Wiréhn Lotten, Danielsson Åsa, Neset Tina-Simone S
Department of Thematic Studies - Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden; Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Thematic Studies - Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
J Environ Manage. 2015 Jun 1;156:70-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.020. Epub 2015 Mar 21.
A common way of quantifying and communicating climate vulnerability is to calculate composite indices from indicators, visualizing these as maps. Inherent methodological uncertainties in vulnerability assessments, however, require greater attention. This study examines Swedish agricultural vulnerability to climate change, the aim being to review various indicator approaches for assessing agricultural vulnerability to climate change and to evaluate differences in climate vulnerability depending on the weighting and summarizing methods. The reviewed methods are evaluated by being tested at the municipal level. Three weighting and summarizing methods, representative of climate vulnerability indices in general, are analysed. The results indicate that 34 of 36 method combinations differ significantly from each other. We argue that representing agricultural vulnerability in a single composite index might be insufficient to guide climate adaptation. We emphasize the need for further research into how to measure and visualize agricultural vulnerability and into how to communicate uncertainties in both data and methods.
量化和传达气候脆弱性的一种常见方法是根据指标计算综合指数，并将其可视化为地图。然而，脆弱性评估中固有的方法学不确定性需要更多关注。本研究考察了瑞典农业对气候变化的脆弱性，目的是回顾评估农业对气候变化脆弱性的各种指标方法，并评估取决于加权和汇总方法的气候脆弱性差异。所回顾的方法在市级层面进行测试以进行评估。分析了三种一般代表气候脆弱性指数的加权和汇总方法。结果表明，36种方法组合中的34种彼此之间存在显著差异。我们认为，用单一综合指数来表示农业脆弱性可能不足以指导气候适应。我们强调需要进一步研究如何衡量和可视化农业脆弱性，以及如何传达数据和方法中的不确定性。
