Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (7)
Destaque
Semelhante a Williams nccsc adaption workshop
Semelhante a Williams nccsc adaption workshop (20)
Williams nccsc adaption workshop
- 1. Daniel R. Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station Carina Wyborn and Laurie Yung, University of Montana Daniel J. Murphy, University of Cincinnati Iterative Scenario-Building to Understand Social-Ecological Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in Rural Communities
- 2. Presentation Overview Geographic and sectored scope of vulnerability/ adaptation research in the north central region. Primary climate-related research questions or focus. Approach/frameworks/methods/tools we are using in this research. Initial impressions of pros/cons and lessons learned from approach.
- 3. Forest Service Social Vulnerability Research Initiative (April 2013) • Scope: National in Theory; Case based in Practice (MT; CO) • Focus: Forest Service Research Leadership sought coordination across FS Research stations to: – Develop framework(s) to identify populations most vulnerable to climate change impacts – Assess social vulnerability indices that can be applied at multiple scales – Examine resources, tools, and strategies to improve adaptive capacity of socially vulnerable populations
- 4. National Approach: Problem Assessment Workshop (Nov. 2011) Discussed State of Knowledge Literature Review Identified three tasks going forward: Advance State of Knowledge: improve assessment protocols bring community perspectives into research Integrate social and ecological perspectives Science application: NF Scorecard Vulnerability case studies Communications, Outreach & Coordination
- 5. Vulnerability Research Frameworks Framework Focus Goal Concepts Pros Cons Outcome Oriented Impacts of objective threats on discrete exposure units Demonstrate causal relation between hazard and loss Not applicable Targeted, narrow, discrete variables Existing data Misses social & political dynamics Context- Oriented Spatial and temporal scales that produce constraints and opportunities Demonstrate the complexity of vulnerability and adaptation Political economy (institutions etc) Moral economy (values etc.) Better reflects reality Broader vision of drivers of change Lack of agency Lack of scalability Overly specific Systems- Oriented Exposure and resilience of relationships that make up systems Identify functional relationships and dynamic response to change Coupled human- natural systems with feedback & links Resilience (averting change) Thresholds (transformative Change) Focuses on relationships Concerned with transformative change Too abstract Terms undefined Actor- Oriented Exposure Units and courses of action Identify constraints and opportunities for specific actors & decisions Rational choice focused on decision making Relational approach focuses on context Combines context and outcome orientation More Scalable, Overly specific Misses structural dynamics
- 6. Outcome vs. Contextual Vulnerability O‟Brien et al. 2009
- 7. Research Design and Methods Dose- Response (outcome) Indices & Indicators (outcome) Mapping (outcome) Agent-Based Modeling (outcome, actor & systems) Scenario Building (outcome & context) Case Study (actor, context, systems) Elements Vulnerability assessed with quantitatively measured impacts Create index weighted using expert knowledge Spatial analysis of quantitative data (e.g. proximity to hazards & distribution of losses) Simulation of adaptation by exposure units using simple behavioral rules Climate change models used to generate “what if” scenarios Empirically trace out drivers and social processes based on field observation Pros Targeted, simple, cost effective Good for targeting efforts. Scalable, data availability, cost effective Visual, spatial facilitates targeting Can be predictive, cost effective, and capture complexity Participatory, helps community work through problems Highly detailed, complex Cons Extrapolation from past events, ignores social dynamics Serious measurement issues, questionable assumptions Limited analysis, mostly data presentation technique Accuracy unknown, scale issues Highly specific, scenarios may be inaccurate High cost Site and/or case specific Research Designs & Methodologies
- 8. (Re)conceptualizing Vulnerability Rich body of social science research on social side of vulnerability (e.g., hazards, political ecology) From the “event” orientation of the hazards approach toward a model of ongoing change From vulnerability as inherent to certain groups (e.g. poor populations, racial minorities, etc.) to vulnerability as emerging from a specific context From envisioning human communities as passive victims to understanding them as active agents
- 9. Approach: Comparative Case Studies Big Hole Valley, MT Grand County, CO Wayne National Forest, OH Gudbrandsdal Valley, Norway Others? (some in NC Region)
