Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc.

Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Climate Change Related Risks

Author(s): A. H. Dolan and I. J. Walker
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Coastal Research, , Special Issue No. 39. Proceedings of the 8th
International Coastal Symposium (ICS 2004), Vol. III (Winter 2006), pp. 1316-1323
Published by: Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742967 .
Accessed: 27/03/2012 22:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Coastal Research.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Coastal

1316-1323

SI 39

Research

ICS 2004 (Proceedings)

ISSN 0749-0208

Brazil

Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Climate Change Related

Risks
A. H. Dolan

and I. J.Walker

of Geography,
of Victoria

Department
University

British Columbia

Victoria,

V8W 3P5 Canada

.ca,
ca

ahdolan@uvic
ijwalker@uvic.

ABSTRACT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M

y????????

A.H.
and WALKER,
DOLAN,
related risks. Journal of Coastal

I.J., 2006.
Research,

1323. Itajai,SC, Brazil, ISSN 0749-0208.

to climate
of coastal communities
Understanding
vulnerability
SI 39 (Proceedings
of the 8th International Coastal
Symposium),

change
1316 -

as characterized
in the climate change literature and presents a
of vulnerability
The
framework
inherent susceptibilities
of human
adaptive
capacity.
recognizes
to climate variability and change. As climate change impacts are unevenly distributed
environment
systems exposed
and individuals
due to differential exposures
and vulnerabilities,
among and within nations, regions, communities

This

discusses

paper
framework

the concept

for assessing

at the local scale and situates them within

the framework highlights
determinants
of adaptive
capacity
larger
include: access and distribution of resources,
regional, national and international settings. Determinants
technology,
that
information and wealth;
risk perceptions;
social capital and community
structure; and institutional frameworks
contrasts typical impact assessments
that focus largely on
approach
a methodological
The framework provides
starting point that, as a
or 'bottom-up' approach,
It also
to climate change.
community-based
yields important insight on local responses
on long-term
that short-term exposure
to variability
is an important source of vulnerability
recognizes
superimposed
can identify inherent
extremes
the community
and experiences
with
climate
level, perceptions
change. At

address

climate

reducing

change hazards.
economic
detriments

broader

a community
to respond, recover and adapt. As such, local and traditional
research
and
should
be incorporated
into research design and implementation.
change
that could promote more effective decision-making,
provides
locally relevant outcomes
planning and
in remote areas susceptible
to climate change hazards. As part of a larger study, this approach will be
or constrain

that enable

characteristics

This

of change.

is key to climate

knowledge
This approach
management
refined with

local input to study sea-level

rise impacts
Island, Haida Gwaii
(Queen Charlotte
Islands),
in this area are identified as abrief case study.
responses

Graham

ADDITIONAL

INDEX

WORDS:

Adaptive

INTRODUCTION
around

entail

sea-level

elevated

rise has received much

tidal

increased

attention

and may

flood

inundation,
frequency,
increased
saltwater
erosion,
tables,
rising water
intrusion, and a suite of ecological
changes. These biophysical
to cause various
socio-economic
changes are expected
impacts

accelerated

loss of land mfrastructure

including
as declines
well
and

subsistence

in associated
values

are

(Klein

and

coastal

resources

as

cultural
economic,
ecological,
and Nicholls,
1999). These

in that they will

be
however,
scale-dependent
distributed
and within
among
nations,
unevenly
regions,
as a result
communities
and
individuals
of differential
impacts

documents

et al., 1998). In light of

exposures
(Clark
area
rate of change, widespread
the rapid
and potential
assessment
of these impacts, coastal vulnerability
magnitude
has received
international
attention. However,
the
significant
and vulnerabilities

1993; Yamada

the

received

less attention.
considerably
zone
Coastal
work
has been driven
impacts assessment
on Climate
Panel
largely by the Intergovernmental
Change

(IPCC) via itsCoastal Zone Management Subgroup (CZMS)

(IPCC-CZMS, 1992), the IPCC Technical Guidelines for

Climate
Assessing
et al,
1994), and

Impacts and Adaptations

Change
the United Nations
Environment

(Carter
Program

(UNEP) Handbook onMethods forClimate Change Impact

Assessment

and Adaptation

Strategies

(Feenstra

et al.,

1998).

Islands.

to

and methodologies

et al.,

have

themerit

of

and have
vulnerability
frameworks Waterman
and
e? al,

1995; Clark

and Nichols,
on

evaluated

coastal

1999;Wu

how

1998;Harvey

et al, 2002).

is defined
and
vulnerability
zone
into
conventional
coastal
incorporated
impacts
assessments
has called for a more integrated, broadened
view of

vulnerability. Adger
(1996) notes thatmuch attention is given
to the physical forcings and impacts of climate at the expense of
In addition, focus
social vulnerability.
examining
pre-existing
on
research
is underemphasized
community-based
(Riedlinger
models
and

and outcomes
of climate
2001)
too broad for useful planning
and
(Jones, 2001 ).

and Berkes,
are
scenarios

at local scales

adaptation

on
the recent
climate
and
change
impacts
of this paper
is twofold.
literature, the purpose
vulnerability
a discussion
of how vulnerability
has been
First, it provides
Drawing

characterized

relevant,

frames

has

researchers

debate

Concurrently,

change
of
vulnerability

it

Charlotte

frameworks

for assessing
and expanded

1999; Klein

vulnerability

as
impacts,
particularly
isolated
island communities,

Several

refined

provided

effectsof scale on the potential inequitable distributionof

climate

northeast
coastlines,
evidence
of changes and

rise, Queen

provide

these frameworks

et al,

sensitive

Preliminary

impacts of climate change by identifyingkey

vulnerabilities.

Kay,

most

sea-level

resilience,

assess

climate

accelerated

of Canada's
Columbia.

These

are expected
to affect coastal
changes
are already
the world, many
of which
to ongoing
considered
vulnerable
climatic variability
(IPCC,
Monirul
and MlZRA,
Of
these
2001;
2003).
changes,
Global

communities

capacity,

on one

British

vulnerability

and

how

this has

assessments.
framework

current

influenced

coastal

this, amulti-scaled,
integrated
that takes a more
is presented
locally
From

community-based

(bottom-up)

This

approach.

will be refinedand
providesamethodological starting
point that
applied
climate
most

as part of a larger study to assess the adaptive capacity to

rise impacts on one of Canada's
change and sea-level

sensitive

coastlines:

northeast

Graham

Haida

Island,

Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), BritishColumbia (Shaw et

al, 1998). This region is located 80 km offshorefromBritish
Columbia's

north

coast

(54?N,

132?W,

Fig.

