Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
Climate change is a serious environmental hazard that affects communities and economies worldwide. Many of the impacts of climate change are already in place with even more in number and severity expected in the future, seriously jeopardizing and comprom
place to avoid moral hazards. In the case of CCAand DRR insurance, one such mechanism, assuggested previously, is to make risk reduction aprerequisite for access to insurance. For resilienceand vulnerability approaches, other mechanismsmight include community empowerment, capa-city building and awareness building.After perturbations to a system, some commu-nities have been forced to change their liveli-hood strategies, which are usually connected toan increase in risk. This was evident after the1994 eruption of Mt Merapi in Central Java,Indonesia. A number of factors, including demo-graphics, politics and the global economy, con-tributed to the village of Turgo shifting from asystem wherein livestock supported subsistenceagriculture to a system where agriculture sup-ported market-oriented livestock husbandry(Dove and Hudayana, 2008). While this usuallywould increase risk because householdsbecome more dependent on external factors, inthecaseofthevillageofTurgo,riskwasmiti-gated because market participation was limitedto the sale of commodities and not the purchaseof the inputs used in their production. As Doveand Hudayana (2008, p. 742) note, ‘To continuereliance on local resources for agricultural pro-duction (viz. land, labor, livestock, vegetation)represents a significant buffer against marketuncertainty and volatility’. By keeping one footin traditional local subsistence living and onein global markets, the community created adual economy that was able to mitigate risksassociated with changing livelihoods after theeruption of Mt Merapi and subsequent govern-ment interventions. Thus, this duel economyincreased the resilience of the socio-ecologicalsystem.Yet, on a larger scale, there is the lack of a linkto policy-relevant work with the inherent com-plexity of resilience and vulnerability. Whilethere are relatively straightforward processes ofdoing risk planning, this is not the case for resi-lience planning. Therefore, we propose anested approach at multiple scales, integratingiterative risk management within a resilienceframework.6. Information transfer and knowledge networksA need has arisen to effectively utilize policies,programmes and institutional structures whichare presently available, or which could be trans-ferred from one sector to another, to strengthenthe ability of societies to link CCA and DRR.This strongly relies on effective communicationof information to be transferred and knowledgenetworks to be formed, both formally and infor-mally. This can be accomplished through pro-cesses of social learning. According to Pellinget al. (2008), social learning has been interpretedwithin the literature to mean both individuallearning that is conditioned by its social environ-ment, and learning in the sense that social collec-tives such as organizations and institutions can‘learn’ in their own right. These are distinct butcomplementary aspects of learning within organi-zations. The authors discern that since collabora-tive learning among peers facilitates learning,there is a possibility that informal ‘communitiesof practice’ can allow for knowledge to be diffusedmore efficiently and be more open (or in somecases, more constrained), thus impacting on thecollective adaptive capacity of institutions, organ-izations and communities (Pelling et al., 2008).An important component of social learningis facilitating useful knowledge networks and,moreover, identifying existing networks in orderto support them through capacity building.Experience has shown that by making existinglocal networks more robust, a community,instead of outside ‘experts’, can sustain a projector programme more easily than a new networkcreated by outside knowledge and expertise.Many communities have both formal institutionsand networks such as government bodies, com-munity organizations and customary laws, aswell as informal networks that prove to be veryeffective during a disaster.Special attention should also be given tothe ‘shadow systems’ within organizations andcommunities, which allow individuals to affectorganizational dynamics in an informal manner.Shadow systems, also referred to as ‘informalinstitutions’, are informal systems that are not180 Collier et al.ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS regulated, do not represent formal roles, but oftenare dominant drivers of systems. These informalnetworks may imply that an organization couldalmost dissolve and still retain the original func-tion of the organization. By enhancing the under-standing of how these shadow systems and otherinstitutional factors promote resilience, insti-tutions and organizations could be reorganizedand/or adjusted to accomplish our goals ofstrengthening systems resilience. Stacey (1996)and Shaw (1997) argue shadow systems signifi-cantly contribute to learning and innovation inorganizations. A challenge is for organizationsto support, without managing, these informalsystems (Stacey, 1996; Shaw, 1997). This canalso apply to shadow systems outside institutionsand organizations, such as the shadow systems inlocal communities.Few researchers have investigated the relation-ships between learning, communication andadaptive capacity. Yet, those that have argue that:Relational attributes of organizations andpolicy regimes allow individuals or sub-groupswithin organizations to experiment, imitate,communicate, learn and reflect on theiractions in ways that can surpass formal pro-cesses within policy and organizational set-tings . offering a potential method formeasuring adaptive capacity that focuses onprocess rather than output, enabling proactiveadaptation (Pelling et al., 2008).Studies further identify components of these con-cepts as (1) learning by doing, (2) integratingknowledge systems, (3) increasing collaborationand equity among community, regional andnational levels, and (4) creating greater flexibilityin management techniques (Olsson et al., 2004;Armitage et al., 2007). Again we see these propo-sals as complementary to the influence of sociallearning, knowledge networks and iterative riskmanagement in linking CCA and DRR. Further-more, we propose institutional changes, namelythe creation of ‘boundary organizations’ as animportant component of such efforts. Likewise,we suggest the development of innovative andlayered institutions that facilitate learningthrough change and complexity (as do Dietzet al., 2003).We now return to the earlier question of‘why are communities still so vulnerable?’ Wepropose another possible response, linked to ourprevious discussion. The use of iterative risk man-agement, the efficient transfer of knowledge anddevelopment of knowledge networks describedin the preceding sections, as well as the develop-ment of boundary organizations and insti-tutional changes described in the followingsections, all foster growth in underlying determi-nants of adaptive capacity. These range from gov-ernance issues, to recognizing and using humansocial capital, to understanding causal links andspreading risk to promote resilience, just toname a few. If the weakest link hypothesis pro-posed by Tol and Yohe (2007) holds true, thenall these components are necessary to strengthensocio-ecological resilience. Up to now, disasterrelief and development interventions havefocused on one episode or one component at atime, ameliorating effects and events but notbuilding support to lower vulnerability to futureevents. In short, weaknesses elsewhere have pre-vented increases in resilience because capacitieshave not increased.7. Developing boundary organizationsThe world has faced huge disasters over the lastfew decades and concerns have been expressedby nearly all international agencies involvedthat there is a scarcity of managerial skills todeal with the mitigation and management of dis-asters (Silva, 2001; APA, 2005; IRC, 2005; WHO,2005; MacFarlane et al., 2006; UN Commissionerfor Refugees, 2006). These skills are needed inboth science and practice. We suggest thatboundary organizations can fulfil this niche andare essential to achieve many objectives necessaryto link CCA and DRR, such as utilizing iterativerisk management and adaptive co-management,using a dynamic systems approach to socio-ecological resilience, and considering multiplescales when designing CCA and DRR strategies.Strengthening socio-ecological resilience 181ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Yet, to date there is a lack of fluidity betweenresearch, policy and practice.The term ‘boundary organization’ is not a newone. It has previously been used in the socialsciences and environmental sciences, mostoften referred to as ‘intermediate organizations’(Guston, 1995; 2001; Cash et al., 2002; 2006;Hellstrom and Jacob, 2003; Brooke, 2008). TheHarvard University Global Environmental Assess-ment (GEA) Project defines such organizations as‘institutions that straddle the shifting dividebetween politics and science .It is hypothesizedthat the presence of boundary organizationsfacilitates the transfer of usable knowledgebetween science and policy’ (Guston, 2001).Several examples of such institutions includethe Sea Grant Program in the US, the SubsidiaryBody for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA) of the UNFCCC, the Stockholm Environ-ment Institute, and ProVention Consortium ofthe World Bank.Pointing out that science was traditionally keptseparate to protect its legitimacy, Jasanoff’s (1990)work on the advisory relationship between scien-tists and regulatory agencies demonstrated thatblurring the boundaries between science andpolitics could lead to more productive policymaking than could be achieved by maintainingintentional separation. While boundary organi-zations have not been extensively researched forCCA or DRR, there are some emerging