- 10. Multi-scaled Iterative Scenario Building Approach Landscape/community case studies to understand vulnerability and adaptive capacity in context Scenarios to address uncertainty 20-year time horizon to provide a timeframe workable for planning
- 11. Multi-scaled, iterative scenario-building (MISB) Combines Methodological Elements from various models: Dose-response Scenarios Agent-based modeling Case studies Participatory methods
- 12. Initial Scenarios Team of natural scientists utilized historic information, downscaled models, and current trends and conditions to produce scenarios of possible futures for the Upper Big Hole Big Hole Scenarios (looking approx. 20 years out) “Some like it hot” Severe drought with low late summer flows “The seasons, they are a‟ changin‟” Shorter, milder winters, higher precipitation in a variety of forms “Feast or famine” Marked variability, including some years with warm winders and deep drought years and some years with long, cold winters and cool summers
- 13. Collecting and Analyzing Social Data Interviews and focus groups with ranchers, small business-owners, fishing and hunting outfitters, and agency and NGO staff. Scenarios used to engage study participants in thinking about possible futures, and the specific vulnerabilities generated by those futures. Also used to understand potential responses (e.g. adaptive actions) as well as existing and required capacities.
- 14. The Iterative Process Scenarios then rewritten to integrate likely responses to possible futures and their ecological consequences. New scenarios used to engage focus groups to examine and evaluate possible responses, obstacles to effective adaptation, and the capacities needed in the future. A final focus group looked at a community and landscape scale to consider how people and agencies might work together to respond to change.
- 15. Research design
- 16. Big Hole, MT: Water, Hay and the Price of Beef Scenario 1 – Ranchers with junior rights most vulnerable Scenario 2 – Increased water storage capacity to weather late summer drought Scenario 3 – Difficult to sustain hay production due to uncertainties; too variable to plan for * Big Hole Valley
- 17. Grand County, CO High amenity landscape – summer and winter recreation Diverse land tenures; high 2nd home ownership „epicentre‟ of MPB outbreak water diversions Challenges to conceptualizing “adaptation” Water diversions trump CC “we‟ll just adapt” Lots of existing actions that could be classified as adaptation but are being done for other economic
- 18. Lessons: Pros Engages climate “skeptics” in thinking about and planning for adaptation Inspires adaptation planning (thinking ahead) even in the context of uncertainty Captures tensions between different groups and different adaptation paths Shifts focus from past vulnerabilities to future vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities, in context
- 19. Lessons: Challenges Impacts to human communities were considered quite bleak. Year to year variability (scenario 3) was especially difficult to adapt to. Need to figure out how to move the scenario exercises into real planning and decision-making.
- 20. Thanks
- 21. Daniel R. Williams 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 USA US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station drwiliams@fs.fed.us www.fs.fed.us/rm/human-dimensions
Notas do Editor
- Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the first Adaptation Forum. One of the central areas of FS climate change research involves social vulnerability and the adaptive capacities and strategies for dealing with climate change induced landscape change. I am one of several research social scientists within the FS conducting research on how to facilitate climate change adaptation in western landscapes. The research team for this project includes an anthropologist, a political scientist, a human ecologist with inputs from a terrestrial ecosystem ecologist, a landscape ecologist, an aquatic ecologist, and a hydrologist. What I plan to present today is some preliminary work on building and testing a method for understanding vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and anticipated adaptation actions that we call Iterative Scenario Building.
- Our strategy involves multiple study sites/case studies to determine broader patterns of vulnerability and adaptive capacity across the west and understand community decision-making and adaptationunder uncertainty.Work is ongoing with Carina Wyborn doing field work in Grand County this past 2-3 weeks. With Dan Murphy (now located at U. Cincinnati) we are taking our initial lessons from the Big Hole and working with directly with the Wayne NF in Ohio on an “application” / demonstration project to see how we can apply iterative, collaborative scenario building to national forest management. I have some colleagues at NINA doing a case study with landowners in the Gudbrandsdalen Near Lillehammer, Norway.We also propose and/or are seeking funding to extend our work in some other landscape/social/community types around the Western states.
