Operationalizing vulnerability for social–ecological integration in conservation and natural resource management

Abstract

Sustaining human well‐being is intimately linked to maintaining productive and healthy ecosystems. Avoiding trade‐offs and fostering co‐benefits is however challenging. Here, we present an operational approach that integrates biodiversity conservation, human development, and natural resource management by (1) examining resource and resource user interactions through the lens of social–ecological vulnerability (i.e., encompassing exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity); (2) identifying “ecocentric” and “sociocentric” interventions that directly address the ecological or social sources of vulnerability; (3) prioritizing those expected to yield co‐benefits and minimize trade‐offs; and (4) selecting interventions that are best suited to the broader local context. Application of this approach to a coral reef fishery in French Polynesia recommended a portfolio of development‐, livelihood‐, and ecosystem‐based interventions, thus suggesting a shift from the current resource‐focused approach toward a more social–ecological perspective. Our vulnerability‐based approach provides practitioners with a valuable tool for broadening their set of management options, leading to escape from panacea traps.

A Roadmap for Using the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development in Support of Science, Policy, and Action

“…9 Solutions need to be adapted to local and regional ecological, economic, and sociocultural contexts, including regulatory frameworks and political realities, where policy and management actions take place. Effective solutions should support the integration of human and natural systems 13,14 and recognize and manage social-ecological tradeoffs. 15 New sets of indicators should be developed to monitor the success of the different strategies scaling up from local to global scales.…”

Harnessing the potential of vulnerability assessments for managing social-ecological systems

“…An array of strategies to address each dimension contributing to vulnerability has been identified. These are generally derived from the applied research literature and "translated" in the language of vulnerability (Thiault et al 2020). For example, in their vulnerability assessment of fishing communities to the impacts of climate change, Cinner et al (2012) have proposed interventions focusing on strengthening community groups and investing in strong local institutions to build social adaptive capacity, both of which are directly derived from Ostrom's and colleagues' work on commons and fisheries applications (Ostrom 2009, Basurto et al 2013).…”

“…Failure to transparently share information precludes a full understanding of what has been done for people not directly involved in the process. Although decisions are rarely derived solely on the basis of vulnerability assessment, the process and products of the assessments often provide the foundations for discussions in arenas where multiple knowledge sources compete in supporting a decision (Claudet et al 2020).…”

“…Vulnerability assessments are especially helpful for identifying vulnerable components or places within the SES (vulnerability "hotspots") as a basis for better understanding of structural deficiencies (vulnerability "sources") and for informing management prioritization and design (Cinner et al 2013a, b, Foden et al 2013, Maina et al 2016, Smith et al 2016, Thiault et al 2018a). As a result, they can help establish management and planning priorities (Aretano et al 2015, Mora et al 2015, Thiault et al 2018a, Bourgoin et al 2020, Lapola et al 2020, assist in informing and designing management strategies and interventions (Cinner et al 2012, Humphries et al 2019, Thiault et al 2020, set a baseline and assess change (Fawcett et al 2017, Thiault et al 2018b, inform sectoral programming Huq 2009, Cinner et al 2012), or conduct scenario analysis (Hallegatte et al 2011). Vulnerability assessments are also increasingly used as a common framework or tool for resiliencebased management and adaptation policy (Anthony et al 2015, Mcleod et al 2019.…”

Editorial: Advancing a Cross Boundary Social Science of Trust in Natural Resource Management

“…The diversity of actors, levels, and domains in NRM creates a considerable variety of potentially salient vulnerabilities that range from rude treatment in horizontal relationships between individuals to landowners' loss of autonomy in service of state agency action driven by federal laws like the Endangered Species Act. Understanding the vulnerabilities that are valued in any given NRM relationship, and how they vary across situations and contexts, is critical and research has started to shed some light on these concerns at both the macro (e.g., Thiault et al, 2020) and micro level (e.g., Winter and Palucki, 1999;Walpole and Wilson, 2021). Hamm et al add to the body of work addressing the micro level via interviews in southwestern Uganda that highlighted the potential for injury when water management committees mismanage community funds.…”