Environmental Adaptation And Adjustments Research Paper

Academic Writing Service

Sample Environmental Adaptation And Adjustments Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

The nature of the relationship between people and their physical and built environments is constantly changing. The societal choices regarding natural resource use, alterations in the physical world, or responses to environmental threats vary widely. The timing and scale of these choices affect people and places differently, are time dependent (affect current and future generations), and leave a very distinct geographical imprint. Within the social science literature, these responses are categorized as human environmental adjustments and adaptation.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code


1. Adjustments To Environmental Threats

Humans continually make decisions in response to the physical environment. These decisions are labeled adjustments. Some adjustments are purposeful, but many others are incidental and undertaken unwittingly. The term adjustment is used to describe intentional actions taken by individuals or society to cope with risk or the uncertainty of environmental threats. The concept was initially used in the context of coping with extreme natural events (e.g., floods, earthquakes), but has since been expanded to include a range of nature–society interactions. Understanding human adjustments to environmental extremes has been a fruitful research path in the social sciences since the mid-twentieth century (Cutter 1994, Mileti 1999).

It is the interaction of environmental conditions and human systems that gives rise to environmental hazards. The range and choice of adjustments to hazards are influenced by elements in both the human and physical systems. Some adjustments are too costly to implement, while others may not be successful and ultimately lead to greater costs in the future. While benefits may be derived from some adjustments, they also come at a cost, or are not shared equally among all potential beneficiaries. While there could be hundreds or thousands of potential individual or collective adjustments to environmental threats, normally they are classified into three major categories: (a) modifying the causes of environmental threats, (b) reducing human vulnerability, and (c) distributing losses.




1.1 Modifying The Causes Of Environmental Threats

There are many examples of successful and less successful attempts at modifying the cause of environmental threats. For example, in the 1970s, considerable research was undertaken to explore the range of modifications that could reduce the physical impact of natural hazards (White and Haas 1975). Cloud seeding to reduce the severity of severe storms, underground explosions to relieve fault stress, and damming of rivers to prevent catastrophic flooding are notable examples. As the range of environmental hazards broadened in later decades, so did examples of modifying the causes of these new threats: pollution reduction from its source (point and nonpoint); governmental restrictions in the manufacturing and use of known cancer-causing chemicals (DDT); and federally mandated reductions in chemicals that cause human cognitive dysfunction (lead) or endocrine disruption (dioxins, furans, and PCBs) (Colborn et al. 1996). Within the global change literature, the term abatement has been used to describe the range of actions designed to reduce the source or cause of that environmental threat, but the meanings are similar. Greenhouse gas reductions (through fuel switching or conservation) are examples of modifying the cause of the global warming hazard.

1.2 Reducing Human Vulnerability

Broadly, vulnerability is the potential for loss, yet within the environmental hazards literature there are conflicting characterizations of the term as well as methodologies for measurement (Cutter 1996). Vulnerability variously refers to personal or individual potential for loss, societal vulnerability to hazard events and losses, or the resilience of society to environmental threats (Dow 1992). Biophysical vulnerability refers to elements in the physical world that contribute to the loss potential, such as climate perturbations (increased drought, sea-level rise), human modification of ecosystems (deforestation, desertification), or location (relocation) of industrial activity (such as toxic facilities, coal mining, or other extractive industries). Social vulnerability examines the characteristics of various social groups (wealth, gender, race ethnicity, age) that either constrain or enhance human ability to respond adequately to or cope with environmental threats. Both social and biophysical vulnerability have explicit spatial outcomes that can be mapped and thus compared from local to global scales.

Vulnerability is increasingly used in the hazards and global change communities to describe the differential impact of environmental changes on people and the places where they live (Blaikie et al. 1994, Bohle et al. 1994, Hewitt 1997, Comfort et al. 1999, Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 1999). Vulnerability science is still in its infancy and has not progressed far enough for the development of a universal set of specific indicators as of yet.