1)

and

identified for its physical exposure (Shaw et al,

Walker

and Barrie,

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

2004),

isolated

setting, coastal

was

1998;

resource

1317

UnderstandingVulnerabilityofCoastal Communities toClimate Change Related Risks

individualresponsesat the local scale (Adger, 2001), thiscalls

for a multi-scaled

that can

perspective

community

level

in resource

sectors

be

constraints

capacity.
insurance

to assess

responses

such as fisheries

(Adger,
based

assessments

Such

applied

be
may
to spread risk, structural
planned
adaptations
(e.g.,
or spontaneous
shoreline protection,
development
setbacks)
reactions
(e.g., timing of harvest activities, alternate choice of
to related, though indirect impacts, of climate changes
resource)
adaptive

2001).
on the

and forestry orto economic

date, most
vulnerability
common
do not
methodology
To

consider scales appropriate (fine) enough toprovide adequate

community-level

guidance

climate

regarding

change

adaptation.

Characterizing

Vulnerability

are in part a result of

existing approaches
nature
of
conventional
'impacts-driven'
vulnerability
assessments
that adopt a narrow
definition
of
(and variable)
In general, vulnerability
is a rhetorical warning
of
vulnerability.
Limitations

with

the

danger representinga potentialfor loss (Cutter, 1996). This

view

forms

in many
for analysis
disciplines
(e.g.,
risk assessment,
food
security),
1990; Blaikie
change research (Liverman,

the basis

natural

hazards,
including climate

disasters,

etal, 1994;Yamada etal, 1995;Clark eia/., 1998;Harvey

et al, 1999; Cutter et al, 2000; Wu et al, 2002). To date

there is no consistent
however,
climate change impacts.
Three broad characterizations
1. Study

Figure

on northeastern

region

Graham

Island, Haida

change

Gwaii (QueenCharlotte Islands),BritishColumbia, Canada.

interests, and recent exposure

evidence
of
changes.
Preliminary
in this area are identified in a brief case

dependency,
indigenous
to other socio-economic

peoples

and responses

changes
study.

Vulnerability Assessment
The IPCC-CZMS (1992) defines vulnerabilityof coastal
zones by theirdegree of incapabilitytocopewith the impactsof
climate

and
change
assessment
includes

accelerated

sea-level

rise. Vulnerability
zone to
of the coastal

the susceptibility
changes resulting from climate change,
on
socio-economic
and
ecological

physical
impacts

the anticipated
and
systems,

available adaptation options (Harvey et al, 1999). The

commonmethodology preparedby IPCC-CZMS (1992) tohelp
countries

assess

identify and

sea-level

rise

impacts

has

been

applied inCanada (e.g., Shaw et al, 1998; Shaw et al, 2001).

Recognizing limitationswith thismethodology, othershave
provided altered approaches (Waterman and Kay, 1993;
et al,

Yamada

et al,

1995; Clark

et al,

e.g., Harvey

1998;

1999;Klein andNiCHOLLS, 1999;Wu etal, 2002). Klein and

Nicholls
(1999) highlightfive general limitations,threeof
which

relate

limit progress

to technical

and data

on modelling

and

that

constraints

availability
assessing

quantitative

(and

largelyphysical) impacts.Such problemsare especially acute in

small

island

nations

or states

and Kay,

(Waterman

1993;

et al, 1995). Other limitations include the

Yamada
ineffectiveness
of the IPCC methodology inassessing thewide
range
elements

of

applying
economies

economic

and traditional

lack

to the broad

of attention

attributes.
forecasts

cultural

technical,
institutional,
in different regions as well as the inappropriateness
of
in subsistence
market-evaluation
frameworks

1995 Klein
andNicholls,
;

related

and

land-tenure

systems

(Yamada

et al,

1999).These limitationsare inpart

scale of the assessment

to distinct

Furthermore,
are important

local-

and its
methodology
and/or community-based

though climate change simulations and

for predicting future changes,
they are

limitedin theircapacity toexplain local and regionaleffectsdue

to typically coarse
spatial and temporal scales. Unless
global
are downscaled,
little value
for decision
changes
they have
that is
makers
who
relevant
information
require
locally

applicable at thecommunityscale (Jacobs andBell,

responses

to climate

change

impacts will

consist

1998).As

primarily

and

of

natural

address
combined,
and
environmental

hazards

the dynamic

definition

used

for assessing

of vulnerability
from climate
are
research
identified
that,
and integrated nature of social

The
first characterizes
vulnerability.
in terms of exposure
to hazardous
events (e.g.,
floods) and how this affects people and structures. As

vulnerability
droughts,

such,a physical eventplaces people at riskand thefocus is to

identify

vulnerable

reducing

physical
and may

damages

at
methods
aimed
However,
places.
risk do not necessarily
reduce exposure
and
to
increase the vulnerability
of populations

such events (Hewitt,

Shrubsole,

For

2000).

et al,

1997; Comfort

1999;

structural adaptations

example,

(e.g.,

flood protection)do not necessarily discourage people from

but may encourage
living in high-risk areas (e.g., floodplains),
and consequently,
increase vulnerability.
development
as a human
A
second
views
perspective
vulnerability
one (i.e., vulnerability
not a physical
is socially
relationship
constructed
rather than determined
of a
by the occurrence

physical event).As such,vulnerabilityis a functionof social

conditions

and historical

range

diverse

stresses

(e.g.,

of

poverty,

circumstances

climate-related,
development

that put people at risk to

or economic

political,
in marginal

or sensitive

areas) (Watts and Bohle, 1993; Blaikie et al, 1994;Kelly

and Adger, 2000). As such, exposure is determinedby the
inequitabledistributionof damage and risk among groups of
people (Wu et al, 2002) and vulnerabilityis a resultof social

and structures that constrain

processes
wealth
and real income, formal and

access

informal

to resources
social

(e.g.,

security)

thatenable people to copewith impacts(Blaikie et al, 1994).

Thus, protectionfrom the social forces imposedon people that
to risk is just as, or more
exposure
inequitable
important
than protection from natural hazards
(Hewitt,
1997). Social
it is produced,
and how
becomes
the focus,
vulnerability
create

regardless

of the nature of the exposure.

A thirdperspective integrates
both thephysical eventand the

underlying
exposure

causal

and

characteristics

limited

capacity

that lead to risk

of populations
to respond
of communities

(Liverman, 1990;Burton etal, 1993;Adger, 2000;Cutter

et al, 2000). Vulnerability is thereforea physical risk and a

context. Several
response within a defined geographic
studies have integrated in some way both physical
and social
and Brookfield,
vulnerability
perspectives
(e.g., Blaikie
social

1987;Wu etal, 2002). For example,Wu etal (2002) applied a

GIS-based
region

projected

to assess physical vulnerability

of a coastal
approach
to flood hazards
storm intensities and
under varying
sea-level

rise. In addition,

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

they delineated

regions

of

1318 Dolan andWalker

social vulnerability within the community

as age, gender, race, income and housing

using indicators such

conditions. Together,

this identifiedthe broader vulnerabilityof the area and its

distribution

a community

within

to flood

hazard

and

sea-level

rise.
While

various
to

vulnerability

to an integrated definition
of
approaches
climate
risks have
been
change-related

attempted,much of thiswork holds a largely biophysical

that is pre-occupied
with the outcomes
of physical
and residual
For
(e.g., coastal
erosion)
impacts.
assessments
of the coastal
many
vulnerability

perspective
exposure
example,
endorsed

and depend on
by the IPCC are largely impacts-driven
for identifying vulnerable
regions (Harvey

exposure

physical

et al, 1999;Klein,

determinants

1999; Burton et al, 2002). Though other

are

of vulnerability

the assessment

examined,

begins by identifyingas biophysical impacts, thenpotential

residual

socio-economic

As
such,
impacts after adaptations.
to reduce vulnerability
to climate change
in adaptation planning.

