Climate change collaboration among natural resource ...

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.876392

Climate change collaboration among natural resource management agencies: lessons learned from two US regions Christopher James Lemieuxa*, Jessica Thompsonb, D. Scott Slocombea and Rudy Schusterc

Downloaded by [Wilfrid Laurier University] at 06:28 27 February 2014

a

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave W., Waterloo, Ontario, N2L3C5 Canada; bCommunication and Performance Studies, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, USA; cUS Geological Survey, Fort Collins, USA (Received 31 March 2013; final version received 12 December 2013) It has been argued that regional collaboration can facilitate adaptation to climate change impacts through integrated planning and management. In an attempt to understand the underlying institutional factors that either support or contest this assumption, this paper explores the institutional factors influencing adaptation to climate change at the regional scale, where multiple public land and natural resource management jurisdictions are involved. Insights from two mid-western US case studies reveal that several challenges to collaboration persist and prevent fully integrative multi-jurisdictional adaptation planning at a regional scale. We propose that some of these challenges, such as lack of adequate time, funding and communication channels, be reframed as opportunities to build interdependence, identify issue-linkages and collaboratively explore the nature and extent of organisational trade-offs with respect to regional climate change adaptation efforts. Such a reframing can better facilitate multi-jurisdictional adaptation planning and management of shared biophysical resources generally while simultaneously enhancing organisational capacity to mitigate negative effects and take advantage of potentially favourable future conditions in an era characterised by rapid climate change. Keywords: climate change; adaptation; collaboration; transboundary; natural resources; management; policy; planning; adaptive capacity; mainstreaming

1. Introduction Interest in climate change adaptation planning among United States (US) land and resource management organisations has proliferated in recent years (Raymond, Peterson, and Rochefort 2013). This interest has emerged out of increased recognition of observed climate change impacts (e.g. impacts on physical, biological and socio-economic systems, e.g. US Climate Change Science Program 2008; Baron et al. 2009; Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009; National Climate Assessment 2009); the fact that climate change will continue over the twenty-first century and beyond despite immediate or near-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Gillett et al. 2011); and the recognition that proactive adaptation will be more effective and cost-efficient in eliminating or reducing the potential for irreversible impacts and in exploiting potential benefits, than ‘one-off’ reactive responses (Burton et al. 2002). Most importantly, it is now widely acknowledged that US land and resource agencies will need to be adaptive in order to meet their *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne


2

C.J. Lemieux et al.

respective mandates (Baron et al. 2009; Joyce et al. 2009; West et al. 2009; Raymond, Peterson, and Rochefort 2013). Adaptation to climate change involves thinking, decisions and actions to mitigate negative impacts or take advantage of new opportunities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Despite increased interest in climate risks to natural systems, and the identification of a suite of adaptation options for US federal land and natural resources management (e.g. Baron et al. 2009; Joyce et al. 2009; West et al. 2009) and development of several high-order agency strategies for dealing with climate change (e.g. US National Park Service 2010; US Fish and Wildlife Service 2010; US Forest Service 2011), place-specific vulnerability and adaptation research on multi-jurisdictional management of natural resources is limited, and model adaptation planning processes are not currently well known among practitioners (National Research Council 2010a, 2010b; Moser and Ekstrom 2011). Further, independent audits of a number of federal resource management agencies in the US have consistently identified a low adaptive capacity1 to manage for climate change, and adaptation efforts have not been coordinated across government (Government Accountability Office 2007, 2009, 2011). For example, recent studies by Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas (2010), Archie et al. (2012) and Lemieux et al. (2013) revealed that adaptation efforts within a number of US federal land and natural resource management agencies were stifled due to lack of resources (both human and financial), leadership and scientific capacity and unclear mandates. The effects of climate change present land and natural resource managers with a suite of novel, complex, multi-scale and multi-jurisdictional issues that have been examined only minimally. Indeed, the mismatch between ecological systems, climate change impacts (a global problem with both regional and local impacts), and potential management actions represents a quintessential example of a ‘problem of fit’, where the authority or jurisdiction of the management institution is not coterminous with the problem (Cash et al. 2006; Galaz et al. 2008). In an era of rapid climate change, land and natural resource managers will need to be increasingly cognisant that while some adaptation efforts may be effective in reducing the impacts of climate change or enhancing opportunities in one location or time period, it may also very well increase pressures elsewhere, or lessen the abilities of others to adapt to climate change (see Adger, Arnell, and Tompkins 2005). For example, assisted migration (also referred to as assisted colonisation or translocation) of a valued species vulnerable to climate change may result in unintended effects on host ecosystems within another organisation’s jurisdictional boundaries (see, for example, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008). Compounding these challenges, climate change is characterised by a great deal of uncertainty (Yohe, Andronova, and Schlesinger 2004; Tebaldi et al. 2005; Millar, Stephenson, and Stephens 2007), and substantial institutional inertia and conflict is expected in the future as organisations begin addressing the many complex and novel climate change-induced management challenges (see, for examples, Yoffe, Wolf, and Giordano 2003; Zeitoun and Warner; 2006; De Stefano et al. 2012). As Adger, Arnell and Tompkins (2005) and others (de Lo€e and Kreutzwiser 2000) have emphasised, the integration of adaptation actions and policies across sectors remains a key challenge to effective adaptation in practice, and the distributional inequities of benefits and costs within specific resource use sectors and across various geographic scales will challenge the successful implementation of certain adaptation options. It has been argued that achieving complex natural resource management goals in an era characterised by climate and other sources of change will only be achieved through regional interagency cooperation (Danby and Slocombe 2002; Joyce et al. 2009; Quinn,


Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

3

Broberg, and Freimund 2012; Raymond, Peterson, and Rochefort 2013). It has been argued that the inclusion of multiple stakeholders increases the acceptance of decisions and thus improves compliance and implementation on the ground (Macnaghten and Jacobs 1997; Schenk, Hunziker, and Kienast 2007; Grant and Quinn 2007). Furthermore, adaptive strategies, plans and actions related to long-term species migration shifts, endangered species survival (including the implementation of active management options such as assisted migration, noted above), increased frequency and magnitude of forest fires and pest and disease outbreaks, and other related climate change impacts, will require agencies to work together to coordinate areas of shared responsibility, to enhance organisational capacity, and to prevent the escalation of conflict. In addition, the series of crises that agencies will be dealing with on an ad hoc basis (e.g. the effects of increasing extreme weather events) will place even more emphasis and resources on immediate ‘damage control’ and less on long-term planning and adaptation (Dow et al. 2013). Based on these prerequisites, participatory and collaborative forms of governance are expected to lead to more effective improvements in environmental quality (Newig 2007; Dietz and Stern 2008; Quinn, Broberg, and Freimund 2012; Plummer, Armitage, and de Lo€e 2013). The limited literature on natural resources management and climate change supports this hypothesis generally, albeit on ambiguous empirical grounds (Newig and Fritsch 2009). Given this, and the fact that differing land uses (and associated policies and management objectives) within regions may significantly affect the ability of agencies to achieve their respective mandates, the pragmatic realities of climate change adaptation processes, including the dynamic aspects of complex regional systems and the nature of cross-jurisdictional relationships, requires more systematic and empirical examination. In an effort to advance multi-jurisdictional climate change adaptation planning efforts in the land and natural resource management sector, this paper explores the institutional opportunities and challenges of adapting natural resource policy, planning and management to the affects of climate change using two regional case studies from the mid-western US: the southern Rocky Mountain range of northern Colorado and the southwestern edge of the Great Plains and Forests in South Dakota. We proceed under the assumption that regional collaboration can help establish desirable pathways through enhanced interdependence, issue linkages and the possibility of trade-offs, thereby improving multi-agency ability to both mitigate negative effects and take advantage of favourable future conditions. In an attempt to understand the underlying institutional factors that either support or contest this assumption, we focus on answering three primary research questions: (1) How do multiple land and natural resource management organisations build capacity for collaborative climate change adaptation planning within a region? (2) What are the current barriers, limits and opportunities for multi-jurisdictional climate change adaption planning? (3) How do multi-jurisdictional interactions influence adaptive capacity and adaptation outcomes related to sustainable policy, planning and management? This research looks at institutions of land and natural resources management such as national parks, national forests and other land management authorities, including state wildlife and park agencies and non-governmental organisations such as The Nature Conservancy, in the aforementioned case study regions. In examining these institutions, the research focuses on the specific conditions important to the stakeholder community in

4

C.J. Lemieux et al.


these regions, and on potential avenues for integrating adaptation and mitigation within a place-based context.

2. Case study locations The analysis presented here is based primarily on two separate but complementary climate change adaptation planning workshops hosted by the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Management at Colorado State University for land and resource managers working in northern Colorado (November 2010) and the northern Great Plains and Forests region of South Dakota (April 2011) (Figure 1). These regions are excellent case studies for research focusing on collaborative natural resource management and climate change adaptation planning. Table 1 provides a setting description of the two case study locations. In addition to the descriptors in Table 1, a number of specific climate change impacts have been observed in both regions over the past half century. Examples of observed impacts occurring in both regions include increased mean annual temperatures (Hoerling and Eischeid 2007; Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009), increased frequency and magnitude of forest fires (e.g. Westerling et al. 2006; Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009) and pest disturbances (e.g. mountain pine beetle) (Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009; Diskin et al. 2011), and impacts on hydrological responses, including earlier peak streamflow and an overall decline in water resources (Fontaine et al. 2001; US Climate Change Science Program 2008; National Climate Assessment 2009; Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). Second, projections of future climate suggest substantial socio-ecological, physical and economic impacts for

Figure 1. Land and resource management jurisdictions in the northern Colorado and northern Great Plains and Forests (South Dakota) regions. (See online colour version for full interpretation.)


5

Table 1. Setting description of case study locations. Descriptor Regional ecology


Core parks and protected areas Multi-jurisdictional stakeholder context Timing with adaptation planning (ongoing work related to climate change) Capacity building initiatives (workshops, research, etc.)

Northern Colorado Northern rocky front range, montane forests, mountain tundra, grassland Rocky Mountain National Park Arapaho National Forest, Roosevelt National Forest, Pike National Forest, Indian Peaks Wilderness, State Park State Forest Release of US National Park Service (2010), US Forest Service (2011), US Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) climate change strategies and other related climate change vulnerability assessments An Integrated Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Rocky Mountain National Park and its Gateway Community: Interactions of Multiple Stressors (2003) Climate Change in Rocky Mountain National Park: Preservation in the Face of Uncertainty (2007) Border Crossing: Preparing for and Adapting to Climate Change Effects in Northern Colorado (2010)

Northern Great Plains & Forests, South Dakota Prairie, steppe, grassland, ponderosa pine Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park Black Hills National Forest, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Custer State Park, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Release of US National Park Service (2010), US Forest Service (2011), US Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) climate change strategies and other related climate change vulnerability assessments Climate Change: Meeting the Challenge / Seizing the Opportunities. A Regional Workshop for the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Region (1999) Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Badlands National Park (2011) Bridging Boundaries: Adaptation Planning for Grasslands and Forests in the Northern Great Plains (2011)

these regions over the remainder of the twenty-first century (in terms of both rate and magnitude of projected impacts). Examples include projected biome shifts and fragmentation, even greater forest fire frequency, extent and duration, more frequent insect outbreaks and invasions by non-native species, species losses (e.g. white-tailed ptarmigan), and population increases in species that can potentially stress ecosystems (e.g. elk in northern Colorado) (US Climate Change Science Program 2008; National Climate Assessment 2009; Thomas, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). Critical to the context of this research, managers working in both regions have been federally mandated to respond to the climate change issue, and have consequently exhibited a pragmatic interest in enhancing capacity for adaptation and the collaborative management of shared biophysical resources. Both regions exhibit multiple jurisdictional authorities with adjoining boundaries, including national parks (e.g. Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and Badlands National Park in South Dakota), national forests (e.g. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado and Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota), national grasslands (e.g. Buffalo Gap and Pawnee National Grasslands), Bureau of Land Management lands, and state wildlife and parks agencies (e.g. State Forest State Park in Colorado and Custer State Park in South Dakota). The US Department of the Interior (DOI) established the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) – a network of public-private partnerships that provide shared science to ensure the sustainability of land,

6

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Table 2. Regional resource management challenges identified by Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and the National Climate Assessment (National Climate Assessment, 2009). Common resource management challenges


Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC

Southern Rockies and Great Plains LCC

Climate impacts on agriculture and grazing Fish and wildlife response to climate change Protection of Native American cultural resources Protection of trust species, including migratory waterfowl Wildland and rangeland fires Water quality and water availability for both humans and native plant and animal species Wildlife disease Biological carbon sequestration

Climate-related resource management issues identified for the Great Plains Region by the National Climate Assessment Declining water resources due to projected increases in temperature, evaporation and drought Increased pressure to agriculture, ranching and natural lands due to limited water supply Alterations to native plant and animal species’ habitats, including wetland ecosystems (e.g. prairie potholes and playa lakes) Rural to urban population shifts with resulting consequences

Individual Resource Management Challenges Geological carbon sequestration

Wildlife recovery Invasive species Renewable energy Forest resilience

water, wildlife and cultural resources – to facilitate working across jurisdictional boundaries on pressing resource management issues (US Department of Interior 2013). A total of 22 LCCs were established in the US, Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico and Alaska. The Northern Colorado case study region is part of the Great Plains and Southern Rockies LCC and the Black Hills/Great Plains Case study region is in the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. Specific regional resource management issues have been identified for each of the LCCs. Table 2 lists the LCC identified resource management challenges for the regions. The challenges for the Southern Rockies and Great Plains LCCs were combined since the case study region represents both. Similarly, both of the case study regions fall under one focus area for the National Climate Assessment (National Climate Assessment 2009), and Table 2 summarises some of the climate-related issues identified for the regions by the National Climate Assessment (2009). While it is difficult to identify specific priorities for an individual agency based on their mission, or identify priorities for a region, the LCC-defined resource management issues, and the National Climate Assessment (2009) regional issues represent crosscutting areas and priorities that public land managers must address individually via onthe-ground management actions and collectively across jurisdictional boundaries. In the context of this research, basic collaboration can mean to cooperate with others; in the context of public land management it can also mean employing a multi-stakeholder approach to resource management problem solving and decision making. Inter-agency collaboration occurs when representatives from two or more agencies are cooperating. Transboundary collaboration is when the issues being addressed cross jurisdictional, political or ecological borders and consequently involve multiple stakeholders. An