exceptions.Brooke (2008) argues that ‘boundary organi-zations – organizations or institutions thatbridge different scales or mediate the relationshipbetween science and policy – could prove usefulfor managing the transdisciplinary nature ofadaptation to climate change, providing com-munication and brokerage services and helpingto build adaptive capacity’ in regards to biodiver-sity conservation and CCA. Another notableexception is Ludwig et al. (2009), who assertthat ‘climate-proofing requires, like otherenvironmental problems, clearly (re)defined andnegotiated boundaries between science andpolicy .problem-defining, policies and researchagendas need to be mutually constructed inboundary organizations, which may also lieoutside the traditional domain of water resourcesmanagement’ (Ludwig et al., 2009, p. 119). Whilerelated to CCA and DRR, these views of boundaryorganizations still seem to focus on science andpolicy, not science and practice. Thus, we argue,while human capital is improving, ‘applicable’human capital lags behind.The small difference between these previousdefinitions of boundary organizations and ourcurrent proposal is that Guston (2001) focuseson how science can guide policy making whilenot becoming politicized and Brooke (2008)focuses on biodiversity conservation and CCAand argues that non-governmental organizationsare the appropriate actors to fill this niche becausethey tend to be active across the areas of science,policy and practice. Here, we propose the use ofboundary organizations specifically to link CCAand DRR while arguing that a variety of existinginstitutions could be reorganized to fill thisniche. We see boundary organizations as necess-ary to catalyse fluid communication and infor-mation transfer between science, policy andpractice, not just science and policy. As Vogelet al. suggest: . Where the science–practice interaction isnot taken seriously or carefully designed, anumber of disconnections can emerge thatfrustrate otherwise well-meaning measures toreduce vulnerability and enhance resilience . thus, although there is a growing body ofknowledge on vulnerability, adaptation, andresilience, and a variety of pressing applicationopportunities for that knowledge, all too oftenstill silos of knowledge get produced that fail tohelp make systems and communities morerobust to extremes and to change (Vogelet al., 2007, p. 352).Additionally, it seems that most of the existingwork on boundary organizations focuses on sys-tematically incorporating scientific advice intothe decision making of Western, democratizedgoverning bodies and organizations. Further-more, this body of work has focused heavily onformal institutions with multiple stakeholdersin the Global North. Thus, emphasis has not182 Collier et al.ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS been placed on the complex knowledge networksand informal institutions of communities indeveloping countries. We, therefore, see a needto extend these ideas to those institutions, com-munities and socio-ecological systems in theGlobal South.8. ConclusionsEven though substantial discussion is taking placeat the academic and policy levels in terms of incor-poration and interaction of various concepts likeCCA, DRR and socio-ecological resilience, verylittle has actually happened on the ground. Wepropose an urgent need for a dynamic systemsapproach to socio-ecological resilience as aprimary objective for CCA and DRR. We further-more suggest an immediate need for scholarlyresearch to address the needs and concerns of prac-titioners on the ground. We have discussed twoprimary mechanisms to catalyse change in thefields of CCA and DRR. These include an increaseduse of iterative risk management for adaptivedecision making and the establishment of bound-ary organizations and institutional changes thatincrease the transfer of knowledge betweenscience, policy and practice.As the boundaries between disciplines arelinked, the traditional methods of qualitycontrol and scientific reward systems appearincreasingly outdated. The conventional scienti-fic institutional structures might require signifi-cant adjustment as researchers and practitionersattempt to cross disciplinary boundaries and theboundaries between science and practice. Adynamic systems approach to socio-ecologicalresilience may provide a significant opportunityto restructure institutions to fulfil this role.Embedding boundary organizations into aca-demic institutions might be one way to dealwith the institutional obstacle.The Forum held on 23– 24 April 2009 at theYale School of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies, entitled ‘A Dynamic Systems Approachto Socio-ecological Resilience and Disaster RiskReduction: Prioritizing the Gaps in a ChangingWorld’, identified innovative and interdisciplin-ary scientific work as a key contributor to pastand future resilience work. All participants inthe Forum agreed that academic institutionsand young scholars, respectively, provide signifi-cant opportunity to develop boundary organiz-ations, as