Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems

The sustainability of regional development can be usefully explored through several different lenses. In situations in which uncertainties and change are key features of the ecological landscape and social organization, critical factors for sustainability are resilience, the capacity to cope and adapt, and the conservation of sources of innovation and renewal. However, interventions in social-ecological systems with the aim of altering resilience immediately confront issues of governance. Who decides what should be made resilient to what? For whom is resilience to be managed, and for what purpose? In this paper we draw on the insights from a diverse set of case studies from around the world in which members of the Resilience Alliance have observed or engaged with sustainability problems at regional scales. Our central question is: How do certain attributes of governance function in society to enhance the capacity to manage resilience? Three specific propositions were explored: ( 1) participation builds trust, and deliberation leads to the shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize; ( 2) polycentric and multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action, and social-ecological contexts in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively at appropriate levels; and ( 3) accountable authorities that also pursue just distributions of benefits and involuntary risks enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole. Some support was found for parts of all three propositions. In exploring the sustainability of regional social-ecological systems, we are usually faced with a set of ecosystem goods and services that interact with a collection of users with different technologies, interests, and levels of power. In this situation in our roles as analysts, facilitators, change agents, or stakeholders, we not only need to ask: The resilience of what, to what? We must also ask: For whom?

Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems

The sustainability of regional development can be usefully explored through several different lenses. In situations in which uncertainties and change are key features of the ecological landscape and social organization, critical factors for sustainability are resilience, the capacity to cope and adapt, and the conservation of sources of innovation and renewal. However, interventions in social-ecological systems with the aim of altering resilience immediately confront issues of governance. Who decides what should be made resilient to what? For whom is resilience to be managed, and for what purpose? In this paper we draw on the insights from a diverse set of case studies from around the world in which members of the Resilience Alliance have observed or engaged with sustainability problems at regional scales. Our central question is: How do certain attributes of governance function in society to enhance the capacity to manage resilience? Three specific propositions were explored: ( 1) participation builds trust, and deliberation leads to the shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize; ( 2) polycentric and multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action, and social-ecological contexts in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively at appropriate levels; and ( 3) accountable authorities that also pursue just distributions of benefits and involuntary risks enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole. Some support was found for parts of all three propositions. In exploring the sustainability of regional social-ecological systems, we are usually faced with a set of ecosystem goods and services that interact with a collection of users with different technologies, interests, and levels of power. In this situation in our roles as analysts, facilitators, change agents, or stakeholders, we not only need to ask: The resilience of what, to what? We must also ask: For whom?

Pond-Breeding Amphibian Species Distributions in a Beaver-Modified Landscape, Acadia National Park, Mount Desert Island, Maine

In order to maintain pond-breeding amphibian species richness, it is important to understand how both natural and anthropogenic disturbances affect species assemblages and individual species distributions both at the scale of individual ponds and at a larger landscape scale. The goal of this project was to investigate what characteristics of ponds and the surrounding wetland landscape were most effective in predicting pond-breeding species richness and the individual occurrence of wood frog (Rana sylvatica), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog (Rana palustris) breeding sites in a beaver-modified landscape and how this landscape has changed over time. The wetland landscape of Acadia National Park was historically modified by the natural disturbance cycles of beaver (Castor cazadensis), and since their reintroduction to the island in 1921, beaver have played a large role in creating and maintaining palustrine wetlands. In 2000 and 2001, I studied pond-breeding amphibian assemblages at 71 palustrine wetlands in Acadia National Park, Mount Desert Island, Maine. I determined breeding presence of 7 amphibian species and quantified 15 variables describing local pond conditions and characteristics of the wetland landscape. I developed a priori models to predict sites with high amphibian species and used model selection with Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to identify important variables. Single species models were also developed to predict wood frog, bullfrog and pickerel frogs breeding presence. The variables for wetland connectivity by stream corridors and the presence of beaver disturbance were the most effective variables to predict sites with high amphibian richness. Wood frog breeding was best predicted by local scale variables describing temporary, fishless wetlands and the absence of active beaver disturbance. Abandoned beaver sites provided wood frog breeding habitat (70%) in a similar proportion to that found in non beaver-influenced sites (79%). In contrast, bullfrog breeding presence was limited to active beaver wetlands with fish and permanent water, and 80% of breeding sites were large (≥2ha in size). Pickerel frog breeding site selection was predicted best by the connectivity of sites in the landscape by stream corridors. Models including the presence of beaver disturbance, greater wetland perimeter and greater depth were included in the confidence set of pickerel frog models but showed considerably less support. Analysis of historic aerial photographs showed an 89% increase in the total number of ponded wetlands available in the landscape between the years of 1944 and 1997. Beaver colonization generally converted forested wetlands and riparian areas to open water and emergent wetlands. Temporal colonization of beaver wetlands favored large sites low in the watersheds and sites that were impounded later were generally smaller, higher in the watershed, and more likely to be abandoned. These results suggest that beaver have not only increased the number of available breeding sites in the landscape for pond-breeding amphibians, but the resulting mosaic of active and abandoned beaver wetlands also provides suitable breeding habitat for species with differing habitat requirements.