how
understanding
an exercise
becomes

have

Integrated
approaches
potential climate change
in moderating

increased

impacts

of
understanding
and of the role of adaptation

tomaximize

adverse
'positive effects' and tominimize
impacts,
Socio-economic
vulnerabilities
thereby reducing vulnerability.
were reduced to capital costs of: i) erosion and flooding hazards
on
and
commercial
residential,
recreational,
heritage
properties,
ii) associated
infrastructure
damage,

provided
shoreline"

technical,
economic,
to respond to an external
of systemic root causes of

appropriate
structural means

and/or

threat, rather than a full assessment

such as global capitalism,

vulnerability

(Hewitt, 1983; 1997; Blaikie,

a causal

developed

social

hazards

vulnerability

environmental

and

model

colonialism,

1985). Clark

that integrates

and racism

et al (1998)
indicators

of

(e.g., poverty, disability) with

considerations

spatial

(e.g.,

flood

risk

to delineate vulnerabilities spatially within a

mapping)

community. Though
they do not question why poverty exists in
delineated
identifies
areas,
they state that their assessment
causal

links between

and

the scope of existing

coastal policy-makers,

exposure
institutional

social

within

vulnerability
relevant

arrangements
and community

managers
assessments
IPCC-directed
Indeed,
vulnerability
at reducing
interventionist
and aimed
the risks

damages

by

responses.

anticipating

and

impacts

Consequently,

to

organizers.
are more
of potential

planning
adaptation
narrow
fall within

adaptations
that include protect, adapt, retreat and
categories
a protection
As
such, this approach
perpetuates
a
to climate change,
rather than assessing
response
and social
array of technical,
institutional, economic

management
do nothing.
oriented
broader
elements

in different
localities
and
(Klein
most
coastal
1999).
Presently
vulnerability
do not yield results sufficient forwidespread,
day
zone management
for coastal
and
application
(Klein

1999). While

Nicholls,

assessments

via

other

continue,
dealing

with

efforts to improve vulnerability

data

improved
approaches

physical-

and

to assist
and

social

analytical
techniques
in
coastal
communities
must

vulnerabilities

be

pursued.

Coastal

Climate

Change

inCanada

Research

in the world and about

Despite
having the longest coastline
to highly sensitive to sea-level rise
one-third of thismoderately

impacts (Shaw et al,

1998), very littlework has been

on impacts and adaptation

in the Canadian
communities

conducted

in the coastal

zone. Many

Arctic are experiencing

sea ice, rising sea levels,
change effects such as melting
et al,
coastal
erosion
and permafrost
1992;
thawing
(Woo
et al, 1998; Rothrock
et al, 1999). To date, however
Shaw
coastal

et

2001

al.,

to ecosystem
services
200m
within
of the
p.

the

Among
32).
identification

and

or avoidance,
retreat
ii) managed
and enhancement
of natural resilience

(e.g.,

(Shaw
recommendations

monitoring,
accommodation

environment

were:

i)

hazard

iii)

dune

wetland
removal,
dyke
renewal),
iv)
to accommodate
v) coastal management
land swapping)
change (e.g., rezoning, restricted development,
In essence,
and vi) increased awareness
and public education.
this approach was an exercise in impacts assessment,
evaluation
rehabilitation,
structural protection,

assessment
that
reduction, not an integrated vulnerability
incorporates risk exposure with intrinsic attributes and adaptive
of the local setting.
capacities

and

AN INTEGRATED VULNERABILITY
FRAMEWORK
Given

the limitations

of impacts-driven
coastal vulnerability
in considering
both physical
and social aspects of
and in light of the present need for community
vulnerability
to adapting
to climate change related risks,
based approaches
an 'integrated' framework
we propose
(Fig. 2). This approach
assessments

considers

inherent
and

biophysical

and resiliencies
of both
susceptibilities
as an interrelated
social environments
and

human-environment

interdependent
an emerging

in climate

discourse

is the starting point,

vulnerability
assessments
with
impacts-driven

system. This compliments

research where
change

rather than the end point as

and Adger,
2000;
(Kelly

Smit and PlLlFOSOVA, 2003). Adaptive

capacity

is

processes

to

by the ability of the system to respond and adapt,

in the future.
rather than in terms of what may ormay not happen
Current
and potentials
for managing
adaptive
capabilities
characterized

are

changes

then

to existing

linked

decision

provide a more
locally relevant, community-based
approach.
This moves
from identifying and evaluating
away
specific
adaptation
options toward promoting
capacity building within
to respond

communities

and adapt

to climate

change

and

sea

level rise risks.

occur

that

Nicholls,
assessments
to-day

attributable

the natural

by

negative

the most

evaluating
institutional

impacts,
iii) municipal
education
and
iii) health,
were
Environmental
vulnerabilities

employment
impacts.
reduced
value
to, "added

1997;
consequences
(Smith,
this is
1998; Klein
ToLetal,
andNicholls,
1999). However,
an interventionist
causes
in assessing
exercise
of
proximate
as attention
at identifying
is directed
and
vulnerability
options

tourism

and

climate

the only integrated study on sea-level

rise impacts in Canada
et al, 2001).
in Prince Edward
conducted
Island (Shaw
The study was heavily
and focused
impacts-driven
largely on

was

physical
impacts (e.g., storm surge flooding,
costs. Though
and associated
socio-economic

shoreline

erosion)
the study defined
and susceptibility as well

as a function of exposure
vulnerability
as the adaptive capacity to change, the objective

was

essentially

Exposure
Exposure
susceptibility

to Climatic

Variability

of the coastal

environment

and Change
can be characterized

by
resistance.

resilience
and
(or
sensitivity),
to climate change-induced
sea-level

Susceptibility
defined as the potential

rise can be

of a coastal

system to be affected by sea

level rise and could be assessed
either using a simple physical
et al., 1998) or a more
sensitivity index (e.g., Shaw
integrated
Resistance
describes
IPCC-CZMS,
approach
(e.g.,
1992).
to possible
sea-level
rise
system
stability
impacts
(e.g.,
resistance
of a shoreline to wave
resilience
erosion), whereas
reflects
impacts

the capacity

of the system respond to and recover from

dune systems that recover from storm

(e.g., dynamic

surges).