7

important defining factor of transboundary issues is that the decisions or actions in one stakeholder’s jurisdiction produce results that affect the resources or decisions (wellbeing) of another stakeholder. This research is primarily multi-jurisdictional although there are transboundary elements to it. Collaboration on natural resource management issues can exist along a continuum from simple (e.g. information sharing between two people) to complex (e.g. US Secretarial Order directing interagency policy). These definitions and the complexity continuum were used to frame the concepts of collaboration for participants in this research. Further, these regions have had several recent multi-stakeholder workshops with scientific experts that have focused on communicating the implications of climate change for policy, planning, management and are supportive of research aimed at enhancing capacity to develop and experiment with management options. Such foundations present unique opportunities to gain a better understanding of the climate change impacts of individual and mutual concern, and an opportunity to gain insights into experiences with adaptation as well as the multi-jurisdictional barriers, challenges and opportunities for regional integration and multi-jurisdictional collaboration. 3. Methods In order to address the research questions posed above, quantitative and qualitative responses to a pre-workshop online questionnaire were analysed. Approval was obtained from Colorado State University ethics review board prior to testing. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a group of qualified respondents to ensure questions were worded clearly and were relevant to the proper audience. Questions and statements were pre-tested with land and resource managers to minimise the potential for the researcher’s personal views to bias the development of the statements. At least one individual representing each agency included in the study participated in the pre-test. The final instrument was refined after several iterations to enhance clarity and to ensure that the attributes were unassailable to the land and resource management communities of focus (i.e. confirm the face validity). The questionnaire consisted of four stem questions associated with climate changeintegrated natural resources management in a multi-jurisdictional context: (1) Do land management agencies in your region have a common goal (or shared vision) with respect to climate change adaptation? (2) Does your organisation currently collaborate with neighbouring land management organisations on issues related to responding to climate change? a. If YES, what key factors influenced your organisation’s ability to collaborate with neighbouring land management organisations? (See Table 3 for closedended options associated with this sub-question.) b. If NO, what key factors influenced your organisation’s inability to cooperate with neighbouring land management organisations? (See Table 4 for closedended options associated with this question.) (3) What do you believe are the potential challenges and/or drawbacks associated with collaborating on climate change adaptation planning with neighbouring land management organisations in your region? (4) What do you believe are the potential benefits for collaborating on climate change adaptation planning with neighbouring land management organisations in your region?

8

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Table 3. Perceived influence of key factors that enabled multi-jurisdictional collaboration on natural resource management issues related to climate change (% of respondents). Participants were asked to rank the extent of perceived enablers using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘No influence’ to ‘A lot of influence’.

No influence

A little influence

Some influence

Enough influence

A lot of influence

Financial & Human Resources

Adequate time Adequate financial resources Adequate human resources

0 0

7 11

33 30

30 33

30 26

0

19

26

41

15

Political & Informational & Policy-oriented Cognitive

Respondents (%)

Adequate information to make decisions Certainty about the issue

7

15

26

30

22

11

0

44

22

22

Issue was of high political urgency Adequate policy direction for cooperation

8

16

16

32

28

4

15

35

39

8

Similar magnitude of impact on resources Potential for secondary impacts resulting from unilateral management responses (e.g. ‘spatial spillovers’) Clear roles and responsibilities among agencies Adequate communication channels among agencies Equitable sharing of response burden among agencies Low possibility of conflict between agencies More efficient decisionmaking process on issue

4

22

26

35

13

12

20

28

24

16

0

15

37

37

11

4

8

19

50

19

8

27

35

27

4

8

19

38

27

8

0

8

42

42

8

Multi-jurisdictional Organisational Behaviour


Key enabling factor

The above questions were used to gain insights on multi-jurisdictional management related to climate change in the two case study regions. Adger et al. (2007) emphasised that perceptions of barriers can limit action just as strongly as actual barriers, even when the capacity and resources to adapt exist. In this paper, we focus specifically on perceptions of inhibitors (barriers/challenges) and enablers (opportunities). The key


9

Table 4 Perceived influence of key factors that inhibited multi-jurisdictional collaboration on resource management issues related to climate change. Participants were asked to rank the extent of perceived barriers using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘No influence’ to ‘A lot of influence’.

No influence

A little influence

Some influence

Enough influence

A lot of influence

Financial & Human Resources

Lack of time Lack of financial resources Lack of human resources

17 12

6 18

39 29

11 6

28 35

12

18

12

18

41

Political & Informational & Policy-oriented Cognitive

Respondents (%)

Lack of information to make decisions Uncertainty about the issue

18

18

6

18

41

12

12

24

29

24

Issue was of low political urgency Lack of policy direction for cooperation

12

18

29

12

29

35

12

24

12

18

Difference in magnitude of impact on resources Low potential for secondary impacts resulting from unilateral management responses (e.g. ‘spatial spillovers’) Roles and responsibilities between agencies unclear Lack of communication channels among agencies Inequitable sharing of response burden among agencies Possibility of conflict among agencies Longer decision-making process on issue

18

29

6

29

18

19

25

38

6

13

12

12

53

6

18

18

29

24

18

12

24

29

24

12

12

29

12

29

6

24

29

18

24

18

12

Multi-jurisdictional Organisational Behaviour


Key inhibiting factor

factors enabling or inhibiting multi-jurisdictional collaboration on climate change used in Questions 2a and 2b (above) were identified through a literature review on regional case studies pertaining to natural resources management and climate change adaptation in land and resource management agencies (e.g. Thomas 2003; Luers and Moser 2006; Grant and Quinn 2007; US Climate Change Science Program 2008; Adger, Arnell, and Tompkins 2005; Adger et al. 2007; Ogden and Innes 2007a, 2007b; Jantarasami, Lawler,


10

C.J. Lemieux et al.

