Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Conservation Organizations Need to Consider Adaptive Capacity: Why Local Input Matters

Conservation Organizations Need to Consider Adaptive Capacity: Why Local Input Matters Adaptive capacity; climate vulnerability Conservation organizations are increasingly applying adaptive capacity assess- assessment; natural resource management. ments in response to escalating climate change impacts. These assessments are Correspondence essential to identify climate risks to ecosystems, prioritize management inter- Elizabeth Mcleod, 7707 Vail Valley Dr., Austin, ventions, maximize the effectiveness of conservation actions, and ensure con- TX 78749, USA. Tel: 808-587-6271. servation resources are allocated appropriately. Despite an extensive literature E-mail: emcleod@tnc.org on the topic, there is little agreement on the most relevant factors needed to support local scale initiatives, and additional guidance is needed to clarify how Received adaptive capacity should be assessed. This article discusses why adaptive capac- 21 July 2015 Accepted ity assessment represents a critical tool supporting conservation planning and 5 October 2015 management. It also evaluates key factors guiding conservation NGOs conduct- ing these assessments in tropical island communities, and explores alternative Editor priorities based on input from academic experts and key local stakeholders. Derek Armitage Our results demonstrate that important differences exist between local stake- holders and nonlocal academic experts on key factors affecting adaptation and doi: 10.1111/conl.12210 coping mechanisms. The exclusion of local community input affects the valid- ity of adaptive capacity assessment findings, and has significant implications for the prioritization and effectiveness of conservation strategies and funding allocation. (Armitage & Plummer 2010). Adaptive capacity is the Introduction ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other or- Adaptive capacity provides a valuable construct for ganisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage managers, scientists, resource users, and policy makers to of opportunities, or to respond to consequences (IPCC address the challenges of climate change for conservation 2014). Folke et al. (2003) identified four dimensions of Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 351 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Table 1 Barriers to assessing adaptive capacity (AC) Barriers Source AC is context-specific and shaped by dynamic factors not easily generalizable Engle (2011); Juhola & Kruse (2013) AC factors do not carry equal weight between contexts Engle (2011) AC factors are affected by climate change–related stress under consideration Yohe & Tol (2002) Lack of clarity on the relative importance of each factor Preston et al. (2011) Lack of agreement on efficacy of assessment techniques Engle (2011) AC assessments are criticized for relying preferentially upon specialized, academic knowledge and insufficient Fussel ¨ & Klein (2006); Hinkel consideration of key stakeholders, but have evolved to incorporate greater stakeholder input and (2011); Preston et al. (2011) participation Conservation organizations often lack social science expertise required to conduct AC assessments and often Bennett & Roth (2015) have limited resources to implement them adaptive capacity: (1) learning to live with change and understanding and reinforcing the potential effectiveness uncertainty; (2) nurturing diversity for resilience; (3) of conservation actions, identifying strategies to adapt combining different types of knowledge for learning; to climate change, and knowing where to prioritize and (4) maintaining opportunity for self-organization conservation investments. toward socioecological sustainability. Recently, there has The adaptive capacity of ecosystems including human been an increasing awareness of the importance of social communities affects the success of conservation actions capital, social networks, institutions, and governance in and policies (McClanahan et al. 2008; Cinner et al. 2013). determining a social system’s ability to adapt to climate For example, communities with low adaptive capacity change (Engle 2011; Cinner et al. 2013; Lockwood may be less likely to cope with restrictions on resource- et al. 2015). use and therefore, less willing to comply with con- Despite the well-developed literature on adaptive ca- servation measures (McClanahan et al. 2008). Ignoring pacity, key challenges facing conservation organizations adaptive capacity means that key considerations (e.g., po- include understanding why it is important to assess and litical will, institutional capacity, and cultural support) which factors should be assessed (Table 1). This article that influence the ability to manage risk and the effec- has three aims to address these challenges: (1) highlight tiveness of conservation actions are not incorporated into the importance of assessing adaptive capacity to inform conservation planning and management. The exclusion conservation planning and management; (2) generate a of such considerations also leads to different conservation list of prioritized factors for evaluating adaptive capacity decisions (Sexton et al. 2010). Finally, assessing adaptive to guide conservation NGOs in conducting assessments capacity allows conservation resources to be directed to in tropical island communities; and (3) explore potential most effectively achieve desired social and ecological out- differences in prioritization between academic experts lo- comes, and informs the allocation of adaptation funding, cated in developed countries and local stakeholders from which provides a significant source of income for island a developing nation in the Pacific. conservation. The degree of adaptive capacity may be used to prioritize conservation areas for investment (e.g., local communities may be more likely to adapt to restric- Why conservation organizations need to assess tions and take advantage of new opportunities in places adaptive capacity with high adaptive capacity; McClanahan et al. 2008). Conservation organizations are increasingly assessing the adaptive capacity of ecosystems and the human Methods communities that depend upon them to identify risks and prioritize management interventions. This has been Two methods were utilized to evaluate adaptive capac- fueled by two important shifts in conservation: (1) an ity factors in this study: the Delphi method and a fo- increasing emphasis on human well-being; and (2) the cus group comprised of local stakeholders in Pohnpei, recognition that communities with reduced adaptive Micronesia. capacity have greater potential for environmental degra- dation (Marshall 2010). The more adaptive capacity a Delphi method system has, the more likely it will be resilient to climate change (Engle 2011). Understanding how systems are The Delphi method was selected to develop a priori- positioned to cope with climate impacts is essential for tized list of adaptive capacity factors because it provides a 352 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Table 2 Delphi experts Number of climate vulnerability adaptation Number of years Location of and resource working in the Experts Discipline institution Regional expertise management papers field 1 Climate, disaster, risk reduction, USA Asia, Pacific >10 >10 gender 2 Climate vulnerability, livelihoods, UK Africa, Asia >20 >10 and adaptation, decision support 3 Societal responses to climate Australia Africa, Asia, Pacific >90 >10 change, comanagement, how socioeconomic conditions influence natural resource use 4 Climate change, adaptation, United Kingdom Africa, Europe >200 >30 vulnerability, disaster risk reduction Denmark Africa, Asia >20 >30 5 Climate change, adaptation, vulnerability, disaster risk reduction 6 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia, Central America, >20 >15 vulnerability, natural resource Pacific, U.S. management 7 Climate change, adaptation, Australia Africa, Australia >40 >20 vulnerability, social change, environmental management 8 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia >40 >20 vulnerability, mitigation 9 Climate change, adaptation, USA Latin America, Pacific, >10 >20 vulnerability, marine policy, Southeast Asia, U.S. natural resource management 10 Climate change, adaptation, Canada Africa, Asia, Canada, >100 >30 vulnerability, environment, and Pacific, U.S. resource use 11 Climate change, adaptation, United Kingdom Africa, Asia, >50 >15 vulnerability, hazards, small Caribbean, Europe island states, environmental management 12 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia, Central America, >10 >20 vulnerability, natural resource Pacific management, small island states, traditional ecological knowledge structured approach to collect and analyze data to achieve and the development of adaptation strategies; and (4) convergence of expert opinion (Linstone & Turoff 1975), expertise in tropical island environments and developing and it has been applied in climate change and vulnerabil- countries (Table 2). Experts participated in three rounds ity analysis (e.g., Brooks et al. 2005). Twelve vulnerability of the Delphi exercise. Prior to the first round, panelists and adaptation experts were selected. Research suggests were given a list of definitions of key terms including that between 10 and 15 experts are recommended vulnerability, adaptation, adaptive capacity, and climate (Garrod & Fyall 2000). Criteria for selection included: change based on IPCC (2007). They were asked to ad- (1) climate vulnerability and adaptation knowledge dress gaps in the list of adaptive capacity factors from the based on climate vulnerability or adaptation publications literature review, and were asked to refine and prioritize in peer-reviewed journals; (2) research conducted on the factors in the context of tropical island communities. climate change and adaptation; (3) development or ap- They rated the importance of adaptive capacity factors plication of tools to assess the impacts of climate change using a 5-point Likert scale. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 353 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Focus group two factors were added: presence/effectiveness of learn- ing processes that support adaptation and conditions that The prioritized list obtained through the Delphi exercise support adaptation leaders (Tables 3 and 4). Both re- was tested through focus groups in Pohnpei, Microne- ceived a high consensus of strong support in subsequent sia. Pohnpei is the largest and most populated island in rounds. In the final round, experts were asked to identify the Federated States of Micronesia, and climate change is the top three most important factors and the least im- a significant threat. Historically, Pohnpeian society was portant. The top three were: (1) capacity to plan, learn, structured into tribes and clans, headed by chiefs. To- and reorganize in response to hazards/climate events; day, natural resources are managed through a complex (2) effectiveness of and access to institutions support- combination of traditional leadership and government ing adaptation; and (3) local knowledge, practices, and (Raynor & Kostka 2003). Focus groups were convened mechanisms to cope with climate events and impacts, and to explore the degree of consensus of participants in the least important was perception of equity in accessing greater depth than would be permitted through a Delphi resources. (Morgan 1993). Focus groups were conducted because they can be sensitive to cultural variables, encourage par- ticipation from those who may be reluctant to complete Focus group results surveys, and are more culturally appropriate in commu- The Focus group in Pohnpei identified the following nities who rely on group discussions for decision-making, adaptive capacity factors: strong leadership, collective re- such as those in Pohnpei (Englberger 2003). sponsibility, organized communities/social groups, and Focus groups were conducted with 17 community healthy natural resources as important for supporting members from the following villages: Dehpehk/Takaiou, adaptive capacity. The group identified lack of knowledge Metipw, and Nanpil/Nett, and included key stakehold- and skills, insufficient resources, lack of organization, and ers (local chiefs, government officials, and conservation breakdown of traditional practices as limitations. Focus workers). The focus groups were asked to brainstorm group members ranked the most important factors of factors likely to affect the capacity of a community to adaptive capacity as: (1) climate change awareness; (2) adapt to climate change, discussed definitions of climate leadership effectiveness; and (3) local knowledge, prac- change, and were given the same IPCC (2007) definitions tices, and mechanisms to cope with climate events and provided to the Delphi group. Key terms were translated impacts; and the least important was perception of equity into the local language through facilitated group discus- in accessing resources. sion. Each focus group was given the list of factors from When the focus groups’ results were compared with the Delphi (Table 3), and was asked to include any miss- the Delphi results (Figure 1), a number of similari- ing factors based on the brainstorming exercise. Focus ties emerged, but there were also differences. Some group members were asked to rank factors, and consen- factors that were identified as very important to both sus was achieved through group discussions on the first, groups were capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize; pres- second, third most important, and least important factor ence and effectiveness of formal and informal learning affecting adaptive capacity. processes supporting adaptation; local knowledge, prac- tices, and mechanisms to cope with climate impacts; and Results effectiveness of adaptation leaders. As mentioned, both groups identified perception of equity in accessing re- Delphi results sources as one of the least important. Nineteen adaptive capacity factors were identified However, there were some key differences between through three rounds of Delphi (Table 3). Consensus the two groups. For example, with regard to ecosystem- of strong support ranged from none to high. Over half specific adaptive capacity factors, 18% of Delphi pan- (68%) of the factors had high or medium support for elists identified the level of biodiversity as least important, strong consensus. The majority that received low or no compared to 36% of the Focus group community mem- consensus of strong support related to climate impacts on bers who identified it as very important. Major diver- ecosystems and ecosystem responses. Ecosystem-specific gence also existed between how the Delphi group and the factors were added in the second round due to an expert’s Focus group ranked effectiveness of and access to institu- comment that the list did not adequately address ecolog- tions supporting adaptation. The Delphi group ranked it ical resilience. as one of the most important, while the local stakehold- One expert noted the importance of adaptive man- ers ranked it as one of the least important. The Delphi agement and the need for learning mechanisms to en- group also ranked how well natural resources are cur- sure lasting benefits of adaptation actions. In response, rently managed, and access to financial, material, and 354 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Table 3 Prioritization of adaptive capacity factors identified by Delphi experts and stakeholders (mean and standard deviation, degree of strong consensus and rankings) Delphi Delphi mean degree of Delphi Focus group Factors Definition (SD) consensus expert rank stakeholder rank Planning and learning Capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize 4.91 High 1 5 in response to hazards/climate (0.30) events Resource management How well natural resources are 4.09 High 7 15 effectiveness currently managed (0.30) (informally/formally) Presence of local coping Local knowledge, practices, and 4.55 High 3 3 strategies mechanisms to cope with climate (0.52) events and impacts Leadership effectiveness Effectiveness of leaders 4.00 High 4 2 (0.45) Social networks Effectiveness of and access to social 4.00 High 11 13 networks (0.63) Resource access Access to financial and material 4.18 High 6 14 resources (0.75) Institutions supporting Effectiveness of and access to 4.45 High 2 10 adaptation institutions supporting adaptation (0.82) Effective learning processes Presence and effectiveness of learning 4.27 High 5 6 processes that support adaptation (0.79) (e.g., extent to which community has processes/culture to stimulate learning through experimentation, to assess outcomes, and to use results to improve adaptation) Mechanisms to support Presence/effectiveness of conditions 4.00 High 13 17 leaders that support adaptation leaders (0.63) (e.g., processes to pass learning from one person/project to another, mentoring) Information access Access to information and knowledge 4.27 High 9 11 to cope with risk (0.79) Ecosystem resilience Resilience of key natural resources 4.18 Medium 14 18 and ecosystems (0.87) Equity Perceptions of equity in accessing 3.82 Medium 19 19 resources (0.60) Warning mechanisms Effectiveness of and access to 3.91 Medium 12 16 warning mechanisms (0.70) Climate refugia Presence of climate refugia 4.00 Low 18 9 (0.89) Alternative livelihood Alternative livelihood opportunities 3.82 None 10 12 opportunities (including subsistence and (0.87) income-generating activities) Livelihood diversification Level of current livelihood 3.82 None 8 7 diversification (0.87) Climate change awareness Community awareness of climate 3.45 None 15 1 change (0.93) Ecosystem adaptation Adaptation potential of ecosystems 3.73 None 17 8 (0.79) Biodiversity Level of biodiversity 3.18 None 16 4 (0.98) Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 355 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Table 4 Key adaptive capacity factors with examples of indicators Factor Definition Example indicator Awareness of climate change Community awareness of the causes and impacts of Definition of climate change; observed/expected climate change changes in climate; perceived causes and expected impacts; # adaptation actions implemented; access to climate information. Effectiveness of leaders Effectiveness of leaders in community who can Scaled rating of respondents trust in local mobilize awareness and resources to better cope leadership’s knowledge and preparedness for with climate change climate change. Perceptions of corruption and efficacy of local leadership. At the policy level, the number of adaptation and mitigation programs that are planned; government spending toward climate adaptation and mitigation programs. Capacity to plan, learn, and Capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize in response to Number of organizations/public private collaborations reorganize hazards/climate events reflects capacity to emerging annually in response to climate change anticipate the future; without it, any response to threats; number of amendments to local climate changes will be reactive development or conservation management plans or new plans that address climate adaptation. Responses to open-ended questions relating to a hypothetical 50% decline in key natural resources; responses to statements such as, I am interested in learning new skills outside of my profession; I plan for my financial security; Every time there is a change, I plan a way to make it work for me. Learning processes Presence and effectiveness of learning processes that Adoption of new technologies that reduce risk to support adaptation (e.g., extent to which climate change. Responses to statements such as: community has processes/culture to stimulate If my garden was destroyed, would I (move garden; learning through experimentation, to assess plant different type of crop; switch to different outcomes, and to use results to improve subsistence activity; move household to another adaptation) village; other?) If the reefs where I fish were destroyed (fish on different reef; change gear; switch to alternate activity; move); If my house was destroyed by natural hazards (rebuild in same location/same materials; rebuild in same location with stronger materials; rebuild somewhere less vulnerable; relocate to different community). Conditions supporting Presence/effectiveness of conditions that support The number of training opportunities such as adaptation leaders adaptation leaders (e.g., processes to pass learning workshops, courses, capacity building (e.g., conflict from one person/project to another, mentoring) resolution, management, development needs, environmental education, policy development), as well as participation relative to recruitment. Local knowledge Local knowledge, practices, and mechanisms to cope Knowledge of natural hazards and responses in with climate events and impacts village, local impacts of climate change; threats to natural resources; quantity and quality of primary sources for environmental information. Social networks Effectiveness of and access to formal/informal social Total number of community groups that respondent networks (e.g., women’s groups, church groups, belongs to; network size; network structure for risk youth groups, Council of Chiefs), which may help and adaptation management. people prepare for and respond to climate events in community; social networks may either reinforce or limit adaptive capacity Access to financial and Access to financial (e.g., credit, loans, money) and Income; debt; access to credit; consumption and material resources material resources in community to support expenditure data; responses to statements such as: adaptation “we always have an amount of money available for emergencies”; measure of whether respondents have material possessions such as vehicle, electricity, and the type of walls, roof, and floor. Objective and subjective qualitative and quantitative indicators are presented to provide a range of possibilities (Marshall et al. 2010; Cinner et al. 2013; Matsuda pers. comm.). 356 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Figure 1 Community and global expert views on importance of adaptive capacity factors. The x-axis includes the list of factors affecting adaptive capacity, and the y-axis indicates the percentage of experts or community members who identified factors as one of the top three most important. The parentheses include the rank of a given factor by expert and then community, and asterisks demonstrate high rankings for both groups. technological resources to help cope with disaster as more reinforce the effectiveness of conservation actions, iden- important than the community. One of the most criti- tify and prioritize adaptation strategies, and where to cal distinctions between the groups was the ranking of prioritize conservation investments. However, assessing community awareness of climate change, e.g., the Del- adaptive capacity requires changes in current capacity phi group ranked this near the bottom of the list (15th), and investment of limited resources, specifically, the whereas the local stakeholders ranked it at the top (1st). need to build social science research capacity to conduct While important differences were found between the assessments, which is a typically underfunded and global climate vulnerability experts and local stakehold- underrepresented research skillset in many large con- ers in Pohnpei, it is problematic to attribute these solely servation organizations (Bennett & Roth 2015). It also to differences in backgrounds and locations. Method- requires partnerships with universities, development ological challenges such as power dynamics in the fo- organizations, or other groups with the necessary social cus groups may have affected the rankings. Further, both science expertise. The results of this study (and widely the academic experts and local stakeholders (decision- accepted as best practice in conservation management makers, chiefs, conservation, and development planners) and to address climate change; Huntington 2000; Pullin & are likely to come from a respective position of power or Stewart 2006; Tompkins et al. 2008) reinforce the impor- privilege, which may not provide an adequate diversity tance of incorporating local knowledge and input into the of perspectives, especially at the local level. assessment process. Adaptation projects need to consider the capacity and time to integrate local input and build the necessary expertise, facilitation skills, and capacity Discussion development of community facilitators into long-term The severity and scale of climate change impacts requires plans and funding (Wongbusarakum et al. 2015). conservation organizations to assess adaptive capacity To encourage greater incorporation of adaptive capac- to inform conservation planning, management, and ity into conservation decision-making, conservation or- investment decisions. Doing so will help to clarify and ganizations need guidance on how to select methods for Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 357 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. implementing assessments and which factors are most Historically, assessments developed by conservation or- critical to assess. Research comparing and evaluating ganizations have been criticized for dealing insufficiently strengths and weaknesses of different methods for as- with social aspects of social–ecological systems, and those sessing adaptive capacity is needed to help resolve the developed by development organizations have been crit- challenges of method selection. Conservation organiza- icized for missing key ecological aspects (Adger 2006). tions have traditionally prioritized measuring changes When conservation organizations do consider adaptive in ecological condition, as opposed to changes in so- capacity, they often prioritize ecosystem-specific factors cial condition and capacity, thus guidance is needed on based on their organizational focus on ecosystem pro- appropriate indicators (e.g., Spearman & McGray 2011) tection and the often high degree of community depen- to assess changes in adaptive capacity over time (Ta- dence on their natural resources. Our results reinforce the ble 4). Additionally, research exploring the challenges necessity of including both social and ecological compo- and benefits of implementing adaptive capacity assess- nents. Additionally, local stakeholders in Pohnpei ranked ments also would be valuable to the conservation com- ecosystem-specific factors as more important than the munity, highlighting examples of indicators used and best Delphi group, demonstrating how a disconnect between practices. social and ecological factors may be reinforced when lo- Many of the factors affecting adaptive capacity identi- cal input is excluded. While the recognition that human fied in the literature and through this research include actions and social structures profoundly influence ecolog- subjective and vague terms (e.g., learning processes, in- ical dynamics and vice versa is not new (Folke 2006), stitutions, and equity). If local stakeholders are asked to conservation assessments are only recently combining rank a list of adaptive capacity factors, lack of clarity on both social and ecological components (e.g., Cinner et al. the factors may make it difficult to incorporate local in- 2013; Gombos et al. 2013). put. Ensuring that terminology is clearly explained and Differences in prioritization of adaptive capacity factors translated into the local language is essential in commu- between global experts and local communities demon- nity consultations, as is soliciting input on adaptive ca- strate the importance of conservation groups seeking in- pacity factors from communities in their own words. As put from both groups. The most surprising result was mentioned, academic experts and local stakeholders con- the ranking of community awareness of climate change sulted in this study are likely from positions of power, (Delphi group ranked it 15th, local stakeholders ranked it which may have influenced the low ranking of per- first). The Delphi group may have ranked awareness low ception of equity accessing resources. However, if con- because they assumed communities are already aware of servation organizations ignored this factor, it may lead climate change and hence, it does not constrain adapta- to greater power inequalities, marginalization of certain tion. However, local stakeholders appear to know that cli- groups, or undermining conservation goals. Therefore, it mate change awareness needs improvement in Pohnpei is important to ensure that local input represents a di- and directly impacts local responses. Such differences in versity of perspectives and values including participation ranking show that assessments excluding local stakehold- from vulnerable and marginalized individuals and groups ers may miss key factors directly impacting the success of (Hicks et al. 2009). adaptation strategies, and conservation strategies, more While more research is needed across different geogra- broadly. phies and ecosystems to prioritize adaptive capacity fac- Despite the overwhelming number of community- tors, the Delphi results provide a useful starting point based tools to support climate vulnerability assessments for conservation teams to consider for adaptive capac- used by conservation organizations, such tools often ne- ity assessments in tropical island ecosystems. They are glect adaptive capacity due to the challenges mentioned based on decades of collective experience developing and (Table 1). Without the necessary guidance, conserva- analyzing climate vulnerability assessments globally. Im- tion organizations may ignore adaptive capacity alto- portantly, however, they do not incorporate local cli- gether (e.g., NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability mate knowledge and adaptation priorities in Pohnpei, as Index) or miss key components resulting in conservation demonstrated by the focus group results, thus reinforcing strategies that do not achieve the desired conservation the need to include local input. Our analysis suggests that objectives or adequately consider the role of human in Pohnpei, critical factors to consider in adaptive capacity decision-making (Grothmann & Patt 2005). Further, con- assessments include: awareness of climate change, capac- servation groups need guidance on how best to sup- ity to plan, learn, and reorganize; presence and effective- port adaptive capacity and how much they should in- ness of learning processes; local knowledge to cope with vest in these improvements (Sexton et al. 2010), which climate impacts; and effectiveness of adaptation leaders requires effective partnerships with government agencies (Table 4). and development organizations with the mandate and 358 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity expertise to support social adaptive capacity. Research the Associate Editor for excellent input. We are grate- is also needed to explore if/how adaptive capacity in- ful to Dr. Jeffrey Maynard for technical guidance on fluences a community, group, or nation’s motivation presentation of the data and Dr. Yuta Masuda for and ability to conserve species, habitats, and ecosystems. input on adaptive capacity indicators. This study is Without such data, it is challenging for conservation or- an outcome of a project that is financially supported ganizations to make the case for sustained investment in by the Nature Conservancy and the German Federal supporting adaptive capacity. Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). This study is part of the Inter- national Climate Initiative (IKI); the BMUB supports this Conclusion initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the Ger- Ultimately, the effectiveness of conservation actions in man Bundestag. The manuscript contents are solely the an era of climate change depends on the ability of com- opinions of the authors and do not constitute a statement munities and local organizations to be innovative, learn of policy, decision, or position on behalf of NOAA or the through uncertainty or crisis, develop and maintain a U.S. Government. collective memory of resource management approaches, link different knowledge systems to support learning References and adaptation, and collaborate to maintain organiza- Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environ. Change, 16, tional and institutional diversity (Armitage & Plummer 268-281. 2010). Conservation organizations need to understand Armitage, D. & Plummer, R., editors. (2010). Adaptive capacity the highly contextual variables that influence adaptive and environmental governance. Springer Series on capacity, and reinforce the most important factors that Environmental Management, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642- empower effective community responses that enhance 12194-4 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. social and ecological resilience. Adaptive capacity assess- Bennett, N.J. & Roth, R., editors. (2015). The conservation social ments are necessary to ensure conservation strategies are sciences: what?, how? and why? Canadian Wildlife Federation locally relevant and incorporate local knowledge criti- and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, cal to conservation planning (Huntington 2000). These University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British assessments can also inform adaptation funding deci- Columbia, Canada. sions and build local support for conservation actions and Brooks, N., Adger, W.N. & Kelly, P.M. (2005). The policies. determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the Adaptive capacity assessments also have an important national level and the implications for adaptation. Global global role in prioritizing conservation investments. Ap- Environ. Change, 15, 151-163. proximately 25 billion USD is allocated to climate adap- Cinner, J.E., Huchery, C., Darling, E.S. et al. (2013). tation each year, with a majority flowing from developed Evaluating social and ecological vulnerability of coral reef to developing countries (UNFCCC 2011). The allocation fisheries to climate change. PLoS ONE, 8, e74321. of adaptation funds is often based on the results of as- Englberger, L. (2003). A community and laboratory-based sessments developed by experts from developed coun- assessment of natural food sources of Vitamin A in the tries. Conservation organizations, development agencies, Federated States of Micronesia. The University of Queensland, and adaptation funders need to recognize that local input Doctorate Dissertation. is a critical factor in adaptive capacity assessment; and Engle, N.L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environ. Change, 21, 647-656. enhancing local input in these assessments has the po- Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective tential to both change and improve the way that adapta- for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. tion projects are prioritized, funded, and completed. Such Change,16, 253-267. groups also have an important role to play in pushing for Folke, C., Colding, J. & Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: building greater transparency and accountability in the develop- resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological ment and application of adaptive capacity assessments at systems. Pages 352-387 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, C. Folke, local, national, and international levels. (editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Acknowledgments Cambridge, UK. The authors would like to thank the local commu- Fussel, ¨ H.M. & Klein, R.J.T. (2006). Climate change nities and conservation and development practition- vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual ers in Pohnpei who contributed to the development thinking. Climatic Change, 75, 301-329. and refinement of adaptive capacity factors. We also Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Ann. Tour Res. 27, 682-708. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 359 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Gombos, M., Atkinson, S. & Wongbusarakum, S. (2013). Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., Tamelander, J., Obura, D., Adapting to a changing climate: guide to vulnerability assessment Mallaret King, D. & Cinner, J.M. (2010). Sustaining and local early action planning (VA-LEAP). Micronesia tropical coastal communities and industries: a framework Conservation Trust: Pohnpei, Federated States of for social adaptation to climate change.IUCN-The Micronesia. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and Switzerland. human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Graham, N.A.J. et al. (2008). climate change. Global Environ. Change, 15, 199-213. Conservation action in a changing climate. Conserv. Lett., 1, Hicks, C.C., McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E. & Hills, J.M. 53-59. (2009). Trade-offs in values assigned to ecological goods Morgan, D.L. (1993). Successful focus groups: advancing the state and services associated with different coral reef of the art. Sage Publications Ltd. 288 pp. management strategies. Ecol. Soc., 14, 10-28. Preston, B.L., Yuen, E.J. & Westaway, R.M. (2011). Putting Hinkel, J. (2011). Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of capacity: towards a clarification of the science-policy approaches, benefits, and risks. Sust. Sci., 6, 177-202. interface. Global Environ. Change, 21, 198-208. Pullin, A.S. & Stewart, G.B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic Huntington, H.P. (2000). Using traditional ecological review in conservation and environmental management. knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol. App., Con. Biol., 20, 1647-1656. 10, 1270-1274. Raynor, B. & Kostka, M. (2003). Back to the future: using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). traditional knowledge to strengthen biodiversity Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-18 in M.L. Parry, O.F. conservation in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson, Ethnobot. Res. App., 1, 55-63. editors. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and Sexton, J.P., Schwartz, M.W. & Winterhalder, B. (2010). vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Incorporating sociocultural adaptive capacity in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel conservation hotspot assessments. Divers. Distribut., 16, on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 439-450. Cambridge, UK. Spearman, M.& McGray, H. (2011). Making adaptation count: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). concepts and options for monitoring and evaluation of climate Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in C.B. Field, V.R. change adaptation. World Resources Institute and Deutsche Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Gesellschaft fur ¨ Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova,B. GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Tompkins, E.L., Fewa, R. & Brown, K. (2008). Scenario-based Mastrandrea, L.L. White, editors. Climate change 2014: stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Environ. Manage., 88, 1580-1592. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (UNFCCC). (2011). Assessing the costs and benefits of UK and New York, NY. adaptation options. An overview of approaches. The Nairobi Juhola, S. & Kruse, S. (2013). A framework for analysing work programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation regional adaptive capacity assessments: challenges for to climate change. methodology and policy making. Mitigation Adapt. Strateg. Wongbusarakum, S., Gombos, M., Parker, B.A., Courtney, Glob. Chang., 20, 99-120. C.A., Atkinson, S. & Willy, K. (2015). The Local Early Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M., editors. (1975). The Delphi method: Action Planning (LEAP) tool: enhancing community-based techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, planning for a changing climate. Coastal Manage., 43, Massachusetts, USA. 383-393. Lockwood, M., Raymond, C.M., Oczkowski, E. & Morrison, Yohe, G. & Tol, R.S.J. (2002). Indicators for social and M. (2015). Measuring the dimensions of adaptive capacity: economic coping capacity - moving toward a working a psychometric approach. Ecol. Soc., 20, 37, definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Change, 12, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art37/. 25-40. 360 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Letters Wiley

Conservation Organizations Need to Consider Adaptive Capacity: Why Local Input Matters

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/conservation-organizations-need-to-consider-adaptive-capacity-why-495kKMoaqY

References (42)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1755-263X
eISSN
1755-263X
DOI
10.1111/conl.12210
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Adaptive capacity; climate vulnerability Conservation organizations are increasingly applying adaptive capacity assess- assessment; natural resource management. ments in response to escalating climate change impacts. These assessments are Correspondence essential to identify climate risks to ecosystems, prioritize management inter- Elizabeth Mcleod, 7707 Vail Valley Dr., Austin, ventions, maximize the effectiveness of conservation actions, and ensure con- TX 78749, USA. Tel: 808-587-6271. servation resources are allocated appropriately. Despite an extensive literature E-mail: emcleod@tnc.org on the topic, there is little agreement on the most relevant factors needed to support local scale initiatives, and additional guidance is needed to clarify how Received adaptive capacity should be assessed. This article discusses why adaptive capac- 21 July 2015 Accepted ity assessment represents a critical tool supporting conservation planning and 5 October 2015 management. It also evaluates key factors guiding conservation NGOs conduct- ing these assessments in tropical island communities, and explores alternative Editor priorities based on input from academic experts and key local stakeholders. Derek Armitage Our results demonstrate that important differences exist between local stake- holders and nonlocal academic experts on key factors affecting adaptation and doi: 10.1111/conl.12210 coping mechanisms. The exclusion of local community input affects the valid- ity of adaptive capacity assessment findings, and has significant implications for the prioritization and effectiveness of conservation strategies and funding allocation. (Armitage & Plummer 2010). Adaptive capacity is the Introduction ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other or- Adaptive capacity provides a valuable construct for ganisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage managers, scientists, resource users, and policy makers to of opportunities, or to respond to consequences (IPCC address the challenges of climate change for conservation 2014). Folke et al. (2003) identified four dimensions of Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 351 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Table 1 Barriers to assessing adaptive capacity (AC) Barriers Source AC is context-specific and shaped by dynamic factors not easily generalizable Engle (2011); Juhola & Kruse (2013) AC factors do not carry equal weight between contexts Engle (2011) AC factors are affected by climate change–related stress under consideration Yohe & Tol (2002) Lack of clarity on the relative importance of each factor Preston et al. (2011) Lack of agreement on efficacy of assessment techniques Engle (2011) AC assessments are criticized for relying preferentially upon specialized, academic knowledge and insufficient Fussel ¨ & Klein (2006); Hinkel consideration of key stakeholders, but have evolved to incorporate greater stakeholder input and (2011); Preston et al. (2011) participation Conservation organizations often lack social science expertise required to conduct AC assessments and often Bennett & Roth (2015) have limited resources to implement them adaptive capacity: (1) learning to live with change and understanding and reinforcing the potential effectiveness uncertainty; (2) nurturing diversity for resilience; (3) of conservation actions, identifying strategies to adapt combining different types of knowledge for learning; to climate change, and knowing where to prioritize and (4) maintaining opportunity for self-organization conservation investments. toward socioecological sustainability. Recently, there has The adaptive capacity of ecosystems including human been an increasing awareness of the importance of social communities affects the success of conservation actions capital, social networks, institutions, and governance in and policies (McClanahan et al. 2008; Cinner et al. 2013). determining a social system’s ability to adapt to climate For example, communities with low adaptive capacity change (Engle 2011; Cinner et al. 2013; Lockwood may be less likely to cope with restrictions on resource- et al. 2015). use and therefore, less willing to comply with con- Despite the well-developed literature on adaptive ca- servation measures (McClanahan et al. 2008). Ignoring pacity, key challenges facing conservation organizations adaptive capacity means that key considerations (e.g., po- include understanding why it is important to assess and litical will, institutional capacity, and cultural support) which factors should be assessed (Table 1). This article that influence the ability to manage risk and the effec- has three aims to address these challenges: (1) highlight tiveness of conservation actions are not incorporated into the importance of assessing adaptive capacity to inform conservation planning and management. The exclusion conservation planning and management; (2) generate a of such considerations also leads to different conservation list of prioritized factors for evaluating adaptive capacity decisions (Sexton et al. 2010). Finally, assessing adaptive to guide conservation NGOs in conducting assessments capacity allows conservation resources to be directed to in tropical island communities; and (3) explore potential most effectively achieve desired social and ecological out- differences in prioritization between academic experts lo- comes, and informs the allocation of adaptation funding, cated in developed countries and local stakeholders from which provides a significant source of income for island a developing nation in the Pacific. conservation. The degree of adaptive capacity may be used to prioritize conservation areas for investment (e.g., local communities may be more likely to adapt to restric- Why conservation organizations need to assess tions and take advantage of new opportunities in places adaptive capacity with high adaptive capacity; McClanahan et al. 2008). Conservation organizations are increasingly assessing the adaptive capacity of ecosystems and the human Methods communities that depend upon them to identify risks and prioritize management interventions. This has been Two methods were utilized to evaluate adaptive capac- fueled by two important shifts in conservation: (1) an ity factors in this study: the Delphi method and a fo- increasing emphasis on human well-being; and (2) the cus group comprised of local stakeholders in Pohnpei, recognition that communities with reduced adaptive Micronesia. capacity have greater potential for environmental degra- dation (Marshall 2010). The more adaptive capacity a Delphi method system has, the more likely it will be resilient to climate change (Engle 2011). Understanding how systems are The Delphi method was selected to develop a priori- positioned to cope with climate impacts is essential for tized list of adaptive capacity factors because it provides a 352 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Table 2 Delphi experts Number of climate vulnerability adaptation Number of years Location of and resource working in the Experts Discipline institution Regional expertise management papers field 1 Climate, disaster, risk reduction, USA Asia, Pacific >10 >10 gender 2 Climate vulnerability, livelihoods, UK Africa, Asia >20 >10 and adaptation, decision support 3 Societal responses to climate Australia Africa, Asia, Pacific >90 >10 change, comanagement, how socioeconomic conditions influence natural resource use 4 Climate change, adaptation, United Kingdom Africa, Europe >200 >30 vulnerability, disaster risk reduction Denmark Africa, Asia >20 >30 5 Climate change, adaptation, vulnerability, disaster risk reduction 6 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia, Central America, >20 >15 vulnerability, natural resource Pacific, U.S. management 7 Climate change, adaptation, Australia Africa, Australia >40 >20 vulnerability, social change, environmental management 8 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia >40 >20 vulnerability, mitigation 9 Climate change, adaptation, USA Latin America, Pacific, >10 >20 vulnerability, marine policy, Southeast Asia, U.S. natural resource management 10 Climate change, adaptation, Canada Africa, Asia, Canada, >100 >30 vulnerability, environment, and Pacific, U.S. resource use 11 Climate change, adaptation, United Kingdom Africa, Asia, >50 >15 vulnerability, hazards, small Caribbean, Europe island states, environmental management 12 Climate change, adaptation, USA Asia, Central America, >10 >20 vulnerability, natural resource Pacific management, small island states, traditional ecological knowledge structured approach to collect and analyze data to achieve and the development of adaptation strategies; and (4) convergence of expert opinion (Linstone & Turoff 1975), expertise in tropical island environments and developing and it has been applied in climate change and vulnerabil- countries (Table 2). Experts participated in three rounds ity analysis (e.g., Brooks et al. 2005). Twelve vulnerability of the Delphi exercise. Prior to the first round, panelists and adaptation experts were selected. Research suggests were given a list of definitions of key terms including that between 10 and 15 experts are recommended vulnerability, adaptation, adaptive capacity, and climate (Garrod & Fyall 2000). Criteria for selection included: change based on IPCC (2007). They were asked to ad- (1) climate vulnerability and adaptation knowledge dress gaps in the list of adaptive capacity factors from the based on climate vulnerability or adaptation publications literature review, and were asked to refine and prioritize in peer-reviewed journals; (2) research conducted on the factors in the context of tropical island communities. climate change and adaptation; (3) development or ap- They rated the importance of adaptive capacity factors plication of tools to assess the impacts of climate change using a 5-point Likert scale. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 353 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Focus group two factors were added: presence/effectiveness of learn- ing processes that support adaptation and conditions that The prioritized list obtained through the Delphi exercise support adaptation leaders (Tables 3 and 4). Both re- was tested through focus groups in Pohnpei, Microne- ceived a high consensus of strong support in subsequent sia. Pohnpei is the largest and most populated island in rounds. In the final round, experts were asked to identify the Federated States of Micronesia, and climate change is the top three most important factors and the least im- a significant threat. Historically, Pohnpeian society was portant. The top three were: (1) capacity to plan, learn, structured into tribes and clans, headed by chiefs. To- and reorganize in response to hazards/climate events; day, natural resources are managed through a complex (2) effectiveness of and access to institutions support- combination of traditional leadership and government ing adaptation; and (3) local knowledge, practices, and (Raynor & Kostka 2003). Focus groups were convened mechanisms to cope with climate events and impacts, and to explore the degree of consensus of participants in the least important was perception of equity in accessing greater depth than would be permitted through a Delphi resources. (Morgan 1993). Focus groups were conducted because they can be sensitive to cultural variables, encourage par- ticipation from those who may be reluctant to complete Focus group results surveys, and are more culturally appropriate in commu- The Focus group in Pohnpei identified the following nities who rely on group discussions for decision-making, adaptive capacity factors: strong leadership, collective re- such as those in Pohnpei (Englberger 2003). sponsibility, organized communities/social groups, and Focus groups were conducted with 17 community healthy natural resources as important for supporting members from the following villages: Dehpehk/Takaiou, adaptive capacity. The group identified lack of knowledge Metipw, and Nanpil/Nett, and included key stakehold- and skills, insufficient resources, lack of organization, and ers (local chiefs, government officials, and conservation breakdown of traditional practices as limitations. Focus workers). The focus groups were asked to brainstorm group members ranked the most important factors of factors likely to affect the capacity of a community to adaptive capacity as: (1) climate change awareness; (2) adapt to climate change, discussed definitions of climate leadership effectiveness; and (3) local knowledge, prac- change, and were given the same IPCC (2007) definitions tices, and mechanisms to cope with climate events and provided to the Delphi group. Key terms were translated impacts; and the least important was perception of equity into the local language through facilitated group discus- in accessing resources. sion. Each focus group was given the list of factors from When the focus groups’ results were compared with the Delphi (Table 3), and was asked to include any miss- the Delphi results (Figure 1), a number of similari- ing factors based on the brainstorming exercise. Focus ties emerged, but there were also differences. Some group members were asked to rank factors, and consen- factors that were identified as very important to both sus was achieved through group discussions on the first, groups were capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize; pres- second, third most important, and least important factor ence and effectiveness of formal and informal learning affecting adaptive capacity. processes supporting adaptation; local knowledge, prac- tices, and mechanisms to cope with climate impacts; and Results effectiveness of adaptation leaders. As mentioned, both groups identified perception of equity in accessing re- Delphi results sources as one of the least important. Nineteen adaptive capacity factors were identified However, there were some key differences between through three rounds of Delphi (Table 3). Consensus the two groups. For example, with regard to ecosystem- of strong support ranged from none to high. Over half specific adaptive capacity factors, 18% of Delphi pan- (68%) of the factors had high or medium support for elists identified the level of biodiversity as least important, strong consensus. The majority that received low or no compared to 36% of the Focus group community mem- consensus of strong support related to climate impacts on bers who identified it as very important. Major diver- ecosystems and ecosystem responses. Ecosystem-specific gence also existed between how the Delphi group and the factors were added in the second round due to an expert’s Focus group ranked effectiveness of and access to institu- comment that the list did not adequately address ecolog- tions supporting adaptation. The Delphi group ranked it ical resilience. as one of the most important, while the local stakehold- One expert noted the importance of adaptive man- ers ranked it as one of the least important. The Delphi agement and the need for learning mechanisms to en- group also ranked how well natural resources are cur- sure lasting benefits of adaptation actions. In response, rently managed, and access to financial, material, and 354 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Table 3 Prioritization of adaptive capacity factors identified by Delphi experts and stakeholders (mean and standard deviation, degree of strong consensus and rankings) Delphi Delphi mean degree of Delphi Focus group Factors Definition (SD) consensus expert rank stakeholder rank Planning and learning Capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize 4.91 High 1 5 in response to hazards/climate (0.30) events Resource management How well natural resources are 4.09 High 7 15 effectiveness currently managed (0.30) (informally/formally) Presence of local coping Local knowledge, practices, and 4.55 High 3 3 strategies mechanisms to cope with climate (0.52) events and impacts Leadership effectiveness Effectiveness of leaders 4.00 High 4 2 (0.45) Social networks Effectiveness of and access to social 4.00 High 11 13 networks (0.63) Resource access Access to financial and material 4.18 High 6 14 resources (0.75) Institutions supporting Effectiveness of and access to 4.45 High 2 10 adaptation institutions supporting adaptation (0.82) Effective learning processes Presence and effectiveness of learning 4.27 High 5 6 processes that support adaptation (0.79) (e.g., extent to which community has processes/culture to stimulate learning through experimentation, to assess outcomes, and to use results to improve adaptation) Mechanisms to support Presence/effectiveness of conditions 4.00 High 13 17 leaders that support adaptation leaders (0.63) (e.g., processes to pass learning from one person/project to another, mentoring) Information access Access to information and knowledge 4.27 High 9 11 to cope with risk (0.79) Ecosystem resilience Resilience of key natural resources 4.18 Medium 14 18 and ecosystems (0.87) Equity Perceptions of equity in accessing 3.82 Medium 19 19 resources (0.60) Warning mechanisms Effectiveness of and access to 3.91 Medium 12 16 warning mechanisms (0.70) Climate refugia Presence of climate refugia 4.00 Low 18 9 (0.89) Alternative livelihood Alternative livelihood opportunities 3.82 None 10 12 opportunities (including subsistence and (0.87) income-generating activities) Livelihood diversification Level of current livelihood 3.82 None 8 7 diversification (0.87) Climate change awareness Community awareness of climate 3.45 None 15 1 change (0.93) Ecosystem adaptation Adaptation potential of ecosystems 3.73 None 17 8 (0.79) Biodiversity Level of biodiversity 3.18 None 16 4 (0.98) Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 355 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Table 4 Key adaptive capacity factors with examples of indicators Factor Definition Example indicator Awareness of climate change Community awareness of the causes and impacts of Definition of climate change; observed/expected climate change changes in climate; perceived causes and expected impacts; # adaptation actions implemented; access to climate information. Effectiveness of leaders Effectiveness of leaders in community who can Scaled rating of respondents trust in local mobilize awareness and resources to better cope leadership’s knowledge and preparedness for with climate change climate change. Perceptions of corruption and efficacy of local leadership. At the policy level, the number of adaptation and mitigation programs that are planned; government spending toward climate adaptation and mitigation programs. Capacity to plan, learn, and Capacity to plan, learn, and reorganize in response to Number of organizations/public private collaborations reorganize hazards/climate events reflects capacity to emerging annually in response to climate change anticipate the future; without it, any response to threats; number of amendments to local climate changes will be reactive development or conservation management plans or new plans that address climate adaptation. Responses to open-ended questions relating to a hypothetical 50% decline in key natural resources; responses to statements such as, I am interested in learning new skills outside of my profession; I plan for my financial security; Every time there is a change, I plan a way to make it work for me. Learning processes Presence and effectiveness of learning processes that Adoption of new technologies that reduce risk to support adaptation (e.g., extent to which climate change. Responses to statements such as: community has processes/culture to stimulate If my garden was destroyed, would I (move garden; learning through experimentation, to assess plant different type of crop; switch to different outcomes, and to use results to improve subsistence activity; move household to another adaptation) village; other?) If the reefs where I fish were destroyed (fish on different reef; change gear; switch to alternate activity; move); If my house was destroyed by natural hazards (rebuild in same location/same materials; rebuild in same location with stronger materials; rebuild somewhere less vulnerable; relocate to different community). Conditions supporting Presence/effectiveness of conditions that support