Conceptualising, evaluating and reporting social resilience in vulnerable regional and remote communities facing climate change in tropical Queensland : marine and tropical sciences research facility transition project final report

Regional and remote communities in tropical Queensland are among Australia’s most vulnerable in the face of climate change. At the same time, these socially and economically vulnerable regions house some of Australia’s most significant biodiversity values. Past approaches to terrestrial biodiversity management have focused on tackling biophysical interventions through the use of biophysical knowledge. An equally important focus should be placed on building regional-scale community resilience if some of the worst biodiversity impacts of climate change are to be avoided or mitigated. Despite its critical need, more systemic or holistic approaches to natural resource management have been rarely trialed and tested in a structured way. Currently, most strategic interventions in improving regional community resilience are ad hoc, not theory-based and short term. Past planning approaches have not been durable, nor have they been well informed by clear indicators. Research into indicators for community resilience has been poorly integrated within adaptive planning and management cycles. This project has aimed to resolve this problem by: * Reviewing the community and social resilience and adaptive planning literature to reconceptualise an improved framework for applying community resilience concepts; * Harvesting and extending work undertaken in MTSRF Phase 1 to identifying the learnings emerging from past MTSRF research; * Distilling these findings to identify new theoretical and practical approaches to the application of community resilience in natural resource use and management; * Reconsidering the potential interplay between a region’s biophysical and social planning processes, with a focus on exploring spatial tools to communicate climate change risk and its consequent environmental, economic and social impacts, and; * Trialling new approaches to indicator development and adaptive planning to improve community resilience, using a sub-regional pilot in the Wet Tropics. In doing so, we also looked at ways to improve the use and application of relevant spatial information. Our theoretical review drew upon the community development, psychology and emergency management literature to better frame the concept of community resilience relative to aligned concepts of social resilience, vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Firstly, we consider community resilience as a concept that can be considered at a range of scales (e.g. regional, locality, communities of interest, etc.). We also consider that overall resilience at higher scales will be influenced by resilience levels at lesser scales (inclusive of the resilience of constituent institutions, families and individuals). We illustrate that, at any scale, resilience and vulnerability are not necessarily polar opposites, and that some understanding of vulnerability is important in determining resilience. We position social resilience (a concept focused on the social characteristics of communities and individuals) as an important attribute of community resilience, but one that needs to be considered alongside economic, natural resource, capacity-based and governance attributes. The findings from the review of theory and MTSRF Phase 1 projects were synthesized and refined by the wider project team. Five predominant themes were distilled from this literature, research review and an expert analysis. They include the findings that: 1. Indicators have most value within an integrated and adaptive planning context, requiring an active co-research relationship between community resilience planners, managers and researchers if real change is to be secured; 2. Indicators of community resilience form the basis for planning for social assets and the resilience of social assets is directly related the longer term resilience of natural assets. This encourages and indeed requires the explicit development and integration of social planning within a broader natural resource planning and management framework; 3. Past indicator research and application has not provided a broad picture of the key attributes of community resilience and there have been many attempts to elicit lists of “perfect” indicators that may never be useful within the time and resource limitations of real world regional planning and management. We consider that modeling resilience for proactive planning and prediction purposes requires the consideration of simple but integrated clusters of attributes; 4. Depending on time and resources available for planning and management, the combined use of well suited indicators and/or other lesser “lines of evidence” is more flexible than the pursuit of perfect indicators, and that; 5. Index-based, collaborative and participatory approaches need to be applied to the development, refinement and reporting of indicators over longer time frames. We trialed the practical application of these concepts via the establishment of a collaborative regional alliance of planners and managers involved in the development of climate change adaptation strategies across tropical Queensland (the Gulf, Wet Tropics, Cape York and Torres Strait sub-regions). A focus on the Wet Tropics as a pilot sub-region enabled other Far North Queensland sub-region’s to participate and explore the potential extension of this approach. The pilot activities included: * Further exploring ways to innovatively communicate the region’s likely climate change scenarios and possible environmental, economic and social impacts. We particularly looked at using spatial tools to overlay climate change risks to geographic communities and social vulnerabilities within those communities; * Developing a cohesive first pass of a State of the Region-style approach to reporting community resilience, inclusive of regional economic viability, community vitality, capacitybased and governance attributes. This framework integrated a literature review, expert (academic and community) and alliance-based contributions; and * Early consideration of critical strategies that need to be included in unfolding regional planning activities with Far North Queensland. The pilot assessment finds that rural, indigenous and some urban populations in the Wet Tropics are highly vulnerable and sensitive to climate change and may require substantial support to adapt and become more resilient. This assessment finds that under current conditions (i.e. if significant adaptation actions are not taken) the Wet Tropics as a whole may be seriously impacted by the most significant features of climate change and extreme climatic events. Without early and substantive action, this could result in declining social and economic wellbeing and natural resource health. Of the four attributes we consider important to understanding community resilience, the Wet Tropics region is particularly vulnerable in two areas; specifically its economic vitality and knowledge, aspirations and capacity. The third and fourth attributes, community vitality and institutional governance are relatively resilient but are vulnerable in some key respects. In regard to all four of these attributes, however, there is some emerging capacity to manage the possible shocks that may be associated with the impacts of climate change and extreme climatic events. This capacity needs to be carefully fostered and further developed to achieve broader community resilience outcomes. There is an immediate need to build individual, household, community and sectoral resilience across all four attribute groups to enable populations and communities in the Wet Tropics region to adapt in the face of climate change. Preliminary strategies of importance to improve regional community resilience have been identified. These emerging strategies also have been integrated into the emerging Regional Development Australia Roadmap, and this will ensure that effective implementation will be progressed and coordinated. They will also inform emerging strategy development to secure implementation of the FNQ 2031 Regional Plan. Of most significance in our view, this project has taken a co-research approach from the outset with explicit and direct importance and influence within the region’s formal planning and management arrangements. As such, the research: * Now forms the foundations of the first attempt at “Social Asset” planning within the Wet Tropics Regional NRM Plan review; * Is assisting Local government at regional scale to consider aspects of climate change adaptation in emerging planning scheme/community planning processes; * Has partnered the State government (via the Department of Infrastructure and Planning and Regional Managers Coordination Network Chair) in progressing the Climate Change adaptation agenda set down within the FNQ 2031 Regional Plan; * Is informing new approaches to report on community resilience within the GBRMPA Outlook reporting framework; and * Now forms the foundation for the region’s wider climate change adaptation priorities in the Regional Roadmap developed by Regional Development Australia. Through the auspices of Regional Development Australia, the outcomes of the research will now inform emerging negotiations concerning a wider package of climate change adaptation priorities with State and Federal governments. Next stage research priorities are also being developed to enable an ongoing alliance between researchers and the region’s climate change response.