and Thomas 2010; Dovers and Hezri 2010; Moser and Ekstrom 2011). This literature revealed a diversity of institutional and organisational barriers and enablers that affect climate change adaptation within natural resource management agencies. The 14 enablers and barriers are listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, and are categorised within one of four broad categories: (1) Financial and human resources; (2) Informational and cognitive; (3) Political and policy-oriented; and, (4) Multi-jurisdictional organisational behaviour. After pilot testing on a qualified group of respondents representing the target audience (as detailed above), the suite of common indicators extrapolated from the literature was selected to be manageable for workshop participants and summarised into 14 statements to facilitate interpretation and allow the authors to maintain consistency in data collection and analysis for comparative purposes. While by no means all-inclusive, the indicators selected and the method adopted provided a transparent and coherent approach to analysing a subset of characteristics that are perceived to influence multi-jurisdictional collaboration on climate change in the two case study regions. It was deemed important that the methods and findings be adequate for comparison and assessment across time and space, so that studies can complement each other, and the understanding of vulnerability and adaptive capacity and performance on climate change management issues within and between organisations working in multi-jurisdictional contexts can be enhanced. To offset concerns over criteria-selection bias, open-ended questions were included to provide respondents with the opportunity to identify and discuss enabling and inhibiting factors not included in the closed-ended statements. This also provided respondents with the flexibility to address further any themes they deemed important. Several of the survey questions had a series-style selection of answer options, which facilitated tabulation of responses. For each question, the respondent had an opportunity to provide comments, and there were several open-ended questions. For the analysis of the comments and open-ended responses, we followed the guidelines of Miles and Huberman (1994), beginning with an open and descriptive coding scheme. Next, following Richards (2009) protocol for qualitative data analysis, we engaged in a standard, multi-step process for interpretive, qualitative data analysis. First, the data were reviewed in order to derive an initial coding scheme. Second, a brief contact sheet for each participant was used to record each informant’s attributes relative to the response to the survey questions about institutional challenges and multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Third, the first round of open coding was completed manually by examining qualitative responses as well as reading through the relevant participant observation notes from the workshop and corresponding organisational documents (e.g. climate change response strategies and Department of Interior secretarial orders). Subsequently, codes were developed, searched for and identified in another examination of the participants’ responses. These codes were then placed into a diagram showing the ties (number of connections) between them. Responses that seemed relevant to the research questions but did not fit into the initial coding scheme were marked and added to the coding sheet. Fourth, after the first round was complete, we revisited the coding scheme that had been derived from the research questions and revised where necessary after seeing the data holistically. The new additions to the scheme were examined for how they might fit into the coding structures and were included in the diagram if appropriate. The fifth step involved a second round of coding, which consisted of reviewing the revised scheme that incorporated the new codes and going back through the data to re-code where necessary. Sections that did


11

not seem to fit within the coding scheme were flagged for further inspection. The sixth step involved a third level of coding which consisted of further analysing the data for broad patterns or themes incorporating or rejecting the flagged codes from the previous step and making some conclusions about the data. Finally, with the third level of coding in hand, we returned to the literature to place the analysis in context and review for any gaps needing further attention. The results of our analysis and connections to existing empirical research are articulated and illustrated through examples in the following sections.


4. Results A total of 79 questionnaires (northern Colorado, n ¼ 25, Great Plains and Forests, n ¼ 54) were collected over the two one-month periods, resulting in a response rate of approximately 85% and 87%, respectively. The largest respondent groups were the US National Park Service (n ¼ 28) and US Forest Service (n ¼ 20). Other resource management organisations participating in the workshops and surveys included state wildlife and parks departments (n ¼ 4) (e.g. Colorado Department of Wildlife, South Dakota Game Fish and Parks), The Nature Conservancy (n ¼ 4), Bureau of Land Management (n ¼ 3), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (n ¼ 3), and 17 participants representing research-oriented agencies, such as the US Geological Survey (USGS). Despite a federal government shutdown in April 2011 and the associated delay in workshop registration by potential survey participants, an overall response rate of approximately 86% was achieved. Because participation in the workshop was voluntary and recruitment occurred opportunistically, caution must be exercised when generalising to the population as a whole or to other regional offices, or agencies. Similar to Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas (2010) who examined policy-oriented barriers to climate change adaptation in land management agencies in the Pacific Northwest region of the US, we justify the nonrandom sampling in two ways, one at the regional level and the other at the individual level. First, as detailed previously, these units are mandated to respond to climate change and have a recent history of being engaged in climate change adaptation initiatives and activities. As such, these regions provide a unique opportunity to establish and examine the opinions of the ‘early adaptor’ populations and compare them to other populations who are just beginning to consider climate change in natural resource management activities. Results and interpretations can therefore be used to draw insights and comparisons from these regional populations to other regions and to the greater population nationwide. At the individual level, non-random sampling was necessary given the small number of people occupying relevant positions in the organisations operating within these regions. Overall, while the sample may not reflect the dominant nationwide views of participating agencies, it does capture the range of opinions of a regional subset of managers who are involved directly in natural resource management in the two case study regions. As Ogden and Innes (2009) and others emphasised previously (e.g. Chapin et al. 2006), climate change adaptation strategies will be more successful if they are identified and developed by local actors because they are more likely to be consistent with local priorities, goals, norms and institutions (see also Dovers and Hezri 2010). Results yielded several important findings related to the three primary research questions and these are reported on, in turn, in relation to questions posed in the questionnaire.


12

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Figure 2. Land and resource manager response distribution to the question: “Do land management agencies in your region have a common goal (or shared vision) with respect to climate change adaptation?”

4.1. Do land management agencies in your region have a common goal (or shared vision) with respect to climate change adaptation? First, the majority of respondents were either not sure or believed that there was no common goal (or shared vision) amongst land and resource management agencies with respect to climate change adaptation in their respective regions (Figure 2). Virtually no disparities between regions or between land and natural resource management agencies were evident. All northern Colorado respondents took the position that they were either not sure or believed that there was no common goal with respect to climate change adaptation, while only two respondents from the US National Park Service and a single respondent representing the US Forest Service in the northern Great Plains and Forests region took the position that there actually was one. One park superintendent in the northern Great Plains and Forests explained the challenge – as well as the opportunity – to having a shared vision: Everything we do must meet the mission of our agency. But you can identify common conservation goals with other partners, within specific issues. There’s a balance to strike, in which you explicitly recognise and understand each other’s priorities, and then narrow your focus to areas in which you can share priorities and collaborate.

When participants were asked how their organisation should balance the need to address climate change individually and collaboratively, a variety of responses led to several themes in the qualitative data. Overwhelmingly, the respondents recognised the need for collaboration and balance. As one resource manager emphasised: There needs to be balance, but the emphasis should be on collaborative efforts. Because agencies have different mandates, they will need to address climate change individually to some degree. However, collaborative approaches are important to avoid duplication of effort, to learn from the experience of others, and to determine where collaborative implementation would make sense.

Managers from both regions emphasised that planning efforts should be landscape-scale and long term. Several practitioners cited the need to build on existing areas of



13

agreement to nurture cross-agency partnerships. A few cautioned that there will be differences in approach and philosophy for managing common resources, and savvy partnerships will be required to implement the National Environmental Policy Act [83 Stat. 852 (1969)] effectively, and to the benefit of the bioregional partnerships such as LCCs. The qualitative data also revealed that participants took the position that partnerships take work, do not form spontaneously, and will require catalyst events, such as impacts of mutual concern (e.g. mountain pine beetle outbreaks) and required participation in multi-jurisdictional adaptation planning, such as the workshop component of this analysis. In fact, this theme was prevalent throughout all of the responses to this question. As one US Forest Service supervisor explained: “It is so complex and we get wrapped up in day-to-day operations. I do hope [that] this workshop will at least encourage [and] remind us to work with our neighbors as we deal with these tough issues.” 4.2. Does your agency currently collaborate with neighbouring land management organisations on issues related to responding to climate change? Generally, results indicate that current organisational ability to collaborate is perceived to be somewhat dependent upon previous multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Despite a lack of a common vision, when asked whether their organisation had collaborated with neighbouring organisations on issues related to climate change, nearly half of the respondents replied in the affirmative (Figure 3). Of respondents stating ‘yes’ (44%) to the question, the most commonly reported management issue being collaborated on pertained to wildlife management (57%) (e.g. elk in Rocky Mountain National Park and surrounding National Forests), followed by mountain pine beetle (48%), water resources (39%), human use of lands and waters (25%), and weather and/or climaterelated issues (14%). These issues align with the LCC identified resource management challenges identified in Table 2 and represent areas of successful collaboration among agencies. Results for sub-questions associated with Question 2 – (a) what barriers, limits or (b) opportunities are currently influencing agency ability to collaborate on climate change –

Figure 3. Land and resource manager response distribution to the question: “Does your agency currently collaborate with neighbouring land management agencies on issues related to responding to climate change?”


