• Energy Research

AbstractClimate change is expected to profoundly affect key food production sectors, including fisheries and agriculture. However, the potential impacts of climate change on these sectors are rarely considered jointly, especially below national scales, which can mask substantial variability in how communities will be affected. Here, we combine socioeconomic surveys of 3,008 households and intersectoral multi-model simulation outputs to conduct a sub-national analysis of the potential impacts of climate change on fisheries and agriculture in 72 coastal communities across five Indo-Pacific countries (Indonesia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, and Tanzania). Our study reveals three key findings: First, overall potential losses to fisheries are higher than potential losses to agriculture. Second, while most locations (> 2/3) will experience potential losses to both fisheries and agriculture simultaneously, climate change mitigation could reduce the proportion of places facing that double burden. Third, potential impacts are more likely in communities with lower socioeconomic status.

Stakeholders have different educational backgrounds, personal experiences and priorities that contribute to different perceptions about what causes natural resource decline and how to sustain a resource. Yet stakeholders have a common interest, which is to keep the resource of interest from declining. Effective co-management requires sharing of perceptions pertaining to the sustainability of a resource and making decisions that benefit all stakeholders. Therefore, this study used modified causal networks, referred to here as mental models, to elicit and compare stakeholder perceptions about fish decline in the Danajon Bank, Philippines. Perceptions were elicited from three types of stakeholders, each composed of two or three elicitation groups: fishers, local government and environmental organizations. Data were also elicited through semi-structured discussions to investigate why perceptions differed and how stakeholders communicated with one another. Hierarchical clustering revealed two broad clusters of similar perceptions about drivers of fish decline: one being environmental groups and the second being local government and fisher groups. Stakeholder communication patterns revealed that communication was weakest between environmental groups and fishers. A likely contributing factor for the lack of shared perceptions was that knowledge-sharing was constrained by the small number of environmental personnel available to exchange information effectively with the much larger number of fishers and local government personnel. To better co-manage fish populations in Danajon Bank, we suggest modifications to the governance framework to improve knowledge-sharing and social and ecological outcomes.

Significance Marine reserves that prohibit fishing are a critical tool for sustaining coral reef ecosystems, yet it remains unclear how human impacts in surrounding areas affect the capacity of marine reserves to deliver key conservation benefits. Our global study found that only marine reserves in areas of low human impact consistently sustained top predators. Fish biomass inside marine reserves declined along a gradient of human impacts in surrounding areas; however, reserves located where human impacts are moderate had the greatest difference in fish biomass compared with openly fished areas. Reserves in low human-impact areas are required for sustaining ecological functions like high-order predation, but reserves in high-impact areas can provide substantial conservation gains in fish biomass.

Coastal communities are on the frontlines of three accelerating global change drivers, climate change, blue growth, and the expansion of area-based conservation, leading to a “triple exposure” scenario. Despite efforts to maximize social benefits from climate, development, and conservation, externally driven processes can converge to amplify vulnerabilities and inequalities. Pre-existing social injustices increase the sensitivity of affected individuals to change and limit their capacity to adapt or benefit from the interacting impacts of triple exposure. We argue that external implementors cannot effectively and equitably achieve climate, economic, and conservation goals without prioritizing social justice and building general resilience. We therefore recommend that implementors: (1) address root causes of vulnerability, namely pre-existing social injustices; (2) use participatory systems approaches to improve understanding of local contexts and potential consequences of proposed initiatives; and (3) leverage inclusive partnerships to facilitate collaborative design and implementation. These strategies—applied together and adapted to local contexts—can support well-being, justice, and resilience within coastal communities experiencing rapid change.

