Daniel R. Williams, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Carina Wyborn and Laurie Yung, University of Montana

Daniel J. Murphy, University of Cincinnati

Iterative Scenario-Building to

Understand Social-Ecological

Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in

Rural Communities

Presentation Overview

Geographic and sectored scope of vulnerability/

adaptation research in the north central region.

Primary climate-related research questions or focus.

Approach/frameworks/methods/tools we are using in

this research.

Initial impressions of pros/cons and lessons learned

from approach.

Forest Service Social Vulnerability

Research Initiative (April 2013)

• Scope: National in Theory; Case based in

Practice (MT; CO)

• Focus: Forest Service Research Leadership

sought coordination across FS Research

stations to:

– Develop framework(s) to identify

populations most vulnerable to climate

change impacts

– Assess social vulnerability indices that

can be applied at multiple scales

– Examine resources, tools, and

strategies to improve adaptive capacity

of socially vulnerable populations

National Approach: Problem

Assessment Workshop (Nov. 2011)

Discussed State of Knowledge

Literature Review

Identified three tasks going forward:

Advance State of Knowledge:

improve assessment protocols

bring community perspectives into

research

Integrate social and ecological

perspectives

Science application: NF

Scorecard

Vulnerability case studies

Communications, Outreach &

Coordination

Vulnerability Research Frameworks

Framework Focus Goal Concepts Pros Cons

Outcome

Oriented

Impacts of

objective

threats on

discrete

exposure units

Demonstrate

causal relation

between hazard

and loss

Not applicable Targeted,

narrow,

discrete

variables

Existing data

Misses social

& political

dynamics

Context-

Oriented

Spatial and

temporal

scales that

produce

constraints and

opportunities

Demonstrate the

complexity of

vulnerability and

adaptation

Political economy

(institutions etc)

Moral economy

(values etc.)

Better reflects

reality

Broader vision

of drivers of

change

Lack of agency

Lack of

scalability

Overly specific

Systems-

Oriented

Exposure and

resilience of

relationships

that make up

systems

Identify

functional

relationships and

dynamic

response to

change

Coupled human-

natural systems with

feedback & links

Resilience (averting

change) Thresholds

(transformative

Change)

Focuses on

relationships

Concerned

with

transformative

change

Too abstract

Terms

undefined

Actor-

Oriented

Exposure Units

and courses of

action

Identify

constraints and

opportunities for

specific actors &

decisions

Rational choice

focused on decision

making

Relational approach

focuses on context

(see context

Combines

context and

outcome

orientation

More Scalable,

flexible

Overly specific

Misses

structural

dynamics

Outcome vs. Contextual Vulnerability

O‟Brien et al. 2009

Research Design and Methods

Dose-Response(outcome)

Indices & Indicators(outcome)

Mapping(outcome)

Agent-Based Modeling(outcome, actor & systems)

Scenario Building (outcome & context)

Case Study(actor, context, systems)

Elements Vulnerability assessed with quantitatively measured impacts

Create index weighted using expert knowledge

Spatial analysis of quantitative data (e.g. proximity to hazards & distribution of losses)

Simulation of adaptation by exposure units using simple behavioral rules

Climate change models used to generate “what if”scenarios

Empirically trace out drivers and social processes based on field observation

Pros Targeted, simple, cost effective

Good for targeting efforts. Scalable, data availability, cost effective

Visual, spatial facilitates targeting

Can be predictive, cost effective, and capture complexity

Participatory, helps community work through problems

Highly detailed, complex

Cons Extrapolation from past events, ignores social dynamics

Serious measurement issues, questionable assumptions

Limited analysis, mostly data presentation technique

Accuracy unknown, scale issues

Highly specific, scenarios may be inaccurate

High cost

Site and/or case specific

Research Designs & Methodologies

(Re)conceptualizing Vulnerability

Rich body of social science research on social side of

vulnerability (e.g., hazards, political ecology)

From the “event” orientation of the hazards approach

toward a model of ongoing change

From vulnerability as inherent to certain groups (e.g.

poor populations, racial minorities, etc.) to vulnerability

as emerging from a specific context

From envisioning human communities as passive

victims to understanding them as active agents

Approach: Comparative

Case Studies

Big Hole Valley, MT

Grand County, CO

Wayne National Forest, OH

Gudbrandsdal Valley, Norway

Others? (some in NC Region)

Multi-scaled Iterative Scenario

Building Approach

Landscape/community case studies

to understand vulnerability and

adaptive capacity in context

Scenarios to address uncertainty

20-year time horizon to provide a

timeframe workable for planning

Multi-scaled, iterative

scenario-building (MISB)

Combines Methodological

Elements from various models:

Dose-response

Scenarios

Agent-based modeling

Case studies

Participatory methods

Initial Scenarios

Team of natural scientists utilized historic

information, downscaled models, and current trends and

conditions to produce scenarios of possible futures for the

Upper Big Hole

Big Hole Scenarios (looking approx. 20 years out)

“Some like it hot”

Severe drought with low late summer flows

“The seasons, they are a‟ changin‟”

Shorter, milder winters, higher precipitation in a variety of forms

“Feast or famine”

Marked variability, including some years with warm winders and

deep drought years and some years with long, cold winters and

cool summers

Collecting and Analyzing

Social Data

Interviews and focus groups with ranchers, small

business-owners, fishing and hunting

outfitters, and agency and NGO staff.

Scenarios used to engage study participants in

thinking about possible futures, and the specific

vulnerabilities generated by those futures.

Also used to understand potential responses

(e.g. adaptive actions) as well as existing and

required capacities.

The Iterative Process

Scenarios then rewritten to integrate likely responses to possible futures and their ecological consequences.

New scenarios used to engage focus groups to examine and evaluate possible responses, obstacles to effective adaptation, and the capacities needed in the future.

A final focus group looked at a community and landscape scale to consider how people and agencies might work together to respond to change.

Research design

Big Hole, MT: Water, Hay and

the Price of Beef Scenario 1 – Ranchers

with junior rights most

vulnerable

Scenario 2 – Increased

water storage capacity

to weather late summer

drought

Scenario 3 – Difficult to

sustain hay production

due to uncertainties; too

variable to plan for

* Big Hole Valley

Grand County, CO

High amenity landscape –

summer and winter

recreation

Diverse land tenures; high

2nd home ownership

„epicentre‟ of MPB outbreak

water diversions

Challenges to conceptualizing

“adaptation”

Water diversions trump CC

“we‟ll just adapt”

Lots of existing actions that

could be classified as

adaptation but are being done

for other economic

Lessons: Pros

Engages climate “skeptics” in thinking about and

planning for adaptation

Inspires adaptation planning (thinking ahead) even

in the context of uncertainty

Captures tensions between different groups and

different adaptation paths

Shifts focus from past vulnerabilities to future

vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities, in context

Lessons: Challenges

Impacts to human communities were considered quite

bleak.

Year to year variability (scenario 3) was especially

difficult to adapt to.

Need to figure out how to move the scenario exercises

into real planning and decision-making.

Thanks

Daniel R. Williams240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, Colorado

80526 USA

US Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

drwiliams@fs.fed.us

www.fs.fed.us/rm/human-dimensions