14

C.J. Lemieux et al.

revealed a number of enabling and inhibiting factors. Table 3 details response distributions of the key factors that respondents perceived to help enable agency ability to cooperate with neighbouring agencies on management issues related to climate change. When considering the response levels ‘enough influence’ and ‘a lot of influence’ collectively, the most enabling characteristics for multi-jurisdictional collaboration were perceived to be adequate communication channels (69%), issues of high political urgency (60%), adequate time and adequate financial resources (59%), respectively. Lesser-perceived enabling characteristics for multi-jurisdictional collaboration included adequate human resources (56%), adequate information to make decisions (52%), and the potential for more efficient decision-making processes (50%). Surprisingly, the equitable sharing of response burden among agencies (31%) and a low possibility of conflict between agencies (35%) were perceived to be the least important to multi-jurisdictional collaboration, suggesting that some conflict (or potential for conflict) may be a necessary precursor to collaborative responses to management issues of mutual concern. Ratings associated with barriers and challenges to multi-jurisdictional collaboration exhibited greater variability (Table 4). Of the land and resource managers who responded ‘no’ to the question of whether or not their agency was presently collaborating with neighbouring agencies on issues related to climate change (16%), the most frequently acknowledged inhibiting organisational factors included: lack of human resources (59%), lack of information to make informed decisions (59%), and uncertainty about the management issue (53%). Differences in magnitude of climate change impact on resources (47%) and issues of low political urgency/priority (41%) were also identified frequently as characteristics that inhibit multi-jurisdictional collaboration on climate change-related management issues.

Figure 4. Perceived impact of agency-specific priorities on collaborative climate change adaptation planning in the northern Colorado/northern Great Plains and Forests regions (n ¼ 55). Participants were asked to rank the perceived impact using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strong negative impact’ to ‘Strong positive impact’.


15


4.3. What do you believe are the potential challenges and/or drawbacks associated with collaborating on climate change adaptation planning with neighbouring land management organisations in your region? Additional challenges associated with collaboration on climate change adaptation planning were identified in the open-ended responses. Specific ‘challenges’ themes, across both bioregions, included: (1) agency-specific management goals and priorities; (2) lack of time, funding and resources for collaborative planning; (3) lack of leadership, public and political support; and, (4) lack of coordination. One resource manager in northern Colorado elaborated: “A culture of working in silos; inadequate support from superiors for working across jurisdictional boundaries; potential negative impact on performance rankings and resistance from individuals in key positions who still resist accepting the importance of the issue.” Another manager from the northern Great Plains and Forests identified the challenge in a more frustrated tone: “It’s easy enough to get mired in my organisation – without adding in another. [It’s a] Potential waste of time.”

4.4. What do you believe are the potential benefits for collaborating on climate change adaptation planning with neighbouring land management organisations in your region? Despite the long and diverse list of challenges to collaborating on climate change adaptation identified by respondents, several respondents noted that the benefits or opportunities for working together range from sharing resources and research to increasing efficiencies in management. All of the open-ended responses, from both regions, fit into four broad categories: (1) pooling resources; (2) management efficiency; (3) removing redundancy; and (4) landscape scale approaches. Many respondents noted the appropriateness of planning across jurisdictions because of the scale of climate change impacts: “It is the only way to adequately address the issues. Large scale issues require large scale responses.” Adopting a landscape-scale perspective was prevalent in responses. For example, a Rocky Mountain National Park manager explained: “Because our boundaries are invisible we must work together on climate change issues. We can pool our resources, learn from each other, and manage for climate change on a more landscape level.” In addition to the core research questions reported on above, two additional questions were posed to respondents. First, participants were asked to rank the extent to which they thought agency-specific priorities will impact collaborative climate change adaptation planning in their region using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘strong negative impact’ to (5) ‘strong positive impact’. Despite largely dissimilar mandates and management objectives, legislation and associated policies between the US National Park Service (i.e. preservation), US Forest Service (i.e. conservation and multiple-use), and other land and resource management organisations working in the respective regions, most respondents took the position that organisation-specific priorities will have a positive impact on future collaboration on climate change-related management issues (Figure 4). Most land and resource managers took the position that organisation-specific priorities would have either a ‘positive’ or ‘strong positive impact’ on future collaborative efforts on climate change (73% collectively). However, land and resource managers working in the northern Colorado region displayed greater confidence in this claim compared to those working in the northern Great Plains and Forests, with approximately 17% more participants identifying agency-specific priorities as having either a ‘positive’ or ‘strong positive’ impact on future collaboration.


16

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Figure 5. Perceived effectiveness of existing adaptive management frameworks for achieving management objectives given projected climate change impacts (n ¼ 56). Participants were asked to rank the perceived impact using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Very ineffective’ to ‘Very effective’.

Workshop participants were also asked to rank the extent to which existing organisational frameworks for adaptive ecosystem management (e.g. Williams, Szaro, and Shapiro 2009) will be effective in achieving current management objectives given projected climate change impacts in their respective regions using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘very ineffective’ to (5) ‘very effective’. As Figure 5 illustrates, the position of land and resource managers from both regions was somewhat polarised. For example, while 43% of land and resource managers working in the northern Colorado region took the position that existing frameworks for adaptive management will be either ‘very effective’ or ‘somewhat effective’ in achieving management objectives given projected climate change impacts, a nearly equivalant proportion of respondents (39%) believed that they will be ‘very ineffective’ or ‘somewhat ineffective’. A similar proportion of respondents in both regions were indifferent on the perceived effectiveness of adaptive management frameworks under future climate change (16% amongst all respondents).

5. Discussion The goal of the following discussion is to address the three primary research questions posed in the introduction of the paper, and to provide insights for understanding the factors influencing multi-jurisdictional adaptation planning and collaboration on integrated climate change and natural resources management in the case study regions.

