Advertisement

Reflexion

  • Cilli Sobiech
Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

Under consideration of individual, relational and spatial aspects of vulnerability, the social simulation explored the dynamics of vulnerability in the coastal zone of Germany. The exploratory assessment of vulnerability by means of an ABM might in the first way be considered as a methodological approach. But the agent concept offers also a conceptually different approach for vulnerability assessment as it implies “thinking in complexity”.

Keywords

Vulnerability Assessment Environment Relationship System Trajectory Information Strategy Risk Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bankoff G (2001) Rendering the world unsafe: “vulnerability” as western discourse. Disasters 25(1):19–35. doi: 10.1111/1467-7717.00159. Accessed 7 Mar 2011Google Scholar
  2. BBK (2006) Dritter Gefahrenbericht der Schutzkommission beim Bundesminister des Innern. Bericht über mögliche Gefahren für die Bevölkerung bei Großkatastrophen und im Verteidigungsfall. In: Zivilschutz-Forschung Vol 59. Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK), Bonn. http://www.bbk.bund.de/cln_028/nn_529830/Schutzkommission/SharedDocs/Publikationen/Band_2059,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Band%2059.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2011
  3. Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkmann J, Wisner B (2006) Measuring the un-measurable: the challenges of vulnerability. In: SOURCE 5/2006. UNU-EHS, Bonn. http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3962. Accessed 14 Mar 2011
  5. Bründl M, Romang HE, Bischof N, Rheinberger CM (2009) The risk concept and its application in natural hazard risk management in Switzerland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(3):801–813. http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/9/801/2009/nhess-9-801-2009.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2011
  6. Chapura M (2009) Scale, Causality, Complexity and Emergence: Rethinking Scale’s Ontological Significance. Trans Inst British Geogr 34(4):462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cilliers P, Preiser R (2010) Complexity, difference and identity. an ethical perspective. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Downing T, Aerts J, Soussan, J et al (2006) Integrating social vulnerability into water management. SEI Working Paper and NeWater Working Paper No 4. Stockholm Environmental Institute, Oxford. http://www.egs.uct.ac.za/~gina/Downing%20et%20al%202005%20Water%20vulnerability.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2011
  9. Epstein JM (2006) Generative social science. Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Geyer R, Rihani S (2010) Complexity and Public Policy. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Goersch HG (2010) Empirische Untersuchung von Möglichkeiten der Förderung der Persönlichen Notfallvorsorge in Deutschland. Dissertation, Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften/Universität Karlsruhe. http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000016069. Accessed 23 Mar 2011
  12. Janssen M (2002) Modeling human dimensions of global environmental change. In: Timmerman P (ed) Encyclopedia of global environmental change, vol 5. Wiley, Chichester, pp 394–408. http://www.public.asu.edu/~majansse/pubs/egec.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  13. Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol Soc 11(2):37. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/. Accessed 10 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  14. Mainzer K (2007) Thinking in complexity. The computational dynamics of matter, mind and mankind, 5th edn. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  15. Mainzer K (2008) Komplexität. Wilhelm Fink, PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitchell S, Streeck W (2009) Complex, historical, self-reflexive: expect the unexpected! MPIfG Working Paper 09/15. http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp09-15.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2011
  17. Pyka A, Grebel T (2006) Agent-based modelling. A methodology for the analysis of qualitative development processes. In: Billari FC, Fent T, Prskawetz A, Scheffran J (eds) Agent-based computational modelling. Applications in demography, social, economic and environmental sciences. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  18. Ratter B (2011) Complexity and emergence? Key concepts in non-linear dynamic systems. In: Glaser M, Krause G, Ratter B, Welp M (eds) Human/nature interactions in the anthropocene: potentials of social-ecological systems analysis. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Seidl R (2009) Eine Multi-Agentensimulation der Wahrnehmung wasserbezogener Klimarisiken. Dissertation, Metropolis, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  20. Steinführer A, Kuhlicke C (2007) Social vulnerability and the 2002 flood. Country Report Germany (Mulde River). FLOODsite Report NoT11-07-08. http://www.floodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/Task_11_M11.3_p44_final.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2011
  21. Steinführer A, Kuhlicke C, de Marchi B, Scolobig A, Tapsell S, Tunstall S (2009) Local communities at risk from flooding. Social vulnerability, resilience and recommendations for flood risk management in Europe. FLOODsite Final Project Report. http://www.floodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/FLOODsite_Broschuere_7-09.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2011
  22. Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M (2010) Social vulnerability and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP4 Report. http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP4_Social-Vulnerability2.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OFFISOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations