کمبود ظرفیت تطبیقی و ظرفیت انطباقی سیستم های اقتصادی در ارزیابی آسیب پذیری تغییرات آب و هوایی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|8632||2012||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6330 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 15, February 2012, Pages 160–166
This paper considers two ways that economic concepts inform adaptive capacity assessments within the context of climate change vulnerability analysis. First, using an economics framework, there are rational and logical reasons why different individuals and different organized human systems have different levels of adaptive capacity and these differences do not necessarily correlate to differences in vulnerability. An alternative approach is to determine where there are factors leading to socially inequitable or economically sub-optimal investment in adaptive capacity assets or reduced effectiveness of adaptive capacity assets resulting in adaptive capacity deficits. Factors contributing to adaptive capacity deficits include cases of irrational agent behaviour and cases where there are political, social, and economic system failures. A second way current adaptive capacity constructs can be enhanced is by taking explicit account of the adaptive capacity of economic systems. Economic system properties such as scale, diversity, relative mix of the private and public sectors, innovation, organizational/managerial capital, substitutability of inputs, factor mobility, liquidity of assets, etc. will affect the capacity of economic systems to adapt.
Climate change has important implications for forests and organized human systems that are associated with forest resources (Williamson et al., 2009). Adaptation has the potential to reduce impacts; however, before adaptation can proceed an understanding of forest sector vulnerabilities is required (Johnston and Williamson, 2007). The vulnerability of organized human systems to current and future climate change is a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Fussel and Klein, 2006). This paper explores two areas where economics can inform and enhance current approaches to determining and interpreting adaptive capacity in the context of climate change vulnerability assessment. First, the paper proposes a complementary construct — namely, adaptive capacity deficits. Adaptive capacity deficits are an extension of the concept of adaptation deficit proposed by Burton, 2004 and Burton and May, 2004. Different human systems have different levels of adaptive capacity and these differences are normal and expected. Differences in adaptive capacity can arise because of differences in requirement (or demand), supply (or cost), and income. Therefore, determinations of relatively high or low adaptive capacity for a particular system does not necessarily mean that the system is relatively less or more vulnerable to climate change effects compared to other systems. A more direct approach is to determine where circumstances result in socially unacceptable distributions of adaptive capacity, or economically sub-optimal investment in adaptive capacity, or reduced efficacy of current adaptive capacity assets. Inequity, economic inefficiency, and reduced efficacy are symptoms of a system that is experiencing an adaptive capacity deficit. Adaptive capacity deficits are caused by irrational choices and system (economic, social, institutional, political) failures and it is the manifestation of adaptive capacity deficits that causes a system to be vulnerable. A second area where economics can contribute to current approaches is by more directly incorporating properties affecting the adaptive capacity of economic systems into broader adaptive capacity constructs. The current focus of adaptive/community capacity approaches is mainly on social determinants and socially organized systems (e.g. resource-based communities). However, local economies will also be impacted by climate change and the response of economies and their inherent capacity to adapt will have a significant effect on the overall adaptive capacity of integrated social and economic systems. However, features and properties of economies that affect their capacity to adapt (e.g. relative roles of markets vs. public intervention, market efficiency and failure, economic diversity, the nature of technologies, substitution elasticity, scale, flexibility, location or remoteness, potential differences between short- and long-term adaptive capacity) are generally not included in current constructs.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
There are a variety of ways that economics can contribute to how adaptive capacity is defined, interpreted, and utilized. First, economic theory and concepts have the potential to provide structure and an integrating framework for adaptive capacity analysis. For example the general equilibrium/behavioural construct is a top-down approach that provides for a more consistent, objective, and policy-relevant interpretation of adaptive capacity. Subjective assessments of adaptive capacity based only on the presence and abundance of particular adaptive capacity assets are necessary but not sufficient. The assessment of current and/or potential future adaptive capacity deficits complements the determinant based approaches and reduces some of ambiguity inherent in these approaches. A second improvement from economics is to introduce properties such as scale, economic diversity, substitutability, remoteness, and isolation into methods as well as approaches for assessment of adaptive capacity. A third improvement is to explicitly assess the structure of the local economy in terms of whether the current mix of private markets and public interventions is appropriate given climate change. Market-based systems are the most efficient mechanism for reallocation of private goods and services under climate change. There may, however, also be social costs and externalities associated with markets. Consequently, the relative efficiency and effectiveness of private sector and public institutions in adapting to impacts on non-private goods and services is an important factor.