Clarifying the role of the resist–accept–direct framework in supporting resource management planning processes
No abstract available.
Conservation Biology↗
Geology topics
Katherine R. Clifford
Publications and source records attributed to Katherine R. Clifford.
The dynamic feasibility of resisting (R), accepting (A), or directing (D) ecological change
Ecological transformations are occurring as a result of climate change, challenging traditional approaches to land management decision-making. The resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework helps managers consider how to respond to this challenge. We examined how the feasibility of the choices to resist, accept, and direct shifts in complex and dynamic ways through time. We considered 4 distinct types of social feasibility: regulatory, financial, public, and organizational. Our commentary is grounded in literature review and the examples that exist but necessarily has speculative elements because empirical evidence on this newly emerging management strategy is scarce. We expect that resist strategies will become less feasible over time as managers encounter situations where resisting is ecologically, by regulation, financially, or publicly not feasible. Similarly, we expect that as regulatory frameworks increasingly permit their use, if costs decrease, and if the public accepts them, managers will increasingly view accept and direct strategies as more viable options than they do at present. Exploring multiple types of feasibility over time allows consideration of both social and ecological trajectories of change in tandem. Our theorizing suggested that deepening the time horizon of decision-making allows one to think carefully about when one should adopt different approaches and how to combine them over time.
Conservation Biology↗
User needs assessment for postfire debris-flow inundation hazard products
Debris flows are a type of mass movement that is more likely after wildfires, and while existing hazard assessments evaluate the rainfall intensities that are likely to trigger debris flows, no operational hazard assessment exists for identifying the areas where they will run out after initiation. Fifteen participants who work in a wide range of job functions associated with southern California postfire hazards were selected using purposive sampling for unstructured interviews about useful characteristics and needs for postfire debris-flow inundation hazard assessments. The interview guide was developed by a team of social and physical scientists following best practices for engaging with users. The guide focused on target information that could influence ongoing or not-yet-initiated research on debris-flow physics and hazard assessment methodology. Following standard methods for user needs assessment, the audio from the unstructured interviews was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic coding scheme. Participants reported engaging with postfire debris-flow inundation as one of multiple postfire hazards and their information needs reflect this breadth. Most participants were from organizations with life and property mandates, and this focused their concerns on where debris-flow inundation could impact people’s physical safety, the ability of populations to egress, and damage to property. Common comments included, (1) the need to interpret inundation hazard assessments in the context of forecast rainfall—which are typically associated with different timeframes, 15 and 60 minutes, respectively; (2) the need to provide multiple scenarios in a hazard assessment to show how the hazard changes under different external factors such as varying rainfall intensity; and (3) the tension between fully reflecting all sources of uncertainty in identifying impacted areas and a high level of precision needed to determine evacuation zones in order to reduce evacuation fatigue. Participants saw utility in both low-resolution hazard assessments over large areas and fine-resolution targeted assessments over small areas, noting that the identification of target areas could pose an ethical challenge because some areas might be prioritized over others. Participants were concerned about the hazard posed by the continuum of postfire hydrologic hazards, including hyperconcentrated flows. Finally, participants recognized that the shrinking time window between the end of fire season and the start of the wet season in southern California makes the production, interpretation, and use of rapid postfire debris-flow inundation hazard assessments both important and challenging.
California↗
Rapidly assessing social characteristics of drought preparedness and decision making: A guide for practitioners
Executive Summary This guide is intended to provide managers, decision makers, and other practitioners with advice on conducting a rapid assessment of the social dimensions of drought. Findings from a rapid assessment can provide key social context that may aid in decision making, such as when preparing a drought plan, allocating local drought resilience funding, or gathering the support of local agencies and organizations for collective action related to drought mitigation. Part I —In the introduction to Part I, we describe the unique problems associated with drought—particularly its slow onset and long duration, which make it difficult to define drought—and highlight five major types of drought (see Box 1). We introduce a few social dimensions of drought (such as economic and institutional perspectives), demonstrate how these dimensions can be interrelated, and describe a few of the modern challenges (such as transformational change and cascading risks) that practitioners face. We also provide background on the rapid assessment method, first describing it as a “snapshot” of the social landscape, then providing some key advantages of the method (it can be quicker and cheaper than more in-depth methods), and lastly describing how secondary data and other methods can help overcome some of the disadvantages of rapid assessments. Then, after summarizing the process of developing this guide, we outline the process of using the guide. Importantly, we compare the guide to a travel guide, which provides many different types of information and is best approached with specific interests in mind. Ultimately, we hope for this guide to be malleable enough that it can be helpful to researchers and practitioners in many different contexts, using many different research methods. Related to how to use the guide, we characterize the type of person who might be motivated to use this guide. We also specify key qualifications for a researcher conducting a rapid assessment, drawing particular attention to training on ethical considerations. We sketch out key considerations when choosing social dimensions of drought to focus on, and the type of data used for analysis. First, it is important to note that in this guide we provide nine important social dimensions of drought, but this is by no means a comprehensive list, and a researcher may find that other dimensions better fit their local context. Second, we provide some pros and cons to a narrow (focusing on just a few dimensions or at a smaller scale) versus broad research focus. Lastly, we describe the pros and cons of using primary versus secondary data (one strategy is to use both, sequentially) and qualitative versus quantitative data. Ultimately, Part I of this guide functions as an exploration of the various decisions a researcher will make when designing a rapid assessment. These decisions will inform the type of findings and other outcomes that result from the rapid assessment. Part II —Part II of this guide introduces nine key social dimensions of drought: defining the problem of drought, individual perceptions, social relationships, technology, economics and livelihoods, water governance, decision making, information, and social vulnerability. Each section provides background and key considerations related to a particular dimension, as well as ideas for how to explore the dimension via a rapid assessment. Part III —Part III of this guide provides two hypothetical examples of how one might use this guide to aid the practitioner in implementing the lessons learned here. In the first example, a watershed group uses two dimensions, defining the problem of drought and social relationships, to inform a community meeting about protecting fisheries from drought. In the second example, a resource manager uses the economics and livelihoods and social vulnerability dimensions to inform the development of a livestock grazing drought management plan.