Together,

these

terms

define

natural

coastal

vulnerability.
as largely independent
Natural
is viewed
of
susceptibility
human influence but resilience and resistance are often affected
by

human

NlCHOLLS,
shoreline

activities,
1999).
protection,

positively

or negatively

(Klein

and

For

example,
planned
adaptation
(e.g.,
can reduce
dune
natural
restoration)

and resilience
system resistance
by enhancing
et al.,
thereby increasing the likelihood of adaptation
(Harvey
In converse,
human-induced
hazards
land
1999).
(e.g.,
and encroachment,
degradation,
inappropriate
development

vulnerability

structures decrease
protection
(or temporarily
increase)
resistance
thereby reducing resiliency of the system to respond

and

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

1319

UnderstandingVulnerabilityofCoastal Communities toClimate Change Related Risks

the broader political economy (Tobin, 1999). In this sense,

can be referred to as an ability of human
systems to
to meet changed
learn from and reorganize
and as
conditions,
such will gain the inherent characteristics
needed for adaptation

resilience

(Barnett, 2001).

in socio-ecological
of determinants
of resilience
et
are long-standing
1988; Folke
(e.g., Wildavsky,
al., 1998). In ecological
systems, several system properties are
indicative
of resilience
including: horneo stasis and feedback
Discussions

systems

ADAPTIVECAPACITY

diversification
of resources
and their delivery,
transmission,
high rate of resource movement
through the system, limited
hierarchical
structure, and excess
1973;
capacity
(Holling,
these in the natural hazards
Wildavsky,
1988). Paralleling

& adjustment
-response
-coping
strategy

literature are indicators

COMMUNITY
& coh?sion;
availabletechnology;
wealth& information
resource,
distribution;
social.capital
critical
frameworks
& decision-making;
risk
risk
perception;
spreading
options
property
rights;
REGION
NATION
GLOBE
& technology;
criticalinstitutions,
framework
& decision-making
wealth,information
I resources,
|

Figure 2. Integratedvulnerabilityframeworkmodified from

andTol, 2002; Kelly and
;
(Smit and Pilifosova, 2003 Yohe
Adger, 2000; Blaikie etal, 1994;Wu etal, 2002)
and

adapt. This underscores

human systems are not isolated
a

dynamically

Nicholls,

1999)

that biophysical
and
entities, but should be treated as
and
and
co-evolving
(Klein
the view

interacting
system that shares vulnerability.

While scientistsprojectchanges inclimateover decades and

are expressed
at
spatial scales, hazards
quickly
It is at this level where
and adaptations
responses

broad

scales.

local

are

most important(Riedlinger and Berkes, 2001). The aim of

coastal

is to help coastal communities

vulnerability
approaches
to risks of longer-term climate change and accelerated

adapt
sea-level

rise.

shorter-term
of climate
However,
impacts
extreme
storm surges, flooding
and
including
are also possible
erosion
risks of future climate

variability
enhanced

change (Clark et al, 1998;Wu et al, 2002; Monirul and

Mirza, 2003). This is an importantdistinction in that
adaptationsby countriesand communitieswill likelyoccur in
to changes
in frequency and magnitude
of short-term,
events rather than gradual,
in
variability
longer-term change
conditions
such as sea-level
rise (Smit et al,
average
1999).
that shorter-term
to
Our
framework
exposure
recognizes
an
source
extreme
events
and
is
of
variability
important
response

on

climate
long-term
change.
of, and experiences with, climate
Community
can be explored
extremes
in recent and historical memory
to
vulnerability

allow

superimposed
level perceptions

examination

that enable

of inherent characteristics

a particular

constrain

to respond,

community

recover

and/or

and adapt.

of human
system resilience
including:
across
of knowledge
space and time,
diversification
and
sustainable
permanent

efficient

transmission

and
temporary
intensification
of resources,
for
mobility
decentralization

mobilization

relocation

of social

networks,
and
resources,
and Dovers,
(Handmer

access

and

of decision-making

to

1996). In termsof climatechange, theReport ofWorkingGroup

II to theThirdAssessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, 2001)
identifies

several

available

technological

determinants

options,

of adaptive
available

capacity
resources

including:
and their

distribution,stock of human capital includingeducation and

security, stock of social capital including property rights,
structure

of

processes,

access
to risk spreading
institutions,
to manage
of decision-makers
information

critical

ability

and validate it,and public perception (IPCC, 2001 ;Yohe and

Tol,2002).
The

effects

of
within
human
interdependency
in determining
system must also be considered
resource
For
sustainable
capacity.
example,

environmental
adaptive

and
processes
change and sea
critical
infrastructure,

management
infrastructure
level

to
(e.g., increased
damage
in resource
via
increased
This,
yield).
physical
on
increases
the vulnerability
and, depending
and magnitude
of exposure, may decrease
overall

rise

declines
exposure,
frequency
adaptive
decreased
social

practices,
decision-making
can be exacerbated
by climate

of the human-environment

capacity

of communities
adaptive
capacity
in funding to maintain
capital, declines

poorly
increase

resource
management
implemented
socio-economic
exposure,
thereby

system.
(e.g.,

In turn,
reduced

infrastructure,
would

plans)

the

increasing

vulnerabilityof the system.Thus, both physical and social

create vulnerability
and serve to decrease
resilience
exposures
to variability
and hence,
and longer-term
adaptive
capacity
considers
elements of the human
change. As such this model

system that determine vulnerability,

specifically
of adaptive
social systems that
capacity within
in the physical
and
co-evolve
with
changes

environment

determinants
interact

Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity is an inherentpropertyof the systemthat

defines its capability to deal with exposure (Smit and
Pilifosova, 2003). Here, adaptive capacity is reflectiveof
resiliency,

such

that a

resilient

system
and recover

for, avoid, moderate

prepare

to
the capacity
from climate-related

has

risks and/orchange. Building adaptive capacityhelps reduce

Holling (1973) posits thatinsteadof aiming for
vulnerability.
a precise

some future scenario, all that is

to handle
capacity
a stable system is a qualitative
required tomaintain
capacity to
absorb and accommodate
uncertain
and unexpected
changes.

This idea, originallyapplied to ecological systems,has been

applied widely to human systembehaviour, particularly in
natural

hazards

socio-economic
exceeded

research.

For

instance,
system after exposure

the system's

absorptive

or damages
to a
indicate that the hazard
losses

capacity

et al,

(Burton

1993). This has prompted thedesign for resilientand hence,

environment.
(predominantly

While

can withstand

decision-making
important

changes

relationships.
between
relationship

in both horizontal
This

stresses

individuals,

and vertical

the complex
communities

of Scale

economic
level may enhance resiliency
power at the aggregate
of a nation, region or community, but at the same time may leave

significantportionsof thepopulation vulnerable and different

groupsmarginalized (Handmer et al, 1999). Relationships

between

structures

vulnerable
are

and
populations
community
are
and
best
examined
via
complex

attributes of disadvantaged populations (Tobin,

oppression,

networks

economic)

system-level
some indication

if social

resilient

is in contrast to typical
approach
that focus largely on reducing
detriments of change.

methods

determinants
of adaptive
capacity
of resiliency of human-environmental
stresses, adaptive
systems to external climate-related
capacity
at the community
cannot be assessed
scale alone. For example,

provide

Recognizing
also
may

are also considered

broader

Considerations

that are structurally organized

systems. Communities
adaptive
tominimize
the effects of hazards, whilst being able to recover
quickly by restoring socio-economic
vitality are thus, resistant
and resilient. Communities

This

assessment'

'impacts

capacities

how

characteristics

increase

social

specific

1999).

of vulnerability mediate
risks
of divergent
understanding
adaptive

in and

of communities.
resiliency
ethnic discrimination,
political

Poverty,

gender

powerlessness,

disabilities, limited employment, absence of legal rights,

and

breakdown

and

discrimination

of interfamilial
are

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

and various forms of

arrangements
as
indicators
of
social

recognized

1320 Dolan andWalker

vulnerability(WiSNER, 1992; Cannon, 1994;Hewitt, 1997).