Coastal development, coral reefs and marine life in Asia: Tourism's double-edged sword

A large proportion of the world's population, including those of Asian countries, live in close proximity to the coastline. Coastlines are being developed at a £aster rate than ever before and there is now a growing body of literature to show that such activities are affecting the quality of coastal ecosystems and its wildlife (see, for example, Jennings, 2004; Siler et al., 2014; Duke eta!., 2007). This in turn is impacting negatively on the fishing and the tourism industries, amongst others. Millions of people depend on these sectors for their livelihoods and, unsustainable development can only make the plight of those who rely on these resources worse. The tourism industry in the coastal regions is particularly at risk since the industry relies heavily on coastal ecosystems to attract visitors. This chapter discusses the strong links that exist between coastal development, tourism, marine ecosystems and its wildlife, drawing attention to two well-known species widely used in tourism, namely whales and sea turtles, and discussing their conservation in relation to tourism. The chapter is divided into six sections. The second section examines why it is important to strike a balance between coastal development and protecting ecosystems. In this section, we discuss the ma.ior identified causes of coastal ecosystem degradation from the published literature, and the third section focuses attention on tourism development in the Asian region, which is one of the major reasons for coastal degradation. A diagrammatic approach is used to illustrate that planning of coastal tourism development which takes into account environmental impacts could result in economic benefits to the areas and regions concerned. The negative impacts on tourism when coastal ecosystems are damaged are discussed in section four. Section five shows the economic benefits resulting from sea turtle and whale watching-based tourism in Australia, and section six examines tourism as a conservation tool. In this section, the differing experiences of sea turtle tourism in Sri Lanka and Australia are discussed based on our published work. The final section concludes.

Economic value of recreational fishing in Moreton Bay and the potential impact of the marine park rezoning

In 2009, the area of the Moreton Bay Marine Park was increased from 0.5 per cent of the Bay area to 16 per cent. During the planning process, opposition by commercial and recreational fishers alike was raised, arguing that loss of fishing grounds would lead to substantial loss in economic benefits. The commercial sector was compensated through a buyback of fishing effort, but the recreational sector received no compensation. In this paper, we develop a travel cost model to estimate the potential economic impact on the recreational sector from the marine park rezoning. The results suggest that, counter to initial claims, non-market recreational fishing benefits may have increased by between $1.3m and $2.5m a year, with a current total annual value of around $20m. Keywords: Travel cost model; Economic valuation; Moreton Bay Marine Park; Recreational fishing

Annual report 2003 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Twelfth meeting, Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 9-18, 2003

Report of Opening Session (pdf 58 KB) Report of Governing Council Meeting (pdf 244 KB) Report of 2003 interim Governing Council meeting Tenth Anniversary PICES Organization Review Report of the Finance and Administration Committee (pdf 102 KB) 2002 Auditor's report to the Organization Review of PICES Publication Program Reports of Science Board and Committees: Science Board/Governing Council interim meeting (pdf 81 KB) Science Board (pdf 95 KB) Study Group on PICES Capacity Building Biological Oceanography Committee (pdf 65 KB) Advisory Panel on Micronekton sampling gear intercalibration experiment Advisory Panel on Marine birds and mammals Fishery Science Committee (pdf 41 KB) Working Group 16 on Climate change, shifts to fish production, and fisheries management Marine Environmental Quality Committee (pdf 76 KB) Working Group 15 on Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the North Pacific Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (pdf 70 KB) Working Group 17 on Biogeochemical data integration and synthesis Advisory Panel on North Pacific Data Buoy Technical Committee on Data Exchange (pdf 32 KB) Implementation Panel on the CCCC Program (pdf 64 KB) Nemuro Experimental Planning Team (NEXT) BASS Task Team (pdf 35 KB) Advisory Panel on Iron Fertilization Experiment MODEL Task Team (pdf 29 KB) MONITOR Task Team (pdf 30KB) REX Task Team (pdf 25 KB) Documenting Scientific Sessions (pdf 164 KB) List of Participants (pdf 60 KB) List of Acronyms (pdf 21 KB)

A short survey of the environment at the dumping site for Santa Cruz Harbor dredging and A study of seaward dipping internal structures in marine ripple marks at Whaler's Cove, California. Annual report, Part 4, August 1972

(PDF contains 76 pages)

Coastal and marine protected areas in Mexico

This study on marine protected areas (MPAs) in Mexico relies on a variety of data sources as well as the authors’ longstanding field experience, particularly in the Yucatan Peninsula, to analyze the design, establishment and operation of protected areas. It discusses two case studies of MPAs in detail and summarizes the findings from four others, focusing primarily on the role played by local communities in managing coastal and marine resources. The study also draws on the perspective of key informants, namely, Mexican experts on coastal and ocean management issues, including government officials, decisionmakers, researchers, members of non governmental organizations (NGOs), and consultants. (97 pp.)

Rapid recreation assessment: a tool to assess visitor use and associated impacts at coastal and marine protected areas

As more people discover coastal and marine protected areas as destinations for leisure-time pursuits, the task of managing coastal resources while providing opportunities for high quality visitor experiences becomes more challenging. Many human impacts occur at these sites; some are caused by recreation and leisure activities on-site, and others by activities such as agriculture, aquaculture, or residential and economic development in surrounding areas. Coastal management professionals are continually looking for effective ways to prevent or mitigate negative impacts of visitor use. (PDF contains 8 pages) Most coastal and marine protected area managers are challenged with balancing two competing goals—protection of natural and cultural resources and provision of opportunities for public use. In most cases, some level of compromise between the goals is necessary, where one goal constrains or “outweighs” the other. Often there is a lack of clear agreement about the priority of these competing goals. Consequently, while natural resource decisions should ultimately be science-based and objective, such decisions are frequently made under uncertainty, relying heavily upon professional judgment. These decisions are subject to a complex array of formal and informal drivers and constraints—data availability, timing, legal mandate, political will, diverse public opinion, and physical, human, and social capital. This paper highlights assessment, monitoring, and planning approaches useful to gauge existing resource and social conditions, determine feasibility of management actions, and record decision process steps to enhance defensibility. Examples are presented from pilot efforts conducted at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) and Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in South Florida.