5.1. Why and how do multiple land management agencies build capacity for collaborative climate change adaptation planning within a region? The results strongly suggest that recent climate change and the threat of future impacts will lead to interactions that are cooperative and mutually beneficial in the case study regions examined here. Despite the lack of a coordinated strategy (and common vision) related to climate change, a complementary suite of unilateral and collaborative



17

adaptations pertaining to a number of management issues (e.g. migratory wildlife, mountain pine beetle and human use of public lands) is already occurring in both case study regions. Interestingly, nearly one-third (27%) of resource managers participating in the study took the position that the potential for conflict had no influence in inhibiting their respective organisation’s ability to collaborate on management issues, suggesting that some degree of conflict would help instigate collaborative responses on issues of mutual concern. Climate change could be used as an incentive to develop cooperative arrangements which are of mutual benefit to all jurisdictions within respective management regions, such as joint wildlife and pest management plans, water conservation projects and fire management strategies. The large majority of resource managers in both regions took the position that organisation-specific priorities will not have a significant effect on future collaborative management related to climate change. While overlapping objectives would provide obvious opportunities for collaboration, with climate change impacts it is possible that new commonalities in the land and natural resource management problems that agencies face will emerge, and catalyse the evolution of both organisation-specific priorities and regional priorities. A lack of multi-agency cooperation on land and resource management, however, may exacerbate climate change impacts, and harmonisation of policies should be developed to prevent situations in which management actions in one jurisdiction neutralise or counteract management actions in other jurisdictions. As such, a common legal basis for agencies to cooperate may require consideration. However, vulnerability will vary considerably from region to region and within respective jurisdictions, a function of exposure and adaptive capacity (see Smit and Pilifosova 2003; Smit and Wandel 2006), which will pose additional challenges for integrated land and natural resources management regardless of any legal mandates pertaining to multijurisdictional collaboration on climate change. One example of policy driving transboundary collaboration is US Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3289 (September 2009) titled Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources. This Order establishes a Department of Interior-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources that the Department manages. The US Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center 2013), hosts eight regional climate science centres. Secretarial Order 3289 (February 2010) mandated that the US Geological Survey climate centres serve public land management decision making on a region specific basis. Their mission is to provide natural resource managers with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that address the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife and their habitats (National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center 2013). Focusing on common management issues is important to building capacity for collaboration. This is already happening for the issues listed earlier in this section. Leveraging resources such as the LCC and National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center is also important. These resources can function as a hub for interagency/ transboundary collaboration by providing services such as serving data and potentially as funding agents. The resource management challenges and issues published by the LCCs and the National Climate Assessment (2009) also act as common ground for collaboration among management agents. The issues and lessons here are not very different from those seen in leading transboundary conservation and resource management initiatives elsewhere,

18

C.J. Lemieux et al.

such as in southern Africa, where effective local and key stakeholder participation, highlevel political buy-in and creating projects at various levels and scales, were key to effective collaboration and cooperation – especially in a context of differing goals and rates of planning and implementation (Mabunda et al. 2012).


5.2. What are the current barriers, limits and opportunities for multi-jurisdictional climate change adaption planning? Both quantitative results and manager narratives (qualitative feedback) revealed an overwhelming consensus that independent top-down approaches will not suffice in the long term because of the multi-scale and cross-jurisdictional nature of climate change impacts. However, it appears that whether or not collaboration will occur will ultimately depend on the magnitude of the climate change impact and the particular management issue being affected. For example, it was noted that managing for the persistence of longrange migratory species, and species protected under the Endangered Species Act [87 Stat. 884 (1973)], will certainly require multi-jurisdictional collaboration. No single agency has the resources or geographical authority to manage transboundary resources and climate change impacts in the case study regions in a unilateral way. The most frequently acknowledged inhibiting institutional factors included lack of human resources, lack of information to make informed decisions and uncertainty about potential impacts (Table 4). Such concerns are far from unusual, but neither are they universal, in multi-jurisdictional processes, and reflect a range of circumstances at the organisational and individual level. At the same time, for many, they do not outweigh the potential benefits of multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Furthermore, opportunities for adaptation planning and collaboration included factors that may initially appear as limits, such as differences in magnitude of climate change impact on resources and issues of low political urgency/priority; however, these were also identified frequently as factors that also facilitate multi-jurisdictional collaboration on climate change-related management issues. There could be benefit to multi-jurisdictional climate change adaptation planning from exploring new approaches to multi-jurisdictional planning and management premised in knowledge, learning and collaboration. Brown, Harris, and Russell (2010) thoroughly explored the challenges of complex, multi-party, multi-disciplinary problems, and the methods and contributions of transdisciplinary learning and collaborative approaches. Margerum (2011) provided a detailed analysis and exploration multi-party collaboration and governance ultimately framed in terms of balancing community capacity, organisational power sharing and political support. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSP’s) have emerged in large-scale, transboundary water governance as a form of governance or dialogue in which stakeholders are identified and participate in a formal deliberative process to share knowledge and perspectives, identify and explore management options, and contribute to negotiation and decisions. They provide a strong forum for engagement of stakeholders, based on development of extensive background information, stakeholder analysis, a social contract between stakeholders, and scenario, visioning and decisionsupport tools, among other tools and approaches (Warner 2007; Dore 2010). 5.3. How do multi-jurisdictional interactions influence adaptive capacity and adaptation outcomes related to sustainable policy, planning, and management? While many climate change impacts might appear to have primarily local impacts justifying local control, many impacts will cross-jurisdictional boundaries, suggesting



19

that higher levels of government should play a role in land use and natural resource planning in order to facilitate more effective and efficient natural resource planning. As noted above, legislative action may be required to build on the lessons learned, to mandate funding, and to make necessary changes in statutes. Legislation on adaptation may ultimately be necessary because it would most likely build broader support for adaptation planning across land and resource management agencies, and would provide the necessary resources (e.g. human and financial) required to implement new, multijurisdictional plans and management strategies. Significantly, state or federal engagement could provide substantial resource pooling benefits. In some cases, changes to existing legislation may be needed to remove barriers and create incentives for multijurisdictional collaboration. Multi-jurisdictional interactions can also be significant in a more bottom-up way. They may foster understanding, e.g. through research on differential impacts of climate change in different places, facilitate identifying and implementing responses through learning from experience with multiple responses in multiple places, and provide incentives for working out new ways of working together across jurisdictions on complex, difficult management issues. Indeed, capacity-building efforts will also have to be supported by ad hoc and decentralised networks and other collaborative efforts to pool expertise and resources in support of adaptation (see Dow et al. 2013 for example). 6. Conclusions This study represents an inaugural, empirical case study of land and resource manager perceptions of the factors that inhibit or enable climate change adaptation planning at the regional scale where multiple land and resource management jurisdictions are involved. Our results suggest that land and resource management communities working in these regions face a host of novel and complex issues stemming from the uncertainties related to climate change, the institutional contexts for adaptation planning and action, and inherent limits of human and financial resources and communication channels. Overall, the results underscore the need for adaptive, collaborative and flexible comanagement approaches if agencies are to cope efficiently and effectively with crossjurisdictional climate change impacts. Such a finding is increasingly being recognised in other land and natural resource management climate change adaptation initiatives (for examples, see Lemieux and Scott 2011; Archie et al. 2012; Raymond, Peterson, and Rochefort 2013; Plummer, Armitage, and de Lo€e 2013). Advancing the limited extant literature on the subject of multi-jurisdictional collaboration on climate change, we have highlighted a number of institutional forces and factors that either currently inhibit or enable collaboration, and identify ways in which adaptive capacity can be enhanced to minimise climate change impacts and maximise management effectiveness. Furthermore, the methods and criteria used to assess barriers and enablers can be replicated and utilised by land and natural resource managers, planners and other stakeholders to advance climate change adaptation planning within their own unique spatial and multi-jurisdictional contexts. As we have shown, the complexity of global climate change requires local, regional, federal and international land management agencies to explore new and pre-existing partnerships to promote collaborative and integrated management across regions. A combination of reactive and anticipatory, topdown and bottom-up adaptation actions, implemented within the boundaries of a set of