- To try to better understand contextual vulnerability, we developed a new method called iterative scenario building.
- Why these?Needed to be iterative and dynamic in order to reflect real social interaction in learning, conflict/disputes, and other tensions/frictions emerge through repeated engagement with others. It needed to be emergent and reflect a sense of path dependency – i.e. that the future is constructed but also that choices can limit future choices or at a least create additional costs/frictionsIt needed to reflect actual threats at a landscape scale and in pervasive waysIt needed to reflect local perceptions, ideas, and responses in order to more closely approximate the conditions of contextIt needed to reflect a degree of uncertainty so that participants have space to imagine, worry, and respond in equally uncertain ways
- A UMT team of natural scientists, in collaboration with a hydrologist from NCAR, created scenarios of possible futures for the upper Big Hole. They used historic information about the area, downscaled climate models, and data on current trends and conditions – all specific to this landscape - as well as just current scientific thinking about western landscapes more broadly to produce the scenarios. The scenarios are 20 years out, which allows for the possibility of considerable change, but at a temporal scale that is within reach of landowners and human communities. It’s close enough to imagine how it would impact you and your family. We produced three qualitative narrative scenarios (approx. 400 words each) todescribe these possible futures, using lay language as opposed to scientific jargon. These scenarios started with changes to temperature and precipitation but really focused on what those changes might mean for physical and ecological processes and important species and resources – changes to forests, rangelands, and aquatic systems. These are a lot like the scenarios used in scenario planning exercises. Some like it hot -- Widespread drought – warming winters, lower snowpack, earlier snowmelt, longer summer, lower late summer streamflow, deeper drought, longer fire season, stressed fishThe seasons they are a changing -- Warmer but wetter winter and spring with deep summer drought and BIG FIRESFeast or famine -- Year-to-year variability: some years with deep winters and cool summers and others with warm winters and deep drought, Flash floods are common, big fires every few years
- We then used these scenarios in a series of interviews and focus groups as a way to get people to think about and talk about vulnerability, adaptation, and adaptive capacity. We interviewed people who live and work in the Big Hole, people who are experts on the community there, who can describe how landscape-scale changes might effect local communities, businesses, and landowners. We focused on 4 specific constituencies: 1) ranchers, 2) small business-owners and community members, 3) fishing and hunting outfitters, and 4) agency representatives and NGOs. We utilize interviews because it allows us to understand social processes in-depth and to understand relationships between landscape-scale changes and specific vulnerabilities, possible adaptation actions, and existing and required adaptive capacities. In the first round of interviews we asked people to talk about Threats and impacts – how these different possible futures might impact them individually as well as their communityWho might be affected and whyHow they anticipate respondingWhat they would need to effectively respond, in terms of resources, information, networks
- After the first round of interviews, the lead social scientist rapidly analyzed the interviews and brought the results back to the full team. The natural scientists were then able to integrate the ecological consequences of likely responses into a revised set of scenarios. In other words, the second set of scenarios included the responses of the human communities and the ways those responses might impact the ecosystem. Here we were trying to create a real-world model, based on how people told us they would respond and the likely consequences of those actions, of interactions in the social-ecological system.
- Here, we explicitly focus on ‘community’ – which of course we allow participants to define in a multitude of ways. The purpose of the multiple rounds is to allow for multiple, unencumbered voices. Most scenario-building exercises in the literature involved a single meeting with a diverse representation – however, we could not have captured the data we did if we had allowed this. Allowing for multiple scales and venues, from individual interviews to progressively larger focus groups. We also got to see what voices disappeared in the group interactions. The repeated rounds allow for people to respond to the actions and responses that others have proposed. Additionally, they can see the ecological implications and other impacts of their proposed actions. This introduces some feedback and path dependency into the process. We also presented 3 different scenarios in order to maintain a sense of uncertainty about what might happen.
- In scenario 1 the threat might be decreased snowpack and earlier snowmelt, which would mean lower streamflow in the late summer, compromising hay production. Ranchers with junior water rights would be most vulnerable. In the short term, ranchers would respond by utilizing hay reserves, while over the long term smaller ranchers and those with junior rights might sell out resulting in consolidation or subdivision. Fewer families in the valley would impact local businesses, tourism, and schools. Further, if rangeland productivity dropped, grazing allotments on Forest Service land might be curtailed to limit overgrazing, putting similar pressure on small ranches. If the price of beef were high enough, ranchers might be able to reduce stocking rates and rent pasture elsewhere to stay in business. In scenario 2, ranchers say opportunities for water storage development to capture moisture from wetter winters and springs. Increased water storage capacity could help ranchers weather late summer drought. They also described the political and policy constraints to water storage projects and the need to overcome these barriers to take advantage of this opportunity and might benefit downstream water users. In scenario 3, ranchers had a difficult time sustaining hay production due to the uncertainty of future precipitation patterns. It was simply too variable to plan for. Illustrates how ecological and social factors at a variety of scales co-produce vulnerability. The price of beef is governed by the global marketplace, but affects local vulnerability to climate change impacts. Also, helps understand specifically which groups are vulnerable, smaller ranches are much more vulnerable to the local impacts of climate change as compared to larger ranches. In all cases, effective “intimate” relationships with federal agency staff were believed to be important to adaptive capacity.
- I work primarily in Western landscapes with rural communities, and a mix of public and private lands. These landscapes are important ecologically – they typically encompass a considerable elevation gradient, from high elevation wilderness areas to low level, productive, biologically-diverse valley bottoms and riparian areas. They’re also important socially and economically, as they produce important food and fiber, and contain long-established human communities. This is a scale at which a lot of adaptation occurs. Communities might draw on non-local resources to adapt to climate change, but a lot of adaptation happens at the scale of communities, individual ranches, counties, and watersheds. There’s a growing body of literature that suggests that anticipatory adaptation, adaptation that anticipates future change, may be more effective than waiting until climate change impacts are fully underway. Anticipatory adaptation is believed to be less expensive, more equitable, and allows communities to thoughtfully plan rather than urgently react. But to effectively adapt, these communities need to (1) understand and anticipate local change and (2) marshall the social, political, and economic resources to act
- Interestingly, the scenarios provided an effective way to discuss climate change with skeptics (and skepticism appears to be widespread in the rural west – in fact, most community members were either skeptics or outright deniers). The scenario process seemed to depoliticize climate change in a sense. Community members were quick to realize that we were talking about climate change (despite the fact that we didn’t introduce the study with that term) but that we were not discussing the national or international politics of mitigation. Instead we were focusing on specific changes to local communities and landscapes. The downscaled, highly localized scenario descriptions permitted discussions that would not have occurred if we had raised climate change writ large. Many of the bio-physical changes described in the scenarios resonated with changes that are already experiencing.
- I work primarily in Western landscapes with rural communities, and a mix of public and private lands. These landscapes are important ecologically – they typically encompass a considerable elevation gradient, from high elevation wilderness areas to low level, productive, biologically-diverse valley bottoms and riparian areas. They’re also important socially and economically, as they produce important food and fiber, and contain long-established human communities. This is a scale at which a lot of adaptation occurs. Communities might draw on non-local resources to adapt to climate change, but a lot of adaptation happens at the scale of communities, individual ranches, counties, and watersheds. There’s a growing body of literature that suggests that anticipatory adaptation, adaptation that anticipates future change, may be more effective than waiting until climate change impacts are fully underway. Anticipatory adaptation is believed to be less expensive, more equitable, and allows communities to thoughtfully plan rather than urgently react. But to effectively adapt, these communities need to (1) understand and anticipate local change and (2) marshall the social, political, and economic resources to act