Coastal & Marine Issues Survey

Florida Sea Grant management and extension specialists developed a questionnaire to solicit information regarding the recipient’s county of residence, occupation, and primary coastal activities. Survey recipients were also asked to select from a list the top five marine-related topics that defined prior strategic plan themes (i.e., marine bio-technology, fisheries, aquaculture, seafood safety, coastal communities, ecosystem health, coastal hazards, and marine education). In addition, questionnaire recipients were asked to evaluate (on a scale of one to five) the importance of a series of listed outcomes that characterize priority planning themes. Last, survey recipients identified up to three priority themes and outcomes that they felt were particularly important and in need of resolution. (PDF contains 36 pages.)

Marine Debris Survey Manual

Over the last several years, concern has increased about the amount of man-made materials lost or discarded at sea and the potential impacts to the environment. The scope of the problem depends on the amounts and types of debris. One problem in making a regional comparison of debris is the lack of a standard methodology. The objective of this manual is to discuss designs and methodologies for assessment studies of marine debris. This manual has been written for managers, researchers, and others who are just entering this area of study and who seek guidance in designing marine debris surveys. Active researchers will be able to use this manual along with applicable references herein as a source for design improvement. To this end, the authors have synthesized their work and reviewed survey techniques that have been used in the past for assessing marine debris, such as sighting surveys, beach surveys, and trawl surveys, and have considered new methods (e.g., aerial photography). All techniques have been put into a general survey planning framework to assist in developing different marine debris surveys. (PDF file contains 100 pages.)

Habitat enhancing marine structures: Creating habitat in urban waters

Although maritime regions support a large portion of the world’s human population, their value as habitat for other species is overlooked. Urban structures that are built in the marine environment are not designed or managed for the habitat they provide, and are built without considering the communities of marine organisms that could colonize them (Clynick et al., 2008). However, the urban waterfront may be capable of supporting a significant proportion of regional aquatic biodiversity (Duffy-Anderson et al., 2003). While urban shorelines will never return to their original condition, some scientists think that the habitat quality of urban waterfronts could be significantly improved through further research and some design modifications, and that many opportunities exist to make these modifications (Russel et al., 1983, Goff, 2008). Habitat enhancing marine structures (or HEMS) are a potentially promising approach to address the impact of cities on marine organisms including habitat fragmentation and degradation. HEMS are a type of habitat improvement project that are ecologically engineered to improve the habitat quality of urban marine structures such as bulkheads and docks for marine organisms. More specifically, HEMS attempt to improve or enhance the physical habitat that organisms depend on for survival in the inter- and sub-tidal waterfronts of densely populated areas. HEMS projects are targeted at areas where human-made structures cannot be significantly altered or removed. While these techniques can be used in suburban or rural areas restoration or removal is preferred in these settings, and HEMS are resorted to only if removal of the human-made structure is not an option. Recent research supports the use of HEMS projects. Researchers have examined the communities found on urban structures including docks, bulkheads, and breakwaters. Complete community shifts have been observed where the natural shoreline was sandy, silty, or muddy. There is also evidence of declines in community composition, ecosystem functioning, and increases in non-native species abundances in assemblages on urban marine structures. Researchers have identified two key differences between these substrates including the slope (seawalls are vertical; rocky shores contain multiple slopes) and microhabitat availability (seawalls have very little; rocky shores contain many different types). In response, researchers have suggested designing and building seawalls with gentler slopes or a combination of horizontal and vertical surfaces. Researchers have also suggested incorporating microhabitat, including cavities designed to retain water during low tide, crevices, and other analogous features (Chapman, 2003; Moreira et al., 2006) (PDF contains 4 pages)

Non-governmental organizations and multi-sited marine conservation science: A case study