20

C.J. Lemieux et al.

formal (e.g. cooperative agreements, and relevant national laws and procedures) and informal (e.g. traditional use of natural resources) institutions, may be ultimately be required to respond effectively to transboundary climate change impacts. Further, given the magnitude of ongoing socio-ecological and economic change, no single decision-making tool or technique will equip practitioners to address all of the emerging threats to ecosystem function and human health and well-being. Given the variety of uncertainties, regionally specific effects, and cumulative impacts associated with climate change, a truly effective organisation will need to ensure that it has access to all available learning and decision-making tools and techniques, and implementation options, including those developed by outside agencies (Gray et al. 2011; Gray, 2012). Accordingly, information sharing will be an increasingly important aspect of any collaborative effort on climate change. Some of the collaboration challenges identified in this paper, such as lack of funding and inadequate communication channels, could be reframed as opportunities to build interdependence (through collaborative learning), identify issue-linkages, and collaboratively explore the nature and extent of organisational trade-offs with respect to regional climate change adaptation efforts. Compared to other regions in the continental US, the northern Colorado and Great Plains and Forest regions have the advantage of being relatively ecologically cohesive and coherent from a multi-jurisdictional management perspective. Most lands contained in these regions are federally managed and have mandates focused on the conservation, preservation and the sustainable use of natural resources. Not surprisingly, workshop participants indicated substantial interest in future collaboration on climate change in both regions. A logical next step for practitioners working in these regions is to recognise complementary strengths and weaknesses among organisations, to enhance understanding of emerging adaptive co-management approaches that can be used to navigate social-ecological system change, and to critically analyse the types and consequences of institutional overlap in the context of transboundary climate change impacts. Such models and pilots would be very useful as parks and other land management agencies adapt to climate-related change.

Acknowledgments Special thanks are extended to all workshop participants who took the time to complete the questionnaire. This project was funded by Project RM CESU-102 (Identifying Multi-jurisdictional Adaptation Strategies for Responding to Climate Change on Federal Lands) and the U.S. Geological Survey (Grant and Cooperative Agreement #G10AC00684). The authors thank the Editor and three anonymous referees for their constructive comments that helped them to improve the manuscript. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the US National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management or the US Forest Service

Note 1.

Adaptive capacity has been variously defined and measured with little consensus as to best practices for assessment. Because this study builds on research that focuses specifically on adaptive capacity within complex social-ecological systems, the definition of adaptive capacity put forth by Walker et al. (2002, 3) was utilised to guide the case study approach detailed here: “the aspect of resilience that reflects learning, flexibility to experiment and adopt novel solutions, and development of a generalized response to broad classes of challenges.”


21


References Adger, W.N., N.W. Arnell, and E.L. Tompkins. 2005. “Successful Adaptation to Climate Change Across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15: 77–86. Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takahashi. 2007. “Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, edited by M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, 717–743. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archie, K.M., L. Dilling, J.B. Milford, and F.C. Pampel. 2012. “Climate Change and Western Public Lands: A Survey of U.S. Federal Land Managers on the Status of Adaptation Efforts.” Ecology and Society 17 (4): doi: 10.5751/es-05187-170420 Baron, J.S., L. Gunderson, C.D. Allen, E. Fleishman, D. McKenzie, L.A. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. Stephenson. 2009. “Options for National Parks and Reserves for Adapting to Climate Change.” Environmental Management 44 (6): 1033–1042. Brown, V.A., J.A. Harris, J.Y. Russell, eds. 2010. Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. London: Earthscan. Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova, and E.L. Schipper. 2002. “From Impacts Assessment to Adaptation Priorities: The Shaping of Adaptation Policies.” Climate Policy 2: 145–159. Cash, David W., W.N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. “Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World.” Ecology and Society 11 (2): 8. Chapin, F.S. III, M. Hoel, S.R. Carpenter, J. Lubchenco, B. Walker, T.V. Callaghan, C. Folke et al. 2006. “Building Resilience and Adaptation to Manage Arctic Change.” Ambio 35 (4): 198–202. Danby, R.K., and D.S. Slocombe. 2002. “Protected Areas and Intergovernmental Cooperation in the St. Elias Region.” Natural Resources Journal 42 (2): 247–282. de Lo€e, R.C., and R. Kreutzwiser. 2000. “Climate Variability, Climate Change and Water Resource Management in the Great Lakes.” Climatic Change 45 (1): 163–179. De Stefano, L., J. Duncan, D. Shlomi, K. Stahl, K.M. Strzepek, and A.T. Wolf. 2012. “Climate Change and the Institutional Resilience of International River Basins.” Journal of Peace Research 49 (1): 193–209. Dietz, D., and P.C. Stern, eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Diskin, M., M.E. Rocca, K.N. Nelson, C.F. Aoki, and W.H. Romme. 2011. “Forest Developmental Trajectories in Mountain Pine Beetle Disturbed Forests of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41 (4): 782–792. Dore, J. 2010. “Multi-Stakeholder Platforms.” In Negotiate: Reaching Agreements Over Water, edited by J. Dore, J. Robinson and M. Smith, 37–58. Gland: IUCN. Dovers, S.R., and A.A. Hezri. 2010. “Institutions and Policy Processes: The Means to the Ends of Adaptation.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (2): 212–231. Dow, K., B. Haywood, N. Kettle, and K. Lackstrom. 2013. “The Role of ad hoc Networks in Supporting Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study from the Southeastern United States.” Regional Environmental Change 13 (1): 1235–1244. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0440-8. Fontaine, T.A., J.F. Klassen, T.S. Cruickshank, and R.H. Hotchkiss. 2001. “Hydrological Response to Climate Change in the Black Hills of South Dakota, USA.” Hydrological Sciences Journal 46: 27–40. Galaz, V., P. Olsson, T. Hahn, C. Folke, and U. Svedin. 2008. “The Problem of Fit Among Biophysical Systems, Environmental and Resource Regimes, and Broader Governance Systems, Insights and Emerging Challenges.” In Institutions and Environmental Change, Principal Findings, Applications and Research Frontiers, edited by O.R. Young, L.A. King and H. Schroeder, 147–186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gillett, N.P., V.K. Arora, K. Zickfeld, S.J. Marshall, and M.J. Merryfield. 2011. “Ongoing Climate Change Following a Complete Cessation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Nature Geoscience 4: 83–87. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. GAO-07-863.


