4.7 Article

Where does climate fit? Vulnerability to climate change in the context of multiple stressors in Funafuti, Tuvalu

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.007

关键词

Climate change; Vulnerability; Adaptation; Multiple stressors; Pacific; Small islands

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  2. Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement
  3. Canada Research Chairs program
  4. Ontario Graduate Scholarships
  5. University of Guelph
  6. Funafuti Kauple
  7. Government of Tuvalu
  8. University of the South Pacific (Tuvalu Campus)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines vulnerability to climate change in the context of multiple stressors through a case study of Funafuti, Tuvalu. Climate change research in Pacific Islands has largely focused on biophysical changes such as sea-level rise. Less is known about how livelihoods are affected and what adaptation options are realistic. The research employs a vulnerability framework to identify where climate fits in the suite of forces (socioeconomic, cultural, environmental) already affecting livelihoods. The participatory approach includes semi-structured interviews with community members, initially without reference to climate. Key areas of concern to people in Funafuti are economic, food, water and overcrowding, rather than climate change. Vulnerability to changing climatic conditions is evident in water, land, and food through the interaction of non-climatic forces (e.g. overcrowding, urbanization, few economic opportunities, changing land use, and shifting cultural norms), and climatic forces (e.g. dry spells, extreme sea-levels, strong winds and changing marine conditions). Adaptations, beyond bearing the effects and sharing the burden, are mainly reactive and short-term. Future changes in climate will be experienced in the context of these multiple, interacting forces, and adaptation initiatives will need to be designed in light of these. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据