Aligning integrated ecosystem assessment with adaptation planning in support of ecosystem-based management Open Access

Abstract

Supporting resilience is a common goal of natural resource management, but managing under changing conditions that requires adaptation is a modern challenge. A state-of-the-art framework for implementing an integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA), the NOAA IEA approach, is used as an example to demonstrate whether and how assessment in ecosystem-based management (EBM), as often implemented in fisheries, can be expected to facilitate planned adaptation. Using comparisons with another assessment framework developed for implementing a climate change adaptation project, the United Nations Development Programme-Global Environment Facility Adaptation Policy Framework (UNDP-GEF APF), this paper expands and operationalizes the concepts of managing for resilience versus change in EBM as presented by West et al.(2009). It first introduces a variety of terms from climate change adaptation literature to help institutionalize “planned adaptation” as a useful concept within fisheries, then presents an expanded map of adaptive management processes in EBM. Finally, it proposes steps for enhancing processes supporting planned adaptation in individual applications of EBM in fisheries. Steps include (i) recognizing interest and funding for adaptation planning as prerequisites, (ii) evaluating what information or actors are lacking to implement better planning, and (iii) determining what institutional processes within an adaptive management cycle need augmentation.

Introduction

It has been roughly two decades since the idea that ecosystem-based management (EBM) is the ideal implementation of fisheries management gained concrete footing, through important milestones such as the UN Reykjavík Convention on Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management in 2001 and the publication of defining guidance documents such as the FAO document on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (FAO, 2003). Since then, extensive progress has been made in formalizing national programs that focus on ecosystem assessments (e.g. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (NOAA IEA) program, established 2010 in the USA, Harvey et al., 2020a). EBM is theoretically a more holistic and inherently adaptive approach to fisheries management that recognizes humans as part of a larger cross-sectoral social-ecological system (SES), includes multiple societal goals and has a greater emphasis on accounting for ecological interactions and connectivity, as well as a precautionary approach to account for uncertainty in ecosystem research (Marasco et al., 2007, Long et al., 2015). Across the globe, EBM is currently in a phase of implementation trial and error in fisheries (Österblom et al., 2010; Sievanen et al., 2011; Aswani et al., 2012; Berkes, 2012; Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2016): ecosystem principles are more commonly appearing in high-level marine resource policies (e.g. Sievanen et al., 2011). However, there is often no guidance on how to implement them and sometimes no way to do so given the governance structures in place (Raakjaer et al., 2014; van Hoof, 2015). Some studies suggest that fisheries are already being managed using an ecosystem approach (Marshall et al., 2019), whereas in other cases, it is suggested that a major reconstruction of institutional arrangements and boundaries are needed (Berkes, 2012). This difference in view is the essence of the on-going argument in literature of what implementation of EBM in fisheries looks like and whether it is “evolutionary” or “revolutionary” (Marasco et al., 2007).

Simultaneously, the urgency of mediating current and imminent climate change effects has sprouted a fervor of environmental, social, political, and interdisciplinary analyses in recent decades, encouraging the development of general methods for climate change adaptation (Burton et al., 2004; Vogel et al., 2007; Füssel, 2007a; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Pedersen et al., 2016) as well as pertinent fisheries-related questions regarding how the people who depend on changing marine ecosystems will adapt (e.g. Allison et al., 2009; Badjeck et al., 2010; Himes-Cornell and Kasperski, 2015; King et al., 2015). Assessment methods that support EBM versus climate change adaptation both rely on interdisciplinary analyses of SESs (see Supplementary Material). Therefore, it could be assumed that climate change adaptation is facilitated by EBM implementation due to a common theoretical emphasis placed on adaptive management, considering the entire SES, and incorporating human dimensions (Long et al., 2015; Ogier et al., 2016). However, despite increasing interest in the topic, it is unclear whether current methods, especially given the diversity of interpretations regarding implementation status and progress of EBM, are or even should be capable of addressing adaptation-related questions. For example, the recent term “climate-ready” implies a support of adaptation and has gained popularity in fisheries research. However, it could be used/interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the interests and background of the author/audience, with mechanisms ranging from technical solutions of monitoring and management tools (Pinsky and Mantua, 2014; Hazen et al., 2018) to changes in governance and management structure (Wilson et al., 2018; Bell et al., 2020).

Promoting resilience is an important goal in both climate change adaptation and EBM (West et al., 2009; Long et al., 2015), but promoting adaptation (of the people involved) is a different beast: adaptation occurs when change is large enough to surpass the boundaries of resiliency of the system. West et al. (2009) argued for a recognition that any construct of EBM requires transition during such periods (i.e. “managing for change”) such that ecological goals and methods for supporting ecological resilience may change but remain supported. The rationale used to motivate climate change adaptation research, on the other hand, expands this rationale to include human resilience: if adaptation is not planned, the human response to climate change at best will be far more expensive than if planned, and at worst, maladaptive. The aim of this paper is not to judge whether supporting adaptation of the people involved should be incorporated within EBM in any individual system, or be implemented tangentially, or even at all. Rather the aim is to present perspective for analysing what it actually means, or does not mean, to support adaptation, so that such a judgement regarding whether and how an EBM implementation should support adaptation can then be made.

This paper first explores the theoretical scopes of climate change adaptation science and EBM in fisheries to show where they overlap and where they diverge conceptually. It then goes on to interpret the NOAA IEA approach supporting EBM in fisheries using a climate change adaptation lens gained from comparisons with a climate change adaptation assessment framework. This information can then be used to align expectations of EBM outcomes with methods used (or not used), either by improving adaptation-facilitating processes or recognizing that promoting adaptation falls beyond the scope and expectations of what a specific EBM implementation can deliver.