Los mecanismos de acceso pueden determinar los beneficios que las personas obtienen de un suministro de servicios ecosistémicos determinado. Sin embargo, en comparación con la disponibilidad de servicios ecosistémicos, el acceso ha recibido poca atención de la investigación. La importancia relativa de la disponibilidad en comparación con el acceso para limitar los beneficios de los servicios ecosistémicos es aún menos conocida. En las ciudades, la desconexión observada entre las personas y la naturaleza podría resultar en parte de los cambios en la disponibilidad y el acceso a los servicios ecosistémicos en comparación con las áreas rurales. Para abordar estas brechas de investigación, comparamos las limitaciones percibidas en los beneficios del bienestar de los servicios ecosistémicos en las zonas urbanas y rurales de las Islas Salomón. Predijimos que más personas reportarían estar limitadas en los beneficios de los servicios ecosistémicos en las zonas urbanas que en las rurales. A partir de los datos de 200 encuestados, encontramos que más habitantes urbanos informaron estar limitados tanto en la disponibilidad como en el acceso a los beneficios que derivaban de los servicios ecosistémicos. Los factores de disponibilidad fueron las limitaciones percibidas con mayor frecuencia, aunque el acceso desempeñó un papel importante tanto para el aprovisionamiento como para los servicios culturales. En las zonas urbanas, las personas más pobres, las mujeres y las personas mayores identificaron las mayores limitaciones. Los hallazgos muestran la importancia de investigar tanto disponibilidad y acceso a los servicios ecosistémicos para gestionar el medio ambiente de una manera que sostenga o aumente los beneficios para las personas. Les mécanismes d'accès peuvent déterminer les avantages que les gens tirent d'une offre de services écosystémiques donnée. Cependant, par rapport à la disponibilité des services écosystémiques, l'accès a reçu peu d'attention de la part de la recherche. L'importance relative de la disponibilité par rapport à l'accès pour limiter les avantages des services écosystémiques est encore moins bien comprise. Dans les villes, la déconnexion observée entre les gens et la nature pourrait résulter en partie des changements dans la disponibilité et l'accès aux services écosystémiques par rapport aux zones rurales. Pour combler ces lacunes de la recherche, nous avons comparé les limites perçues des avantages pour le bien-être des services écosystémiques dans les zones urbaines et rurales des Îles Salomon.Nous avons prédit que davantage de personnes déclareraient être limitées dans les avantages des services écosystémiques dans les zones urbaines que dans les zones rurales.D' après les données de 200 répondants, nous avons constaté que davantage de citadins ont déclaré être limités à la fois dans la disponibilité et l'accès aux avantages qu'ils tiraient des services écosystémiques.Les facteurs de disponibilité étaient les limites les plus fréquemment perçues, bien que l'accès ait joué un rôle important à la fois pour l'approvisionnement et les services culturels.Dans les zones urbaines, les personnes les plus pauvres, les femmes et les personnes âgées ont identifié les plus limites.Les conclusions montrent l'importance d'enquêter à la fois disponibilité des services écosystémiques et accès pour gérer l'environnement d'une manière qui soutient ou augmente les avantages pour les personnes. Access mechanisms can determine the benefits that people derive from a given ecosystem service supply.However, compared to ecosystem service availability, access has received little research attention.The relative importance of availability compared to access in limiting ecosystem service benefits is even less well understood.In cities, the observed disconnect between people and nature might result in part from changes in ecosystem service availability and access compared to rural areas.To address these research gaps, we compared perceived limitations to ecosystem service well-being benefits in urban and rural areas in the Solomon Islands.We predicted that more people would report being limited in ecosystem service benefits in urban than rural areas.Drawing on data from 200 respondents, we found that more urban dwellers reported being limited in both availability and access to the benefits that they derived from ecosystem services.Availability factors were the most frequently perceived limitations, although access played an important role for both provisioning and cultural services.In urban areas, poorer people, women, and older people identified the most limitations.Findings show the importance of investigating both ecosystem service availability and access to manage the environment in a way that sustains or increases benefits to people. يمكن لآليات الوصول أن تحدد الفوائد التي يجنيها الناس من عرض معين لخدمات النظام الإيكولوجي. ومع ذلك، مقارنة بتوافر خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي، لم يحظ الوصول باهتمام بحثي يذكر. والأهمية النسبية للتوافر مقارنة بالوصول في الحد من فوائد خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي أقل فهمًا. في المدن، قد ينتج الانفصال الملحوظ بين الناس والطبيعة جزئيًا عن التغيرات في توافر خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي والوصول إليها مقارنة بالمناطق الريفية. لمعالجة هذه الفجوات البحثية، قارنا القيود المتصورة على فوائد رفاهية خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي في المناطق الحضرية والريفية في جزر سليمان. توقعنا أن المزيد من الناس سيبلغون عن محدودية فوائد خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي في المناطق الحضرية أكثر من المناطق الريفية. وبالاعتماد على بيانات من 200 مستجيب، وجدنا أن المزيد من سكان المناطق الحضرية أفادوا بأنهم محدودون في كل من التوافر والوصول إلى الفوائد التي استمدوها من خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي. كانت عوامل التوافر هي القيود الأكثر شيوعًا، على الرغم من أن الوصول لعب دورًا مهمًا في كل من توفير الخدمات والخدمات الثقافية. في المناطق الحضرية، حدد الفقراء والنساء وكبار السن معظم القيود. تظهر النتائج أهمية التحقيق في كل من توافر خدمات النظام الإيكولوجي والوصول إلى إدارة البيئة بطريقة تحافظ على الفوائد التي تعود على الناس أو تزيد منها.

Without drastic efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate globalized stressors, tropical coral reefs are in jeopardy. Strategic conservation and management requires identification of the environmental and socioeconomic factors driving the persistence of scleractinian coral assemblages—the foundation species of coral reef ecosystems. Here, we compiled coral abundance data from 2,584 Indo-Pacific reefs to evaluate the influence of 21 climate, social and environmental drivers on the ecology of reef coral assemblages. Higher abundances of framework-building corals were typically associated with: weaker thermal disturbances and longer intervals for potential recovery; slower human population growth; reduced access by human settlements and markets; and less nearby agriculture. We therefore propose a framework of three management strategies (protect, recover or transform) by considering: (1) if reefs were above or below a proposed threshold of >10% cover of the coral taxa important for structural complexity and carbonate production; and (2) reef exposure to severe thermal stress during the 2014–2017 global coral bleaching event. Our findings can guide urgent management efforts for coral reefs, by identifying key threats across multiple scales and strategic policy priorities that might sustain a network of functioning reefs in the Indo-Pacific to avoid ecosystem collapse.