Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A Circumpolar Social-Ecological Synthesis Gary Kofinas, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA Matt Berman, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA Brad Griffith, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA Gennady Belchanski, Russian Academy of Science, Russia David Douglas, US Geological Survey, USA Bruce Forbes, Arctic Centre, Lapland Konstantin Klokov, St Petersburg State University, Russia Leonid Kolpashikov, Extreme North Agricultural Research Institute, Russia Stephanie Martin, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA Craig Nicolson, University of Massachusetts, USA Don Russell, Environment Canada, Canada
40
Embed
Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A Circumpolar Social-Ecological Synthesis
Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A Circumpolar Social-Ecological Synthesis. Gary Kofinas, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA Matt Berman, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA Brad Griffith, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A Circumpolar
Social-Ecological Synthesis
Gary Kofinas, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USAMatt Berman, University of Alaska Anchorage, USABrad Griffith, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Gennady Belchanski, Russian Academy of Science, RussiaDavid Douglas, US Geological Survey, USA
Bruce Forbes, Arctic Centre, LaplandKonstantin Klokov, St Petersburg State University, Russia
Leonid Kolpashikov, Extreme North Agricultural Research Institute, Russia Stephanie Martin, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA
Craig Nicolson, University of Massachusetts, USADon Russell, Environment Canada, Canada
Our project’s goals: – Improve understanding of the relative
resilience and adaptability of regional Human-Rangifer Systems to the forces for global change
– Derive generalized propositions about their functional properties as aspects of the Arctic System.
A Fragile Arctic Ecosystem? Common assumptions
Common assumptions “Highly Adaptable” Indigenous Northerners…(AHDR)
(Nellemann et al. 2001)
1950-2000
1950-2000
Social-ecological heterogeneity
Overarching hypothesis
The heterogeneity of state factors (e.g., geography, climate change, land-surface changes) and their interaction with unique regional processes (i.e. ecological, socio-economic, institutional, and cultural processes) give rise to differing forms of resilience and vulnerability, with implications to the sustainability of human-environment dimensions of the Arctic System.
Resilience in Human-Rangifer Systems is
…the degree to which the ecological and social processes can absorb disturbance, reorganize without loss of basic governing properties, and enable herds and communities to adapt to diverse and dynamic regional conditions, with Rangifer continuing to provide a primary means of support for the local population.
SocialEcological
Chaotic
Balanced
Fragile
Resilient
(Gunderson and Holling 2001)
assumptions of change:Moving beyond sustainability...
From S Carpenter
Yamal
Taimyr Central Barrens
Porcupine
Teshekpuk
Western Arctic
= Range of Rangifer = Calving grounds = Domestic herds
Six Regional Case Studies
Towards a Synthesis
1) A retrospective analysis of change to understand driving factors and internal processes • How did they change and how are they different?
2) A comparative analysis cases to understand heterogeneity and its implications to resilience and vulnerability • Why are they different?
3) Develop rule-based simulation models for exploring common system dynamics • What does that tell us about the system?
Figure 2: Subcomponents in the Study of Human -Rangifer Systems
Global and regional climate patterns
Changing land use, economic markets,
Ecological Process
Tundra Loss; NDVI; animal energetics ;
reproductive success)
Socio-economic Process
Subsistence; commercial use;
markets; life styles
Institutional processlocal-to-regional linkages;
responsiveness; reactions to risk and uncertainty;
emergence of innovation
policy feedback
North American caribou herd sizesEcological Heterogeneity
Max observed growth rate of NA herds
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
George River
Beverly
Bathurst
Bluenose
Porcupine
Central Arctic
Teshekpuk
Western Arctic
% growth per year
A measure of ecological resilience
NDVI-Calf survival relationship for Porcupine Herd (Griffith et al)
What is the relative ecological value of caribou calving grounds?
Lichen calvers
Swamp calvers
Sea ice – NDVI relationship
DATA ALONG 10 TRANSECTS WERE EXTRACTED FOR THIS
DEMONSTRATION ANALYSIS
PCHe
PCHw
CAHm
WAHw
CH
UK
SU
DR
IND
I LE
NA
TYM
e
TYM
w
1997 PCHw PCHe
WAH CAH
CHUK INDI
LENA SUDR
TYMe TYMw
PCHw
PCHe
WAH
CHUK
INDI
LENA
SUDR
TYMe
TYMw
1 JU
NE
– 1
0 S
epte
mb
erda
y of
yea
r: g
reen
=on
set,
red=
max
imum
, blu
e=se
nesc
ence
,
CAH
Late springGreen-up
(timing, rate)
Early summerPeak biomass
(timing, magnitude)
Late summerSenescence(timing, rate)
NDVI DistributionCARIBOUEnergetics
MODEL
•diet and intake rate•maternal condition•early calf growth•post-natal weaning
•diet and intake rate•(insect harassment)•maternal protein•early, normal, extended weaning•calf/cow condition
CARIBOUPopulation
MODEL
• post-natal calf survival
• summer calf survival
•over-winter calf survival•probability of pregnancy
Herd movements/herd range
ARGOS satellite tracking 1986-2006
Animal body condition 16 NA herds field collections 1965-2004
population size 10 NA herds, Klokov DB,
post-calving and calving surveys
1970-2005
snow accumulation and distribution
circumpolar coverage
algorithms to interpret passive microwave
1987-2006
NDVI circumpolar coverage
NASA Pathfinder PAL 8 km spatial
1982-2001 /10-day temporal
NDVI circumpolar coverage
NASA GIMMS 8 km spatial 2001/+15-day /temporal
NDVI circumpolar coverage
Spot Vegetation 1 km spatial
1998+ 10-day /temporal
Sea Ice Concentration circumpolar coverage
