Mustering the power of ecosystems for adaptation to climate change

Abstract

Mountain social-ecological systems (SES) supply important ecosystem services that are threatened by climate change. In mountain SES there is a paradox between high community capacity to cope with extremes, and governance structures and processes that constrain that capacity from being realised.Climate adaptation maintaining livelihoods and supply of ecosystem services can catalyse this innate adaptive capacity if new adaptive governance arrangements can be created. Using the French Alps as a case study, we outline a participative framework for transformative adaptation that links adaptive capacity and governance to provide social innovation and ecosystem-based adaptation solutions for mountain SES. Grassland management was the main entry point for adaptation: bundles of adaptation services supplied by the landscape mosaic of biodiverse grassland types can maintain agricultural production and tourism and facilitate income diversification. Deliberate management for core adaptation services like resilient fodder production, erosion control, shade or aesthetic value generates co-benefits for future transformation ability. People activate bundles of adaptation services along adaptation pathways and realise benefits via co-production with other forms of capital including traditional knowledge or social networks. Common and distinctive adaptation services in each pathway create options for transformation if barriers from interactions between values and rules across scales can be overcome. For example conserving mown terraces which is a critical adaptation nexus reflects a complex interplay of values, markets and governance instruments from local to European scales. We conclude that increasing stakeholders capacity to mobilise adaptation services is critical for empowering them to implement adaptation to global change. the long-term, and long-term adaptation responses which may discount short-term needs (Maru et al., 2014). For example in mountains, current climate adaptation of winter tourism through snow making prevents long-term thinking and engagement to find alternative options, while compromising water resources and biodiversity. Conversely, foregoing this technological option and choosing to develop softer tourism may incur a risky economic transition. This trade-off is exacerbated in remote communities by dependence on uncertain natural resources, limited economic options due to biophysical constraints and distance from markets, difficulties in accessing public services and decision makers, and reliance on government subsidies. Throughout history, mountain ecosystems were buffered from biophysical change by their topographic complexity and glacial dynamics (Randin et al., 2009; Scherrer and Körner, 2010). Mountain people have adapted to live in extreme, variable environments (von Glasenapp and Thornton, 2011). But now, rapid climate change and resulting ecological shifts and increased natural risks, synergised with external policy and market pressures and detachment from governance structures and processes ha...

Tracking the progress of climate change adaptation: An Australian case study

“…An analysis of responses to a survey of adaptation practitioners in Australia by Palutikof et al (2019) identified lack of leadership, knowledge and community support as the three main barriers to action. These correspond broadly to the three common prerequisites identified for transformational change to take place (knowledge, institutional alignment, stakeholder values) (Lavorel et al 2019), and to the values -rules -knowledge framing of Gorddard et al (2016), indicating how fundamental they are in blocking the shift from observed adaptation progress to the transformations required to address current rates of climate change. This abstract analysis makes clear that, despite whatever barriers exist, reportable adaptation action is taking place in Australia, and although it still represents a small proportion of adaptation activity (compared, for example, to planning), that proportion is growing over time.…”

Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges

“…algae-dominated reefs after mass coral mortality [93]). However, sometimes new communities will provide similar adaptation benefits to the pre-disturbance communities and/ or provide additional novel adaptation services [94,95]. Further royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil.…”

“…Grey infrastructural approaches are deeply engrained in certain cultural contexts, and shape institutional practices. Such biases are compounded by cognitive factors such as a lack of awareness of ecosystem services provided by NbS, lack of perceived responsibility for action or the discounting of climate risks [123,137,138] and similar issues that constrain innovation [95]. Overcoming these challenges requires strong institutions, and well-established planning structures, processes and instruments to ensure benefits across landscapes and seascapes [127,134].…”

Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change

“…This definition is consistent with the ES concept, but additionally includes ecological mechanisms that support ecosystem persistence or transformation and focuses on developing, evaluating and implementing options for adaptation [19]. Different AS are mobilized sequentially or cumulatively along adaptation pathways: ecological resilience, latent and sustained ES are essential in early stages of adaptation while the use and values of ecosystem transformability and novel ES build up as environmental changes intensify [13,18].…”

“…For example, throughout Africa, rangeland invasion by exotic Prosopis trees stabilizes soils and supports new activities of fuelwood charcoal collection [17]. Based on whether they are supported by ecosystems that persist or transform under climate change, and how their benefits are realized to reduce risks to livelihoods by creating new options, AS can be recognized as five types [18] (figure 1): (i) ecological resilience properties that support the persistence of current ecosystems and their services and (ii) their latent ES whose value is revealed for social adaptation (e.g. for mitigating new risks like storm surges or flash floods); (iii) ecological properties that underpin ecosystem transformability (e.g.…”