Browsing by Author "Keane, Robert E."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Integrating Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Resilience in Fire-Prone Landscapes(2019-05) Higuera, Philip E.; Metcalf, Alexander L.; Miller, Carol; Buma, Brian; McWethy, David B.; Metcalf, Elizabeth C.; Ratajczak, Zak; Nelson, Cara R.; Chaffin, Brian C.; Stedman, Richard C.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Schoennagel, Tania; Harvey, Brian J.; Hood, Sharon M.; Schultz, Courtney A.; Black, Anne E.; Campbell, David; Haggerty, Julia Hobson; Keane, Robert E.; Krawchuk, Meg A.; Kulig, Judith C.; Rafferty, Rebekah; Virapongse, ArikaResilience has become a common goal for science-based natural resource management, particularly in the context of changing climate and disturbance regimes. Integrating varying perspectives and definitions of resilience is a complex and often unrecognized challenge to applying resilience concepts to social–ecological systems (SESs) management. Using wildfire as an example, we develop a framework to expose and separate two important dimensions of resilience: the inherent properties that maintain structure, function, or states of an SES and the human perceptions of desirable or valued components of an SES. In doing so, the framework distinguishes between value-free and human-derived, value-explicit dimensions of resilience. Four archetypal scenarios highlight that ecological resilience and human values do not always align and that recognizing and anticipating potential misalignment is critical for developing effective management goals. Our framework clarifies existing resilience theory, connects literature across disciplines, and facilitates use of the resilience concept in research and land-management applications.Item Putting Climate Adaptation on the Map: Developing Spatial Management Strategies for Whitebark Pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem(2018-06) Ireland, Kathryn B.; Hansen, Andrew J.; Keane, Robert E.; Legg, Kristin L.; Gump, Robert L.Natural resource managers face the need to develop strategies to adapt to projected future climates. Few existing climate adaptation frameworks prescribe where to place management actions to be most effective under anticipated future climate conditions. We developed an approach to spatially allocate climate adaptation actions and applied the method to whitebark pine (WBP; Pinus albicaulis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). WBP is expected to be vulnerable to climate-mediated shifts in suitable habitat, pests, pathogens, and fire. We spatially prioritized management actions aimed at mitigating climate impacts to WBP under two management strategies: (1) current management and (2) climate-informed management. The current strategy reflected management actions permissible under existing policy and access constraints. Our goal was to understand how consideration of climate might alter the placement of management actions, so the climate-informed strategies did not include these constraints. The spatial distribution of actions differed among the current and climate-informed management strategies, with 33–60% more wilderness area prioritized for action under climate-informed management. High priority areas for implementing management actions include the 1–8% of the GYE where current and climate-informed management agreed, since this is where actions are most likely to be successful in the long-term and where current management permits implementation. Areas where climate-informed strategies agreed with one another but not with current management (6–22% of the GYE) are potential locations for experimental testing of management actions. Our method for spatial climate adaptation planning is applicable to any species for which information regarding climate vulnerability and climate-mediated risk factors is available.