Kelly andAdger (2000) statethatvulnerabilityis definedby

the capacity of individuals and social groups to respond to, cope

recover
to external
stress on their
with,
from, and adapt
livelihoods
and well-being.
Their
'architecture of entitlements'
focuses
less on an inventory of structural conditions
indicative
of

on the socio-economic
and more
and
resiliency
that constrain (and/or enable) effective
conditions
to
and adaptation.
They advise a multi-scale
approach

social

institutional

response
individuals
and groups
understanding
adaptive
capacity where
and the local, regional and global systems within which they are
situated are important. Their determinants
of adaptive capacity
are sensitive to scale and defined as social entitlements
(i.e.,
sources

material

at

individual

levels of
level), differentiated
diversity (i.e., distribution at community
and appropriate
institutional forms (i.e.,

equity and livelihood

or population
level),

context within which

institutional

entitlements

are formed from

communityto global scales) (Adger, 2001). Thus, assessing

involves

vulnerability
inmediating

both the role of institutions

risk at various

that limit their access

and recover

scales

and

resources

to specific
stress.

and policies
of groups

the attributes

to respond

needed

from external

Scale Determinants

Community

involves
Community
adaptive
capacity
complex
socio-economic
and cultural
among
relationships
political,
elements that vary across a range of spatial and temporal scales.
that a system's ability to cope with
Our framework recognizes
of climate
exposures
that can
determinants

is
change
be measured

on
several
dependent
at the community
and

income
and
its
For
instance,
(wealth)
a population
is an important indicator of
in that as wealth
of a nation,
adaptive
capacity

individual

levels.

distribution

across

system-level

or individual
so too does
the
increases,
community
for preparation,
and adaptation
recovery
(Kates,

region,
potential

2000). Access to technology(closely tied towealth) is another

as greater
access
to technology
determinant
system-level
to
increases the potential range of adaptation
options available
and
communities
skills
(goklany,
1995).
Information
a

available

across

important

(Barnett,
2001).
about available

to

and

community

also

to adapt,
to
capacity

of the need

knowledge
assess
them and
ones

are

individuals

Recognition

adaptation
options,
the ability to implement the most appropriate
are all dependent
on the availability
and credibility
of

informationand skills (Fankhauser

and awareness
perception
institutions must perceive
a present

are also

and Tol,

1997). Risk

important as individuals and

and understand
climate change to be

and

future threat before making

steps for planned
et ai, 1993). Risk awareness
is dependent
adaptation
(Burton
on the effectiveness
of social networks
and infrastructure to
support and facilitate the flow of information and skills. Of late,
researchers
have
drawn
between
relationships
community
capacity to cope with hazards and their stock of social capital, or
relationships
involving

among
collective

social

action,
Buckland

trust, norms

and goals
and networks

and Rahman,
1999; Tobin,
measures
social capital
such that
engagement
social
support networks
promote
greater cooperation
for some mutual benefit. It follows
community members

(Coleman,
1999). Civic
denser

based

people

on shared values

1988;

among
that communities

with higher
stocks of social
and
capital
better deal with hazards
and
stronger social networks will
climate change impacts given that information and other forms
of social support are more readily accessible
and
(buckland
Rahman,
Critical
and national

at community,
frameworks
regional
thatmanage
climate change risks and other

are important (Smith and Lenhart,

1996). If they are
are tenuous,
not present or their existence
and/or credibility
hazards

communities

will

be less able

to adapt.

For example, provision

insurance) by institutions helps

of risk spreading options (e.g.,

individuals
and groups cope with physical vulnerabilities
such
as floods, storm surge and wind damage. At the same time, too
much

dependence

on

behaviours
Furthermore,

risk

spreading

may

lead

to long-term

that
increase
(Smit,
1994)
if social and political
institutions do
to
allocation
of power
and access

equitable
it is less likely that communities

resources,

and

individuals

will

be able to respond and adapt effectively(Adger and Kelly,

1999;Handmer et al, 1999).How propertyrightsare defined
are
and how
land use
processes
planning
by institutions is important for community adaptive
as they influence access
to resources, wealth, well
capacity
so in remote native
This particularly
being and livelihood.
and

allocated

developed

communities

land claims

undergoing

and

resource

allocation

negotiations.

Island, BC
Study: Sea-level Rise on Graham
The Geological Survey ofCanada (GSC) defines sensitivity

Case

a rise in sea level would

to which
the degree
initiate or
accelerate
coastal
changes given local conditions
(e.g., tides,
waves, flooding, erosion) and other climate change effects (e.g.,
increased
the exposure
of coastal
storminess).
Recognizing
a
sea-level
rise hazards,
the GSC mapped
regions to potential
as

attributes for the entire

'sensitivity index' based on geological
et al,
to a macrotidal
Canadian
coastline
(Shaw
1998). Due
storm surges and an
erodible
range,
sediments,
frequent
the shoreline of NE Graham
Island
climate,
energetic wave

(Figure 1) fromTlell toMasset, ranksamong themost highly

in Canada.

sensitive

in sea

changes

area has undergone

significant
to +16 m)
the Holocene
(-150
and currently is rising at +1.5 mm a-1

This

level

over

et al, 1997)
et al, 1997). In response,
some areas are eroding
(Beckmann
at 1 -3m a1 and greater during extreme events such as the 1997
that caused 0.4 m of regional sea-level rise and 12m
98 El Ni?o
(Josenhans

retreat (Barrie
and conway
2002).
Despite
little is known
physical
sensitivity of this environment
on
about the resilience
and adaptive
capacity of communities
this coast to climate change and sea-level rise.
of

localized

extreme

Resource-based,
affected

increasingly

coastal

remote,
by

global

trends

communities
and

are

international

of natural
including
shifting supply and demand
in other parts of the world. Haida
Gwaii
has seen
in its natural
downward
trends
resource-based
significant
as a result of changes
in the global
industries
economy,

markets,
resources

environmental
and other national
and provincial
degradation
The
forest
policy
adjustments.
industry has
experienced
costs of
turbulent
international
timber markets,
increasing
access,

and changes

fishing

industry

in forest management
has

diminishing
populations
in allocation
changes
federal

and provincial
as high fluctuations
communities.
These

well

unemployment
Old Masseti,

and technology. The

variable
and potentially
experienced
of salmon, herring and clams as well as
of fishing privileges.
of
Downsizing
as
and funding cutbacks,
governments
in tourism have

also impacted
these
in
manifest
impacts
in income levels. For example,
in
and changes
a Haida
native community,
around 60% of the
economic

populationwas unemployed in2000, down from72% in 1995

(SNDS, 2001). In the largerregion,unemploymentis 16.5%,
which isabout twicetheprovincialaverage (8.5%)(BC-STATS,
such as closure of a Canadian
Forces
2001). Other changes,
base inMasset,
led to out-migration
of about 2000 people, job
in the larger region
losses and economic
changes.
Population

has declined by 12% since 1981 (BC-STATS, 2001). Coupled

these trends are national, provincial
and regional contested
to natural resources
for local livelihoods,
both
rights of access
subsistence and commercial.

