ENHANCING RESILIENCE AT THE COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUAL LEVELS Margaret Reams, Ph.D. Louisiana State University The Starting Point: The Adaptive Cycle The model of the adaptive cycle was derived from the comparative study of the dynamics of ecosystems. Meant to be a tool for thought: focuses attention upon processes of destruction and reorganization, which are often neglected in favor of growth and conservation. Including these processes provides a more complete view of system dynamics that links together system organization, resilience, and dynamics. Adaptive Cycle Resilience allows Adaptation Are there elements that sustain adaptive capacity of social-ecological systems in a world that is constantly changing? Addressing how people respond to periods of change, how society reorganizes following change, is the most neglected and the least understood aspect in conventional resource management and science (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). 4 Factors of Adaptability Folke et al. (2002) identify and expand on four critical factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales and that seem to be required for dealing with natural resource dynamics during periods of change and reorganization: learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for resilience; combining different types of knowledge for learning; and creating opportunity for self-organization towards social-ecological sustainability. Human Communities For an economic or social system, the accumulating potential could as well be from the skills, networks of human relationships, and mutual trust that are incrementally developed and tested during the progression from r to K. Those also represent a potential developed and used in one setting, that could be available in transformed ones. Adaptive Management Adaptive management seeks to aggressively use management intervention as a tool to strategically probe the functioning of an ecosystem. Interventions are designed to test key hypotheses about the functioning of the ecosystem. Adaptive Management This approach is very different from a typical management approach of 'informed trial-and-error' which uses the best available knowledge to generate a risk-averse, 'best guess' management strategy, which is then changed as new information modifies the 'best guess'. “Cost of Ignorance” Adaptive Management identifies uncertainties, and then establishes methodologies to test hypotheses concerning those uncertainties. It uses management as a tool not only to change the system, but as a tool to learn about the system. It is concerned with the need to learn and the cost of ignorance, while traditional management is focused on the need to preserve and the cost of knowledge. Necessary Scientific and Social Components for Adaptive Mgt. Management is linked to appropriate temporal and spatial scales Management retains a focus on statistical power and controls Use of embodied ecological consensus to evaluate strategic alternatives Communication of alternatives to political arena for negotiation of a selection Achievement of Adaptive Management Objectives Requires An open management process which seeks to include past, present and future stakeholders. Adaptive Management (AM) needs to at least maintain political openness, but usually it needs to create it. Consequently, AM must be a social as well as scientific process. It must focus on the development of new institutions and institutional strategies just as much as it must focus upon scientific hypotheses Adaptive Co-Management Adaptive co-management is an emerging approach for governance of social-ecological systems. Novelty of adaptive co-management comes from combining the iterative learning dimension of Adaptive Management and the linkage dimension of Collaborative Management in which rights and responsibilities are jointly shared. Complementarities among the two concepts provide an approach to governance that encompasses complexity and cross-scale linkages, and the process of dynamic learning. Key Features of Adaptive CoManagement 1) A focus on learning-by-doing 2) Synthesis of different knowledge systems 3) Collaboration and power-sharing among community, regional and national levels 4) Management flexibility Practical Implications These features can promote an evolving, placespecific governance approach in which strategies are sensitive to feedback (both social and ecological) and oriented towards system resilience and sustainability. Practical Implications Such strategies include dialogue among interested groups and actors (local-national), the development of complex, redundant and layered institutions, and a combination of institutional types, designs and strategies that facilitate experimentation and learning through change. Practical Implications Other important themes in adaptive comanagement include improving evaluation of process and outcomes, additional emphasis on social capital, and meaningful interactions and trust building as the basis for governance in socialecological systems. U.S. examples include: Watershed Councils and National Estuary Program (NEP) groups. In Human Communities When the management of a resource is shared by a diverse group of stakeholders (e.g., local resource users, research scientists, community members with traditional knowledge, government representatives, etc.), decisionmaking is better informed and more options exist for testing policies. Active adaptive management whereby management actions are designed as experiments encourages learning and novelty, thus increasing resilience in socialecological systems. How Public Agency Efforts May Enhance Community Resilience Outreach Supports ATTRIBUTES OF STRONGER COMMUNITIES Leading to Realization of KEY DIMENSIONS OF RESILIENCE Social Networks Stable Relationships Information Sharing Access to Sound Science Historic Local Knowledge Knowledge of Mitigation Tools Stakeholder Participation in Public Decision Making Self-Organizational Ability Scientific Treatment of Risks Adaptive Ability Self-Organization Opportunities Provide Scientific Information Social Capital Building Exposure Risks Local Knowledge Shared Residents’ Experiences and Questions are Gathered Interactions Residents/Officials Encourage Individual & Collective Adaptations Selected References Carpenter,S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765-781. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1-23. Holling, C. S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Pages 31-44 in P. Schulze , editor. Engineering within ecological constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596. Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14 Evidence of Adaptive Governance Expanded “Learning Environments” – More data from more sources, widely shared More stakeholder inclusion in collective decisions Collective and individual adaptations to changing risks, based on sound science Innovative partnerships and institutions emerge Observations from Louisiana Collective Adaptive Actions Include: *More Integrative County-level Hazard Mitigation Plans among coastal communities post 2005 (Bowers, MS Thesis, 2012.) * Greater adoption of comprehensive land use plans to protect wetlands and avoid new development in flood-prone areas (Paille, MS Thesis, 2012.) Next We will Examine Local land-use plans, ordinances and hazardmitigation efforts Collective actions to preserve coastal wetlands Policy instruments applied Administrative and funding approaches used by local governments within the study area Also, Household-level Adaptations Resilient communities require both collective and individual actions to mitigate risks As a first step, we conducted a pilot study of Baton Rouge residents and a random sample of residents of the greater New Orleans area, both south and north of Lake Pontchartrain What are their beliefs and attitudes about environmental conditions in their communities, and are they taking steps to reduce their risks? Household Level Observations Examples of Adaptive Behaviors for Risk Reduction in North Baton Rouge, Louisiana Adoption of a household emergency plan in the event of an environmental hazard in one’s neighborhood Examples include: * Flooding of hazardous waste sites * Transportation accidents, chemical spills Possible Influences On Household – Level Adaptive Behaviors “Resilience” = f(exposure, vulnerability, adaptive capacity) Exposure: Total TRI emissions by zip code; past environmental emergencies; number of facilities in neighborhood, etc. Vulnerability: Income; education; young children Adaptive Capacity: Membership in local groups; confidence in own knowledge and ability to reduce risks; adoption of other risk-reducing practices Preliminary Survey of Residents Interviews with 64 attendees of public meetings of the East Baton Rouge Parish Metro City Council to determine activities and attitudes concerning several exposurereducing behaviors. Also: Questions to indicate exposure (zip code of residence); socio-economic vulnerability; capacity to take steps to reduce exposure risks. Initial analysis to determine statistically significant associations among variables (Cross-tabs, Chi Sq.; Difference of Means testing) Preliminary Analysis of 64 Interviews Roughly 22% have adopted household emergency plans What factors are associated with plan adoption? Exposure: Experienced environmental emergency within the past 5 years within one’s neighborhood Capacity to Adapt: * Confidence in ability to cope with emergencies * Adoption of other exposure-reducing behaviors Other Preliminary Associations Socioeconomic Vulnerability? * Surprisingly, educational attainment was inversely associated with plan adoption; * No significant association found with measures of household income. Expanded Survey North South (mapped by Wang F.) What are residents most concerned about? Environmental Pollution Air Quality Don't know 0% Very concerned 39% Not at all concerned 13% Refused 0% Water Quality Don't know Not at all concerned 0% 10% Not at all concerned 10% Don't know 0% Not very concerned 8% Not very concerned 9% Not very concerned 12% Very concerned 44% Moderately concerned 20% Somewhat concerned 16% Moderately concerned 10% Very concerned 60% Moderately concerned 17% Somewhat concerned 12% Somewhat concerned 20% Natrual Disasters (Hurricanes) Soil Quality Refused 0% Don't know 0% Don't Not at all know concerned 0% 3% Not at all concerned 20% Very concerned 34% Somewhat concerned 17% Not very concerned 3% Climate Change Moderately concerned 6% Refused 0% Somewhat concerned 12% Not very concerned 12% Moderately concerned 17% Very concerned 76% Not at all concerned 19% Very concerned 35% Somewhat concerned 18% Don't know 1% Not very concerned 11% Moderately concerned 16% How knowledgeable do residents feel? 350 300 250 200 314 = 57% 235 = 42% 150 100 50 0 Do you know whom to contact in the event of an environmental hazard Yes No 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 141 100 102 25% 37% 108 98 37% How knowledgeable do you feel you are about actions to take in the event of an environmental hazard? Not at all knowledgeable Not very knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Very knowledgable Average Positive Correlation between Knowledge and Emergency Planning 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 141 100 102 37% 25% 98 108 37% How knowledgeable do you feel you are about actions to take in the event of an environmental hazard? Not at all knowledgeable Average Very knowledgable Not very knowledgeable Somewhat knowledgeable Does your household have an emergency plan in the event of an environmental hazard 356 193 0 No 50 Yes 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Conclusion: Encouraging Implications for Public Education Efforts Knowledge and Confidence in one’s ability to reduce exposure risks appear to be associated with the adaptive behavior Agency program efforts should be able to help build capacity for community resilience through encouraging self-organization among residents, providing scientific information concerning risks; and sharing information about specific adaptive strategies to reduce exposure risks. Social-Ecological Resilience Sources Folke C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes, 2002. Building resilience for adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Additional Selected References Gunderson, L.H. C.S. Holling and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Holling, C. S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and global change. pp. 292-317 in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and G. Peterson. 2002. Sustainability and Panarchies. P.63-102 in: Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Holling, C. S., L. Gunderson, and D. Ludwig. 2002. In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change. P. 3-24 in: Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Selected References Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and P. Stern. 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science. 302(5652): 1907-1912. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30:8.1-8.33. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in socio-ecological systems. Environmental Management. 34: 75-90. Plummer, R. and D. Armitage. 2006. A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economy and society. Ecological Economics. Online: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon. Ruitenbeek, J. and C. Cartier. 2001. The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co-Management as an Emergent Strategy in Complex Bio-economic Systems. Occasional Paper No. 34. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Thank you very much! Questions?