• Energy Research

AbstractAs the need to monitor and evaluate progress on climate change adaptation is increasingly recognized, practitioners may benefit from applying lessons about effective monitoring from the conservation field. This study focuses on monitoring conservation interventions that aim to foster climate change adaptation by assessing: what ways practitioners are adopting best practices from monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in conservation; what practitioners are monitoring in relation to reported outcomes; how monitoring comprehensiveness varies in practice and what factors enable more comprehensive monitoring; and practitioner views on what could improve M&E of adaptation actions. We conducted this study using a portfolio of 76 adaptation projects implemented across the United States and employed a mixed‐methods design that included document analysis, an online survey, and semi‐structured interviews. The majority (84%) of projects reported social outcomes at project completion in addition to ecological outcomes (100%), but monitoring plans focused primarily on ecological and biophysical changes. Only 21% of projects connected monitoring metrics to a theory of change linking actions to expected outcomes. Involvement of an external research partner was identified as a key factor in supporting more comprehensive monitoring efforts. Results provide applied insights for enhancing delivery of social and ecological outcomes from adaptation projects, and suggest research pathways to improve monitoring and effectiveness of climate‐informed conservation.

AbstractNovel management interventions intended to mitigate the impacts of climate change on biodiversity are increasingly being considered by scientists and practitioners. However, resistance to more transformative interventions remains common across both specialist and lay communities and is generally assumed to be strongly entrenched. We used a decision‐pathways survey of the public in Canada and the United States (n= 1490) to test two propositions relating to climate‐motivated interventions for conservation: most public groups are uncomfortable with interventionist options for conserving biodiversity and given the strong values basis for preferences regarding biodiversity and natural systems more broadly, people are unlikely to change their minds. Our pathways design tested and retested levels of comfort with interventions for forest ecosystems at three different points in the survey. Comfort was reexamined given different nudges (including new information from trusted experts) and in reference to a particular species (bristlecone pine [Pinus longaeva]). In contrast with expectations of public unease, baseline levels of public comfort with climate interventions in forests was moderately high (46% comfortable) and increased further when respondents were given new information and the opportunity to change their choice after consideration of a particular species. People who were initially comfortable with interventions tended to remain so (79%), whereas 42% of those who were initially uncomfortable and 40% of those who were uncertain shifted to comfortable by the end of the survey. In short and across questions, comfort levels with interventions were high, and where discomfort or uncertainty existed, such positions did not appear to be strongly held. We argue that a new decision logic, one based on anthropogenic responsibility, is beginning to replace a default reluctance to intervene with nature.

Effective governance of public forests depends, in part, on public support for changes in forest management, particularly those responding to changes in socio-ecological conditions driven by climate change. Trust in managing authorities and knowledge about forest management have proven influential in shaping public support for policy across different forest managemen contexts. However, little is known about the relationship between public trust and knowledge as it relates to policy support for emerging management strategies for climate adaptation in forests. We use the example of genomics-based assisted migration (within and outside of natural range) in British Columbia's (BC) forests to examine the relative roles of and interactions between trust in different forestry actors and knowledge of forestry in shaping public support for this new and potentially controversial management alternative. Our results, based on an online survey (n = 1953 BC residents), reveal low public trust in governments and the forest industry combined with low levels of public knowledge about forest management. We find that individuals who are more trusting of decision-makers and other important forestry actors hold higher levels of support for assisted migration. Higher levels of forestry knowledge are linked with support for assisted migration within native range, whereas no knowledge effect is observed for assisted migration outside of native range. We discuss the implications of these observations and provide recommendations to more fully engage with the challenges of low levels of trust and knowledge in this context.

The role of forest management in mitigating climate change is a central concern for the Canadian province of British Columbia. The successful implementation of forest management activities to achieve climate change mitigation in British Columbia will be strongly influenced by public support or opposition. While we now have increasingly clear ideas of the management opportunities associated with forest mitigation and some insight into public support for climate change mitigation in the context of sustainable forest management, very little is known with respect to the levels and basis of public support for potential forest management strategies to mitigate climate change. This paper, by describing the results of a web-based survey, documents levels of public support for the implementation of eight forest carbon mitigation strategies in British Columbia's forest sector, and examines and quantifies the influence of the factors that shape this support. Overall, respondents ascribed a high level of importance to forest carbon mitigation and supported all of the eight proposed strategies, indicating that the British Columbia public is inclined to consider alternative practices in managing forests and wood products to mitigate climate change. That said, we found differences in levels of support for the mitigation strategies. In general, we found greater levels of support for a rehabilitation strategy (e.g. reforestation of unproductive forest land), and to a lesser extent for conservation strategies (e.g. old growth conservation, reduced harvest) over enhanced forest management strategies (e.g. improved harvesting and silvicultural techniques). We also highlighted multiple variables within the British Columbia population that appear to play a role in predicting levels of support for conservation and/or enhanced forest management strategies, including environmental values, risk perception, trust in groups of actors, prioritized objectives of forest management and socio-demographic factors.