Purposeful, short-term adjustments designed to modify vulnerability are often referred to as mitigation. Mitigation includes land-use planning (Burby 1998), the reduction of losses through building codes, or improved warning systems to reduce human losses. More often than not, mitigation actions are prompted by a specific hazard event. However, it is the incidental and incremental adjustments taken prior to a hazard event that often attain greater importance in reducing overall losses. The elevation of housing structures so that the ground floor is above base flood levels (flood hazard), the construction of ‘safe rooms’ in houses to reduce the human losses from tornadoes, fish advisories to reduce human consumption of fish caught in polluted water to decrease bioaccumulation of toxins in human fatty tissue, and carbon sequestration as a means for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions are examples of mitigation actions to reduce human vulnerability.

1.3 Sharing And Distributing Losses

Insurance, relief, and recovery operations are all examples of individual or collective loss sharing. When a disaster strikes, governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations are mobilized to provide assistance in the form of temporary shelter, food and water, and power. The costs of such operations are normally not borne by the individual disaster victims, but rather by society at large. While the impacts are local and may outstrip the ability of a community to respond, the economic costs are more widely shared. Relief organizations (Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), faith communities, and governmental agencies (US Federal Emergency Management Agency, UN Disaster Relief Organization) all assist in recovery and the rebuilding of devastated communities.

Insurance is another example of loss sharing, but not everyone has equal access to it. In the United States, the public looks toward insurance as the mechanism for loss compensation (Kunreuther and Roth 1998). Insurance as an adjustment will become less viable in the future as the costs of disasters increase and the realization that neither the insurance nor the reinsurance industry have sufficient resources to pay for a worst-case event. Other examples of loss sharing are financial incentives and disincentives (taxation) which encourage or discourage risky adjustments.

2. Adaptation

Adaptation describes longer-term activities that take into account the threat of environmental extremes or changes. Adaptations often take place unknowingly, simply reflecting the modification of environmental conditions (Turner et al. 1990) or the changing occupancy of threatened regions (Kasperson et al. 1995). Adaptation is rooted in social and cultural systems. Biological adjustments are also considered adaptive such as the assimilative capacity of biogeochemical cycles to absorb pollutants without immediate systems degradation. As with other aspects of culture, these adaptations, while appropriate in some circumstances, are not always the best solution to responses to environmental threats. Often, adaptation to one hazard or environmental threat prompts greater vulnerability to others.

3. Factors Influencing The Choice Of Adjustments

Under ideal circumstances, individuals and society would have a full set of choices that they could select from in adjusting or adapting to environmental threats. How people choose adjustments is not always clear-cut, simple, rational, or even economic (Burton et al. 1993). There are a number of factors that constrain the set of adjustments and influence the choices that are made and these are described below.

3.1 Local Control And Local Focus

Local control and focus facilitate the adoption of adjustments as communities and individuals see a direct benefit from their hazard reduction efforts. When a homeowner decides to take action to reduce the risk of storm damage to the home, or when a city council votes to remove flood-prone land from development, both are engaging in purposeful adjustments. For mitigation efforts to become successful, individuals (and communities) must become aware of the hazards that affect them and realize they have a personal stake in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the costs and impacts of hazards on the local community.

Mitigation has been encouraged at the local level, because hazard control strategies implemented at the national level have been only partially successful. Flood mitigation policy in the United States provides a useful illustration. The structural era of flood control—federal construction of channels, dams, and levees—led in some instances to an increase in vulnerability from more extreme events (Platt 1996, 1999). These structures created a false sense of security and an assumption that the flood threat had been eliminated, resulting in increased human activity in floodplains, thereby increasing vulnerability to flood hazards. Given the relative lack of success in actually controlling floods (modifying the cause), it has become apparent that a less costly and more appropriate approach to flood mitigation should focus on land-use patterns within floodplains.

In the United States, for example, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires appropriate floodplain development by communities that want to participate in this national insurance program. While spreading the loss, this program does have its drawbacks and critics (Platt 1999). The NFIP has the potential to encourage development within the floodplain precisely because low-cost insurance is provided by the federal government, thus reducing the incentive for homeowners to mitigate on their own such as flood-proofing their home or moving away from the floodplain altogether.

