also useful for temporal comparisons, where the vulnerability of a system is expected to change over time following a particular event or intervention (Thiault et al 2018b) or over multiple time periods (Naylor et al 2020).…”

“…Although originally centered on the impacts of climate-related stressors on human societies, vulnerability has come to increasingly overlap with key themes of the contemporary sustainability narratives, including human-nature interactions, complex systems science, global change, and ecological resilience and adaptation (Clark and Dickson 2003, Turner et al 2003a, Folke et al 2016. For example, vulnerability is increasingly integrated within approaches that consider more complex system dynamics such as cross-scalar influences, telecoupling, and multiple stressors (O'Brien and Leichenko 2000, Turner et al 2003b, O'Brien et al 2004, Belliveau et al 2006, Tschakert 2007, McDowell and Hess 2012, Debortoli et al 2018, Huynh and Stringer 2018, Naylor et al 2020. Likewise, the emergent concept of social-ecological vulnerability (Marshall et al 2009, Cinner et al 2013b, Maina et al 2016, Berrouet et al 2018, Thiault et al 2018a, b, Depietri 2020) echoes the increasingly mainstream recognition that people and nature are interdependent, because people are part of ecosystems and shape them, but are also fundamentally dependent on the capacity of these systems to support wellbeing and development (Fischer et al 2015, Lebot and Siméoni 2015, Aswani et al 2018, Ticktin et al 2018, IPBES 2019.…”

The IPCC: A Primer for Archaeologists

“…Archaeologists are once again turning their attention to problems of causation, which will be approachable only within the particular temporal coarse-graining allowed by various archaeological records (which must always be explicit). Climatic causation of social change will presumably always be partial; responses to climate change will reflect the specific internal social dynamics of societies in complex and multiscalar ways (Gronenborn et al 2020; Hegmon et al 2018; Naylor et al 2020). Convincing models of causation from climate to society should examine the temporal dynamics of socio-natural systems in ways that also recognize the effects of societies on their ecosystems (Boivin et al 2016)—for example, through agent-based models (e.g., Bocinsky et al 2012).…”

Determinant Factor of Food Farming Vulnerability in Banten Province To Support Climate Change Adaptation

“…The important factors comprise of social and biophysical aspects that need to be considered in a holistic approach to vulnerability analysis (Lee, 2017). Vulnerability is dynamic and contextual, which is determined by the continuous interaction of various exogenous and endogenous stressors in addition to the associated components that interact with the vulnerability (Naylor et al, 2020), such as the affected system (Morel et al, 2019) and potential loss or danger (Noy and Yonson, 2018). In addition, the existence of institution may alter the vulnerability (Rufat et al, 2015).…”