AbstractConservation practices during the first decade of the millennium predominantly focused on resisting changes and maintaining historical or current conditions, but ever-increasing impacts from climate change have highlighted the need for transformative action. However, little empirical evidence exists on what kinds of conservation actions aimed specifically at climate change adaptation are being implemented in practice, let alone how transformative these actions are. In response, we propose and trial a novel typology—the R–R–T scale, which improves on existing concepts of Resistance, Resilience, and Transformation—that enables the practical application of contested terms and the empirical assessment of whether and to what extent a shift toward transformative action is occurring. When applying the R–R–T scale to a case study of 104 adaptation projects funded since 2011, we find a trend towards transformation that varies across ecosystems. Our results reveal that perceptions about the acceptance of novel interventions in principle are beginning to be expressed in practice.

Reconnaissant les interactions et les synergies potentielles entre l'adaptation et l'atténuation dans les politiques d'utilisation des terres en général et les politiques forestières en particulier, la recherche sur la politique en matière de changement climatique s'est de plus en plus concentrée sur l'intégration simultanée des deux objectifs (ci-après « modèle d'interaction »). Cependant, bien qu'un soutien existe pour l'intégration de l'adaptation et de l'atténuation, très peu de politiques ont réussi à intégrer les deux objectifs dans la pratique (ci-après le « modèle de séparation »). En plus des modèles d'interaction et de séparation, nous introduisons le « modèle d'adaptation d'abord »- une approche de l'intégration des politiques climatiques qui centre l'adaptation au cœur de la gestion des forêts, avec l'atténuation comme un avantage parmi d'autres - et évaluons s'il caractérise plus efficacement les réalités pratiques de la gestion des forêts que les modèles de séparation ou d'interaction. En nous appuyant sur un examen des documents de politique, une enquête (n = 48) et des entretiens (n = 22) avec des gestionnaires gouvernementaux de la Colombie-Britannique (C.-B.), au Canada, nous analysons lequel des trois modèles a été utilisé pour intégrer les objectifs climatiques dans la politique forestière de la C.-B. et explorons les points de vue des gestionnaires gouvernementaux sur les relations et les compromis entre l'adaptation et l'atténuation et quel modèle devrait être prioritaire pour leur intégration dans la gestion forestière. Notre analyse des documents de politique forestière axés sur le climat indique qu'un passage possible du modèle de séparation au modèle d'interaction a lieu en Colombie-Britannique. Cependant, nos résultats indiquent également que si les gestionnaires gouvernementaux soutiennent le modèle d'interaction en principe, ils perçoivent de nombreux obstacles à l'intégration des politiques qui peuvent empêcher le passage au modèle d'interaction de se matérialiser dans la pratique. En raison des différences fondamentales perçues dans les niveaux auxquels l'adaptation et l'atténuation interviennent dans la prise de décision, les gestionnaires gouvernementaux de notre étude étaient généralement plus à l'aise avec le modèle d'adaptation d'abord, ce qui suggère finalement la nécessité de repenser la façon dont nous encadrons l'intégration du climat dans la gestion et les politiques forestières. Reconociendo las posibles interacciones y sinergias entre la adaptación y la mitigación en las políticas de uso de la tierra en general y las políticas forestales en particular, la investigación sobre políticas de cambio climático se ha centrado cada vez más en integrar ambos objetivos simultáneamente (en lo sucesivo, "modelo de interacción"). Sin embargo, si bien existe apoyo para la integración de la adaptación y la mitigación, muy pocas políticas han integrado con éxito ambos objetivos en la práctica (en lo sucesivo, "modelo de separación"). Además de los modelos de interacción y separación, presentamos el "modelo de adaptación primero", un enfoque de la integración de las políticas climáticas que centra la adaptación en el centro de la gestión forestal, con la mitigación como un beneficio entre otros, y evaluamos si caracteriza de manera más efectiva las realidades prácticas de la gestión forestal que los modelos de separación o interacción. Basándonos en una revisión de documentos de políticas, una encuesta (n = 48) y entrevistas (n = 22) con gerentes gubernamentales en Columbia Británica (BC), Canadá, analizamos cuáles de los tres modelos se han utilizado para integrar los objetivos climáticos en la política forestal de BC y exploramos