Factors influencing individual management preferences for facilitating adaptation to climate change within the National Wildlife Refuge System

Abstract

National Wildlife Refuge System policies reference both historical condition and naturalness, but these concepts may not be valid management goals in a world with rapid climate change. Currently, within the refuge system, managers and biologists can individually decide whether management actions to maintain historical condition (retrospective) or actions to promote and enhance future condition (prospective) are appropriate. In February 2008, we surveyed 203 refuge system managers and biologists (via email) about climate change and management strategies to facilitate adaptation to climate change. Our goal was to explore factors that influence preference for retrospective or prospective strategies. Most managers and biologists (76%) believe that climate change has already influenced their refuge, but land-use change and invasive species were considered more important landscape drivers. We did not find evidence that refuge purpose or inclusion of climate change in planning documents influenced individual preferences about strategies to facilitate adaptation. However, managers and biologists who conceptualize climate change as anthropogenic in origin were more likely to prefer retrospective strategies. Written responses indicate that managers and biologists prefer historical condition, but believe that retrospective strategies will be costly or impossible. Written comments also indicate that managers and biologists prefer strategies that allow species to adapt naturally and without intervention. We conclude that land management agencies need to provide the rationale for how climate change should be conceptualized in the short and long terms. Explicitly addressing conservation values may help to refine agency priorities in a rapidly changing world and to build the consensus necessary to strategically coordinate management across individual units in conservation reserves. ß 2012 The Wildlife Society.

Generalizable principles for ecosystem stewardship-based management of social-ecological systems: lessons learned from Alaska

“…ES management should bolster current diversity, foster adaptive capacity, and encourage the protection of and investment in natural, social, and human capital (Chapin et al 2009b). However, implementing ES management also requires proactive governance that accounts for and embraces future changes (Magness et al 2012, Turner et al 2012. We must identify social and ecological indicators of system dynamics and begin to rigorously collect data on indicators (Turner et al 2012).…”

Building adaptive capacity in a coastal region experiencing global change

“…Fish and Wildlife Service 2010), educating the public about climate change, protecting infrastructure, and using energy wisely (Czech et al 2014). Strategic guidance from scholars is likewise very much refuge centric (Griffith et al 2009, Iguchi 2011, Magness et al 2012. However, even when refuge decision makers are clear about the systemic and individual refuge objectives they wish to pursue (Iguchi 2011), they must consider tradeoffs and actions required, involving multiple levels of governance, from local stakeholders to regional institutions and national politics.…”

Barriers to climate-adaptive management: A survey of wildlife researchers and managers in Wisconsin

“…Other surveys of managers have found another common pattern: at least two‐thirds agree that climate change is occurring now. This includes 76% of federal managers (Archie et al ), 74% of state employees (MNDNR unpublished report), 76% of refuge managers (Magness et al ), and all but one respondent in this survey. The greater acceptance by resource professionals might be explained by their acceptance of scientific data and their close connection to the resources affected by climate change, making it comparatively difficult to become psychologically “distant” (Spence et al ).…”