Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-06T11:01:57.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vulnerability modelling with functional programming and dependent types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

CEZAR IONESCU
CEZAR IONESCU*
Affiliation:
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany Email: ionescu@pik-potsdam.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present an interdisciplinary effort in the field of global environmental change, related to the understanding of the concept of ‘vulnerability’. We have used functional programming to capture the generic aspects of the myriad of definitions of vulnerability, and have used the resulting formalization to learn something new about vulnerability and to write some better software for vulnerability assessment. In the process, we have also found out something about formalization in general, about the advantages and disadvantages of dependent types, and about the role of computing science in the larger intellectual landscape.

Information

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 26 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue: Dependently Typed Programming , January 2016 , pp. 114 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Calvo, C. and Dercon, S. (2005) Measuring Individual Vulnerability, University of Oxford, Department of Economics, Economics Series Working Papers. Available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/oxf/wpaper/229.html.Google Scholar
Claessen, K. and Hughes, J. (2003) Specification based testing with QuickCheck. In: The Fun of Programming, Cornerstones of Computing, Palgrave 17–40.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (2006) Topoi, The Categorial Analysis of Logic, Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Hinkel, J. (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21 (1) 198–208.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. (2000) QuickCheck: An automatic testing tool for Haskell. User manual avaiable online at http://www.cs.chalmers.se/rjmh/QuickCheck/manual.html Google Scholar
Ionescu, C. (2009) Vulnerability Modeling and Monadic Dynamical Systems, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Free University Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Ionescu, C., Klein, R. J. T., Hinkel, J., Kavi Kumar, K. V. S. and Klein, R (2009) Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. In: Environmental Modelling and Assessment Springer Netherlands 14 (1) 1–16.Google Scholar
Lemmen, D. and Warren, F. (2004) Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective, Natural Resources Canada.Google Scholar
Lincke, D., Ionescu, C. and Botta, N. (2008) A generic library for earth system modelling based on monadic systems. In: Ehlers, M., Behncke, K. and Gerstengarbe, F. (eds.) Proceedings of Digital Earth Summit on Geoinformatics: Tools for Global Change Research, Wichmann.Google Scholar
Lincke, D., Jansson, P., Zalewski, M. and Ionescu, C. (2009) Generic libraries in C++ with concepts from high-level domain descriptions in Haskell. A domain-specific library for computational vulnerability assessment. In: Taha, W. M. (ed.) Domain-Specific Languages, Proceedings of the IFIP TC 2 Working Conference DSL 2009, Oxford, UK, 15-17 July 2009.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionary of English. (2005) Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, Second edition (revised).Google Scholar
Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P. and Hanson, C. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Peyton Jones, S., Eber, J.-M. and Seward, J. (2000) Composing contracts: An adventure in financial engineering. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ACM.Google Scholar
Peyton Jones, S. and Eber, J.-M. How to write a financial contract. In: The Fun of Programming, Cornerstones of Computing, Palgrave 105–129.Google Scholar
Thywissen, K. (2006) Components of Risk, A Comparative Glossary. SOURCE - Studies Of the University: Research, Counsel, Education, UNU-EHS, 2.Google Scholar
Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. and Moss, R. H. (1995) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Wolf, S., Lincke, D., Hinkel, J., Ionescu, C. and Bisaro, S. (2008) Concept Clarification and Computational Tools – A Formal Framework of Vulnerability. FAVAIA Working Paper 8, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Available at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/favaia/pubs/favaiaworkingpaper8.pdf Google Scholar
Wolf, S. (2010) From Vulnerability Formalization to Finitely Additive Probability Monads. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Free University Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
World Bank, The (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar