The social–ecological dimension of vulnerability and risk to natural hazards

Depietri, Yaella

doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00710-y

Cited by 74 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nesshöver et al, 2017;Seddon et al, 2020a) can have additional effects on vulnerability that go beyond changes to flows of ecosystem services. Our conceptualization therefore contrasts with previous conceptualizations of social-ecological vulnerability (see Thiault et al 2018, Depietri, 2020, Seddon et al, 2020b, which focussed on "social" vulnerability through the lens of a stressor's impact on ecological vulnerability. This conceptual shift/expansion of social-ecological vulnerability was necessary to make visible non-ecological pathways through which NbS, understood here as adaptation interventions, can shape people's vulnerabilities, directly or indirectly.…”

Section: Nature-based Solutions and Vulnerability Reductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Our conceptualisation builds on previous studies (Cinner et al, 2012;Depietri, 2020;Thiault et al, 2018;Seddon et al, 2020b) by making explicit the 1) the ways people are situated in and depend upon SES, and likewise shape changes to the system through their practices and institutions; 2) the ways that people's vulnerability to climate change depends significantly on distinct components of social and ecological exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity 3) the roles of NbS in reducing people's vulnerability of the SES to climate change via the aforementioned dimensions, which are termed vulnerability-reduction pathways; and, 4) the role played by institutions and other mediating factors in shaping even 'nature-based' adaptation actions and their impacts.…”

Section: Nature-based Solutions and Vulnerability Reductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Recently, there has been a focus on understanding vulnerability in social-ecologically-explicit ways (Cinner et al, 2012;Thiault, et al, 2018;Depietri, 2020;Seddon et al, 2020b). Though such conceptualisations do not commonly directly address climate change -rather vulnerability to any kind of shocks and stresses -these frameworks help to contextualise vulnerability as the property of a social-ecological system (SES) --involving social and ecological structures, functions and their dynamic interactions (Adger et al, 2009;Gallopin, 2006;Brink et al, 2016;Lavorel et al, 2020).…”

Section: Socio-ecological Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contributions of Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Peoples’ Vulnerabilities to Climate Change across the Rural Global South

Woroniecki¹,

Spiegelenberg²,

Chausson³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature-based solutions (NbS) —i.e. working with and enhancing nature to address societal challenges— feature with increasing prominence in responses to climate change, including in the adaptation plans of the most vulnerable nations. Although evidence for the effectiveness of NbS for adaptation is growing, there is less evidence on whether and how NbS reduce vulnerability to climate change in the Global South, despite this region being home to most of the world’s most climate-vulnerable people. To address this, we analysed the vulnerability-reduction outcomes of 85 nature-based interventions in rural areas across the Global South, and factors mediating their effectiveness, based on a systematic map of peer-reviewed studies encompassing a wide diversity of ecosystems, climate impacts, intervention types and institutions. We applied an analytical framework based on social-ecological systems and climate change vulnerability, coding studies with respect to six pathways of vulnerability reduction: social and ecological exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. We find widespread effectiveness of NbS in the dataset with 95% providing positive outcomes for climate change adaptation. Overall, nature-based interventions reduced vulnerability primarily by lowering ecosystem sensitivity to climate impacts (73% of interventions), followed by reducing social sensitivity (43%), reducing ecological exposure (37%), and/or increasing social adaptive capacity (34%), ecological adaptive capacity (18%) and reducing social exposure (12%). With an analysis of mediating factors, we show that vulnerability-reduction effectiveness was affected as much by social and political factors as by technical considerations. Indeed configurations of existing and introduced formal and informal institutions appear central to the efficacy and distributive effects of the studied interventions. We conclude that attention to the distinct pathways through which vulnerability is reduced can help maximise the benefits of NbS and that to be successful, careful consideration is required on their applicability to particular circumstances as well as their social dimensions.

show abstract

Section: Nature-based Solutions and Vulnerability Reductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Nature-based Solutions and Vulnerability Reductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Socio-ecological Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contributions of Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Peoples’ Vulnerabilities to Climate Change across the Rural Global South

Woroniecki¹,

Spiegelenberg²,

Chausson³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Globally, coastal planning practices are increasingly seeking NbSs to alleviate the potential adverse effects of coastal hazards (Depietri, 2020). Our findings will deepen the scientific understanding of the degree of protection a given ecosystem will provide to communities and infrastructures exposed to TC hazards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial assessment of flow and benefit of tropical cyclone hazard mitigation service

Zhao

Peng

Zheng

et al. 2021

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystems are employed to effectively protect people and communities in coastal areas from tropical cyclone (TC) hazards. Although a spatially explicit TC hazard mitigation service (TCHMS) is essential for devising adaptation strategy and resilience policy, the process and delivery of this program are unclear. We improved a capacity–exposure–demand conceptual framework using Guangdong Province, China, as a case study area, and spatial analysis was employed to assess the ecosystem service. Under this framework, we assessed “capacity” as the natural potential protection against TC hazards, “exposure” as the need for services, and “demand” as the estimated necessity of protecting coastal populations and economic interests. The analysis results were then used to map the TCHMS flow and benefit gap. The results showed that 21.6% of the whole province had low capacity, 25.3% had high exposure, and 19.3% had high demand. A significantly negative correlation was present between the TCHMS capacity and exposure, and a positive correlation was shown between the exposure and demand. In particular, the TCHMS flow and benefit were sufficient in inland areas but were severely deficient in coastal megacities. In Guangdong Province, the Pearl River Delta, and Chaoshan (CS), 3.3%, 4.0%, and 15.3% of the areas showed high demand–low capacity–high exposure patterns, respectively. Our findings will deepen the scientific understanding of the degree of protection a given ecosystem will provide to communities and infrastructures exposed to TC hazards and will thus provide scientific support for coastal ecosystem planning and management.

show abstract

“…For example, sensitivity to earthquakes, diseases or fire exposure are not determined by the same features. When stressors affect people indirectly via impacts on the chain linking ecosystems to human well‐being (Daw et al, ), sensitivity is primarily determined by the degree to which people rely upon this chain (Daw et al, ; Depietri, ; Thiault et al, ), or ecosystem services dependency. Dependency is multifaceted and, depending on the focus of the study, may include nutritional, economic, social, cultural, psychological domains , or a combination of those (Marshall et al, ; Selig et al, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The concept of vulnerability as the combination of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to a stressor is gaining traction outside of the climate realm, opening new avenues to address contemporary sustainability issues more holistically. Yet, critical notions that underpin vulnerability have yet to be integrated into its application to natural resource management and non-climatic stressors. In particular, the way generic and stressor-specific facets of vulnerability interact and can inform decision-makers about how interventions combine and/or trade-off remains unexplored.2. Here, we investigate the salience of the generic/specific framing in the context of Chilean artisanal fishing communities engaged in rights-based co-management and experiencing pressures from two stressors: poaching and market volatility.Specifically, we draw on market data combined with socio-economic surveys conducted with 446 members and leaders from 42 fisher unions to quantitatively investigate potential trade-offs and synergies between facets of vulnerability to poaching and markets.3. Generic adaptive capacity (i.e. flexibility, assets, learning, organization and agency) likely facilitated stressor-specific adaptive capacities to both stressors. High levels of specific adaptive capacity to one stressor neither increased exposure nor undermined specific adaptive capacity to the other stressor. However, adaptive capacity did not translate into exposure reduction as expected, suggesting that adaptation barriers may prevent fishers from mobilizing adaptive capacity into effective adaptive action. This study illustrates how breaking down vulnerability into generic and specificfacets can help us better anticipate important trade-offs and synergies in management interventions. More generally, it highlights the potential of the climate 574 | People and Nature THIAULT eT AL.

show abstract

The social–ecological dimension of vulnerability and risk to natural hazards

Cited by 74 publications

References 119 publications

Contributions of Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Peoples’ Vulnerabilities to Climate Change across the Rural Global South

Contributions of Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Peoples’ Vulnerabilities to Climate Change across the Rural Global South

Spatial assessment of flow and benefit of tropical cyclone hazard mitigation service

Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade‐offs and synergies in natural resource management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About