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are now major players in the realm of environmental conservation. While many environmental NGOs started as national organizations focused around single-species protection, governmental advocacy, and preservation of wilderness, the largest now produce applied conservation science and work with national and international stakeholders to develop conservation solutions that work in tandem with local aspirations. Marine managed areas (MMAs) are increasingly being used as a tool to manage anthropogenic stressors on marine resources and protect marine biodiversity. However, the science of MMA is far from complete. Conservation International (CI) is concluding a 5 year, $12.5 million dollar Marine Management Area Science (MMAS) initiative. There are 45 scientific projects recently completed, with four main “nodes” of research and conservation work: Panama, Fiji, Brazil, and Belize. Research projects have included MMA ecological monitoring, socioeconomic monitoring, cultural roles monitoring, economic valuation studies, and others. MMAS has the goals of conducting marine management area research, building local capacity, and using the results of the research to promote marine conservation policy outcomes at project sites. How science is translated into policy action is a major area of interest for science and technology scholars (Cash and Clark 2001; Haas 2004; Jasanoff et al. 2002). For science to move policy there must be work across “boundaries” (Jasanoff 1987). Boundaries are defined as the “socially constructed and negotiated borders between science and policy, between disciplines, across nations, and across multiple levels” (Cash et al. 2001). Working across the science-policy boundary requires boundary organizations (Guston 1999) with accountability to both sides of the boundary, among other attributes. (Guston 1999; Clark et al. 2002). This paper provides a unique case study illustrating how there are clear advantages to collaborative science. Through the MMAS initiative, CI built accountability into both sides of the science-policy boundary primarily through having scientific projects fed through strong in-country partners and being folded into the work of ongoing conservation processes. This collaborative, boundary-spanning approach led to many advantages, including cost sharing, increased local responsiveness and input, better local capacity building, and laying a foundation for future conservation outcomes. As such, MMAS can provide strong lessons for other organizations planning to get involved in multi-site conservation science. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Coastal resource planning system: Integrating evaluation of ecological integrity and ecosystem services valuation

Efficient and effective coastal management decisions rely on knowledge of the impact of human activities on ecosystem integrity, vulnerable species, and valued ecosystem services—collectively, human impact on environmental quality (EQ). Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an emerging approach to address the dynamics and complexities of coupled social-ecological systems. EBM “is intended to directly address the long-term sustainable delivery of ecosystem services and the resilience of marine ecosystems to perturbations” (Rosenberg and Sandifer, 2009). The lack of a tool that integrates human choices with the ecological connections between contributing watersheds and nearshore areas, and that incorporates valuation of ecosystem services, is a critical missing piece needed for effective and efficient coastal management. To address the need for an integrative tool for evaluation of human impacts on ecosystems and their services, Battelle developed the EcoVal™ Environmental Quality Evaluation System. The EcoVal system is an updated (2009) version of the EQ Evaluation System for Water Resources developed by Battelle for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Dee et al., 1972). The Battelle EQ evaluation system has a thirty-year history of providing a standard approach to evaluate watershed EQ. This paper describes the conceptual approach and methodology of the updated EcoVal system and its potential application to coastal ecosystems. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Indicators for management of coral reefs and their applications to marine protected areas

Informed planning and decision-making in the management of natural resources requires an ability to integrate complex interactions in ecosystems and communicate these effectively to stakeholders. This involves coping with three fundamental dilemmas. The first comes from the irregular pulse of nature. The second is the recognition that there are no strictly objective criteria for judging the well-being of an ecosystem. The third is posed by the quest for indicators with some integrative properties that may be used to analyze an ecosystem and impart the information to the relevant resource users. This paper presents some examples of indicators used to: 1) assess the status of a coral reef and, in particular, the state of its fisheries resources; 2) identify reefs that are most threatened by human activities; and 3) evaluate the likelihood of success of management interventions. These indicators are not exhaustive, but illustrate the range of options available for the management of coral reef ecosystems.

Indicators for management of coral reefs and their applications to marine protected areas

Informed planning and decision-making in the management of natural resources requires an ability to integrate complex interactions in ecosystems and communicate these effectively to stakeholders. This involves coping with three fundamental dilemmas. The first comes from the irregular pulse of nature. The second is the recognition that there are no strictly objective criteria for judging the “well-being” of an ecosystem. The third is posed by the quest for indicators with some integrative properties that may be used to analyze an ecosystem and impart the information to the relevant resource users. This paper presents some examples of indicators used to: 1) assess the status of a coral reef and, in particular, the state of its fisheries resources; 2) identify reefs that are most threatened by human activities; and 3) evaluate the likelihood of success of management interventions. These indicators are not exhaustive, but illustrate the range of options available for the management of coral reef ecosystems.