Identifying robust response options to manage environmental change using an Ecosystem Approach: A stress-testing case study for the UK XXX

Abstract

A diverse range of response options was evaluated in terms of their utility for sustaining ecosystem services in the UK. Robustness of response options was investigated by applying a stress-testing method which evaluated expected performance against combined scenarios of socioeconomic and climate change. Based upon stakeholder feedback, a reference scenario representing current trends in climate and socioeconomic drivers -aswas used as a dynamic baseline against which to compare results of other scenarios. The robustness of response options was evaluated by their utility in different environmental and social contexts as represented by the scenarios, and linked to their adaptability to adjust to changing conditions. Key findings demonstrate that adaptability becomes increasingly valuable as the magnitude and rate of future change diverges from current trends. Stress-testing also revealed that individual responses in isolation are unlikely to be robust meaning there are advantages from integrating cohesive combinations (bundles) of response options to maximise their individual strengths and compensate for weaknesses. This identifies a role for both top-down and bottom-up responses, including regulation, spatial targeting, incentives and partnership initiatives, and their use in combination through integrated assessment and planning consistent with the adoption of an Ecosystem Approach. Stress-testing approaches can have an important role in future-proofing policy appraisals but important knowledge gaps remain, especially for cultural and supporting ecosystem services. Finally, barriers and enablers to the implementation of more integrated long-term adaptive responses were identified drawing on I (Institutions, Information, Incentives, Identity) conceptual framework. This highlighted the crucial but usually understated role of identity in promoting ownership and uptake of responses.

Participatory scenario planning for developing innovation in community adaptation responses: three contrasting examples from Latin America

“…Vervoort et al 2014). This difficulty particularly applies to the challenge of maintaining stakeholder interest whilst also enabling a comprehensive assessment of future change (Brown et al, 2015), which may be particularly pronounced with lay people rather than organisations in which scenario exercises have been normally developed (e.g. in business or government) Engagement may therefore require some flexibility and divergence from a 'pure' scenario process in order to maintain interest.…”

Comparative Risk Assessment to Inform Adaptation Priorities for the Natural Environment: Observations from the First UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

“…Hence the tiered risk assessment could not proceed much further than qualitative assessment guided by expert opinion and peer review. Nevertheless, as has been particularly highlighted when evaluating changes in ecosystem services [47], such qualitative procedures are often necessary in delivering a broad-based and timely summary of evidence for informing policy responses without being biased towards evidence from a particular study or location with good data. Qualitative assessment also provides the scope for targeted refinement of the evidence base with strategic emphasis on key knowledge gaps in further cycles of the CCRA and policy development.…”

“…"Social" and "economic" risk magnitude were combined and both defined by risks to key ecosystem services, representing risks to the wider societal benefits from the natural environment, and including categories represented by provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services (for examples, see [34,47]). Priority (Tier 2) risks were defined as those with the highest scores above a particular threshold value agreed with the CCRA Advisory Group.…”

“…In addition, multiple levels of decision-making exist, including international obligations, national policy, regional planning structures and local site management. The current legislative and regulatory framework has therefore been considered as inflexible and limited in terms of its ability to adequately accommodate change [47,79]. Where cross-agency or cross-sectoral protocols have been established, the complexity of arrangements can mean a reluctance to revisit them, or a reluctance to change habitual procedures that are based upon traditional conservation objectives from the historic past or at particular locations.…”

Visualisation techniques to support public interpretation of future climate change and land-use choices: a case study from N-E Scotland

“…Linking of the visualisations to narrative descriptions to elaborate the scenario storyline appears to be particularly important here in terms of the development of scenarios as 'mental models' or 'learning machines' to think about the future (Berkhout et al 2002;Nicolson-Cole 2005). The original SRES were 'expert' scenarios but stakeholders or the public can provide equally legitimate interpretations of the future, especially with facilitation to help disengage from the predilections of the present-day (so-called 'business as usual scenarios': Brown et al 2015).…”