Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable adaptation to climate change in Interior Alaska

Abstract

Human adaptation to climate change is comprised of "adjustments" in response to (or anticipation of) climatic impacts. Adaptation does not necessarily imply favorable or equitable change, nor does it automatically imply sustainable use of ecosystems. "Sustainable adaptation" in this case implies strategic, collective action to respond to or anticipate harmful climate change to reduce disruption to key resource flows and adverse effects on general well-being. This research examined social-ecological system responses to recent warming trends in the remote northwest region of Interior Alaska using a unique vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessment (VA) approach that integrated indigenous observations and understanding of climate (IC) with western social and natural sciences. The study found that Alaska Native communities that were historically highly mobile and flexible across the landscape for subsistence hunting are increasingly restricted by the institutional rigidity of the regulatory system for wildlife and subsistence management. This has resulted in negative impacts to game harvest access and success threatening food security and community well-being. This suggests that policies limiting the ability of natural resource-dependent societies to be flexible, diversify, or innovate can threaten livelihoods and exacerbate vulnerability. Nevertheless, opportunities for sustainable adaptation exist where wildlife management is adaptive and includes an understanding of and response to climate variability and slow-onset climate change with the human dimensions of subsistence hunting for more effective "in-season" management.

A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed

“…The barriers described here are distinguished from physical or ecological limits to adaptation, such as physiological tolerance of species to changing climatic conditions that cannot be overcome (except with technology or some other physical intervention) (Adger et al 2007;Gregg et al 2011;McIlgorm et al 2010; USGS 2012). Kahan et al 2007;Kahan et al 2011;Adger et al 2009;Renn 2011;van Aalst et al 2008;Doria et al 2009;Renn et al 2011;Lackstrom et al 2012;Leiserowitz 2006;McNeeley 2012;Simmonds 2011;NRC 2009;Ding et al 2011;Gifford 2011;Weber and Stern 2011 Little integration of local knowledge, context, and needs with traditional scientific information…”

“…However, many existing institutional structures, such as accepted rules for water infrastructure planning, inherently lack the flexibility to allow for effective responses to a dynamic and changing climate Garfin et al 2012;McNeeley 2012). Existing regulations and laws often have rigid structures, or are based on principles of a non-changing climate (stationarity) that can inhibit the use of flexible strategies needed to prepare for climate change (Brugger and Crimmins 2011;Garfin et al 2012;Simmonds 2011;USGS 2012).…”

“…It is critical to move beyond this gridlock and create collaborative and inclusive processes for implementing climate adaptation (Doria et al 2009;Renn et al 2011;van Aalst et al 2008;Verweij et al 2006). Currently, a dearth of experience integrating local knowledge and needs with traditional scientific information has impeded adaptation activity and capacity building in many parts of the nation (Lackstrom et al 2012;McNeeley 2012). Cultural taboos, resistance to change, and psychological barriers are also be impediments to climate action (Ding et al 2011;Gifford 2011;NRC 2009;Simmonds 2011;Weber and Stern 2011).…”

Developing adaptive capacity in times of climate change in central rural Vietnam: exploring smallholders’ learning and governance

“…Our findings contribute to the ongoing debates about the pros and cons of institutional hierarchies (McNeeley, 2012) or complex and inflexible institutional frameworks (Craig, 2010) which are said to reduce adaptive capacity and exacerbate vulnerability to climate change (Ahammad, 2011).…”

“…Steering and controlling are key concepts within this system (Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009) where the state does the steering rather than the rowing (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). The top-down institutional structures strongly influence the patterns of interaction and coordination within and between different jurisdictional levels and scales (McNeeley, 2012;Rubin, 2014).…”