IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v128y2015i3p323-337.html

Applying a capitals framework to measuring coping and adaptive capacity in integrated assessment models

Author

Listed:
  • R. Tinch

  • J. Jäger
  • I. Omann
  • P. Harrison
  • Julia Wesely
  • Rob Dunford

Abstract

In Integrated Assessment modelling of climate change impacts and adaptation, there are two main uses for measures of capacity to adapt to climate change. The first is to represent the capacity for proactive adaptation: this can be termed adaptive capacity. The second is to represent the capacity for reactive or instantaneous coping: this can be termed coping capacity. Adaptive capacity helps to determine which proactive adaptation options are feasible as inputs to the models under any given pair of climate and socio-economic scenarios. Coping capacity represents the residual ability to react to conditions, and influences vulnerability under any given set of model outputs. Using the example of the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform, we explain how these capacities can be represented in integrated assessment. We demonstrate how an index of adaptive and coping capacity can be developed using a five-capitals (human, social, manufactured, natural, financial) model of societal wealth and incorporated in integrated assessment models. We find that for very aggregate applications, but not local or sectoral applications, the same indicators can be used to simulate adaptive and coping capacity. In addition, we argue that it is generally unnecessary to account for the depletion of capacity through adaptation itself, and that natural capital can generally be omitted from capacity measures if it is already directly represented in model outputs. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • R. Tinch & J. Jäger & I. Omann & P. Harrison & Julia Wesely & Rob Dunford, 2015. "Applying a capitals framework to measuring coping and adaptive capacity in integrated assessment models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 323-337, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:128:y:2015:i:3:p:323-337
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1299-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-014-1299-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-014-1299-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:2252 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:wbk:wbpubs:7505 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Boumans, Roelof & Costanza, Robert & Farley, Joshua & Wilson, Matthew A. & Portela, Rosimeiry & Rotmans, Jan & Villa, Ferdinando & Grasso, Monica, 2002. "Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 529-560, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    3. David W. Shanafelt, 2026. "Ecosystem service provisioning in the Grand Est, France," Working Papers of BETA 2026-01, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Yang Yi & Chen Zhang & Jinqi Zhu & Yugang Zhang & Hao Sun & Hongzhang Kang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution, Prediction and Optimization of LUCC Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Models: A Case Study of Mentougou District, Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Antonio Caselles, 2013. "An application of fuzzy cognitive maps to improve well‐being, sustainability and the globalization process," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 646-660, November.
    6. Ting Zhang & Qian Gao & Huaming Xie & Qianjiao Wu & Yuwen Yu & Chukun Zhou & Zixian Chen & Hanqing Hu, 2022. "Response of Water Yield to Future Climate Change Based on InVEST and CMIP6—A Case Study of the Chaohu Lake Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 82-93, August.
    9. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Dorji, Lham & Thoennes, Philip & Tshering, Kuenga, 2013. "An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 11-21.
    10. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    11. Konarska, Keri M. & Sutton, Paul C. & Castellon, Michael, 2002. "Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 491-507, June.
    12. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    13. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    14. Xu, Xibao & Jiang, Bo & Tan, Yan & Costanza, Robert & Yang, Guishan, 2018. "Lake-wetland ecosystem services modeling and valuation: Progress, gaps and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 19-28.
    15. Ioan Negrutiu, 2024. "Global Resources and Resource Justice—Reframing the Socioecological Science-to-Policy Landscape," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Weibel, Bettina, 2020. "Global assessment of mountain ecosystem services using earth observation data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Courard-Hauri, David, 2007. "Using Monte Carlo analysis to investigate the relationship between overconsumption and uncertain access to one's personal utility function," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 152-162, October.
    18. David Doran & Tim O’Higgins, 2020. "Applications of a Novel Method of Ecosystem Services Assessment into Local Policy Making in the River Blackwater Estuary, Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    20. Costanza, Robert & Chichakly, Karim & Dale, Virginia & Farber, Steve & Finnigan, David & Grigg, Kat & Heckbert, Scott & Kubiszewski, Ida & Lee, Harry & Liu, Shuang & Magnuszewski, Piotr & Maynard, Sim, 2014. "Simulation games that integrate research, entertainment, and learning around ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 195-201.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:128:y:2015:i:3:p:323-337. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.