NSIDC 25 km spatial, daily 1979+
Sea Ice Melt Status circumpolar coverage
Russia Academy Sci. 25 km spatial, daily
1979+
Snow Water Equivalent circumpolar coverage
NSIDC 25 km spatial 1978-2003 /monthly
Surface Air Temperature circumpolar coverage
IABP/POLES 100 km spatial 1979-2002 /daily
Atmospheric Parameters circumpolar coverage
NCAR/NCEP2.5 degree spatial
1948+ /daily
ecological data
Modes of production
Hunting
Pastoralism
Ranching
(Ingold 1980:4)
sharing market
protection
predation
accumulationsu
bsis
tenc
e
Post- Perestroika
Example of Collapse and Social-Ecological Regime Shift
Pre- Perestroika
Harvesting of Wild Reindeer in Russia
xc10
00Example of Collapse and Social-Ecological Regime Shift
Conflict areas between wild and domesticRangifer of the Taimyr
(Klokov 2002)
• Agencies: Dept of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development; Health and Social Services; Agricultural and Agrifood Canada
• Co-management Boards and local HTAs• NWT’s Special Committee on North Economy
(SCONE) Current commercial activities• Led to “DevCorp”
– Responsibility for meat marketing within and outside of Canadian Arctic
= Meat processing facility
= Large-scale Community Hunts
Commercial caribou huntsIn Canadian Arctic
(adapted from Dragon 2002)
Land use patterns Regional and circumpolar coverage
GLOBIO, AC Project, AK Dept of Nat Resources, Environment Canada, territorial governments, Klokov DB,
1950-present
Human harvest 6 case studies Agencies, native organizations, reports
Varies by region and sub-region
Domestic reindeer population
4 case studies, regions of Russia
Klokov, various soviet sources, 1926 Russian census
Varies by region and sub-region
Commercial sale of Rangifer, market prices of Rangifer products
4 of the 6 cases Agencies, native organizations, published reports, Klokov DB, HARC project
Varies by region and sub-region
Human population and settlement demographics
Region and community
US Census, Statistics Canada, AK Village Profiles, USSR and Russia censuses
Varies by region and sub-region
Perceptions of well being
Community and region
SLICA 2004
Role of culture in Rangifer relationship
Region and community
Published ethnographies Varies by study
Socio-economic data
Figure 3: Simplified Rangifer Socio-Economic Model
Herding costs
Hunting costs
Human population
Other economic opportunities
Policies
Development
Climate and or industrial development
Domestic herds Wild herds
Subsistence harvest
Commercial harvest
Subsistence harvest
Commercial harvest
Institutions,
Traditions
Institutions,
Traditions
Markets
Markets
Cash income
Regional socio-economic model that explains regimes shifts
Comparative Studies in co-management: Regimes of North America
multi-stakeholder
Cooperative management
Long-standing
formal
co-management
Jurisdictionally
fractured
management
ad hoc,
unfunded
planning group
International
and Canadian
co-management
agreements
Short term
recovery team
Regional institutional processes (“important
habitat ”)
Local observations; concerns;
proposals for regional action
Perceived ecological conditions(risk and uncertainty)
Social -economic
change
International, national, and extra-regional policies
Unresponsiveness retrenchment; status quo, surprise.
Responsiveness, Innovation and adaptive action
Figure 4 Institutional Dimensions of Project Synthesis
Formal institutional arrangements
Regional and local
published laws, regulations, land claims agreements, international treaties
Varies by region
Patterns of interaction Local to regional
Published papers Varies by region
Records of decision Regional and local
Agency records, co-management board records, local organizational documentation, past dissertations
Varies by region
Culture, informal customary rules
Community Ethnographies and others documentations
Varies by region
Institutional data
Table 1. Examples of characteristics of high to low resilience in sub-components of Regional Human-Rangifer Systems
Ecological Socio-economic Institutional
High
Low
-Med-low density
-Energetic flexibility (fat deposition and calf size)
-low feedback between caribou and calving/summer range conditions
-Diversity in modes of production , alternative economic opportunities
-Mechanisms to share risk and rewards
-Intergenerational knowledge transmission
-Nested / well integrated rule-making
-monitoring linked to research and policy processes
-cultural heterogeneity with strong mechanisms for conflict resolution
-Minimal fat deposition and calf size;
-High human demand
-Energetic stresses (ecological bottlenecks)
-Institutions that are inconsistent with economic incentives;
-Barriers to market development
-Barriers to population mobility
-Limited integration of scales
-Limited resources for rule enforcement.
-Highly centralized decision making
Towards the construction of simple models: Wild-domestic levels, price, and climate
Price
Climate
Domestic herd
Wild herd
CARMA Network(Circum-Arctic Rangifer
Monitoring & AssessmentNetwork)
• ~40 participants from seven countries• Gearing up for intensive IPY monitoring• Interests in remote sensing, field-based
studies, community monitoring• Climate; habitat; genetics; energetics; disease
and parasites, predation, population dynamics, human uses and responses to change; decision-support tools
• We’re helping with the overall synthesis
Making our progress, one step at a time…….
Where we’re at…
• We are facing the normal process challenges of interdisciplinary research, but it seems that past experience helps
• We’re grappling with the task of clarifying resilient to whom and resilient for what
• We’re trying to stay focused on Social-ecological linkages and integrated measures of resilience that we can operationalizing
• We’re grappling with the thorny problem of accounting for regimes shifts and thresholds.
• We are initially pleased with our focus on “Relative resilience” – as a useful comparative method for understanding social-ecological vulnerabilities.