with

The

1999).
institutional
levels

'maladaptive'
vulnerability.
not promote

communities

vulnerable

to climate

extreme
landscape,
and
their

2004),

increasingly
Social

are
of Graham
Island
potentially
change given their isolated and sensitive
climate variability
and Barrie,
(Walker
on variable
economic
and
dependence

restricted

natural

resources

for subsistence

and

are closely
resilience
tied in
biophysical
communities
and climate
resource-dependent
changes may
increase uncertainty
of resource
and access.
Past
availability

jobs.

and

coping experiences
into future adaptive

and perceptions
capacity

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

of change reveal
insight
2001 ).
and Berkes,

(Riedlinger

1321

UnderstandingVulnerabilityofCoastal Communities toClimate Change Related Risks

that researchers work with

to
This requires
local people
identify coping and adaptation
strategies to current and future
risks. As discussed,
contested property rights, land claims, and
land use planning processes
both complicate
and compromise
in the area. Such issues are
adaptive
capacity of communities
embedded

in historical

considered

as they directly

and cultural

and must

circumstances

influence

the livelihoods

be

and well

being of a significant proportion of the population.

same
On
the other hand,
these
communities

resilient
their past experiences
and
especially
given
to environmental
and socio-economic
adjustments
changes,
coupled with their rich social and cultural fabric and enduring
attachment. Assessment
of adaptive
of
community
capacity
individuals
account

and

in Haida

communities

must

Gwaii

not

only inherent resiliencies,

discrimination
and other social

but

also

words,
and
livelihoods

are

situated

In

is

important.
infrastructure
(e.g., diesel

that

limit

In other
activities
addition,

on critical
electricity
roads and power lines on eroding coasts, supplies
generation,
to sea-level
delivered
rise impacts may
by ferries) susceptible
increase vulnerability. This, despite an inherent social resilience
and ability to deal with inconvenience.
The next stage of this
dependence

of
explore these attributes to reveal determinants
to deal with current and future
community
adaptive
capacity
climate change and sea-level rise hazards.
research will

The role of community-based

research

research

Coastal Zone

systems (including

knowledge

as

knowledge)
environment.

This

in a local

framed
can

as

well

allows
context.

cultural

of the
interpretations
to be
views
of changes
For example,
traditional knowledge
scientific

truth' scientific

'ground
examination

of how

traditional ecological

research

and

allows

be
changes will
2000; Riedlinger

global

interpreted locally
(Usher,
2001 ). In turn, this provides
improved foundations
making and adaptive capacity building.

for better

and
expressed
and Berkes,
for decision

CONCLUSIONS
This
been

paper
characterized

multi-scaled,
vulnerabilities
from

recent

and

adaptive
capacity.
in climate
discourse

inherent

recognizes

vulnerabilities

systems as interdependent
and longer-term
change.
access

include:

The

framework
research

stems

change
of human-environment

that

entities

climate variability
exposed
Determinants
of adaptive
capacity
to and distribution
of wealth,
and
technology,

and awareness;
social capital; and
information; risk perception
to address
critical
institutional
frameworks
climate
change
hazards.
level

These
and

international
research
relevant

are identified

situated

within

at the individual

and community
national
and
larger regional,
and traditional knowledge
is key to

settings. Local
and implementation
and
design
outcomes
that could aid in more

allows

for locally
effective decision

in remote coastal regions.

making,
planning and management
contrasts typical
As such, this integrated vulnerability
approach
that focus largely on reducing the
coastal
impact assessments
economic
detriments of change. As part of a larger study, this
will be refined with local input from communities
and
rise hazards
regional institutions and applied to study sea-level
on one of Canada's most sensitive coastlines.
and adaptations
approach

Nation

Masset

in this preliminary

Adger,
climate

and

and the people of

Tlell
for then

stage of the project.

CITED

and
the architecture
of entitlements.
change
and Adaptation
4,
Strategies for Global Change,

Mitigation
253-266.

Adger, W. N.,
risk under

2000.

Institutional

to environmental

adaptation
in Vietnam.

Annals
of the
ofAmerican
Geographers,
90(4), 738-758.
to climate change in Pacific Island
Barnett,
J., 2001. Adapting
countries: The problem of uncertainty. World Development,
the

transition

Association

29(6), 977-993.
J. V.

Barrie,

and

change
Canada.

and Conway,
K. W.,
on
coastal
evolution

sea-level
Rapid
the Pacific margin
of
171-183.
150(1-2),

Sedimentary
2001. 2001

2002.

Geology,
Census Profile
Charlotte

Regions,
Skeena-Queen
Stats, Victoria.
18p.

of British
Regional

Columbia's
District.

BC

and Moore,
1997. Effects of
L.; Dunn, M.
K.,
and
systems in British Columbia
change on coastal
In: Taylor,
E. and Taylor,
B.
(eds.), Canada

Yukon.

and
Climate
Impacts
Study:
Adaptation.
to Global
inBritish Columbia
Climate Change
Environment
Canada
and British Columbia

Country

Responding
and Yukon.

of Environment,
Lands andParks,
pp. 8-1 to 8-19.
Ministry
Biel aw ski, E., 1995. Inuit indigenous knowledge
and science
in theArctic.
In: Peterson,
D.L.
(ed.), Human
ecology and
in the far north.
climate
and resources
change:
People
and Francis, Washington,
1985. The Political

DC, pp. 219-228.

in
Economy
of Soil Erosion
188 p.
Countries.
London.
Longman,
Developing
P.M. and Brookfield,
Blaikie,
H., 1987. Land degradation
London.
296p.
andsociety. Methuen,
I. and Wisner,
Blaikie,
P.M.; Cannon,
R.; Da vies,
B., 1994.
Taylor

Blaikie,

At

as it has
the concept of vulnerability
in the climate change literature and presents
framework
for assessing
integrated

discusses

of the Haida

Masseti,

justice
Journal

Beckmann,
climate

be grounded

Impacts and Adaptation

to Teresa
Conner
for

N. W., 2001. Scales of governance

and environmental
for adaptation
and mitigation
of climate
change.
13,921 -931.
of International Development,
to
N.W.
and Kelly,
1999. Social vulnerability
M.P.,

