Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies

^aGraduate School of Geography and ^bGeorge Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01602; ^dCenter for Environmental Science and Policy, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6055; ^eDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; ^fKennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; ^gDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; ^hNorth Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Polar Environmental Centre, N-9296 Tromsø, Norway; ⁱStockholm Environment Institute, S-130 14 Stockholm, Sweden; ^jNorwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Arctic Veterinary Medicine, 9292 Tromsø, Norway; Nordic Sami Institute, 9520 Kautokeino, Norway; ^kDepartment of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139; and ^lCenter for Sámi Studies, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway

Communicated by Susan Hanson, Clark University, Worcester, MA, March 7, 2003 (received for review February 25, 2003)

Abstract

The vulnerability framework of the Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program explicitly recognizes the coupled human–environment system and accounts for interactions in the coupling affecting the system's responses to hazards and its vulnerability. This paper illustrates the usefulness of the vulnerability framework through three case studies: the tropical southern Yucatán, the arid Yaqui Valley of northwest Mexico, and the pan-Arctic. Together, these examples illustrate the role of external forces in reshaping the systems in question and their vulnerability to environmental hazards, as well as the different capacities of stakeholders, based on their access to social and biophysical capital, to respond to the changes and hazards. The framework proves useful in directing attention to the interacting parts of the coupled system and helps identify gaps in information and understanding relevant to reducing vulnerability in the systems as a whole.

Footnotes

↵ c To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bturner{at}clarku.edu.
Abbreviations: CBR, Calakmul Biosphere Reserve; EMM, El Mundo Maya; MBC, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
↵ m This case study assessment does not repeat the literature reviewed by Turner and colleagues (1), and the reader is directed to that paper for the literatures relevant to the general observations made in this study.
↵ n Research undertaken with principal sponsorship from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Land Cover and Land Use Change (LCLUC) program (NAG5-6046), the Center for Integrated Studies of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Carnegie Mellon University (National Science Foundation Grant SBR 95-21914), and other sources, including the Sustainability Systems Program.
↵ o Research supported by the NASA LCLUC program (NAG5-6615), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Packard Foundation, the John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation, the Switzer Foundation, the Teresa and H. John Heinz Foundation, and the Stanford University Bechtel Initiative.
↵ p Activities supported by the Sustainability Systems Program at Harvard University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University Center for Atmospheric Research, the Office of Naval Research, and in-kind sources associated with international and national institutions in the Arctic and other locations.