Letting the managers manage: analyzing capacity to conserve biodiversity in a cross-border protected area network

Biodiversity loss is one of the most significant drivers of ecosystem change and is projected to continue at a rapid rate. While protected areas, such as national parks, are seen as important refuges for biodiversity, their effectiveness in stemming biodiversity decline has been questioned. Public agencies have a critical role in the governance of many such areas, but there are tensions between the need for these agencies to be more “adaptive” and their current operating environment. Our aim is to analyze how institutions enable or constrain capacity to conserve biodiversity in a globally significant cross-border network of protected areas, the Australian Alps. Using a novel conceptual framework for diagnosing biodiversity institutions, our research examined institutional adaptive capacity and more general capacity for conserving biodiversity. Several intertwined issues limit public agencies’ capacity to fulfill their conservation responsibilities. Narrowly defined accountability measures constrain adaptive capacity and divert attention away from addressing key biodiversity outcomes. Implications for learning were also evident, with protected area agencies demonstrating successful learning for on-ground issues but less success in applying this learning to deeper policy change. Poor capacity to buffer political and community influences in managing significant cross-border drivers of biodiversity decline signals poor fit with the institutional context and has implications for functional fit. While cooperative federalism provides potential benefits for buffering through diversity, it also means protected area agencies have restricted authority to address cross-border threats. Restrictions on staff authority and discretion, as public servants, have further implications for deploying capacity. This analysis, particularly the possibility of fostering “ambidexterity”—creatively responding to political pressures in a way that also achieves a desirable outcome for biodiversity conservation—is one promising way of building capacity to buffer both political influences and ecological pressures. The findings and the supporting analysis provide insight into how institutional capacity to conserve biodiversity can be enhanced in protected areas in Australia and elsewhere, especially those governed by public agencies and/or multiple organizations and across jurisdictions.

Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: social norms and community reciprocity

Invasive species (IS) threaten biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. To achieve landscape-scale reductions in IS and the associated gains for biodiversity, IS control efforts must be expanded across private lands. Enhancing IS control across private lands requires an understanding of the factors that motivate residents to engage or prohibit residents from engaging in efforts to control IS. Drawing from the collective interest model and literature, we sought to understand how a wide range of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and contextual factors might influence resident action around combating the invasive tree albizia (Falcataria moluccana), in the Puna District of Hawaiʻi. To do so, we used a cross-sectional survey of 243 residents and elastic net regression techniques. We found that residents’ actions related to IS control were related to their perceptions of social norms and community reciprocity regarding albizia control, as well as their knowledge of effective control strategies and their risk perceptions regarding albizia. These findings suggest that, although common intervention approaches that focus on providing education or subsidies are important, they may be more effective at reducing the spread of IS if coupled with approaches that build community reciprocity and norms.

“I know, therefore I adapt?” Complexities of individual adaptation to climate-induced forest dieback in Alaska

Individual actions to avoid, benefit from, or cope with climate change impacts partly shape adaptation; much research on adaptation has focused at the systems level, overlooking drivers of individual responses. Theoretical frameworks and empirical studies of environmental behavior identify a complex web of cognitive, affective, and evaluative factors that motivate stewardship. We explore the relationship between knowledge of, and adaptation to, widespread, climate-induced tree mortality to understand the cognitive (i.e., knowledge and learning), affective (i.e., attitudes and place attachment), and evaluative (i.e., use values) factors that influence how individuals respond to climate-change impacts. From 43 semistructured interviews with forest managers and users in a temperate forest, we identified distinct responses to local, climate-induced environmental changes that we then categorized as either behavioral or psychological adaptations. Interviewees developed a depth of knowledge about the dieback through a combination of direct, place-based experiences and indirect, mediated learning through social interactions. Knowing that the dieback was associated with climate change led to different adaptive responses among the interviewees, although knowledge alone did not explain this variation. Forest users reported psychological adaptations to process negative attitudes; these adaptations were spurred by knowledge of the causes, losses of intangible values, and impacts to a species to which they held attachment. Behavioral adaptations exclusive to a high level of knowledge included actions such as using the forests to educate others or changing transportation behaviors to reduce personal energy consumption. Managers integrated awareness of the dieback and its dynamics across spatial scales into current management objectives. Our findings suggest that adaptive management may occur from the bottom up, as individual managers implement new practices in advance of policies. As knowledge of climate-change impacts in local environments increases, resource users may benefit from programs and educational interventions that facilitate coping strategies.

The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature

The governance of climate adaptation involves the collective efforts of multiple societal actors to address problems, or to reap the benefits, associated with impacts of climate change. Governing involves the creation of institutions, rules and organizations, and the selection of normative principles to guide problem solution and institution building. We argue that actors involved in governing climate change adaptation, as climate change governance regimes evolve, inevitably must engage in making choices, for instance on problem definitions, jurisdictional levels, on modes of governance and policy instruments, and on the timing of interventions. Yet little is known about how and why these choices are made in practice, and how such choices affect the outcomes of our efforts to govern adaptation. In this introduction we review the current state of evidence and the specific contribution of the articles published in this Special Feature, which are aimed at bringing greater clarity in these matters, and thereby informing both governance theory and practice. Collectively, the contributing papers suggest that the way issues are defined has important consequences for the support for governance interventions, and their effectiveness. The articles suggest that currently the emphasis in adaptation governance is on the local and regional levels, while underscoring the benefits of interventions and governance at higher jurisdictional levels in terms of visioning and scaling-up effective approaches. The articles suggest that there is a central role of government agencies in leading governance interventions to address spillover effects, to provide public goods, and to promote the long-term perspectives for planning. They highlight the issue of justice in the governance of adaptation showing how governance measures have wide distributional consequences, including the potential to amplify existing inequalities, access to resources, or generating new injustices through distribution of risks. For several of these findings, future research directions are suggested.