Resilience via “adaptive management” is not the same “management adaptation”

The theory of the pathology of command and control (TPCC) suggests that centralized management systems tend to fail because they rely on technical fixes that are effective in the short term but oversimplify problems of natural resource management. This pattern leads to suppression of other ways to address the problem in the long term, a loss of resilience, and eventual entrainment of the management process into a single pathway (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Berkes et al., 2000; Cox, 2016). This canalization implies a loss of adaptive capacity (i.e. other ways to address the problem) and an inability of a system to bounce back from disturbances without the system transforming in structure or function (i.e. resilience, Box 1). Fisheries management in the global North has been used as a prime example, if not the prime example, of a command and control management system (Holling and Meffe 1996; Scott 1998; Berkes et al., 2000; Acheson, 2006): due to the history and ease of continuing with formally structured regulation environment, global North nations tend to exhibit hierarchical governance and have difficulty switching to a less centralized version of governance (Soliman, 2014). Performing adaptive management in natural resource management was proposed as one way by which losses in resilience and adaptive capacity could be avoided and has been a critical theoretical underpinning of good fisheries management at least since Carl Walters’ seminal work on the subject, written 35 years ago (Walters, 1986, see Box 1 for definition). Although performing adaptive management is now considered common practice (Box 1), resilience has only more recently become more prevalent in high-level policy. For example, the term can be found in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 Target 2: “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, …” (URL: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-below-water/targets.html, last accessed 5 May 2021) as well as in the European Union Marine Strategy Directive Framework within the definition of good environmental status: “…allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change.” (URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN, last accessed 5 May 2021). Managing for resilience in EBM (sensu West et al., 2009) includes such management strategies as reducing anthropogenic stresses (e.g. reducing marine pollution), restoration, and protecting key ecosystem features or refugia (e.g. creating marine protected areas). Although West et al. (2009) focus on ecological resilience, the idea is generalized enough to be applicable to social resilience as well, especially as principles of EBM require consideration of the entire SES (see Supplementary Material). Internal policies have begun to consider social resilience: for example, the NOAA New England and Mid-Atlantic Geographic Strategic Plan 2020–2023 and the Alaska Geographic Strategic Plan 2020–2023 mention community resilience, while other NOAA regional strategic plans only reference natural resource resilience (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/noaa-fisheries-strategic-plans, last accessed 5 May 2021).

However, ecological and social resilience are based on different processes, and how they support each other is not always clear (Adger, 2000; Folke, 2006). Examples of strategies exist regarding community resiliency in fisheries, although the field is nascent and exists largely outside the context of EBM (e.g. risk-spreading strategies such as quota banks, knowledge-sharing strategies such as cooperatives, or development activities such as training programs or development funds; see examples by Kasperski and Holland, 2013; Seara, 2014; Sethi et al., 2014; Himes-Cornell and Hoelting, 2015; Holland et al., 2017; Bell et al., 2020; Woods et al., 2021). Notably, these social resilience strategies do not depend on ecological interventions to effect ecological resilience as a prerequisite, but rather are direct social interventions, and can be thought of as a separate type of strategy from those having direct ecological interventions (although secondary or non-linear interactions could be expected, Berkes et al., 2000; Figure 1 top row).

Furthermore, managing for resilience is not sufficient to implement managing for change, that is, to bring about management adaptation according to West et al. (2009). Management adaptation hinges on a recognition that when maintaining the current structure and function of a system is no longer effective, there is a need for managing the transition to a new state (West et al., 2009). Strategies for managing for change include increasing interagency collaboration, establishing priorities under difficult trade-offs, and expecting ecosystem change as a management outcome (e.g. supporting changes towards dependencies on different species, identifying under what conditions restoration should occur, West et al.,2009 and Figure 1 bottom row). It therefore focuses on ecological conditions and institutions surrounding them, but as with managing for resilience, the concept of managing for change could also be expanded. West et al. (2009) mainly referred to managers as the main actors actively planning for change, which is not surprising given the study's focus on management of public lands and waters. Capture fisheries, however, have a great breadth of stakeholders, which are often heavily dependent in an economic and/or cultural sense on the ecosystem and may even comprise managers as well. Within this latter context, adaptation of the people involved also becomes closely related to the field of climate change adaptation, which often focuses on economic and/or cultural changes rather than management changes alone. As managing for change is a rather nascent concept with roots in adaptation research, its usage is not yet institutionalized in the field of natural resource management (West et al., 2009).

Concepts through terminology

Many of the terms and strategies utilized in managing ecological resilience are commonly used in both EBM and climate change adaptation. In contrast, concepts related to managing for change have been more extensively operationalized within climate change adaptation research, allowing an opportunity for greater transdisciplinarity. Term usage here is compared not only to demonstrate their common theoretical origin, but also to demonstrate differences in operationalizing concepts between each field.

Terms common to EBM and adaptation sciences

Studies of adaptation in response to climate change matured from the study of cultural adaptation, which analyses how cultures change or cope with their natural environment (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Although transferred from its well-known evolutionary counterpart (i.e. genetic adaptation), adaptation has a meaning distinct from that found in the natural sciences, with different processes resulting in observed changes (Box 1). Adaptation has become an entrained concept within political ecology and similar social sciences, as have related concepts of exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and resilience, which developed as a response to the urgency of understanding effects of climate change (Smit and Wandel, 2006). These related terms can likewise be found within fisheries literature; however, because fisheries science has a strong biological foundation, these terms can have 2–3 usages, depending on whether the literature has a social or biological focus. Adaptation is present as a biological evolutionary term but can also refer to social adaptation, especially with reference to climate change effects on fishers. Vulnerability, along with related terms exposure and sensitivity, are commonly used with reference to people or communities in risk analysis (Smit and Wandel, 2006) and differently for example depending on whether the “hazard” (or threat) is a single discrete event or continuous “stressor” (Füssel, 2007b). In marine sciences, however, these are also commonly used terms with reference to risk analysis of a resource (Anthony et al., 2015; Brugère, and DeYoung, 2015; Hare et al., 2016; Comte and Pendleton, 2018). Adaptive capacity has been applied in terms of communities as defined in Box 1 (e.g. Himes-Cornell and Kasperski, 2015), but it has also been applied to marine resources (Foo and Byrne, 2016) and even regulatory schemes (Melnychuk et al., 2014).