Techniques and Methods↗
Management foundations for navigating ecological transformation by resisting, accepting, or directing social-ecological change
Despite striking global change, management to ensure healthy landscapes and sustained natural resources has tended to set objectives on the basis of the historical range of variability in stationary ecosystems. Many social–ecological systems are moving into novel conditions that can result in ecological transformation. We present four foundations to enable a transition to future-oriented conservation and management that increases capacity to manage change. The foundations are to identify plausible social–ecological trajectories, to apply upstream and deliberate engagement and decision-making with stakeholders, to formulate management pathways to desired futures, and to consider a portfolio approach to manage risk and account for multiple preferences across space and time. We use the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as a case study to illustrate how the four foundations address common land management challenges for navigating transformation and deciding when, where, and how to resist, accept, or direct social–ecological change.
Alaska↗
Responding to ecological transformation: Mental models, external constraints, and manager decision-making
Ecological transformation creates many challenges for public natural resource management and requires managers to grapple with new relationships to change and new ways to manage it. In the context of unfamiliar trajectories of ecological change, a manager can resist, accept, or direct change, choices that make up the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework. In this article, we provide a conceptual framework for how to think about this new decision space that managers must navigate. We identify internal factors (mental models) and external factors (social feasibility, institutional context, and scientific uncertainty) that shape management decisions. We then apply this conceptual framework to the RAD strategies (resist, accept, direct) to illuminate how internal and external factors shape those decisions. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of how this conceptual framework shapes our understanding of management decisions, especially how these decisions are not just ecological but also social, and the implications for research and management.
BioScience↗
A science agenda to inform natural resource management decisions in an era of ecological transformation
Earth is experiencing widespread ecological transformation in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems that is attributable to directional environmental changes, especially intensifying climate change. To better steward ecosystems facing unprecedented and lasting change, a new management paradigm is forming, supported by a decision-oriented framework that presents three distinct management choices: resist, accept, or direct the ecological trajectory. To make these choices strategically, managers seek to understand the nature of the transformation that could occur if change is accepted while identifying opportunities to intervene to resist or direct change. In this article, we seek to inspire a research agenda for transformation science that is focused on ecological and social science and based on five central questions that align with the resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework. Development of transformation science is needed to apply the RAD framework and support natural resource management and conservation on our rapidly changing planet.
BioScience↗
Navigating climate adaptation on public lands: How views on ecosystem change and scale interact with management approaches
Managers are increasingly being asked to integrate climate change adaptation into public land management. The literature discusses a range of adaptation approaches, including managing for resistance, resilience, and transformation; but many strategies have not yet been widely tested. This study employed in-depth interviews and scenario-based focus groups in the Upper Gunnison Basin in Colorado to learn how public land managers envision future ecosystem change, and how they plan to utilize different management approaches in the context of climate adaptation. While many managers evoked the past in thinking about projected climate impacts and potential responses, most managers in this study acknowledged and even embraced (if reluctantly) that many ecosystems will experience regime shifts in the face of climate change. However, accepting that future ecosystems will be different from past ecosystems led managers in different directions regarding how to respond and the appropriate role of management intervention. Some felt management actions should assist and even guide ecosystems toward future conditions. Others were less confident in projections and argued against transformation. Finally, some suggested that resilience could provide a middle path, allowing managers to help ecosystems adapt to change without predicting future ecosystem states. Scalar challenges and institutional constraints also influenced how managers thought about adaptation. Lack of institutional capacity was believed to constrain adaptation at larger scales. Resistance, in particular, was considered impractical at almost any scale due to institutional constraints. Managers negotiated scalar challenges and institutional constraints by nesting different approaches both spatially and temporally.
Environmental Management↗