The varied effects of recent extreme weather events around the world exemplify the uneven impacts of climate change on populations, even within relatively small geographic regions. Differential human vulnerability to environmental hazards results from a range of social, economic, historical, and political factors, all of which operate at multiple scales. While adaptation to climate change has been the dominant focus of policy and research agendas, it is essential to ask as well why some communities and peoples are disproportionately exposed to and affected by climate threats. The cases and synthesis presented here are organized around four key themes (resource access, governance, culture, and knowledge), which we approach from four social science fields (cultural anthropology, archaeology, human geography, and sociology). Social scientific approaches to human vulnerability draw vital attention to the root causes of climate change threats and the reasons that people are forced to adapt to them. Because vulnerability is a multidimensional process rather than an unchanging state, a dynamic social approach to vulnerability is most likely to improve mitigation and adaptation planning efforts. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation

The Bergman cyclization has been the subject of renewed interest with the discovery of naturally occurring enediyne-based antitumor agents that cleave DNA by means of an aromatic diradical. These natural substrates have a means to trigger this cycloaromatization process. Control of this reaction by substrate modification would allow aromatic diradicals to be generated selectively. In the studies presented here it is disclosed that the Bergman cyclization of 1,2-bis(diphenyl phosphinoethynyl) benzene was accelerated by a factor of >30,000 by the addition of palladium(II) chloride or platinum(II) chloride and was inhibited by the addition of mercury(II) chloride.

No abstract

Many new forms of water governance are emerging in response to economic and social needs and wants, as well as water-related problems such as scarcity, injustice, and conflict. However, there is little evidence on how sustainable these governance regimes are, which would be critical for making progress toward sustainable and just water governance. In this article, we present the results of a transdisciplinary multi-criteria sustainability assessment of alternative governance regimes for Guanacaste Province, Costa Rica. The assessment specifies differences between sustainable and unsustainable governance regimes, while also pinpointing how the current water governance regime performs in comparison to those alternatives. The findings indicate that those governance regimes with just and deliberative stakeholder involvement, secure groundwater reserves, and healthy dry tropical ecosystems were considered sustainable and just. In contrast, the current state of water governance was found to be at high risk of digressing toward unsustainable systems where rural communities lack rights and influence, where economies favor agro-industry and high impact tourism at the expense of rural livelihoods, and where water scarcity overwhelms weak governance. This assessment study clarifies water sustainability goals, asserts the need for transformational change, and offers a pragmatic foundation for actions toward sustainable water governance.

No abstract