Search

A risk-based management approach to climate change is dominant in local adaptation plans integrating climate-science data with place-based vulnerability assessments. While the former has a regional character and uncertainty is approached by means of probabilities and confidence, the latter is context-specific, relies on local knowledge and uncertainty is barely assessed. The objective of this paper is to highlight the relevance of uncertainty analysis in the vulnerability assessment of local adaptation plans by enhancing the Knowledge Quality Assessment tool. This analytical proposal differs from technical uncertainty analysis because it addresses both the social context and the process of knowledge production. Next, the advanced uncertainty dimensions have been applied in the vulnerability assessment used in two Mediterranean adaptation plans. Findings show that institutional arrangements and the role of intermediate parties (contextual dimension) shape the knowledge used, produced, and reproduced (substantive dimension) and hamper community-engaged assessments (procedural dimension). Resulting vulnerability representations, which are poorly grounded on context-sensitive knowledge, compromise the relevance of risk-assessment outputs and local agency in adaptation governance. The present research contributes to the academic study of plans evaluation and of the adaptation science-governance interface at the local scale.

The social-ecological change in the Arctic is accelerated by the multifaceted effects of climate change and globalization. Among other things, this means changing human-ecosystem dynamics through altered availability, co-production, and governance of ecosystem services (ES). A group of species illustrative of this change are whales, migratory species that have played an important part in the culture and subsistence of Arctic communities for millennia. This study explores the changing human-nature interactions and whale ES governance by combining ES and interactive governance theories. A multi-method approach is applied to assess qualitatively the qualitative governability of whale ES in three Arctic coastal locations: Húsavík in Iceland, Andenes in Norway, and Disko Bay in Greenland. Based on a literature review, stakeholder mapping, observations, and analysis of 54 semi-structured stakeholder interviews, the study finds that whale ES governance involves multiple actors with differing preferences and values and that much of it happens outside of formal institutions, necessitating inclusive approaches to improve it. The study reveals some whale ES governance deficiencies and potentials, such as a mismatch between governance scales and a need for more formal governance practices based on scientific research and stakeholder inputs. Governance frameworks were present for provisioning whale ES related to whaling, but they were lacking for non-consumptive whale ES, such as whale watching. Addressing these issues can help to direct marine resource management toward sustainability by making it more inclusive, adaptive, and reflective of stakeholder needs and values. This goal could be advanced by applying the governance principles that view humans as an integral part of social-ecological systems, e.g., ecosystem stewardship and ecosystem-based management.

Through complex interactions and feedback processes between coastal ecological and social components at different temporal and spatial scales, coastal environments coproduce a range of ecosystem services (ES) and benefit different social groups. In these highly populated areas, multiple actors, interests, and activities coexist, leading to intensified conflicts between stakeholders. The research presented here aims to understand how coastal social-ecological complexity is studied within coastal ES literature. A systematic review of the literature consisting of 199 manuscripts was performed using the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The results show that coastal ES research has been focused on understanding ecological processes for ES provision and value. Hence, coastal ES studies fall short of considering the social components and social-ecological interactions of coastal systems: ES flows, demand, coproduction, power relations, institutions and governance, temporal and spatial scales, value pluralism, uncertainty, and human well-being multidimensions and distribution. The partial integration of social-ecological complexity within coastal ES research limits coastal ES management because nonlinear interactions among social and ecological components are not well understood, particularly stakeholders' relations, their roles, and the links to ES. Finally, we propose a conceptual framework that integrates the gaps identified during the review. The framework places coproduction and power relations as the core factors of assessments of coastal ES, as means to understand complex, nonlinear social-ecological interactions and feedback processes. Hence, it also provides necessary tools to address normative issues of coastal management such as control, access, trade-offs, and benefits.