PeopleSoft Parallels Life Or Maybe It’s Life Parallels PeopleSoft!
Approaching Adaptation: Parallels and Contrasts between the Climate and Health Communities Center...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of Approaching Adaptation: Parallels and Contrasts between the Climate and Health Communities Center...
Approaching Adaptation:Parallels and Contrasts between the
Climate and Health Communities
Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change,
Carnegie Mellon University
National Science Foundation, ExxonMobil, API and CMU
CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
2CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Context and Introduction
• Public health prevention and climate change adaptation share the goal of increasing the ability of nations, communities and individuals to cope effectively and efficiently with challenges and changes.
• Public health researcher approach from the perspective of protecting and enhancing the health and well-being of individuals and communities
• Climate researchers approach adaptation from a perspective that can trace its roots to the natural hazards community.
3CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Public Health
• Public health is “the combination of sciences, skills, and beliefs that is directed to the maintenance and improvement of the health of all people through collective or social actions. The programs, services, and institutions involved emphasize the prevention of disease and the health needs of the population as a whole. Public health activities change with changing technology and social values, but the goals remain the same: to reduce the amount of disease, premature deaths, and disease-produced discomfort and disability in the population (Last 2001).”
4CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Three Stages of Prevention
• Public health aims to achieve its goals through prevention (adaptation).
• Measures to reduce disease and save lives are categorized into primary, secondary and tertiary prevention (Last 2001).
5CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Three Stages of Prevention
• Primary prevention is the “protection of health by personal and community wide efforts.”
• Secondary prevention includes “measures available to individuals and populations for the early detection and prompt and effective intervention to correct departures from good health.”
• Tertiary prevention “consists of the measures available to reduce or eliminate long-term impairments and disabilities, minimize suffering caused by existing departures from good health, and to promote the patient’s adjustment to irremediable conditions.”
6CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Climate Community and Adaptation
• Human and natural systems adapt autonomously to» gradual change, if it can be detected, and
» variability (or change in variability).
• Human systems can plan to adapt and implement their plans
7CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Public Health and Vulnerability
• Public health uses the concept of vulnerability in two different senses.
• One acknowledges that advances in public health are not permanent and that deterioration of the public health infrastructure could permit the return of adverse health outcomes that are currently controlled. As a result, vulnerability depends on maintaining and improving health systems.
8CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Public Health and Vulnerability
• The second sense relates to specific health outcomes.
• The classic approach to evaluating environmental health risks is a four-step assessment paradigm: hazard identification, dose (exposure) cum response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization.
• The evaluation of information on the hazards of environmental agents and exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., humans, animals, and ecosystems) produces quantitative or qualitative statements about the probability and degree of harm.
9CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Comparison
• To a climate researcher, vulnerability is a function of exposure and sensitivity; and exposure and sensitivity are themselves functions of adaptive capacity. In general, it is a statement about future conditions after adaptations have been implemented.
• In the health community, vulnerability is a function of exposure to an agent and the exposure-response relationship between that exposure and a particular health outcome. In general, it is a statement about current conditions. It is preferable to have the exposure-response relationship determined before preventative measures (i.e. adaptations), are implemented.
10CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Determinants of Adaptive Capacity
∞ The range of available technological options for adaptation;
∞ The availability of resources and their distribution;∞ The structure of critical institutions and the
derivative allocation of decision-making authority;∞ The stock of human capital (e.g. education and
personal security;∞ The stock of social capital;∞ The system’s access to risk spreading processes;∞ The ability of decision-makers to manage
information; and∞ The public’s perceived attribution of the source of
stress and the significance of exposure to its local manifestations.
11CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Prerequisites for Prevention
∞An awareness that a problem exists;
∞A sense that the problem matters;
∞Understanding of what causes the problem;
∞Capability to deal with the problem; and
∞Political will to control the problem.
12CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Table 1: Determinants of Adaptive Capacity and the Prerequisites for Prevention
Determinants of Adaptive Cap Prerequisites for Prevention
Availability of Options Capability to control
Resources Capability to control
Governance Political will
Human and social capital Understanding of causes; political will
Access to risk spreading mechanism Capability to control
Managing information Understanding of causes; problem matters
Public perception Awareness; problem matters
13CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Table 2: Trends in Selected Health Indicators and Their Determinants in Costa Rica and the former USSR, 1960-
1990
Costa Rica Former USSR
Health Indicator 1960 1990 % to Tech 1960 1990 % to Tech
Under 5 Mortality 124 14 55 39 27 40
Female Adult Mortality 203 73 48
Male Adult Mortality 246 122 59
Female Life Expectancy 65 79 59 72 74 43
Male Life Expectancy 62 74 60 65 63 46
Total Fertility Rate 7 3.3 38 2.7 2.2 25
Determinants
Income Per Capita 2001 3381 2397 7453
Female Education (yrs) 4.0 5.6 7.6 10.3
Male Education 4.1 5.5 8.5 10.8
14CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Table 3: Socioeconomic and Health Services and Finance Indicators for Costa Rica and the Russian
Federation, 1960-1990
Socioeconomic Indicator Costa Rica Russian Federation
Malnutrition (children under 5)
Males 6 12
Females 7 13
Health Services/Finance Indicator
Children Immunized for Measles 99% 92%
Health Expenditure
Total (% of GDP) 8.5 4.8
Public Sector (% of GDP) 6.3 4.1
Public Sector (% of total) 74 87
15CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 1aHistorical Context – Adaptation Baseline
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Year
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Low er
16CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 1bAmplifying the Historical Trend - Baseline Revisited
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Year
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Low er
17CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 1c
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Year
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Low er
18CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 2Building a Levy in the Fifth Period
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Year
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Low er
19CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 3Smoothing Variation with an Upstream Dam
2030
4050
6070
8090
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time Period
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Low er
20CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 4Reducing Flood Threat by Dredging
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time Period
Ann
ual R
iver
Flo
w (
milli
ards
)
Flow
Upper
Lower
21CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 5a: Initial Conditions
Variable 1
Variable 2
»A0
»B0
22CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 5b: Conditions in 50 Years
Variable 1
Variable 2
»B 50
»A50
23CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 5c: Trajectories of Sustainability Indices
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Year
Su
sta
ina
bili
ty In
de
x
Locus I
Locus II
Locus III
24CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Figure 6Sustainability Indices for the Hypothetical River
Example
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Years
Su
stai
nab
ility
Ind
ex
Baseline
Levy
Dam
Dredging
25CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Public Health Perspective
• Public health seeks to identify and reduce both the background level of disease and any epidemics or outbreaks.
• Public health does not use the terminology or the concept of a “coping range.” Use of the term suggests a range within which significant consequences are not observed.
• Adaptation policies and measures are needed now to address current conditions.
• Public health has recognized thresholds for centuries.
26CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Public Health and Thresholds
• It is difficult to generalize approaches to thresholds because each is specific to a particular exposure-response relationship.
• Exposures that exhibit J- or U-shaped relationships with health outcomes, where either too little or too much is detrimental to health (i.e., ambient temperature and oxygen).
• Exposures that have threshold relationships with health outcomes, where low doses are not associated with increased morbidity and mortality (i.e., arsenic and dose required to develop a case of cholera).
• Exposures that have linear relationships with health outcomes (e.g., tobacco smoking and asbestos).
27CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Example with A Zero Threshold:Eradication of Smallpox
• Smallpox is a highly infectious viral disease
• Repeated epidemics have decimated populations
• Spread is person-to-person
• Case fatality rate up to 25%
• No effective treatment
• No carrier state and no animal reservoir
• Potent and stable vaccine available
• 1967 eradication campaign launched
• 1980 smallpox eradicated»Budget: $81 million (WHO) + ~ $232 million (country-level and
bilateral assistance)
28CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Example with a Positive Threshold:Arsenic
• Arsenic is a metalloid that is abundant in the earth’s crust
• Environmental exposures are primarily through food & water»Average daily intake 20-300 ug
• Adverse health effects begin once an individual’s threshold body burden is exceeded
• Groundwater standards:»WHO 10 ug/L
»Bangladesh 50 ug/L
• In Bangladesh, 28-57 million people consuming water above the standard
• 1/100-300 people who consume water containing >50 ug/L may suffer an arsenic-related cancer (lung, bladder, liver)
29CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Issues of Scale
• Determinants of Adaptive Capacity operate on different scales from site to site.
»Some are truly macro in scale - provide handles for national and even international intervention
»This can be true even if their relevant manifestations are micro in scale
• Prerequisites for Prevention do the same
30CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Relationship Between Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Income
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Per Capita Income
y = -0.3858x + 4.7271
R2 = 0.0771
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Ln(Income per capita in US dollar)
Ln(
Fra
ctio
n of
pop
ulat
ion
kill
ed p
er d
ecad
e)
31CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Relationship Between Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Income
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Per Capita Income
y = 0.1443x - 3.4473
R2 = 0.005
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Ln(Income per capita in US dollar)
Ln(
Ann
ual
dam
age
in p
erce
ntag
e of
GD
P)
32CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Relationship Between Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Income
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters and Per Capita Income
y = -1.0196x + 4.7624
R2 = 0.2105
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Ln(Income per capita in US dollar)
Ln(
Fra
ctio
n of
pop
ulat
ion
affe
cted
per
dec
ade)
33CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
A Caveat - Incorporating the “Second Best” into the Adaptation Baselines
• Local scale implications are most critical.
• Determinants and prerequisites can work to support or impede specific adaptations.
• Relating adaptations to their efficacy in reducing exposure or sensitivity can be accomplished.
• Looking for patterns here can uncover the macro scale implications.
• BUT adaptation baselines must reflect existing distortions; analysis can investigate the implications of reducing their power.
• Public Health can be a natural laboratory for examining how to do this.
34CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
A Template for Adaptation Analysis in Either Context
• Proper vulnerability cum adaptation analyses must confront these issues directly by comparing results from a series of runs into the future.
• One might, for example, look at the future with a given adaptation baseline (with existing distortions and impediments) and no extra stress.
• A second set of runs into the future might then persist with the no extra stress assumption but include adjustments in adaptation that could be anticipated to reduce exposure or sensitivity to present vulnerability.
35CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
A Template for Adaptation Analysis in Either Context
• A third set of runs could then impose the extra stress on the adaptation baseline (the first set) to see how they might work.
• A fourth collection could repeat the analysis with anticipated adjustments (the adjusted baseline for the second set of runs).
36CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
A Template for Adaptation Analysis in Either Context
• In every case, however, it is critical that the analysis presumes neither dumb actors who will not respond to any changes in environment nor clairvoyant actors who know everything from the very beginning.
• The future will be fraught with uncertainty, just like the present; and any considerations of adaptation must recognize this fact.
• A complete vulnerability cum adaptation analysis of a particular region or sector would contemplate a range of “not-implausible”.
37CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Applying the Template - Coastal Storms and Sea Level Rise
• S1 - Storm scenarios with current practices
• S2 - Storm scenarios with enlarged set-backs
• S3 - Rerun S1 with climate induced sea level rise and changes in storm patterns - frequency and/or intensity
• S4 - Rerun S2 with climate change
• S3 vs S1 - Cost of climate change along current baseline
• S2 vs S4 - Cost of climate change with modified baseline
• S1 vs S2 - Value of modification absent climate change
• S3 vs S4 - Value of modification with climate change
38CIS oƒ HDGC Carnegie Mellon
Synthesis and Conclusions
• Vulnerability means different things in the two communities.
• Approaches can still be comparable.
• Determinants hypotheses supported by health understanding of the prerequisites for prevention.
• Any thoughts?