Adger,

to understanding
climate change in remote regions
knowledge
is well-documented
1995; Cohen,
1997; Fast
(BiELAWSKi,
on
and Berkes,
Our
framework
focuses
local-level
1998).

research

of Old

support from the

Action Fund (CCAF)

and contributes to Natural

Change
is extended

LITERATURE

Bc-stats,

change and the institutional frameworks

at different scales. This
that
requires
at the community-level
and involve local

financial

Change

Climate

Appreciation
and the Council

the Villages
contributions

with

Climate

(Project A580)

Canada's

from a variety
Assessing
vulnerability
requires contributions
resource
of disciplines,
local decision-makers,
institutions,
users and residents. The contribution
of local and traditional

to deal with
capacities
that govern decisions

is facilitated

of Canada's

Resources

into

differential

processes
to resources,
and decision-making.
power
context inwhich community
the socio-cultural

rights,
access

take

This

Government

Program.
assistance
be

may
with

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

P.M.,

Risk:

Natural

Hazards,
People's
New York. 284 p.
Routledge,
J. and Rahman,
1999.
M.,

Disasters.
Buckland,

Vulnerability,

and

Community-based

disastermanagement during the 1997 Red River Flood in

Canada.
Burton,
E.L.,

174-191.
23(3),
O.
.; Pilifosova,
S.; Lim,
assessment
From
impacts

Disasters,
I.; Huq,
2002.

the shaping

priorities:

of adaptation

policy.

and Schipper,
to adaptation
Climate

Policy,

2,145-159.
R. and White,
1993. The Environment
Burton,
I.; Kates,
G,
as Hazard.
Guilford Press, New York. 290 p.
and the Explanation
Cannon,
T., 1994. Vulnerability
Analysis
of Natural
Disasters.
In: VARLEY,
A.
(ed.), Disasters,
and Environment. Wiley, London,
167 p.
Development
T. R.; Parry, M. C; Nishioka,
S. andHARASAWA,
Technical
1994.
Guidelines
Climate
for Assessing
and Adaptations.
Impacts
Change
University
College
and Centre
for Global
Environmental
London,
England

Carter,
H.,

Research,
Tsukuba,
G. E.; Moser,

Japan, 59 pp.
S. C;
Ratick,

The Case

MA.,

S. J.; Dow, K.; Meyer,

J.X.; Kasperson,
B.; Emani,
S.; Jin,W.; Kasperson,
. E.,
R.
E.
and
1998. Assessing
the
Schwarz,
to Extreme
of Coastal
Communities
Storms:
Vulnerability

Clark,
W.

of Revere,

Strategiesfor

Global

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

USA.

Change,

Mitigation
3,59-82.

and Adaptation

1322 Dolan andWalker

if and so what in northwest Canada:

S. J., 1997. What
Cohen,
Could
climate change make a difference to the future of the
Mackenzie

Basin?

Arctic, 50(4), 293-307.

1988. Social
capital in the creation of human
94, S95-S121.
capital. American Journal of Sociology,

Coleman,

J. S.,

Comfort,

L.;

Hewitt,

Wisner,

B.;

Cutter,

S.;

Pulwarty,

R.;

K.; Oliver-smith,
A.; Wiener,
J.; Fordham,
M.;
W. and Krimgold,
disaster
F., 1999. Reframing
the global
evolution
of vulnerable
communities.

Peacock,

policy:
Environmental
Cutter,

1,39-44.
Hazards,
to environmental
1996. Vulnerability
inHuman
Geography,
20(4), 529-539.

S.,

Progress

J.T. and Scott, M. S., 2000. Revealing

of people
and places: A case
study of

Cutter,
S.; Mitchell,
the vulnerability
Georgetown
Association
Fankhauser,
climate

Carolina.
Annals
of the
Geographers,
90(4), 713-737.
R. S. J., 1997. The social costs of
South

County,
ofAmerican
S. and Tol,
The

change:

hazards.

IPCC

assessment

second

and Adaptation

beyond. Mitigation

Strategies

report and
Global

for

northern
change,
In: AVIS, W.
(ed.),
impacts and adaptation.

country study: Climate

Environment
Canada, Ottawa, pp. 206-226.
J. G; Burton,
J. B.
Feenstra,
L; Smith,
on Methods
1998. Handbook
for Climate
and

Assessment

and

Strategies.
Nairobi
and

Adaptation

Environment

tol,

R.S.J.,

Impact
Change
United
Nations
Institute

for

Program,
Studies, Free University, Amsterdam.
F. and Colding,
Berkes,
J., 1998. Ecological
and social mechanisms
for building resilience
and

Environmental
C;

practices

In: Berkes,
F. and Folke,
C. (eds.), Linking
sustainability.
and
social and ecological
systems: Management
practices
social
mechanisms
resilience.
for
building
Cambridge
Press, Cambridge,
pp. 414-436.
University
L M.,

Goklany,

to enhance
Strategies
adaptability:
sustainable
change,
growth and free trade.
1995.

Technological
Climatic Change,
J. W

Handmer,

30,427-449.
and Dovers,

1996. A
S.,
institutions
for

resilience:Rethinking
Industrial
development.
9(4), 482-511.
J.W.;
Dovers,

Quarterly,
Handmer,
Societal
Mitigation
267-281.

and

Environmental

S.

and Downing,
to Climate
Change

Vulnerability
and Adaptation

of
typology
sustainable

Strategies

for Global

4,

Change,

. and Carvalho,
1999.
Clouston,
P.,
assessment methodologies
Improving coastal vulnerability
An approach
for integrated coastal zone management:
from
Australian

Geographical

Studies,

37(1),

50-69.
in a technocratic
Hewitt,
K., 1983. The idea of calamity
In: Hewitt,
K. (ed.), Interpretations
of Calamity. Allen
Unwin, Boston, pp. 3-30.

age.
and

A Geographical
Regions
of Risk:
toDisaster.
Longman,
389p.
England.
in ecological
1973. Resilience
and stability
Holling,
C,
and Systematics,
4, 1
systems. Annual Review
of Ecology
23.
1992.

IPCC-CZMS,
Challenge

of

Global

Climate

the Sea.

Report

and
the Rising
Change
of the Coastal
Zone

Panel
Management
Subgroup,
Intergovernmental
Climate
of Transport, Public Works
Change. Ministry
Water Management,
The Hague, Netherlands,
IPCC, 2001.

Climate

vulnerability.
assessment
Climate

2001:

change
Contribution

report

Change.

of

and

and
adaptation,
Group II to the third

the Intergovernmental

Cambridge

on

impacts,

of Working

University

on

Panel

Press, New

York.

1032p.
Jacobs,
20th

J.D.

and Bell,

T. J., 1998. Regional

environmental
century
from
northern
examples

Geographer,
R. N.,
Jones,

42(4),
2001.

change:
Canada.

perspectives
Introduction
The

on
and

Canadian

314-318.
An

Environmental

Risk

of
182

change.
Hazards.

