Assessing Drought Vulnerability Using a Socioecological Framework

Brown, Joel R.; Kluck, Doug; McNutt, Chad; Hayes, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.rala.2016.06.007

Cited by 38 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While individual ranchers develop, implement, and adapt unique strategies for their operations, revealing the identifiable patterns of management types is useful to understanding the range of differences across a community-as well as targeting outreach and policy and planning options [7,27,[47][48][49]. I identified four types (classes 1 through 4; Table 2) of drought strategies in-place across California's diverse rangelands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making and Coping with Drought

Roche

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Grazinglands support the livelihoods of millions of people around the world, as well as supply critical ecosystem services. Communities reliant on rain-fed rangelands are potentially the most vulnerable to increasing climate variability given their dependence on highly climate-sensitive resources. Droughts, which are gradual natural hazards, pose substantial and recurrent economic and ecological stresses to these systems. This study examined management decision-making based on survey responses of 479 California ranchers to: (1) identify the types of drought strategies in-place across California's rangelands and the operation variables driving strategy selection; and (2) examine how individual drought adaptation is enhanced by decision-making factors. Four types of in-place drought strategies were identified and ordered along a gradient of increasing intensity (number) of practices used. Significant background variables driving strategy selection were operation experience with drought, type of livestock operation, grazing system, and land ownership types. Information resource networks, goal setting for sustainable natural resources, and management capacity all acted to enhance individual drought adaptation-defined here by active drought planning and the number of both reactive and proactive drought practices used. Overall, analyses revealed that flexibility in management is a key component of adapting to and coping with drought. Climate policy planning should take into account the diversity of strategies that have been developed by ranchers for multiple generations and within the context of their unique operations, as well as support these working landscapes via a range of adaptation and mitigation options to reduce vulnerability across all types of operations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making and Coping with Drought

Roche

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although climate change is generally forecast in terms of change over multiple decades, it is the short-term manifestation of climate change and variability that managers have to confront and adapt to most urgently (Brown et al 2016). Implementing strategies, tactics, and practices to respond to climate change is thus not only a matter of selecting appropriate responses, but also of identifying and acting upon well-defined 'trigger' points.…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Vulnerability Assessment of California Rangelands

Balachowski

Alvarez²,

Kerr

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NRCS) for project strategy and careful chapter reviews; John Lowrie (CA Natural Resources Agency) for advice during project inception; Dan Macon (UC Davis / Flying Mule Farm) for useful input on rancher adaptation strategies; Andrew McElrone (UC Davis) for project oversight and guidance; Jim Oltjen (UC Davis) for project development and careful review of several chapters; Steven Ostoja (USDA California Climate Hub) for project strategy, scheduling, and resources; Mark Schwartz (UC Davis) for staffing support, project coordination, and technical advice on climate modeling; Kerri Steenwerth (USDA-ARS) and Peter Stine (USDA-FS) for helping to build the project outline and author team; Darrel Sweet (CA Cattlemen's Association) for in-person conversations and practical input on early drafts; Jim Thorne (UC Davis) for staffing support and technical input on vegetation modeling and mapping; Rich Walker (CAL FIRE) for sharing findings from the Fire Resource and Assessment Program; and Dustin Ward (USDA-ARS) for assistance finalizing the manuscript.

show abstract

“…Ecological vulnerability is regarded as a core issue in sustainability science [10], and it is an inherent property of an ecosystem. As a description of the incapacity of an ecosystem to suffer pressure [11], the ecological vulnerability potential depends on the features of an ecosystem that is composed of multilevel organization [12,13]. The notion of vulnerability can be treated as a set of multiple intellectual flows, from ecosystem service functions, ecological vulnerability zoning, ecological security to ecological disturbance theory, hierarchical system theory, systematics, sustainable development, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Differentiation and the Factors of Ecological Vulnerability in the Toutun River Basin Based on Remote Sensing Data

Liu

Shi

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological vulnerability assessment increases the knowledge of ecological status and contributes to formulating local plans of sustainable development. A methodology based on remote sensing data and spatial principal component analysis was introduced to discuss ecological vulnerability in the Toutun River Basin (TRB). Exploratory spatial data analysis and a geo-detector were employed to evaluate the spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of ecological vulnerability and detect the driving factors. Four results were presented: (1) During 2003 and 2017, the average values of humidity, greenness, and heat in TRB increased by 49.71%, 11.63%, and 6.51% respectively, and the average values of dryness decreased by 165.24%. However, the extreme differences in greenness, dryness, and heat tended to be obvious. (2) The study area was mainly dominated by a high and extreme vulnerability grade, and the ecological vulnerability grades showed the distribution pattern that the northern desert area was more vulnerable than the central artificial oasis, and the central artificial oasis was more vulnerable than the southern mountainous area. (3) Ecological vulnerability in TRB showed significant spatial autocorrelation characteristics, and the trend was enhanced. The spatial distribution of hot/cold spots presented the characteristics of “hot spot—cold spot—secondary hot spot—cold spot” from north to south. (4) The explanatory power of each factor of ecological vulnerability was temperature (0.5955) > land use (0.5701) > precipitation (0.5289) > elevation (0.4879) > slope (0.3660) > administrative division (0.1541). The interactions of any two factors showed a non-linear strengthening effect, among which, land use type ∩ elevation (0.7899), land use type ∩ precipitation (0.7867), and land use type ∩ temperature (0.7791) were the significant interaction for ecological vulnerability. Overall, remote sensing data contribute to realizing a quick and objective evaluation of ecological vulnerability and provide valuable information for decision making concerning ecology management and region development.

show abstract

Assessing Drought Vulnerability Using a Socioecological Framework

Cited by 38 publications

References 15 publications

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making and Coping with Drought

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making and Coping with Drought

Climate Vulnerability Assessment of California Rangelands

Spatiotemporal Differentiation and the Factors of Ecological Vulnerability in the Toutun River Basin Based on Remote Sensing Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About