3.2 Perception Of Risks And Hazards

The perception of hazards and risks play an important role in understanding how and why individuals choose specific adjustments (Burton et al. 1993). Depending on the perception of the threat, those at risk will either seek additional information, seek actions to protect themselves, or continue with their normal activities. Hazards not considered threatening, whether due to lack of information, lack of scientific certainty, or some other factor, result in little or no preparation. Factors that influence the perception of hazards include hazard frequency and past experience, cultural/social attributes (age, wealth status, gender), and the credibility of hazard information. The perception of the environmental threat also colors the choice of adjustments people are willing to undertake to curb damaging effects. For example, the public is aware of the causes and potential impacts of global warming, although the linkages between individual human activities and global impacts are not completely understood. Because individuals do not ‘see’ their own contributions in greenhouse gas emissions or feel any personal responsibility for the hazard, they are unlikely to adopt any short-term adjustments such as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars or driving less.

3.3 Experience

As noted above, a belief must exist that lives and property are susceptible to harm from a particular hazard before individuals or organizations will undertake mitigation efforts (Palm 1990). Adjustments based on experience are subject to the material capabilities and personality constraints discussed next. It has been shown that individuals with little or no experience with a hazard are less likely to accept information, recognize the seriousness of the threat, or take appropriate action to protect themselves from harm. For some hazards there is little direct human experience. In these instances, the choice of adjustments will be based primarily on the perception of the threat and belief in the scientific certainty about potential impacts. In the case of global warming, the perception of the threat is low (requiring very few adjustments), whereas in the case of nuclear power plants the public perception of risk is fairly high, resulting in very strict siting, regulatory, and safety controls.

3.4 Socioeconomic Characteristics And Personality

Socioeconomic characteristics such as gender, wealth, education, age, race, and ethnicity are not only correlated with risk and hazard perception, but also with adjustment adoption. For example, women have been shown to perceive risks differently, to be more risk-averse than men, to experience risk and hazards more often, to take a longer time to recover after disasters, and to undertake substantial preventative or mitigative actions in response to environmental hazards (Enarson and Morrow 1998).

Wealth also constrains the adoption of adjustments. Insurance, while technically feasible, is not an option for families with limited incomes. As a general rule, the poor are more susceptible to hazards owing to lack of resources, poor housing quality, and an inability to recover quickly. A host of equity literature is also supportive of race and ethnicity as contributing factors in creating vulnerability. Race and ethnicity shape the adoption of adjustments through differences in hazard perception and experiences, an understanding of and belief in the science behind the hazard information, and attitudes toward the dissemination of information.

Finally, personality influences adjustments since they are further narrowed by one’s belief in their ability to control events. There is evidence that suggests that ‘locus of control’ influences the choice of adjustments. For example, if one feels powerless in the face of natural events (a fatalistic belief), then that individual is more likely to remain in place despite hurricane evacuation orders. Conversely, individuals who feel that they can control events around them, may take other courses of actions in response to an environmental threat such as floodproofing a home, evacuating out of harm’s way, or reducing energy consumption to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Adaptation Versus Mitigation

Adapting to environmental threats means undertaking long-term changes in the ways we use the environment and interact with it without trying to prevent the landscape transformations from initially taking place (Kempton et al. 1995). Adaptations (sea walls and dikes, permanent relocation of populations, permanent closure of facilities) do little to reduce the source of the threat. Rather, the actions taken are in direct response to reducing human vulnerability.

Mitigation refers to the short-term actions that relieve losses (insurance, housing rehabilitation), but it is also synonymous with preventative actions that guard against future hazards and their associated losses. The implementation of either adaptation or mitigation strategies depends on the nature of the environmental threat, and will require public education and information, technology development and transfer, and economic, financial, legal, and institutional mechanisms. Further, each strategy will be distinguished by its capability for implementation at the local, regional/state, national, or international levels.

The drought hazard provides a good example of the difference between adaptive and mitigative responses. Societal dependence on the water budget for a particular area can lead to disaster when these supplies fail. While the drought ‘trigger’ may be found in the physical world, drought impacts should be viewed as resulting from the variability in the supply of and demand for water.

Since most droughts are local or regional occurrences, the initial policy responses tend to develop from local and/or regional concerns. In the United States, the federal government is involved in most aspects of water resource planning, but most drought policy is enacted by individual states and there is no consistency among them. In other developed countries, drought initiatives generally come from the central government, but normally in the form of aid to get the local constituents to change behavior. In Australia, for example, the national government encourages agricultural producers to adopt self-reliant procedures in managing climate variability. The government provides education in risk management, sustainable agriculture, and drought preparedness and only provides direct assistance under exceptional drought circumstances. These actions tend to be more mitigative and encourage water consumers to modify their behavior and practices to reduce the wasting of water.

In developing countries, drought response tends to be more adaptive. Since the GNP of many of these nations is much lower than those of developed countries, there is less money available for the government to spend on drought mitigation. The adjustment burden, therefore, falls on individual families who adapt by planting crops in seasonal floodplains, using drought-resistant varieties, or growing quick-ripening crops in preference to species that promise a higher average yield. These societies have managed to adapt successfully by being rich in resourcefulness despite their relative lack of financial wealth.

Geographic scale is crucial in understanding the distribution of hazards, their impact, and human responses to their reduction. While initiatives to curb losses may come from national or even global authorities, greater success is realized through the efforts at the local level. The ability to undertake significant mitigation or adaptation actions in response to environmental threats will depend on the range of adjustment alternatives, the perception of the viability of them, their cost, and their relative impact in reducing the source of the environmental threat. These factors will vary over time and space and across social groups, economic sectors, and political jurisdictions.

Bibliography:

  1. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B 1994 At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, New York
  2. Bohle H G, Downing T E, Watts M J 1994 Climate change and social vulnerability: The sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4: 37–48
  3. Burby R (ed.) 1998 Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Joseph Henry, Washington, DC
  4. Burton I R, Kates R W, White G F 1993 The Environment as Hazard, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York
  5. Colborn T, Dumanoski D, Myers J P 1996 Our Stolen Future. Dutton, New York
  6. Comfort L, Wisner B, Cutter S, Pulwarty R, Hewitt K, Oliver Smith A, Wiener J, Fordham M, Peacock W, Krimgold F 1999 Reframing disaster policy: The global evolution of vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1: 39–44
  7. Cutter S L (ed.) 1994 Environmental Risks and Hazards. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
  8. Cutter S L 1996 Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20: 529–39
  9. Dow K 1992 Exploring differences in our common future(s): The meaning of vulnerability to global change. Geoforum 23: 417–36
  10. Enarson E, Morrow B H (eds.) 1998 The Gendered Terrain of Disasters: Through Women’s Eyes. Praeger, Westport, CT
  11. Hewitt K 1997 Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Longman, Harlow, UK
  12. Kasperson J X, Kasperson R E, Turner B L II (eds.) 1995 Regions at Risk: Comparisons of Threatened Environments. United Nations University Press, Tokyo
  13. Kempton W, Boster J S, Hartley J A 1995 Environmental Values in American Culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
  14. Kunreuther H, Roth R J Sr (eds.) 1998 Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in the United States. Joseph Henry, Washington, DC
  15. Mileti D S 1999 Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry, Washington, DC
  16. Oliver-Smith A, Hoffman S M (eds.) 1999 The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective. Routledge, New York
  17. Palm R 1990 Natural Hazards: An Integrative Framework for Research and Planning. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
  18. Platt R H 1996 Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Island Press, Washington, DC
  19. Platt R H 1999 Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Disasters. Island Press, Washington, DC
  20. Turner B L II, Clark W C, Kates R W, Richards J F, Matthews J T, Meyer W B (eds.) 1990 The Earth as Transformed by Human Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  21. White G F, Haas E 1975 Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Environmental And Resource Management Research Paper
Environment Regulation Research Paper

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER


Always on-time

Plagiarism-Free

100% Confidentiality
Special offer! Get 10% off with the 24START discount code!