las opiniones de los gerentes gubernamentales sobre las relaciones y compensaciones entre la adaptación y la mitigación y qué modelo debe priorizarse para su integración en la gestión forestal. Nuestro análisis de los documentos de política forestal centrados en el clima indica que se está produciendo un posible cambio del modelo de separación al de interacción en BC. Sin embargo, nuestros resultados también indican que, si bien los gerentes gubernamentales apoyan el modelo de interacción en principio, perciben numerosas barreras para la integración de políticas que pueden evitar que el cambio hacia el modelo de interacción se materialice en la práctica. Debido a las diferencias fundamentales percibidas en los niveles en los que la adaptación y la mitigación intervienen en la toma de decisiones, los gerentes gubernamentales en nuestro estudio generalmente se sintieron más cómodos con el modelo de adaptación primero, lo que finalmente sugiere la necesidad de repensar cómo enmarcamos la integración climática en la gestión y las políticas forestales. Recognizing the potential interactions and synergies between adaptation and mitigation in land-use policies in general and forest policies in particular, research on climate change policy has increasingly focused on integrating both objectives simultaneously (hereafter "interaction model"). However, while support exists for the integration of adaptation and mitigation, very few policies have successfully integrated both objectives in practice (hereafter "separation model"). In addition to the interaction and separation models, we introduce the "adaptation-first model"—an approach to climate policy integration that centers adaptation at the core of forest management, with mitigation as one benefit amongst others—and assess whether it more effectively characterizes the practical realities of forest management than the separation or interaction models. Drawing on a review of policy documents, a survey (n = 48) and interviews (n = 22) with government managers in British Columbia (BC), Canada, we analyze which of the three models have been used for integrating climate objectives into BC's forest policy and explore views of government managers on the relationships and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation and which model should be prioritized for their integration into forest management. Our analysis of climate-focused forest policy documents indicates that a possible shift from the separation to the interaction model is taking place in BC. However, our results also indicate that while government managers support the interaction model in principle, they perceive numerous barriers to policy integration that may prevent the shift towards the interaction model to materialize in practice. Because of the fundamental perceived differences in the levels at which adaptation and mitigation intervene in decision-making, government managers in our study were generally more comfortable with the adaptation-first model, which ultimately suggests the need to rethink how we frame climate integration into forest management and policies. إدراكًا للتفاعلات وأوجه التآزر المحتملة بين التكيف والتخفيف في سياسات استخدام الأراضي بشكل عام وسياسات الغابات بشكل خاص، ركزت الأبحاث حول سياسة تغير المناخ بشكل متزايد على دمج كلا الهدفين في وقت واحد (يشار إليه فيما يلي باسم "نموذج التفاعل "). ومع ذلك، في حين أن الدعم موجود لدمج التكيف والتخفيف، فقد نجح عدد قليل جدًا من السياسات في دمج كلا الهدفين في الممارسة العملية (يشار إليه فيما يلي باسم "نموذج الفصل "). بالإضافة إلى نماذج التفاعل والفصل، نقدم "نموذج التكيف أولاً"- وهو نهج لتكامل سياسة المناخ يركز على التكيف في صميم إدارة الغابات، مع التخفيف كفائدة واحدة من بين فوائد أخرى - وتقييم ما إذا كان يميز بشكل أكثر فعالية الحقائق العملية لإدارة الغابات من نماذج الفصل أو التفاعل. بالاعتماد على مراجعة وثائق السياسة، ومسح (العدد = 48) ومقابلات (العدد = 22) مع مديري الحكومة في كولومبيا البريطانية (BC)، كندا، نقوم بتحليل أي من النماذج الثلاثة التي تم استخدامها لدمج الأهداف المناخية في سياسة الغابات في كولومبيا البريطانية واستكشاف وجهات نظر مديري الحكومة حول العلاقات والمفاضلات بين التكيف والتخفيف وأي نموذج يجب منحه الأولوية لدمجها في إدارة الغابات. يشير تحليلنا لوثائق سياسات الغابات التي تركز على المناخ إلى حدوث تحول محتمل من نموذج الانفصال إلى نموذج التفاعل في كولومبيا البريطانية. ومع ذلك، تشير نتائجنا أيضًا إلى أنه في حين يدعم المديرون الحكوميون نموذج التفاعل من حيث المبدأ، فإنهم يرون العديد من الحواجز التي تحول دون تكامل السياسات والتي قد تمنع التحول نحو نموذج التفاعل ليتجسد في الممارسة العملية. نظرًا للاختلافات الأساسية المتصورة في المستويات التي يتدخل فيها التكيف والتخفيف في صنع القرار، كان المديرون الحكوميون في دراستنا أكثر ارتياحًا بشكل عام للنموذج الأول للتكيف، مما يشير في النهاية إلى الحاجة إلى إعادة التفكير في كيفية تأطير دمج المناخ في إدارة الغابات وسياساتها.