22

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Government Accountability Office. 2009. Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing Climate. GAO-09-534T. Government Accountability Office. 2011. Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. GAO-11-317. Grant, J.A., and M.S. Quinn. 2007. “Factors Influencing Transboundary Wildlife Management in the North American ‘Crown of the Continent’.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (6): 765–782. Gray, P.A. 2012. “Adapting Sustainable Forest Management to Climate Change: A Systematic Approach for Exploring Organizational Readiness.” Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. http://www.ccfm.org/pdf/Gray_OrganizationReadiness_FinalEng.pdf Gray, P.A., C.J. Lemieux, T.J. Beechey, and D.J. Scott. 2011. “A Model Process for Developing Adaptation Options in an Era of Rapid Climate Change.” The George Wright Forum 28 (3): 314–328. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., L. Hughes, S. McIntyre, D.B. Lindenmayer, C. Parmesan, H.P. Possingham, and C.D. Thomas. 2008. “Assisted Colonization and Rapid Climate Change.” Science 321 (5887): 345–346. Hoerling, M., and J. Eischeid. 2007. “Past Peak Water in the Southwest.” Southwest Hydrology 6: 18–35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2007, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, edited by M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, 7–22. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jantarasami, L.C., J.J. Lawler, and C.W. Thomas. 2010. “Institutional Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in US National Parks and Forests.” Ecology and Society 5: 33. http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art33/ Joyce, L., G.M. Blate, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S. Moser, R.P Neilson, and D.L. Peterson. 2009. “Managing for Multiple Resources Under Climate Change: National Forests.” Environmental Management 44 (6): 1022–1031. Lemieux, C.J., and D.J. Scott. 2011. “Changing Climate, Challenging Choices: Identifying and Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation Options for Protected Area Management in Ontario, Canada.” Environmental Management 48 (4): 675–690. Lemieux, C.J., J.L. Thompson, J. Dawson, and R.M. Schuster. 2013. “Natural Resource Manager Perceptions of Agency Performance on Climate Change.” Journal of Environmental Management 114: 178–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.014 Luers, A.L., and S.C. Moser. 2006. Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change in California: Opportunities and Constraints for Adaptation. California Energy Commission Publication Number CEC-500-2005-198-SF. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. Mabunda, D., F. Venter, D. Pienaar, and P. Theron. 2012. “Transfrontier Conservation Areas: The South African Experience.” In Parks, Peace, and Partnership: Global Initiatives in Transboundary Conservation, edited by M.S. Quinn, L. Broberg and W. Freimund, 157–203. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press. Macnaghten, P., and M. Jacobs. 1997. “Public Identification with Sustainable Development: Investigating Cultural Barriers to Participation.” Global Environmental Change 7: 1–20. Margerum, R.D. 2011. Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. “Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty.” Ecological Applications 17 (8): 2145–2151. Moser, S.C., and J.A. Ekstrom. 2011. “Taking Ownership of Climate Change: StakeholderIntensive Adaptation Planning in Two California Communities.” Journal for Environmental Studies and Sciences 1 (1): 63–74. National Climate Assessment. 2009. “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program.” http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/ National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center. 2013. “Science within the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Centre.” https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/nccwscScience



23

National Research Council. 2010a. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. 2010b. Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Newig, J. 2007. “Does Public Participation in Environmental Decisions Lead to Improved Environmental Quality? Towards an Analytical Framework.” Communication, Cooperation, Participation (International Journal of Sustainability Communication) 1 (1): 51–71. Newig, J., and O. Fritsch. 2009. “Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level – and Effective?” Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 197–214. Ogden, A.E., and J.L. Innes. 2007a. “Perspectives of Forest Practitioners on Climate Change Adaptation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada.” Forestry Chronicle 83 (4): 557–569. Ogden, A.E., and J.L. Innes. 2007b. “Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Considerations into Forest Management and Planning in the Boreal Forest.” International Forestry Review 9 (3): 713–733. Ogden, A.E., and J.L. Innes. 2009. “Application of Structured Decision Making to an Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options for Sustainable Forest Management.” Ecology and Society 14 (1): 11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art11/ Plummer, R., D.R. Armitage, and R.C. de Lo€e. 2013. “Adaptive Co-Management and its Relationship to Environmental Governance.” Ecology and Society 18 (1): 21. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-05383-180121 Quinn, M.S., L. Broberg, and W. Freimund, eds. 2012. Parks, Peace, and Partnership: Global Initiatives in Transboundary Conservation. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press. Raymond, C., D. Peterson, and R. Rochefort. 2013. “The North Cascadia Adaptation Partnership: A Science-Management Collaboration for Responding to Climate Change.” Sustainability 5 (1): 136–159. Richards, L. 2009. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Schenk, A., M. Hunziker, and F. Kienast. 2007. “Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Nature Conservation Measures – A Qualitative Study in Switzerland.” Journal of Environmental Management 83 (1): 66–79. Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2003. “From Adaptation to Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability Reduction.” In Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development, edited by J.B. Smith, R. J.T. Klein, and S. Huq, 9–28. London: Imperial College Press. Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. “Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 282–292. Tebaldi, C., R. Smith, D. Nychka, and L. Mearns. 2005. “Quantifying Uncertainty in Projections of Regional Climate Change: A Bayesian Approach to the Analysis of Multi-Model Ensembles.” Journal of Climate 18: 1524–1540. Thomas, C.W. 2003. Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Thomas, R.K., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. US Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-sensitive Ecosystems and Resources, edited by S.H. Julius, and J.M. West. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. US Department of Interior. 2009. Secretarial Order 3289 Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources 14 September 2009. US Department of Interior. 2013. “Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).” http://www.doi. gov/lcc/index.cfm US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. “Rising to the Urgent Challenge Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.” US Department of the Interior. http://www.fws.gov/home/ climatechange/strategy.html US Forest Service. 2011. “National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change.” US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/Roadmapfinal.pdf US National Park Service. 2010. National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy. National Park Service Climate Change Response Program. Fort Collins, CA: National Park Service.


24

C.J. Lemieux et al.

Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G.S. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norber, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. “Resilience Management in Social Ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach.” Conservation Ecology 6 (1): 14. http:// www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14 Warner, J. ed. 2007. Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water Management. Aldershot: Ashgate. West, J.M., S.H. Julius, P. Kareiva, C. Enquist, J.J. Lawler, B. Peterson, A.E. Johnson, and M.R. Shaw. 2009. “U.S. Natural Resources and Climate Change: Concepts and Approaches for Management Adaptation.” Environmental Management 44 (6): 1001–1021. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity.” Science 313 (5789): 940–943. Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Yoffe, S.A., T. Wolf, and M. Giordano. 2003. “Conflict and Cooperation Over International Freshwater Resources: Indicators of Basins at Risk.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39 (5): 1109–1126. Yohe, G., N. Andronova, and M. Schlesinger. 2004. “To Hedge or Not Against an Uncertain Climate Future.” Science 306: 415–417. Zeitoun, M., and J. Warner. 2006. “Hydro-hegemony – A Framework for Analysis of TransBoundary Water Conflicts.” Water Policy (8) 5: 435–460.