M.
and MlRZA,
monirul,
extreme weather
events:

Q.,
Can

2003.

Climate

and
change
countries adapt?

developing

3,233-248.
and Berkes,
F., 2001.
to understanding
knowledge

Policy,
D.

Riedlinger,
traditional

Arctic. Po/ar Record,

D. A.; Yu, Y. and Maykut,

the Canadian

rothrock,
of the Arctic

sea-ice

26(23), 3469-3472.

Contributions

of
in

climate

37(203),
G. Q.,

cover. Geophysical

change
315-328.
1999. Thinning

Research

Letters,

.H. and
R. B.; Forbes,
D. L.; Ruz,
to
S., 1998. Sensitivity of the coasts of Canada
rise. Geological
Survey of Canada,
Report No.
79 p.
505, Ottawa.
Project
A041
R.W.
and Ccaf
2001. Coastal
Shaw,
Team,
and Sea-Level
Rise on Prince
Impacts
of Climate
Change
Shaw,

J.; Taylor,

Solomon,
sea-level

Edward

Island.

Canada,

Fisheries

Environment
& Oceans

Natural
Canada,
Dartmouth.

Resources
80 p.

Canada,

at a

in Canada
2000.
Flood management
Shrubsole,
D.,
crossroads. Environmental
2,63-75.
Hazards,

1994. Climate,
and Adaptation.
In:
B.,
Compensation
J. and Etkin, D. (ed.), Improving Responses
McCULLOCH,
to Atmospheric
The
role of insurance
and
Extremes:

Smit,

compensation.
2.37.

Environment

Smit, B.; Burton,

I.; Klein,
Science
of Adaptation:

and Adaptation

Mitigation
199-213.

Canada,

Toronto,

2.29

pp.

R. J.T. and Street,

R., 1999. The
Framework
for Assessment.

Strategies

for Global

4,

Change,

to
2003.
From
Pilifosova,
O.,
adaptation
and
reduction.
In:
J.
Smith,
adaptive capacity
vulnerability
R. J. T. and Huq,
S. (eds.), Climate
B.; Klein,
change,
Scientific, River
capacity and development. World
adaptive

Smit,

B.

and

Edge, NJ, pp. 1-20.

J.B., 1997. Setting

to climate
priorities for adaptation
7,251-264.
change. Global Environmental
Change,
J. B. and Lenhart,
S. S., 1996. Climate
Smith,
change
6,193-201.
adaptation policy options. Climate Research,
Smith,

1997.

Hewitt,
K.,
Introduction

and the global

to global environmental
1990. Vulnerability
D.M.,
and
In: Cutter,
S. (ed.), Environmental
Risks
Prentice-Hall,
Cliffs, pp. 326-342.
Englewood

Liverman,

N.;

South Australia.

tales: Adaptation

Cautionary

R. J. T. and Nicholls,
R. J., 1999. Assessment
Klein,
to climate change. Ambio, 28(2),
coastal vulnerability
187.

Crisis

T. E.,
1999.
and Variability.

2000.

R.W.,

45,5-17.
poor. Climatic Change,
in
M.P.
and Adger,
N. W., 2000. Theory and practice
Kelly,
to climate change and facilitating
assessing
vulnerability
47,325-352.
adaptation. Climatic Change,

Climate

Berkes,
F., 1998. Climate
and land-based
economies.

Canada

Harvey,

Kates,

1,385-403.

Change,

H. and
Fast,
subsistence

Folke,

Framework
for Climate
Management
Impact.
Change
Natural Hazards,
23,197-230.
R. and Southon,
Josenhans,
H.; Fedje, D.; Pienitz,
J., 1997.
and Rapidly Changing
Holocene
Sea Levels
Early Humans
in the Queen
Charlotte
Islands
Hecate
Strait British
Canada.
Science,
277,71-74.
Columbia,

Assessment

2001.
SNDS,
Native

Online

Labour

Market

Census

Development

Skeena

Report.
Society.

ht1p://www.snds.bc.ca/Census%20Online/index.htm
1999. Sustainability
and community
resilience:
Tobin, G A.,
Environmental
The
Grail
of hazards
Holy
planning?
13-25.
Hazards,!,
Tol,

R. S. J.; Fankhauser,
S. and Smith,
J. B., 1998. The
to climate change: what can we learn
scope for adaptation
from the impact literature. Global Environmental
Change,

8(2), 109-123.

P. J., 2000.
Traditional
Usher,
ecological
assessment
environmental
and management.
183-193.
Walker,
level

in

knowledge
Arctic,

53(2),

I. J. and Barrie,
and sea
J.V, 2004. Geomorphology
most
coasts:
rise on one of Canada's
'sensitive'

Northeast
Coastal
Waterman,
of the

Graham
Journal
Island, British Columbia.
of
SI 39: this volume.
Research,
P. and Kay, R.C.,
1993. Review
of the applicability
'Common

Vulnerability

Methodology
to Sea-Level
Rise'

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006

for Assessment
to the Australian

Coastal

of

UnderstandingVulnerabilityofCoastal Communities toClimate Change Related Risks

Zone.

In: McLean,

R.

and Mimura

to Sea-Level

Assessment

Rise

N.

(eds.). Vulnerability
Zone
and
Coastal

of IPCC Eastern Hemisphere

Proceedings
1993, pp. 237-248.
Tsukuba,
Japan, 3-6 August
J. and Bohle,
H. G,
1993. The
of
space
structure of hunger and famine.
The causal
vulnerability:

Management.
Workshop,
M.
Watts,

inHuman

Geography,
17(1), 43-67.
1988. Searching
Transaction
WlLDAVSKY,
A.,
for Safety.
.
25 3
Books, New Brunswick.
1992. Disaster
In: BOHLE,
H.G
WlSNER,
B.,
vulnerability.
and Hunger:
Worlds
(ed.),
of Pain
Geographical
Progress

on Disaster
and Food
Security.
Vulnerability
Saarbrucken, Verlag Breitenbach,
pp. 13-52.
M. K.; Lewkowicz,
A. G
and Rouse,
W. R.,
1992.
Woo,
to
of the Canadian
environment
Response
permafrost
Perspectives

1323

climatic

Wu,

13,287-317.
change. Physical
Geography,
S. y.; Yarnal,
B. and Fisher, A., 2002. Vulnerability
of
to sea-level
coastal communities
rise: A case study of Cape
Climate Research,
May County, New
Jersey, USA.
22(4),
255-270.

Yamada,

K.;

Yamamoto,

P. D.; Mimua,
S. and
N.; Machida,
1995. Methodology
for the assessment
of
M.,
of South Pacific
Island countries to sea-level

Nunn,

vulnerability
rise and climate

change.

Journal

of Global

Environmental

1,101-125.
Engineering,
G and Tol,
R. S. J., 2002.
Indicators
for social and
yohe,
economic
toward a working
coping
capacity
moving
Environmental
definition
of adaptive
Global
capacity.
Change,

12,25-40.

JournalofCoastal Research, Special Issue 39, 2006