Framing management of social-ecological systems in terms of the cost of failure: the Sierra Nevada, USA as a case study

Abstract

Managing complex social-ecological systems in an era of rapid climate change and changing human pressures represents a major challenge in sustainability science. The Sierra Nevada, USA is a large social-ecological system facing a tipping point that could result in major ecosystem changes. A century of fire suppression and climate change have set the stage for mega-disturbances that threaten biodiversity, human life and values, ecosystem services, and forest persistence. Stakeholders face multidimensional and often contentious trade-offs with costs and benefits that can be mismatched in space and time. If compromises cannot be reached, the status quo is likely to continue, resulting in the conversion of large portions of a 100 000 km 2 predominately mixed-conifer forest ecosystem to a chaparral-dominated ecosystem. We describe the outcomes of a continuation of the ecological status quo on biodiversity, cultural history, fire management, recreational value, and climate control, including indirect effects on water and food security and recreation. The social-ecological ramifications of such a future are undesirable for most stakeholders. Therefore, we contend that forest management conflicts should be framed in terms of the cost of failure of negotiations among stakeholders. Specifically, negotiations may benefit from (1) stakeholders quantifying their definitions of success and failure, (2) quantification of trade-offs and recognition of their multidimensionality, and (3) allowing for solutions that are heterogeneous in space and time. This approach may help stakeholders navigate the wicked problem of managing Sierra Nevada forests and other complex social-ecological systems.

Survey coverage, recording duration and community composition affect observed species richness in passive acoustic surveys

“…Yet the proliferation of acoustic data and the emergence of machine learning algorithms capable of efficiently extracting community‐level data (e.g. Kahl et al., 2021) has added urgency to this issue because novel ecological insights are tantalizingly attainable (de Camargo et al., 2019) and conservation challenges are increasingly complex and spatially extensive (Wood & Jones, 2019). Comparing species richness estimates among survey designs may also be useful when comparing or integrating results collected under different sampling schemes.…”

Cognition of complexity and trade-offs in a wildfire-prone social-ecological system

“…Trade-offs are important in any decision-making context that features multiple objectives (Kahneman et al 1982), including environmental management (Campbell et al 2010, Farzan et al 2015, Cord et al 2017. Wildfire management in particular presents many opportunities for trade-offs, given the numerous and diverse resources and services that are valued in fire-prone forests (McLennan and Eburn 2014, Moritz et al 2014, Wood andJones 2019). An active literature has highlighted how forest and fire management practices can give rise to trade-offs (table 1).…”

“…As western landscapes become increasingly economically and culturally heterogeneous, the outcomes of wildfire risk mitigation decisions can affect a correspondingly broader set of values (Paveglio et al 2018), resulting in greater potential for trade-offs. Land managers and other actors who undertake or influence decisions about wildfire risk mitigation actions must acknowledge and address trade-offs (Moritz et al 2014, Wood andJones 2019). However, trade-offs can be obscured by complex interactions among physical, biological, social, political, and economic processes that operate across multiple spatial and temporal scales.…”

Megafire causes persistent loss of an old‐forest species

“…A new era of mega‐disturbances catalyzed by a changing climate may lead to large‐scale transformation of ecosystems as we know them (Millar & Stephenson, 2015; Westerling et al., 2011). Large‐scale droughts and ‘megafires’ not only threaten the persistence of forest ecosystems, they also threaten the species that inhabit them and the services those ecosystems provide to people (Hurteau et al., 2014; Wood & Jones, 2019). Consequently, in some forest ecosystems, forest managers and policymakers are faced with either the challenges of managing these vital forests for restoration and persistence or allowing their transition to novel non‐forest ecosystems (Rissman et al., 2018) with resulting implications for biodiversity and ecosystem services.…”