Community-level climate change vulnerability research: trends, progress, and future directions
By G. McDowell, J. Ford, Julie M. Jones. 2016
136 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This study systematically identifies, characterizes, and critically evaluates community-level climate change vulnerability assessments published over the last 25 years (n = 274). We find that while the field has advanced considerably in terms of conceptual framing and methodological approaches, key shortcomings remain in how vulnerability is being studied at the community-level. We argue that vulnerability research needs to more critically engage with the following: methods for evaluating future vulnerability, the relevance of vulnerability research for decision-making, interdependencies between social and ecological systems, attention to researcher / subject power dynamics, critical interpretation of key terms, and consideration of the potentially positive opportunities presented by a changing climate. Addressing these research needs is necessary for generating knowledge that supports climate-affected communities in navigating the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67407aa7ada8e8a10247df7b42cf43f2b51c785d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research (2018, background): “In their study on community-level climate vulnerability assessments McDowell et al (2016) also note a higher than average concentration in participatory approaches in the North American Arctic, including stakeholder consultation in developing research objectives and Indigenous evaluation of quality…”
- A systematic review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability assessments (2017, background): “This also contributes to the recent calls for more critical research onmethods to assess future risks and vulnerabilities (McDowell et al 2016).”
- Climate change, multiple stressors and human vulnerability: a systematic review (2016, background): “Our classification is in line with the analysis of McDowell et al. (2016) but differs from the analysis of Bassett and Fogelman (2013), who stated that 70 % of the 558 studies they considered were outcome focused (where the main source of vulnerability was climate impacts), 3 % of the studies…”