...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management >Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation
【24h】

Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation

机译：使用形式化澄清漏洞定义和评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change, to address the conceptual confusion around vulnerability and related concepts. Design/methodology/approach - The framework was developed using themethod of formalisation - making structure explicit. While mathematics as a precise and general language revealed common structures in a large number of vulnerability definitions and assessments, the framework is here presented by diagrams for a non-mathematical audience. Findings - Vulnerability, in ordinary language, is a measure of possible future harm. Scientific vulnerability definitions from the fields of climate change, poverty, and natural hazards share and refine this structure. While theoretical definitions remain vague, operational definitions, that is, methodologies for assessing vulnerability, occur in three distinct types: evaluate harm for projected future evolutions, evaluate the current capacity to reduce harm, or combine the two. Theframework identifies a lack of systematic relationship between theoretical and operational definitions. Originality/value - While much conceptual literature tries to clarify vulnerability, formalisation is a new method in this interdisciplinary field. The resulting framework is an analytical tool which supports clear communication: it helps when making assumptions explicit. The mismatch between theoretical and operational definitions is not made explicit in previous work.
机译：目的-本文的目的是提出一个应对气候变化脆弱性的正式框架，以解决围绕脆弱性和相关概念的概念混淆。设计/方法/方法-使用形式化方法开发框架-使结构明确。虽然数学是一种精确而通用的语言，但在大量的漏洞定义和评估中却揭示了通用的结构，但在此，该框架是通过图表为非数学读者提供的。调查结果-用普通语言来说，漏洞是衡量将来可能遭受的危害的一种方法。来自气候变化，贫困和自然灾害领域的科学脆弱性定义共享并完善了这种结构。尽管理论定义仍然含糊不清，但操作性定义（即评估脆弱性的方法）却以三种不同的类型出现：针对预计的未来发展评估危害，评估减少危害的当前能力或将两者结合起来。框架表明理论和操作定义之间缺乏系统的关系。独创性/价值-尽管许多概念文献都试图澄清脆弱性，但形式化是这一跨学科领域的新方法。最终的框架是一个支持清晰沟通的分析工具：在使假设明确时会有所帮助。理论和操作定义之间的不匹配在先前的工作中并未明确指出。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号