well as individuals who can workbetween disciplines and substantially increasecommunication between science, policy andpractice.Promoting a dynamic systems approach tosocio-ecological resilience might provide theperfect opportunity to restructure the scientificinstitution, pave the way for a new generationof scholars, and increase collaboration betweenthe young and the seasoned within academicinstitutions, development and relief organiz-ations and government. We see this path,embedded in adaptive and iterative risk manage-ment, as the way forward for CCA and DRR.AcknowledgementsOur deepest gratitude to all the participants ofthe Forum on socio-ecological resilience thatinformed this review article: W. Neil Adger,J. Marty Anderies, Margaret Arnold, RobertBailis, Benjamin Cashore, Dhar Chakrabarti,Michael R. Dove, Janot-Reine Mendler deSua´rez, Jacobo Ochara´n, Chadwick Oliver,Elinor Ostrom, Mark Pelling, Reinhard Mechler,Pablo Sua´rez and Robert Watt. We also thankBoris Porfiriev for insightful comments duringthe review process. We would like to recognizethe Yale School of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies, in particular James Gus Speth, GordonGeballe and the dedicated graduate students,who all helped to make this endeavour asuccess. And finally, the Forum was made possibleby the generous support of the Yale School of For-estry and Environmental Studies Student AffairsCommittee, The Leitner Family Fund, the YaleCouncil on Latin American and Iberian Studies,the Yale Council on South Asian Studies, theGlobal Institute on Sustainable Forestry, YaleForest Forum and the World Wildlife Fund. TheStrengthening socio-ecological resilience 183ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS views expressed in this article are solely those ofthe authors and do not reflect any views of theinstitutions and organizations mentioned above.ReferencesAdger, N. W., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. andHulme, M., 2003. Adapting to climate change inthe developing world. Progress in DevelopmentStudies, 3(3). 179–195.Allen, K. M., 2006. Community-based disaster prepa-redness and climate adaptation: local capacity-building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30(1).81–101.Anderson, M. B. and Woodrow, P. J., 1998. Rising fromthe Ashes. Lynne Reiner Publishers, Boulder, CO.APA (American Planning Association) New Orleans Plan-ning Assessment Team, 2005. Charting the Course forRebuilding a Great American City – an Assessmentof the Planning Function in Post-Katrina New Orleans.American Planning Association. www.planning.org/katrina/pdf/rebuildingreport.pdf.Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N., 2007. Adap-tive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, andMulti-Level Governance. University of British Colum-bia Press, Vancouver, BC.Ban Ki-moon, 2008. www.unisdr.org/eng/media-room/media-room.htm.Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davies, I. and Wisner, B., 1994.At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, andDisasters (1st edn). Routledge, London.Brooke, C., 2008. Conservation and adaptation toclimate change. Conservation Biology, 22(6).1471–1476.Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Under-standing of Living Systems. Doubleday, New York, NY.Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. and Abel, N.,2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilienceof what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8). 765– 781.Carr, L. J., 1932. Disaster and the sequence-patternconcept of social change. American Journal ofSociology, 38(2). 207–218.Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.,Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Ja¨ger, J. and Mitchell,R. B., 2002. Knowledge systems for sustainable devel-opment. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences USA, 100. 8086–8091.Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel,L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O., 2006.Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance andinformation in a multilevel world. Ecology andSociety, 11(2). 8.Coleman, F. C. and Williams, S. L., 2002. Overexploit-ing marine ecosystem engineers: potential conse-quences for biodiversity. Trends in Ecology andEvolution, 17(1). 40–44.Common, M., 1995. Economists don’t read Science.Ecological Economics, 15(2). 101–103.Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P., 2003. The struggleto govern the commons. Science, 302(5652).1907–1912.Dobson, A. P., Bradshaw, A. D. and Baker, A. J. M.,1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecologyand conservation biology. Science, 277(5325).515–522.Dove, M. R. and Hudayana, B., 2008. The view from thevolcano: an appreciation of the work of Piers Blaikie.Geoforum, 39. 736–746.Dovers, S. R. and Handmer, J. W., 1992. Uncertainty,sustainability, and change. Global EnvironmentalChange, 2(4). 262–276.Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspec-tive for socio-ecological systems analyses. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 16(3). 253–267.Gallopı´n, G. C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability,resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environ-mental Change, 16(3). 293–303.Guston, D. H., 1995. Five tensions between science anddemocracy. ForumProceedings:Vannevar Bush IIScience for the 21st Century. 239–242.Guston, D. H., 2001. Boundary organizations inenvironmental policy and science: an introduction.Science, Technology, and Human Values, 26. 87–112.Handmer, J. W., 2003. We are all vulnerable. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management, 18. 55 –59.Hellstrom, T. and Jacob, M., 2003. Boundary organi-zations in science: from discourse to construction.Science and Public Policy, 30(4). 235.Helmer, M. and Hilhorst, D. J. M., 2006. Natural disas-ters and climate change. Disasters, 30(1). 1–4.Hogarth, R. M. and Kunreuther, H. C., 1985. Ambiguityand insurance decisions. American Economic Review,75(2). 386–390.Holling, C. S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecologi-cal systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,4. 1–23.Huq, S. and Klein, R. J. T., 2003. Adaptation to ClimateChange: Why and How. SciDev.Net Climate ChangeDossier, Policy brief. www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction¼printarticle&dossier¼4&policy¼44.IFRC (International Federation of the Red Cross andRed Crescent Societies), 2003. World DisastersReport 2003. Oxford University Press, Oxford.184 Collier et al.ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Develop-ment), 2009. IPCC to Prepare Special Report on ExtremeEvents and Disasters. IISD Reporting Services. http://climate-l.org/2009/04/29/ipcc-to-prepare-special-report-on-extreme-events-and-disasters/.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to theThird Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to theThird Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.IRC (International Rescue Committee), 2005. ProgrammeUpdate – Somalia. International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies. www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/annual05/05AA00201.pdf.ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction),2002. Living with Risk: A Global Review of DisasterReduction Initiatives. United Nations, Geneva,Switzerland.ISDR, 2009. Global Assessment Report on Disaster RiskReduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate.United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.Janssen, M. A. and Anderies, J. M., 2007. Robustnesstrade-offs in socio-ecological systems. InternationalJournal of the Commons, 1(1). 77 –99.Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy-makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Kellenberg, D. and Mobarak, A. M., 2008. Does risingincome increase or decrease damage risk fromnatural disasters? Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3).788– 802.Klein, R. J. T. and Tol, R. J. S., 1997. Adaptation toclimate change: options and technologies – an over-view paper. Technical Paper FCCC/TP/1997/3.UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change) Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.Klein, R. J. T., Nicholls, R. J. and Thomall, F., 2003. Resi-lience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept?Environmental Hazards, 5. 35 –45.Kunreuther, H. C., 1976. Limited knowledge and insur-ance protection. Public Policy, 24(2). 227–261.Kunreuther, H. C., 1996. Mitigating disaster losses throughinsurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 12. 171–187.Kunreuther, H. C. and Michel-Kerjan, E. O., 2007.Climate change, insurability of large-scale disasters,and the emerging liability challenge. University ofPennsylvania Law Review, 155(6). 1795 – 1842.Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C.,Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P. and Wilson, J.,2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resili-ence in regional social-ecological systems. Ecologyand Society, 11(1). 19.Levin, S. A., 1999. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and theCommons. Perseus Books, Reading, MA.Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R. and Pflug, G., 2005.Refocusing disaster aid. Science, 309. 1044 – 1046.Ludwig, F., Kabat, P. and van Schaik, H., 2009. ClimateChange Adaptation in the Water Sector. Earthscan,London.MacFarlane, C., Joffe, A. L. and Naidoo, S., 2006. Train-ing of disaster managers at a masters degree level:from emergency care to managerial control. Emer-gency Medicine Australasia, 18. 451–456.Meyer, W. B. and Turner, B. L., 1992. Human-populationgrowth and global land-use cover change. AnnualReview of Ecology and Systematics,23.39–61.Næss, L. O., Bang, G., Eriksen, S. and Vevatne, J., 2005.Institutional adaptation to climate change: floodresponses at the municipal level in Norway. GlobalEnvironmental Change,15(2).125– 138.Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N. and Brown, K., 2007. Adap-tation to environmental change: contributions of aresilience framework. Annual Review of Environmentand Resources, 32. 395–419.O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J. and Wisner, B., 2006.Climate change and disaster management. Disasters,30(1). 64–80.Oliver-Smith, A., 1996. Anthropological research onhazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology,25. 303–328.Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptiveco-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management,34(1). 75–90.Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A. and Anderies, J. M., 2007.Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America,104(39). 15176–15178.Pelling, M. and Uitto, J. I., 2001. Small island develop-ing states: natural disaster vulnerability and globalchange. Environmental Hazards, 3. 49 –62.Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J. and Smith, D., 2008.Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational under-standing of adaptive capacity to climate changewithin organizations. Environment and Planning,40(4). 867–884.Penning-Rowsell, E., 2006. ‘Signals’ from pre-crisisdiscourse: lessons from UK flooding for global environ-mental policy change? Global Environmental Change,16. 323–339.Strengthening socio-ecological resilience 185ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Pielke, R. A., 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation inclimate policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2).159– 170.Quarantelli, E. L., 1988. Disaster crisis management – asummary of research findings. Journal of ManagementStudies, 25(4). 373–385.Quarantelli, E. L., 1998. What is a Disaster? Perspectiveson the Question. Routledge, New York, NY.Quarantelli, E. L. and Dynes, R. R., 1977. Response tosocial crisis and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology,3. 23–49.Rahmstorf, S., Cazenave, A., Church, J. A., Hansen, J. E.,Keeling, R. F., Parker, D. E. and Somerville, R. C. J.,2007. Brevia: recent climate observations comparedto projections. Science, 316(5825). 709.Schipper, L. and Pelling, M., 2006. Disaster risk, climatechange, and international development: scopefor, and challenges to, integration. Disasters, 30(1).19– 38.Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Kunreuther, H. C., 1979. Anexperimental study of insurance decisions. Journalof Risk and Insurance, 46(4). 603– 618.Shaw, P., 1997. Intervening in the shadow systems oforganizations – consulting from a complex perspec-tive. Journal of Organizational Chain Management,10(3). 235.Silva, A., 2001. Floods in Mozambique – Emergency HealthReport.WHO.Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptivecapacity and vulnerability. Global EnvironmentalChange, 16(3). 282–292.Smith, J. B., Schneider, S. H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe,G. W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M. D., Patwardhan,A., Burton, I., Corfee-Morlot, J., Magadza, C. H. D.,Fu¨ssel, H. -M., Pittock, A. B., Rahman, A., Suarez, A.and van Ypersele, J. -P., 2009. Assessing dangerousclimate change through an update of the Intergo-vernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘reasons for concern’. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 106(11). 4133 –4137.Srinivas, H. and Nakagawa, Y., 2008. Environmentalimplications for disaster preparedness: lessonslearnt from the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 89. 4 –13.Stacey, R. D., 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organi-zations. Berett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.Sua´rez, P., Anderson, W., Mahal, V. and Lakshmanan, L.,2005. Impacts of flooding and climate change onurban transportation: a systemwide performanceassessment of the Boston Metro Area. TransportationResearch, 10. 231–244.Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han,G. and Rockstro¨m, J., 2006. Reducing hazardvulnerability: towards a common approachbetween disaster risk reduction and climate changeadaptation. Disasters, 30(1). 39–48.Tol, R. S. J. and Yohe, G. W., 2007. The weakest linkhypothesis for adaptive capacity: an empirical test.Global Environmental Change, 17(2). 218 – 227.Tompkins, E. L., 2005. Planning for climate change insmall islands: insights from national hurricane pre-paredness in the Cayman Islands. Global Environ-mental Change, 15(2). 139–149.Turner, B. A. and Pidgeon, N., 1978. Man-madeDisasters: The Failure of Foresight. Taylor and Francis,London.Turner, II B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy,J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasper-son, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsi-pher, A. and Schiller, A., 2003. A framework forvulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,100(14). 8074–8079.UNCommissionerfor Refugees, 2006. The State of theWorld’s Refugees 2006 – Human Displacement in theNew Millennium. Oxford University Press, Oxford,UK.van Aalst, M. K., Cannon, T. and Burton, I., 2008. Com-munity level adaptation to climate change: thepotential role of participatory community riskassessment. Global Environmental Change, 18.165– 179.Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E. and Dabelko,G. D., 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation, andresilience science to practice: pathways, players andpartnerships. Global Environmental Change, 17.349– 364.Warner, K., Ranger, N., Surminski, S., Arnold, M.,Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Michael-Kerjan, E., Kovacs, P.and Herweijer, C., 2009. Adaptation to ClimateChange: Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Insurance.United Nations ISDR (International Strategy for Dis-aster Reduction) Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.WHO (World Health Organization) South East Asia,2005. Moving Beyond the Tsunami – The WHO Story.World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davies, I., 2004.At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability andDisasters (2nd edn). Routledge, London.World Bank, 2000. Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?World Bank, Washington, DC.Young, O. R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G. C., Janssen,M. A., Ostrom, E. and van der Leeuw, S., 2006. Theglobalization of socio-ecological systems: anagenda for scientific research. Global EnvironmentalChange, 16. 304–316.186 Collier et al.ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS United States hurricane landfalls and damages: Can one- tofive-year predictions beat climatology?ROGER A. PIELKE JR*Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado-Boulder, 1333 Grandview Avenue, UCB 488,Boulder, CO 80309-0488, USAThis paper asks whether one- to five-year predictions of United States hurricane landfalls and damages improve upon a baselineexpectation derived from the climatological record. The paper argues that the large diversity of available predictions means thatsome predictions will improve upon climatology, but for decades if not longer it will be impossible to know whether theseimprovements were due to chance or actual skill. A review of efforts to predict hurricane landfalls and damage on timescales ofone to five years does not lend much optimism to such efforts in any case. For decision makers, the recommendation is to useclimatology as a baseline expectation and to clearly identify hedges away from this baseline, in order to clearly distinguishempirical from non-empirical justifications for judgements of risk.Keywords: economic damage; hurricanes; insurance; prediction; uncertainty1. IntroductionThe answer to the question posed in the subtitleis, unfortunately, no. This paper explains whyskilful prediction of US hurricane landfalls anddamages is not possible in the short term,defined here as a time period of one to fiveyears. A ‘skilful’ prediction is one that improvesupon expectations derived from the statistics ofthe long-term historical record.More precisely, this paper argues that the rangeof predictive methodologies available, and thecorresponding diversity of predictions, meanthat it is guaranteed that some prediction(s) willbeat climatology, but it will be many decades ifever before we can know if that performancewas due to chance or actual skill in the predictionmethodology. On the timescales of decisionmaking, decision makers must therefore proceedunder irreducible uncertainties and fundamentalignorance. There may be many reasons fordecision makers to hedge their judgements ofrisk in various directions, and there is amplescience available to support virtually anyhedging strategy. The paper concludes with a dis-cussion of the implications of the lack of skilfulprediction for decision making related to expec-tations of future storms and their impacts.2. Methods and dataThe methods employed in this paper are restrictedto those that seek to identify strong signals usingsimple methods. This is for two reasons. First,strong signals identified using simple methodsare most likely to have direct applications. Thereare countless studies that have sought to extractweak signals in messy hurricane data usingcomplex methods, and such studies can indeedbe of scientific value. However, for purposes ofshaping expectations of hurricane behaviour ontimescales of one to five years into the future,such studies are of little use if the signals identifiedresearch articleB *E-mail: pielke@colorado.eduENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 8 (2009) 187–200doi:10.3763/ehaz.2009.0017 # 2009 Earthscan ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online) www.earthscanjournals.com . http:/ /climate- l.org/2009/04/29/ipcc-to-prepare-special-report-on-extreme-events -and- disasters/.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ,20 01. Climate Change 20 01: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability.. Intergo-vernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘reasons for concern’. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 10 6 (11 ). 4 13 3 – 4 13 7.Srinivas, H. and