Terms from adaptation sciences that enable managing for change

Concepts related to managing for change are not as common in fisheries research. However, borrowing language, while being aware of confusion it could create, is one way of synthesizing and engendering new ideas. Box 2 includes a variety of terms not common in fisheries literature that may be useful to borrow from climate change adaptation literature to formalize an approach towards managing for change. Planned adaptation, for example, includes actions that can be split into proactive versus reactive measures, depending on when they take effect and whether it was in response to an actual impact versus a potential risk. Proactive measures can diminish the hazard involved (e.g. reducing greenhouse gas emissions now reduces the risk of extreme sea level rise), reduce vulnerability (e.g. rehabilitating mangroves buffers the effects of sea level rise), or reduce sensitivity or exposure to a stressor/hazard (e.g. translocating people now avoids future risks and impacts of sea level rise). Reactive measures may likewise reduce future sensitivity or exposure (e.g. disaster response plans), but generally include coping mechanisms (e.g. emergency relocation). Reactive measures obviously have the benefit of more fully understanding the nature of the impact; however, proactive measures have the potential to reduce large costs by avoiding negative impacts to begin with (Füssel, 2007a). Planned adaptation is also designed with uncertainty of the actual change in mind: “[…] it is not, however, necessary to define precisely the nature of the potential impact, nor the likely course of the adaptive process […].” (Kates et al., 2012, p. 328). Embracing this uncertainty ensures that policies can be designed using a “no-regrets approach” (Box 2) and actions are chosen based on the perceived social benefits and trade-offs associated with them across scenarios (Smit and Wandel, 2006). This process implies a need to consider a variety of options, which are referred to as “adaptation options,” “adaptation strategies,” or simply “adaptations.” “Options” implies that a decision-making process depends on an assessment to compare them. A very general definition of adaptation options could be taken from Nelson et al. (2007, p. 396) as “…[a] set of technological or technical options to respond to specific risks”. More recent concepts of adaptation options in climate change literature include the idea of not only dealing with risk, but also taking advantage of opportunity (Box 2). For example, Moser and Ekstrom (2010, p. 22026) describe adaptation option usage in planned adaptation as “[potential a]daptation strategies and actions [that] can range from short-term coping to longer-term, deeper transformations, aim to meet more than climate change goals alone, and may or may not succeed in moderating harm or exploiting beneficial opportunities”. This last definition also places climate change within a broader development context, acknowledges uncertainty in their outcome, and emphasizes time-scale dependence as well as a range in “depth” of responses, which could include both “incremental” and “transformational” adaptation (Box 2). Note, however, that although adaptation terms are often used with reference to global climate change, adaptation is not a climate-specific process, but rather occurs under non-equilibrium conditions of an SES for a variety of reasons. The concept of planning for adaptation also introduces the idea that under the scenario of no planning, or when plans go awry, the system can end in an unintended or undesirable state. There is term for this, too: “maladaptation” (see Hamilton et al., 2004, Criddle, 2012, and Kates et al., 2012 for examples).

Adaptive management: integrated assessments to facilitate learning and experimentation

Differences in term usage can indicate differences in how concepts are operationalized, as well as confusion or discord between fields of research, as communication among fields with different lexicons is one of the many barriers to conducting interdisciplinary science (Holt et al., 2017). For example, a vulnerability assessment applied to either a fishing community (Cutter et al., 2003; Colburn et al., 2006; Himes-Cornell and Kasperski, 2015) or marine resources at risk of anthropogenic impact (Anthony et al., 2015; Hare et al., 2016; Comte and Pendleton, 2018) require vastly different data and assessment methods. It is therefore useful to have a look at how concepts have been operationalized within assessment frameworks of both fisheries and climate change adaptation fields, as assessment is the main information-simplifying tool used in adaptive management to support the experimental process that facilitates learning and improvement over time (Box 1).

In fisheries research: integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA)

The term integrated assessment (IA) has a wide variety of meanings and contexts, but is highly applicable to the study of SESs, because it signifies that knowledge from diverse disciplines across multiple components of a complex system was compiled to consider multiple consequences and support decision-making (Möllmann et al., 2014; Clarke et al., 2018). The knowledge being compiled, however, differs depending on the purpose of the assessment. One recent method for implementing EBM in fisheries that has gained popularity is the IEA (Levin et al., 2013; Möllmann et al., 2014). IEAs evolved from more generalized methods of IAs that were developed for early climate change impact IAs (Möllmann et al., 2014). Much of the literature surrounding IEA development is generated from the NOAA IEA program (https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/, last accessed 5 May 2021), which is only roughly a decade old (Harvey et al., 2020a) and includes some of the most detailed and well-documented implementations of IEA, both in terms of technical models generated and social processes analysed. This documentation is partially a result of the institutionalization of ecosystem modelling into the federal-level decision-making process (a feat in itself). IEAs often include a wide variety of ecological and societal indicators to broadly represent the SES and interactions or trade-offs within it, both currently and in projections of future scenarios.

According to NOAA's IEA program (https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach, last accessed 5 May 2021), the IEA approach includes (i) defining EBM goals and targets, (ii) developing indicators, (iii) assessing the ecosystem, (iv) analysing uncertainty and risk, and (v) evaluating management strategies (Figure 2). To account for uncertainty and test management scenarios or options, a management strategy evaluation is often performed when possible (DePiper et al., 2017), but IEAs may also be based on qualitative assessments (Rosellon-Druker et al., 2019). Social considerations have been included through vulnerability assessments used to evaluate impacts of specific fisheries regulations or social stressors such as privatization or gentrification (e.g. Clay and Olson, 2008; Olson 2011; Colburn and Jepson, 2012) and linkages with human well-being (e.g. Rosellon-Druker et al., 2019). Social vulnerability indices, among other socioeconomic indicators, are analysed within a human dimensions subcomponent of an ecosystem model when possible. Particularly innovative is the inclusion of several social indicators that reflect social resilience in the ecosystem model of an IEA (e.g. Harvey et al., 2020b; https://noaa-edab.github.io/tech-doc/catch-and-fleet-diversity.html, last accessed 5 May 2021). As a result, several ecological, economic and social indicators are analysed in a risk assessment framework (Holsman et al., 2017).

In climate change adaptation research: combined assessments

IA has roots in climate change research from the 1980s (Möllmann et al., 2014), being based on some of the earliest International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment reports (IPCC, 1990). Many global North nations now have mandated multisector climate impact and adaptation assessments, while other nations may have similar assessments sponsored by non-governmental organizations from projects conducted under the umbrella of development funding (Füssel, 2007a). As a result, best practice methods for assessing climate change impacts and adaption have been formed from a broad scope of contexts (Füssel, 2007a), as well as troubleshooting guidelines for identifying why adaptation may not occur (Vogel et al., 2007; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). These methods stress the importance of coming up with strategies now that can be implemented so that future shocks to the system are lessened through planned adaptation (Füssel, 2007a) under a no-regrets approach (Heltberg et al., 2009).

In a combined-approach climate change adaptation assessment, information is collected regarding (i) how past, current, and expected future environmental variation and directional change has affected or will likely affect natural resources, and (ii) how the people dependent on the natural resources have adapted to changes in the past and are likely to adapt in the future (Füssel, 2007a). The combined approach grew from an early bifurcation in theoretical assessment approaches that were later used in conjunction: a “hazards-based” approach (essentially a quantitative risk assessment) and a “vulnerability-based” approach (Füssel, 2007a). The former begins with defining the natural hazard (i.e. the threat that poses a risk), then assessing how that hazard affects vulnerability of social groups. The vulnerability-based approach instead focuses first on defining thresholds in terms of harm to the social group, then links it with risk of a hazard (Burton et al., 2004). As a result, hazards-based approaches tend to be heavily model-based and focused on how to predict impacts, for example, by linking climate impacts with social indicators, whereas a vulnerability-based approach first focuses on characterizing the society, its context, and its relation to the natural environment. Both approaches are IAs, as both require knowledge regarding ecological and social components of the system.

Füssel (2007a) cites the United Nations Development Programme-Global Environment Facility Adaptation Policy Framework (UNDP-GEF APF, Burton et al., 2004) as the best example of guidelines for a combined-approach assessment, although several are available. In the UNDP-GEF APF approach (Figure 2), five main components to a project are outlined (inserted here at comparable points in an IEA cycle, Figure 2). Scoping and designing the adaptation project occurs first, followed by assessing current vulnerability to climate risks (including socio-economic conditions in a vulnerability-based approach when needed), assessing future climate risks (including changing socio-economic conditions in a hazards-based approach when needed), formulating an adaptation strategy, and continuing the adaptation process (Figure 2, Burton et al., 2004). The end goal is to be able to form a climate risk priority list to which adaptation strategies can be matched as policy recommendations in the fourth step (Figure 2, Burton et al., 2004).

A comparison of frameworks: NOAA IEA versus UNDP-GEF APF

Some similarities between the NOAA IEA approach and UNDP-GEF APF methodology are immediately clear. Both contain an initial scoping exercise (Figure 2, Burton et al., 2004, Levin et al., 2009). Both consider stakeholder engagement an essential component throughout the process, using participatory approaches (Walker et al., 2002). Both include a risk assessment in the middle step(s) (third for UNDP-GEF APF, third and fourth for IEA). The risk assessment likely involves technical modelling where possible (or qualitative assessments where not), forecasting potential climate impacts (when pertinent), comparing scenario outcomes, and reducing or accounting for technical uncertainty. Both are intended to be flexible and adaptable with steps skipped if unnecessary.

However, important differences can also be seen. The second NOAA IEA approach step of developing indicators could occur during the first and second steps of in UNDP-GEF APF, but the usage of indicators through the types of vulnerability assessments conducted are substantially different. Mainly top-down, quantitative-style vulnerability assessment characteristic of hazards-based approaches have been implemented in IEAs (indicator-based and modelling-based methods, Brugère and DeYoung, 2015), whereas a structured bottom-up approach of the vulnerability-based component is included (or considered for inclusion) alongside a risk assessment in the UNDP-GEF APF. The vulnerability-based assessment could include, for example, rapid rural appraisal, livelihoods analysis, and institutional assessments (Brugère and DeYoung, 2015). This pattern is in line with tradition in fisheries science, where quantitative vulnerability assessments tend to dominate, even in comparison with other closely related natural resource fields (Brugère and DeYoung, 2015). The lack of a vulnerability-based assessment in IEA is therefore not a theoretical restriction of the NOAA IEA approach, but rather a product of separate evolution of fisheries versus climate change adaptation fields. That is, the two frameworks similarly can address analyses of current and future climate risk — (Step 3 of UNDP-GEF APF and Step 4 of IEA) via qualitative or quantitative modelling methods (hazards-based approach). However, the vulnerability-based branch of the combined-approach assessment (Step 2 of UNDP-GEF APF) yields structured methods for evaluating socially constructed vulnerability and could be a novel application if used within an IEA approach. Uncertainty within vulnerability-based assessments is addressed by (i) comparing climate scenarios (including changes in socio-economic conditions) and (ii) performing an assessment of current vulnerability to current climate risks (Burton et al., 2004). These methods are suggested to be one of the most innovative aspects of its approach because (ii) adaptation to current climate risk is the most immediate task, (ii) results are based on current experience, and (iii) baseline assessments become available of socio-economic conditions, adaptive capacity, and adaptation experience (Burton et al., 2004). A hazards-based approach, as often done in IEA, was utilized early in climate change adaptation science, whereas over time a vulnerability-based approach was found to yield more policy-relevant results by generating context-relevant strategies (Füssel, 2007a). That is, “[t]o be effective and acceptable to stakeholders, adaptation measures must be consistent with past experience, current behaviour and future expectations. Characterizing this collective adaptation experience is essential” (Burton et al., 2004, p. 18).

In addition, Steps 4–5 of the UNDP-GEF APF and 5–6 of the IEA appear similar (Figure 2), but important wording differences exemplify differences in operationalization of adaptive management. Formulating an adaptation strategy and continuing the adaptation process is different from evaluating strategies and continuing to use adaptive management: the latter does not engender the ideas of including strategy formulation as a process within adaptive management, or adapting the management process itself. Recalling the definition of planned adaptation from Box 2, the overall purpose of a climate change adaptation assessment is to use information about current and future change “to review the suitability of current and planned practices, policies, and infrastructure”. As a result, a climate change adaptation assessment ideally includes a review of policy and the management process within a broader review of SES governance (see Supplementary Material for background). These differences may simply be minor omissions in wording or interpretation, especially if frameworks are intended to reflect only a broad theoretical IEA. For example, if continuing to use adaptive management is re-interpreted to include an adaptive management cycle with the ability to restructure governance processes (as represented in Figure 3), then these last steps align. However, if the frameworks analysed are instead interpreted as a reflection of how theoretical IEAs can be translated into state-of-the-art applied assessments, then the omissions could likewise reflect a design not intended to provide information on governance, create strategies or adapt the management process itself.

This difference does not imply that governance is completely ignored in an IEA implementation. On the contrary, the first step of the NOAA IEA approach includes defining EBFM goals, which is essentially a governance process. This and many other important components of governance are detailed and discussed during participatory scoping exercises and vulnerability assessments done within the NOAA IEA approach (e.g. Rosellon-Druker et al., 2019). Instead, a lack of necessity can explain a lack of formal processes for analysing governance (e.g. by using a vulnerability-based approach), creating adaptation options that could implement bottom-up changes to stakeholders’ behaviours (such as those listed under “Social” in Figure 1), or making decisions based on this information. Vulnerability-based assessment is not needed if the information will not be used anyway, for example, when IEAs are developed to inform the decision-making process used to create fisheries management plans in accordance with legislature that has clear biological goals but unclear social goals. However, even if the information is not formally needed, it can still be useful, as decision-making may still include social and economic considerations (DePiper et al., 2017) and in practice, there is additional flexibility in how legislative mandates are met. IEAs are often designed to accommodate interests or needs of additional audience in a collaborative setting (e.g. according to stakeholder input or regional partnerships). As a result, there is ample room to consider the utility of vulnerability-based assessments to aid a focus on adaptation and facilitating social resilience within or external to an IEA, but with the prerequisite of social goals first being clarified through a governance process.

A synthesis of integrated assessments

Comparisons made here with the NOAA IEA approach are not intended to criticize the NOAA IEA program. Instead, the intent was to simply demonstrate differences in popular thought, term usage, and assessment application between the two fields of fisheries and climate change research, as both approach the same problem of promoting sustainability in an uncertain, natural-resource-dependent world. It is also important to recognize limitations of common IEA application, which have likely arisen as a byproduct of history rather than any real or theoretical limitation of an IEA program. The strengths of IEAs commonly implemented in fisheries science lie in the enormous steps they have taken towards the current implementation in EBM: recognizing humans as part of a larger SES, analysing socioeconomic impacts, including multiple societal goals, accounting for ecological interactions and connectivity and uncertainty, and incorporating stakeholder participation and a common understanding of the ecosystem and management strategies, all of which are important principals in EBM (Marasco et al., 2007; Long et al., 2015). However, as they do not (standardly) use methods designed to provide a fuller understanding of how to support social resilience (beyond indirect effects on ecological resilience) and adaptation of governance processes or the stakeholders involved, their limitations likely lie in how well they can directly aid in climate-readiness of an EBM, except through providing more accurate predictions of how management tools will perform. Judging from experience in climate change adaptation fields (Füssel, 2007a), support for social resilience, if deemed a goal within EBM, could conceivably be improved by greater involvement of adaptation-related concepts and assessment methodology, especially as the reality of non-equilibrium conditions in SESs becomes the norm.

For example, to understand how any specific practical implementation is limited in relation to a broader theoretical scope, it could be mapped as separate adaptive management cycles dependent on information regarding ecological, social, or governance-related conditions (Figure 3). Such a mapping exercise can be useful for understanding differences in assessment methods, options chosen, or gaps in information, as well as clarifying when and by whom actions are completed within each cycle (Figure 3). Performing an assessment of an SES (such as an IEA) is one of many governance options chosen and implemented within the context of EBM goals (within Step 3 of the governance cycle, Figure 3). The SES assessment clearly spans Steps 2 and 4 of social and ecological cycles, but may also span Steps 1 and 3 depending on how it is designed. Strategy/option creation is explicitly included as a process (Step 1), along with decision-making (Step 3), in all cycles (Figure 3). Tactical decision-making is likely to occur within social and ecological cycles, whereas strategic decision-making likely occurs within the governance cycle. Separation among the three adaptive management cycles is not intended to map a single chronological approach (as in Figure 2), but rather emphasizes hierarchy and linkages among functions as well as determining who performs each function. For example, Step 1 is a process not explicitly drawn in Figure 2, but who participates can have important consequences for the outcome of an IEA. Given the comparisons of language and assessment frameworks in the previous section, the scopes of actual IEA implementations performed in the United States (with similarities across other global North nations) are likely to be comprised of green arrows depicted in Figure 3, and exclude many functions supporting social resilience or management adaptation (several red or blue arrows/numbers). Expectations of such assessments to promote planned adaptation of management or social conditions should therefore likewise be limited.

Analysing limitations is important for two reasons. First, it is important to recognize that adaptation will occur whether it is planned or not. Therefore, claiming greater climate-readiness without a view towards how the tools used or management system supports planned adaptation can be misleading. Without explicit processes in place for supporting planned adaptation, the inherent assumption that follows is that adaptation to changes in the future will occur in an organic manner if local communities are coherent enough (i.e. planned spontaneously via processes external to EBM) or through a collection of individual choices (i.e. resulting in an unplanned, or incoherently planned, emergent system). However, the outcome may not be beneficial overall if only a few individuals can take advantage of changes over others or if responsive actions taken are ineffective. For example, mitigation measures have often been employed in response to negative socioeconomic consequences of rebuilding plans mandated by the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act, but their effectiveness has been questioned as most socioeconomic research has surrounded rebuilding plans, rather than development of mitigation options (NRC, 2014). Repeating maladaptation problems that have been observed under single-species management cannot therefore be ruled out, even under EBM (see Hamilton et al., 2004 and Criddle, 2012 for examples).

This leads us to the second reason why recognizing the limitations of an EBM in planning for adaptation is important. If it is desirable to avoid maladaptation, and if an actual implementation of EBM is not designed to do so (perhaps because it has little effect on reducing the canalization problem depicted by the TPCC), then recognizing and assessing this weakness may provide highly influential information to decision makers. The same decision makers may have the power to, for example, change the EBM implementation or support planned adaptation processes external to an EBM implementation. Essentially, recognizing these weaknesses facilitates management adaptation.

Next steps: seeds for enhancing planned adaptation in fisheries

Although the concept of an IEA is flexible enough in theory to include planning for adaptation, it is unlikely to be incorporated in EBM (whether internal or external to an IEA) without recognizing a few potential barriers to implementation. First, interest and funding, especially with regards to supporting social resilience, from appropriate governing or decision-making bodies is a precursor to planning for adaptation. Second, information needed to implement better planning may be lacking. Third, institutional processes within an adaptive management cycle may need to be augmented to (i) collect such information to begin with and (ii) implement actions to promote the planning. Therefore, these three broad categories are used here to generate “seeds” for enhancing EBM in fisheries by yielding greater support for planning for adaptation.

Define a need for adaptation planning in the management process

The following two seeds describe manners by which stakeholders and/or decision-makers may define or approach a need for planned adaptation.

Seed 1: promote a focus on managing for social resilience

It is logical that promoting ecosystem sustainability (and therefore ecological resilience) is a precondition for social resilience (although not a necessary one, see Adger, 2000; Criddle, 2012; Ojea et al., 2017). However, it does not account for the feedback that if there were greater social resilience a priori, then perhaps the drivers of reduced ecosystem resilience (e.g. incentives to unsustainably fish) would not be as strong. As some high-level policies have begun to include social priorities into natural resource management policy, for example, the consideration for fishing communities in National Standard 8 of the US Magnuson Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. ß 1801 et seq.), legal space has also developed for prioritizing social resilience, despite several complexities for implementing priorities in an operational manner (Clay and Olson, 2008). In addition, as social resilience is affected by regulations (e.g. quota systems and licensing that reduce fishing opportunities, Holland and Kasperski, 2016; Holland et al., 2017), as well as ecosystem recovery (which can increase diversification and adaptability, Yletyinen et al., 2018), a more thorough consideration of strategies and their feedbacks can be gained by using social-resilience-oriented frameworks (e.g. Ojea et al., 2017).

However, even if enhancing social resilience is a goal, it may not be fully achievable without finding commonalities in goals of policies external to fisheries management and working with agencies or organizations that have authority and/or funding to implement strategies primarily meant to support social resilience. For example, if it is considered an inappropriate use of funds to implement social interventions within a fisheries management context, then pairing with non-governmental organizations or local governments is a must. “Pairing” in this sense, however, is not simply consultation or even collaboration. Instead, it also indicates a spread in audience with decision-making authority (i.e. potential changes to governance) to design an IEA such that results are not only used for decision-making within a fisheries management context, but also an economic/social development one (red cycle, Figure 3). Such changes could include, for example, analysing information on resource access or decision-making capabilities modified through the blue governance cycle in Figure 3, or evaluating social strategies to improve power/income inequalities, education levels, or reduce emigration from small communities (red cycle, Figure 3).

Seed 2: institutionalize the concept of managing for change

Managing for change may run into the same kind of jurisdictional problems described for managing for resilience in Seed 1, but also has the problem that it is a far less institutionalized concept. When expanded to include notions of planning for adaptation (i.e. reducing negative impacts or taking advantage of positive ones), then strategies within fisheries could include, for example, the application of fishery disaster funds (Conway and Shaw, 2008; NRC, 2014), programmes for transitioning fishers toward other livelihoods (Conway and Shaw, 2008; NRC, 2014), or the promotion of new species or products in fishery markets (Bell et al., 2020). For example, a review of the human dimensions component of stock rebuilding plans in response to the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which mandated rebuilding of fish stocks in US federal waters, indicated that associated mitigation measures were designed ad hoc based on information from direct stakeholder participation rather than social science methods, so their effectiveness is not well known (NRC, 2014). The design and evaluation of mitigation measures is therefore a fruitful area of socioeconomic research (NRC, 2014) that could be implemented via an adaptive management cycle focusing on social or governance information (Figure 3).

Management adaptation is not only pertinent because of large ecological changes (e.g. distributional changes or changes in stock status due to climate change) but also because of social changes such as privatization or gentrification (Clay and Olson, 2008; Olson 2011; Colburn and Jepson, 2012). It therefore may require decision-making pertaining to future goals of what a community should look like. As in Seed 1, changes to governance may be needed: strong leadership and co-management arrangements may be key components in effectively supporting the need for transitions and maintaining social resilience through transitions (Kaplan and McCay, 2004; Armitage et al. 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Heenan et al., 2015), as well as implementing adaptation options (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010).

Evaluating what information is lacking to implement better planning

After deeming adaptation planning a worthy goal, it is helpful to ask what information, important for informing planned adaptation, is currently lacking.

Seed 3: conduct vulnerability-based assessments of current and future responses to change

Combined-approach assessments were found to be more useful in generating policy-relevant results in climate change adaptation research than hazards-based approaches (Füssel, 2007a). Therefore, the lack of vulnerability-based assessment could explain why earlier versions of IEA sometimes struggled to generate policy-relevant information (i.e. due to the mismatch between science and policy, Samhouri et al., 2013). Other reviews of IEAs and related frameworks based mostly outside the United States have drawn on similar explanations (i.e. a lack of local relevance to policy, perhaps due to deficiency in local/managerial consultation and participation in early stages, difficulty in communication of results, etc., (Leadbitter and Ward, 2007; Flannery et al., 2018; Nielsen et al., 2018). Although there is no concrete evidence that a combined approach is more useful than the current risk-assessment approaches if it were implemented EBM in fisheries, it does serve as a good starting point based on climate change adaptation literature, rather than reinvent the wheel.

Although many of these criticisms may be valid for specific implementations of IEAs, it is also possible that some criticisms regarding a lack of policy relevance may be misplaced. IEAs have generally been implemented to help in decision-making rather than formulate policies or modify governance, despite no theoretical constraints to do so. Therefore, IEAs cannot be expected to deliver results relevant for changing policy and management practices unless audiences exist who have the authority to make such changes. As a result, it may not be enough to simply add an assessment, but processes regarding how information is utilized may need to be modified to implement effective change.

Seed 4: institutionalize a process for the creation of adaptation options based on co-management principles alongside the evaluation of management strategies

Information gathered on new adaptation possibilities could be one of several new forms of information gained by adding a vulnerability-based assessment. Stakeholders could be engaged for the purpose of creating adaptation options to be provided as deliverables early in the assessment process (e.g. as in Step 2 in UNDP-GEF APF, Figure 2). This would help facilitate more formal operationalization of planned adaptation, either within or alongside any specific IEA implementation. Such adaptation options may also be created for preventing or offsetting negative effects of proposed harvest-strategy-related interventions as well as capitalizing on opportunities that arise. Adaptation options could range in depth from incremental to transformative and could include not only ecological interventions but also social enhancements that promote, for example, income diversification, social networks, or product markets. Some options may be traditionally considered beyond the realm of natural resource or fisheries management (see examples in Figure 1), so they may be cross-sectoral, require a common understanding of what the future should look like (see Seed 2), and would clearly benefit from a co-creative participatory approach (Walker et al., 2002). This is in line with current practice regarding how to best implement EBM anyway: current IEA practice is also highly participatory (e.g. Rosellon-Druker et al., 2019), as institutional changes and a dispersion of decision-making authority are likely a necessary component of effective governance (see Seed 1, and Kaplan and McCay, 2004; Armitage et al. 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Heenan et al., 2015).

Evaluate institutional processes to implement better adaptation planning

After determining what information is needed and how it can be gathered, managers are likely to ask how decision-making, implementation, and monitoring steps can be incorporated into an adaptive management cycle. The variety of ways this could be done is highly diverse and context-specific and therefore is only discussed generally here under the umbrella of evaluating institutional processes. However, because including these new management elements is essentially conducting management adaptation, it is useful to also apply the UNDP-GEF APF (or another adaptation framework) as guidance to aid in the transition. For example, Poulain et al. (2018) list a variety of online tools and methods useful for conducting adaptation planning within a fisheries and aquaculture context. Figure 3 can also be used as a map to determine which functions are already in place or lacking and who performs or should perform them.

Seed 5: reconsider the institutional structure of the fisheries management system

Stephenson et al. (2017) show how fisheries management objectives are mainly set in the ecological realm, while the process of integrating any social, economic, or institutional objectives occurs afterwards, if at all, and proposes that other structures in which the processes are joined or are reversed could be more effective at achieving EBM goals. Likewise, adaptation option examples illustrate that cross-sectoral, cross-agency, or cross-government linkages may be needed: fishery disaster funds in the USA are administered at a federal level, but how they are used is dependent on state, possibly resulting in programs for transitioning to new livelihoods or new markets being highly local (Conway and Shaw, 2008; italicized options are in Figure 1). Furthermore, the main audiences for many SES assessments, such as fisheries management councils in the USA, may only have decision-making capabilities and little control over funds that could be used for welfare- or development-related activities. Stakeholder interactions and expertise related to welfare or development may be found outside institutes of research (e.g. in the USA, in state/local governments, SEA Grant Program, within management council administration or NOAA Office of Coastal Management). The NOAA IEA approach already emphasizes and employs collaborations (https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/index.php/national/IEA-approach, last accessed 5 May 2021). Linkages could be further utilized to expand assessment and experimentation processes beyond the ecological cycle to include evaluation of management, governance, and social resilience (Figure 3). Adaptive co-management has been proposed as a method for increasing climate-readiness in fisheries for similar reasons as discussed here (Wilson et al., 2018). However, if considered a transformational change to institutional structure, institutional inertia may realistically prevent timely or even likely implementation. Instead, relatively minor changes designed to have high impact could be a more realistic method of implementation in the short term. Changes could include for example, the expansion of control over the purposing of certain funds or personnel positions within government or strengthening formal support and partnership with government or non-governmental organizations that already focus on issues of social and economic development. Lomonico et al., (2021) outline a variety of ways in which partnerships between management agencies and public/private/non-profit organizations can improve climate readiness by helping to implement many tasks that would be considered adaptation options here. Finally, evaluating whether these institutional linkages are effective would become part of an adaptive management cycle focused on yielding management adaptation (Figure 3). Frameworks for diagnosing why certain adaptations were not effective, as borrowed from a climate-change context, are likely to be useful as well (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010).

Conclusion

When perfect and prescient knowledge is not a possibility, adaptation under uncertainty becomes a necessity: change is unavoidable. Having a strong separation between social and ecological considerations in management made sense in the days when prioritizing social needs jeopardized a resource's sustainability. However, although the idea that managing natural resources is really managing people (Walters, 1986) is now cliché, EBM has remained mainly focused on predicting ecological change and supporting ecological resilience, rather than facilitating social resilience or managing for change, which are clearly pertinent in supporting sustainability of SESs.

However, this study is not meant to suggest that progress towards facilitating social resilience and managing for change in EBM in fisheries has not been made. On the contrary, it has, especially through risk assessments including evaluation of social indicators (Fletcher, 2015; Gaichas et al. 2016, 2018; Holsman et al., 2017; Hollowed et al., 2020), marine spatial planning that include the early participation of stakeholders (Gopnik et al., 2012, Bates 2017), a view towards planning for change (West et al., 2009; Jennings et al., 2016; Levin et al., 2018; Marshall et al., 2018; Fogarty et al., 2020; Ojea et al., 2020), and a reliance on scenario generation rather than technical predictions of highly uncertain futures (Punt et al., 2014; King et al., 2015; Hollowed et al., 2020). Similar conceptualizations of adaptation within fisheries systems have also been created (van Putten et al., 2013; Ojea et al., 2017; Lindegren and Brander, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2019), as have practical fisheries-related adaptation assessment frameworks that consider the need for assessing adaptation options and avoiding maladaptation (Leith et al., 2014; Creighton et al., 2016; Holsman et al., 2019). Adaptation options and applied adaptation planning have become a nascent focus of research within fisheries (Barange et al., 2018; Comte and Pendleton, 2018; Pecl et al., 2019; Whitney and Ban, 2019; Bell et al., 2020; Ojea et al., 2020; Woods et al., 2021). Conducting vulnerability-based assessments as proposed in Seed 3 has been echoed elsewhere (Poulain et al., 2018) and similar methods have been used to create plans for adaptation of certain fisheries (Chavez et al., 2017; Resilient Fisheries RI Project, 2018). Programs such as the NOAA IEA program have already institutionalized many assessment processes (Figure 3) as well as laid the foundation for several cross-agency and cross-stakeholder processes (Harvey et al.,  2020a).

Instead, the goal of this study was to demonstrate two main points. First, it demonstrated how the different elements of progress listed above, which can seem ad hoc and incoherent at times, can be synthesized within a single IA, using applied experience gained from the NOAA IEA approach (Harvey et al.,2020a) and a combined-approach climate change assessment framework (Burton et al., 2004) as guidelines. That is, many of the seeds suggested here, such as performing participatory stakeholder engagement and increasing institutional linkages, are already being implemented, so rather organization in the timing, purpose, and delegation of such elements are the main changes needed. Second, it demonstrated that if an IA is not applied for the purpose of achieving planned adaptation, then it should not necessarily be expected to achieve positive social change and outcomes. Recognizing this, and that adaptation will occur whether planned or not, is important information that may not be intuitive for decision-makers. Echoing rationale used by West et al. (2009), if social and ecological resilience are deemed goals of EBM under climate change, then the management process will need to address at some point the question of how to facilitate planned adaptation towards a state that benefits society. Adaptation of resource users is a component of this process, whether it is supported by IEA or not. Luckily, many tools have already been developed within the field of climate change adaptation research. Operationalizing the invention and implementation of adaptation options via combined-approach assessment in a manner similar to methods created in response to the urgency of climate change adaptation would be a huge leap towards achieving positive social outcomes of EBM under climate, or any other source of, change.

Data availability statement

No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research.

Conflict of interest statement. None to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preparation of this paper has been supported by the EuroMarine Network (www.euromarinenetwork.eu) through the “CoDReG” Foresight Workshop EM/PFB/2017.006, US National Science Foundation under Award no. OCE-1323991, and by the Norden Top-level Research Initiative sub-programme “Effect Studies and Adaptation to Climate Change” through the Nordic Centre for Research on Marine Ecosystems and Resources under Climate Change (NorMER, Project no. 36800). Thanks to Drs Daniel S. Holland, Dorothy J. Dankel, Andries Richter, and Wienand Boonstra, and four anonymous reviewers for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript. Thanks also to all co-authors of the companion paper whose support and interest in this project was its main motivation.

References