The number of training opportunities such as adaptation leaders adaptation leaders (e.g., processes to pass learning workshops, courses, capacity building (e.g., conflict from one person/project to another, mentoring) resolution, management, development needs, environmental education, policy development), as well as participation relative to recruitment. Local knowledge Local knowledge, practices, and mechanisms to cope Knowledge of natural hazards and responses in with climate events and impacts village, local impacts of climate change; threats to natural resources; quantity and quality of primary sources for environmental information. Social networks Effectiveness of and access to formal/informal social Total number of community groups that respondent networks (e.g., women’s groups, church groups, belongs to; network size; network structure for risk youth groups, Council of Chiefs), which may help and adaptation management. people prepare for and respond to climate events in community; social networks may either reinforce or limit adaptive capacity Access to financial and Access to financial (e.g., credit, loans, money) and Income; debt; access to credit; consumption and material resources material resources in community to support expenditure data; responses to statements such as: adaptation “we always have an amount of money available for emergencies”; measure of whether respondents have material possessions such as vehicle, electricity, and the type of walls, roof, and floor. Objective and subjective qualitative and quantitative indicators are presented to provide a range of possibilities (Marshall et al. 2010; Cinner et al. 2013; Matsuda pers. comm.). 356 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity Figure 1 Community and global expert views on importance of adaptive capacity factors. The x-axis includes the list of factors affecting adaptive capacity, and the y-axis indicates the percentage of experts or community members who identified factors as one of the top three most important. The parentheses include the rank of a given factor by expert and then community, and asterisks demonstrate high rankings for both groups. technological resources to help cope with disaster as more reinforce the effectiveness of conservation actions, iden- important than the community. One of the most criti- tify and prioritize adaptation strategies, and where to cal distinctions between the groups was the ranking of prioritize conservation investments. However, assessing community awareness of climate change, e.g., the Del- adaptive capacity requires changes in current capacity phi group ranked this near the bottom of the list (15th), and investment of limited resources, specifically, the whereas the local stakeholders ranked it at the top (1st). need to build social science research capacity to conduct While important differences were found between the assessments, which is a typically underfunded and global climate vulnerability experts and local stakehold- underrepresented research skillset in many large con- ers in Pohnpei, it is problematic to attribute these solely servation organizations (Bennett & Roth 2015). It also to differences in backgrounds and locations. Method- requires partnerships with universities, development ological challenges such as power dynamics in the fo- organizations, or other groups with the necessary social cus groups may have affected the rankings. Further, both science expertise. The results of this study (and widely the academic experts and local stakeholders (decision- accepted as best practice in conservation management makers, chiefs, conservation, and development planners) and to address climate change; Huntington 2000; Pullin & are likely to come from a respective position of power or Stewart 2006; Tompkins et al. 2008) reinforce the impor- privilege, which may not provide an adequate diversity tance of incorporating local knowledge and input into the of perspectives, especially at the local level. assessment process. Adaptation projects need to consider the capacity and time to integrate local input and build the necessary expertise, facilitation skills, and capacity Discussion development of community facilitators into long-term The severity and scale of climate change impacts requires plans and funding (Wongbusarakum et al. 2015). conservation organizations to assess adaptive capacity To encourage greater incorporation of adaptive capac- to inform conservation planning, management, and ity into conservation decision-making, conservation or- investment decisions. Doing so will help to clarify and ganizations need guidance on how to select methods for Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 357 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. implementing assessments and which factors are most Historically, assessments developed by conservation or- critical to assess. Research comparing and evaluating ganizations have been criticized for dealing insufficiently strengths and weaknesses of different methods for as- with social aspects of social–ecological systems, and those sessing adaptive capacity is needed to help resolve the developed by development organizations have been crit- challenges of method selection. Conservation organiza- icized for missing key ecological aspects (Adger 2006). tions have traditionally prioritized measuring changes When conservation organizations do consider adaptive in ecological condition, as opposed to changes in so- capacity, they often prioritize ecosystem-specific factors cial condition and capacity, thus guidance is needed on based on their organizational focus on ecosystem pro- appropriate indicators (e.g., Spearman & McGray 2011) tection and the often high degree of community depen- to assess changes in adaptive capacity over time (Ta- dence on their natural resources. Our results reinforce the ble 4). Additionally, research exploring the challenges necessity of including both social and ecological compo- and benefits of implementing adaptive capacity assess- nents. Additionally, local stakeholders in Pohnpei ranked ments also would be valuable to the conservation com- ecosystem-specific factors as more important than the munity, highlighting examples of indicators used and best Delphi group, demonstrating how a disconnect between practices. social and ecological factors may be reinforced when lo- Many of the factors affecting adaptive capacity identi- cal input is excluded. While the recognition that human fied in the literature and through this research include actions and social structures profoundly influence ecolog- subjective and vague terms (e.g., learning processes, in- ical dynamics and vice versa is not new (Folke 2006), stitutions, and equity). If local stakeholders are asked to conservation assessments are only recently combining rank a list of adaptive capacity factors, lack of clarity on both social and ecological components (e.g., Cinner et al. the factors may make it difficult to incorporate local in- 2013; Gombos et al. 2013). put. Ensuring that terminology is clearly explained and Differences in prioritization of adaptive capacity factors translated into the local language is essential in commu- between global experts and local communities demon- nity consultations, as is soliciting input on adaptive ca- strate the importance of conservation groups seeking in- pacity factors from communities in their own words. As put from both groups. The most surprising result was mentioned, academic experts and local stakeholders con- the ranking of community awareness of climate change sulted in this study are likely from positions of power, (Delphi group ranked it 15th, local stakeholders ranked it which may have influenced the low ranking of per- first). The Delphi group may have ranked awareness low ception of equity accessing resources. However, if con- because they assumed communities are already aware of servation organizations ignored this factor, it may lead climate change and hence, it does not constrain adapta- to greater power inequalities, marginalization of certain tion. However, local stakeholders appear to know that cli- groups, or undermining conservation goals. Therefore, it mate change awareness needs improvement in Pohnpei is important to ensure that local input represents a di- and directly impacts local responses. Such differences in versity of perspectives and values including participation ranking show that assessments excluding local stakehold- from vulnerable and marginalized individuals and groups ers may miss key factors directly impacting the success of (Hicks et al. 2009). adaptation strategies, and conservation strategies, more While more research is needed across different geogra- broadly. phies and ecosystems to prioritize adaptive capacity fac- Despite the overwhelming number of community- tors, the Delphi results provide a useful starting point based tools to support climate vulnerability assessments for conservation teams to consider for adaptive capac- used by conservation organizations, such tools often ne- ity assessments in tropical island ecosystems. They are glect adaptive capacity due to the challenges mentioned based on decades of collective experience developing and (Table 1). Without the necessary guidance, conserva- analyzing climate vulnerability assessments globally. Im- tion organizations may ignore adaptive capacity alto- portantly, however, they do not incorporate local cli- gether (e.g., NatureServe’s Climate Change Vulnerability mate knowledge and adaptation priorities in Pohnpei, as Index) or miss key components resulting in conservation demonstrated by the focus group results, thus reinforcing strategies that do not achieve the desired conservation the need to include local input. Our analysis suggests that objectives or adequately consider the role of human in Pohnpei, critical factors to consider in adaptive capacity decision-making (Grothmann & Patt 2005). Further, con- assessments include: awareness of climate change, capac- servation groups need guidance on how best to sup- ity to plan, learn, and reorganize; presence and effective- port adaptive capacity and how much they should in- ness of learning processes; local knowledge to cope with vest in these improvements (Sexton et al. 2010), which climate impacts; and effectiveness of adaptation leaders requires effective partnerships with government agencies (Table 4). and development organizations with the mandate and 358 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. E. Mcleod et al. Assessing adaptive capacity expertise to support social adaptive capacity. Research the Associate Editor for excellent input. We are grate- is also needed to explore if/how adaptive capacity in- ful to Dr. Jeffrey Maynard for technical guidance on fluences a community, group, or nation’s motivation presentation of the data and Dr. Yuta Masuda for and ability to conserve species, habitats, and ecosystems. input on adaptive capacity indicators. This study is Without such data, it is challenging for conservation or- an outcome of a project that is financially supported ganizations to make the case for sustained investment in by the Nature Conservancy and the German Federal supporting adaptive capacity. Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). This study is part of the Inter- national Climate Initiative (IKI); the BMUB supports this Conclusion initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the Ger- Ultimately, the effectiveness of conservation actions in man Bundestag. The manuscript contents are solely the an era of climate change depends on the ability of com- opinions of the authors and do not constitute a statement munities and local organizations to be innovative, learn of policy, decision, or position on behalf of NOAA or the through uncertainty or crisis, develop and maintain a U.S. Government. collective memory of resource management approaches, link different knowledge systems to support learning References and adaptation, and collaborate to maintain organiza- Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environ. Change, 16, tional and institutional diversity (Armitage & Plummer 268-281. 2010). Conservation organizations need to understand Armitage, D. & Plummer, R., editors. (2010). Adaptive capacity the highly contextual variables that influence adaptive and environmental governance. Springer Series on capacity, and reinforce the most important factors that Environmental Management, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642- empower effective community responses that enhance 12194-4 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. social and ecological resilience. Adaptive capacity assess- Bennett, N.J. & Roth, R., editors. (2015). The conservation social ments are necessary to ensure conservation strategies are sciences: what?, how? and why? Canadian Wildlife Federation locally relevant and incorporate local knowledge criti- and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, cal to conservation planning (Huntington 2000). These University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British assessments can also inform adaptation funding deci- Columbia, Canada. sions and build local support for conservation actions and Brooks, N., Adger, W.N. & Kelly, P.M. (2005). The policies. determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the Adaptive capacity assessments also have an important national level and the implications for adaptation. Global global role in prioritizing conservation investments. Ap- Environ. Change, 15, 151-163. proximately 25 billion USD is allocated to climate adap- Cinner, J.E., Huchery, C., Darling, E.S. et al. (2013). tation each year, with a majority flowing from developed Evaluating social and ecological vulnerability of coral reef to developing countries (UNFCCC 2011). The allocation fisheries to climate change. PLoS ONE, 8, e74321. of adaptation funds is often based on the results of as- Englberger, L. (2003). A community and laboratory-based sessments developed by experts from developed coun- assessment of natural food sources of Vitamin A in the tries. Conservation organizations, development agencies, Federated States of Micronesia. The University of Queensland, and adaptation funders need to recognize that local input Doctorate Dissertation. is a critical factor in adaptive capacity assessment; and Engle, N.L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environ. Change, 21, 647-656. enhancing local input in these assessments has the po- Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective tential to both change and improve the way that adapta- for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. tion projects are prioritized, funded, and completed. Such Change,16, 253-267. groups also have an important role to play in pushing for Folke, C., Colding, J. & Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: building greater transparency and accountability in the develop- resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological ment and application of adaptive capacity assessments at systems. Pages 352-387 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, C. Folke, local, national, and international levels. (editors. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Acknowledgments Cambridge, UK. The authors would like to thank the local commu- Fussel, ¨ H.M. & Klein, R.J.T. (2006). Climate change nities and conservation and development practition- vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual ers in Pohnpei who contributed to the development thinking. Climatic Change, 75, 301-329. and refinement of adaptive capacity factors. We also Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Ann. Tour Res. 27, 682-708. Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 359 Assessing adaptive capacity E. Mcleod et al. Gombos, M., Atkinson, S. & Wongbusarakum, S. (2013). Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., Tamelander, J., Obura, D., Adapting to a changing climate: guide to vulnerability assessment Mallaret King, D. & Cinner, J.M. (2010). Sustaining and local early action planning (VA-LEAP). Micronesia tropical coastal communities and industries: a framework Conservation Trust: Pohnpei, Federated States of for social adaptation to climate change.IUCN-The Micronesia. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and Switzerland. human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Graham, N.A.J. et al. (2008). climate change. Global Environ. Change, 15, 199-213. Conservation action in a changing climate. Conserv. Lett., 1, Hicks, C.C., McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E. & Hills, J.M. 53-59. (2009). Trade-offs in values assigned to ecological goods Morgan, D.L. (1993). Successful focus groups: advancing the state and services associated with different coral reef of the art. Sage Publications Ltd. 288 pp. management strategies. Ecol. Soc., 14, 10-28. Preston, B.L., Yuen, E.J. & Westaway, R.M. (2011). Putting Hinkel, J. (2011). Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of capacity: towards a clarification of the science-policy approaches, benefits, and risks. Sust. Sci., 6, 177-202. interface. Global Environ. Change, 21, 198-208. Pullin, A.S. & Stewart, G.B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic Huntington, H.P. (2000). Using traditional ecological review in conservation and environmental management. knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol. App., Con. Biol., 20, 1647-1656. 10, 1270-1274. Raynor, B. & Kostka, M. (2003). Back to the future: using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). traditional knowledge to strengthen biodiversity Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-18 in M.L. Parry, O.F. conservation in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson, Ethnobot. Res. App., 1, 55-63. editors. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and Sexton, J.P., Schwartz, M.W. & Winterhalder, B. (2010). vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Incorporating sociocultural adaptive capacity in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel conservation hotspot assessments. Divers. Distribut., 16, on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 439-450. Cambridge, UK. Spearman, M.& McGray, H. (2011). Making adaptation count: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). concepts and options for monitoring and evaluation of climate Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in C.B. Field, V.R. change adaptation. World Resources Institute and Deutsche Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Gesellschaft fur ¨ Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova,B. GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Tompkins, E.L., Fewa, R. & Brown, K. (2008). Scenario-based Mastrandrea, L.L. White, editors. Climate change 2014: stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Environ. Manage., 88, 1580-1592. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (UNFCCC). (2011). Assessing the costs and benefits of UK and New York, NY. adaptation options. An overview of approaches. The Nairobi Juhola, S. & Kruse, S. (2013). A framework for analysing work programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation regional adaptive capacity assessments: challenges for to climate change. methodology and policy making. Mitigation Adapt. Strateg. Wongbusarakum, S., Gombos, M., Parker, B.A., Courtney, Glob. Chang., 20, 99-120. C.A., Atkinson, S. & Willy, K. (2015). The Local Early Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M., editors. (1975). The Delphi method: Action Planning (LEAP) tool: enhancing community-based techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, planning for a changing climate. Coastal Manage., 43, Massachusetts, USA. 383-393. Lockwood, M., Raymond, C.M., Oczkowski, E. & Morrison, Yohe, G. & Tol, R.S.J. (2002). Indicators for social and M. (2015). Measuring the dimensions of adaptive capacity: economic coping capacity - moving toward a working a psychometric approach. Ecol. Soc., 20, 37, definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Change, 12, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art37/. 25-40. 360 Conservation Letters, September/October 2016, 9(5), 351–360 Copyright and Photocopying: 2015 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Journal

Conservation Letters – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2016

Keywords: ; ;

There are no references for this article.