Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on - US Climate Change ...

The U.S. Climate <strong>Change</strong> Science Program Chapter 4
124
<strong>of</strong> vulnerability is a viable one and can be
measured and applied to communities in a
Geographic Information System context. It is
not <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this chapter to focus in great
detail on vulnerability measurement issues
(for those interested in o<strong>the</strong>r formulations
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vulnerability concept, see Dietz et al.,
In Press).
4.2.4.3 Adaptation
From <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community, <strong>the</strong> goal
<strong>of</strong> successful adaptation to climate impacts—
particularly potentially adverse impacts—is
to maintain <strong>the</strong> long-term sustainability and
survival <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community. Thus, a resilient
community is capable <strong>of</strong> absorbing climate
changes and <strong>the</strong> shocks <strong>of</strong> extreme events
without breakdowns in its economy, natural
resource base, or social systems (Godschalk,
2003). Given <strong>the</strong>ir control over shared resources,
communities have <strong>the</strong> capacity to adapt to
climate change in larger and more coordinated
ways than individuals, by creating plans and
strategies to increase resilience in <strong>the</strong> face <strong>of</strong>
future shocks, while at <strong>the</strong> same time ensuring
that <strong>the</strong> negative impacts <strong>of</strong> climate change
do not fall disproportionately on <strong>the</strong>ir most
vulnerable populations and demographic
groups (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001).
Public policies and programs are in place in
<strong>the</strong> United States to enhance <strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong>
communities to mitigate 10 damage and loss
from natural hazards and extreme events
(Burby, 1998; Mileti, 1999; Godschalk, 2007).
A considerable body <strong>of</strong> research looks at
responses to natural hazards, and recent
research has shown that <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> natural
hazard mitigation at <strong>the</strong> national level outweigh
its costs by a factor <strong>of</strong> four to one on average
(Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2005; Rose et
al., 2007). Research also has been done on <strong>the</strong>
social vulnerability <strong>of</strong> communities to natural
hazards (Cutter et al., 2003) and <strong>the</strong> economic
resilience <strong>of</strong> businesses to natural hazards
(Tierney, 1997; Rose, 2004). However, <strong>the</strong>re
10 In <strong>the</strong> natural hazards and disasters field, a single
term—mitigation—refers both to adaptation to hazards
and mitigation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir stresses (see <strong>the</strong> Disaster
Mitigation Act <strong>of</strong> 2000, Public Law 106-390).
is scant research on U.S. policies dealing with
community adaptation to <strong>the</strong> broader impacts
<strong>of</strong> climate change.
4.3 AN ECONOMIC
APPROACH TO HUMAN
WELFARE
Welfare, well-being, and quality <strong>of</strong> life are <strong>of</strong>ten
viewed as multi-faceted concepts. In subjective
assessments <strong>of</strong> happiness or quality <strong>of</strong> life (see
<strong>the</strong> discussion in Section 4.2), <strong>the</strong> individual
makes a net evaluation <strong>of</strong> his or her current
state, taking into account (at least implicitly)
and balancing all <strong>the</strong> relevant facets or
dimensions <strong>of</strong> that state <strong>of</strong> being. Constructing
an overall statement regarding welfare from a
set <strong>of</strong> objective measures, however, requires a
means <strong>of</strong> weighting or ranking, or o<strong>the</strong>rwise
aggregating, <strong>the</strong>se measures. The economic
approach supplies one—although not <strong>the</strong> only
possible—approach to aggregation. 11
Quantitative measures <strong>of</strong> welfare that use a
common metric have two potential advantages.
First, <strong>the</strong> ability to compare welfare impacts
across different welfare categories makes it
possible to identify and rank categories with
regard to <strong>the</strong> magnitude or importance <strong>of</strong> effects.
Welfare impacts can <strong>the</strong>n provide a signal about
<strong>the</strong> relative importance <strong>of</strong> different impacts, and
so help to set priorities with regard to adaptation
or research. Second, if <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> welfare
is (ideally) a net measure, <strong>the</strong>n it should be
possible to aggregate <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> climate across
disparate indicators. Quantitative measures that
use <strong>the</strong> same metric can, potentially, be summed
to generate net measures <strong>of</strong> welfare, and gauge
progress over time, or under different policy or
adaptation scenarios.
11 In part because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> difficulty in compiling <strong>the</strong>
information needed for aggregation <strong>of</strong> economic
measures, Jacoby (2004) proposes a portfolio approach
to benefits estimation, focusing on a limited
set <strong>of</strong> indicators <strong>of</strong> global climate change, <strong>of</strong> regional
impact, and one global monetary measure. The set
<strong>of</strong> measures would not be <strong>the</strong> only information generated
and made available, but it would represent a
set <strong>of</strong> variables continuously maintained and used
to describe policy choices.