Maladaptation and Vulnerability in the Solomon Islands Ioan Fazey School of Geography and...
32
Maladaptation and Vulnerability in the Solomon Islands Ioan Fazey School of Geography and Geosciences [email protected]
-
Upload
meagan-ross -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Maladaptation and Vulnerability in the Solomon Islands Ioan Fazey School of Geography and...
Maladaptation and Vulnerability in the Solomon Islands
Ioan FazeySchool of Geography and Geosciences
• ‘Maladaptation’ e.g. when responses:– Increase greenhouse gases– Disproportionately burden the most vulnerable
(Barnett and O’Neill 2010)
• But also when responses increase vulnerability to future change:– Don’t reduce/reinforce drivers of change;– Reduce future opportunities for responses;– Reduce ability to take-up response options.
(Fazey et al 2010. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment)
Maladaptation and Vulnerability
Responses to environmental change often exacerbate problems or create new ones…
Outline
Aim: To understand human responses to change and how this can increase vulnerability to future (possibly unforeseen) change
1. Context
2. Methods
3. Results/Discussion
1. Context
Solomon Islands• Cultural diversity
• 90% customary land ownership
• Economic isolation
• Aid dependency
Vulnerable to?• Climate change
• Global economic change
• Conflict
Why Kahua?
– ‘Bounded’ system– Traditionally subsistence
affluent– Moving to monetary
economy
Research in Kahua• Human-environment
interactions
• Participatory/collaborative
• Students from UK
I. Latham 2007 Livelihoods L. Burton 2008
Education (Oxford)
D. Schuett 2010Bridging
Organisations T. Davies 2010+ Poverty and Ecosystems
J. Kenter 2009 Valuing
Ecosystem Services
Social Learning
• Participatory research increases robustness of results
• Contributes to social learning(Fazey et al. In Press. Global Environmental
Change)
• Sometimes profound outcomes
Kenter et al. Under Review
Key Questions from work in 2007/08
• What is changing?
• What are the key drivers of change?
• How does this influence long term vulnerability to future change?
2. Methods
• 12 local RAs trained in basic research & facilitation;
• 38 communities, 76 detailed focus groups, 24% Kahua people directly involved in focus groups. All households surveyed;
• Large participatory workshops, including understanding links between aspects of change;
• Development of conceptual models of feedback in social-ecological system
Perceptions and drivers of change
3. Results/Discussion
1. What is changing?
Environmental change
Garonna et al 2009. Environmental Conservation36: 253-260
Population and income opportunities
• 4500 people in 2007
• 3.52% growth, doubles every 20 years
• Income opportunities
Items of change
• 1826 statements, 224 separate items
• Most statements about same key items
– 32 most frequently identified items are 53.9% of all 1826 statements
• High consistency in direction of change
• Most changes perceived to be undesirable
Item NDirec
change% Same
Direc Good/Bad?
Number of people 75 ↑ 100 2.1
Females wearing shorts 55 ↑ 93 2.0
Availability of sea fish and shellfish 55 ↓ 100 1.7
Yield or availability of food crops 51 ↓ 96 1.5
Use of modern domestic items (e.g. lamps, baskets, axe, umbrellas)
42 ↑ 100 2.8
Respect (e.g. to kastom, leaders, elders, strangers) 41 ↓ 100 1.3
Number single mothers 38 ↑ 100 1.3
Availability of building or canoe making materials 38 ↓ 100 1.5
Use of imported kitchen utensils instead of traditional utensils
38 ↑ 100 2.6
Number of people being educated 37 ↑ 97 4.3
Availability of river fish 37 ↓ 100 1.8
Prices (e.g. bride price, pigs, education, local food, imported products)
36 ↑ 100 1.8
Types of change• 48 broad categories, top nine are 69.1% of all 1826 statements
• Same types ranked top in different regions
• Less frequent items (e.g. gambling, reduced law and order) differ between regions
Type of change East Central West All areas
% % % N %Culture and kastom 12.4 15.5 8.2 227 12.4Cultivated capital 12.6 9.6 14.8 222 12.2Natural capital 8.4 12.2 13.5 199 10.9Money 8.6 8.8 10.5 166 9.1Attitude 5.5 6.3 5.5 105 5.8Population 5.4 5.0 6.6 101 5.5Marital issues 5.4 5.8 3.4 92 5.0Use of imported goods 6.0 3.3 3.0 80 4.4Drug use 3.2 4.1 4.3 69 3.8
2. What are the key drivers of change?
Drivers of change
Amount of money incommunities (Inc)
Aavailability of materialsfor housing (Dec)
Availability of riverfish (Dec)
Availability of sea fishand shellfish (Dec)
Consumption andavailability of alcohol
(Inc)
Cooperationbetween
community orrelatives (Dec)
Females wearingshorts (Inc)
Frequency in number offish/shellfish being
caught (Inc)
Health of foodcrops (Dec)
Land disputes(Inc)
Maintenance ofkastom (Dec)
Number ofpeople (Inc)
Number of peoplebeing educated (Inc)
Number of singlemothers (Inc)
Prices (Inc)
Production ofcocoa (Inc)
Production ofcoconut (Inc)
Rain (Inc)
Respect (Dec)
Taking other'sproperty without
permission
Use of diving tocatch fish
Use of moderndomestic items
Yield or availabilityof food crops
Number ofpeople
Demand for andconsumption of forestor marine resources
Availabilityhousing
materials
Amount of landused for cash
crops
Yields fromfood gardens
+
Stress incommunities-
Desire tomake money
+
-
Amount of foodavailable in
Kahua
-
+
Amount of land usedfor food gardens
+
Number births
+
+
Amount of landin use
+
Pressure onecologicalsystems
Availability ofclean water
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
-+
R1
Populationgrowth
R2
R3
R4
R5
Decline in provisionof ecological services
R6
Trade offs inland use
Food versuscash
-+
-
System Feedbacks 1
Money incommunities
Amount of landused for cash
cropsAccess to
provincial ornational markets
Desire foreconomicprosperity
Ability to sellproduce
+
+
Desire tomake money
+
+
+
+
Intrinsic desire foreconomicprosperity
+
Income fromcash crops
+
Capital for investing inincome generating
activites+
+
R8
Desire forprosperity Impact of
increasing money
R7
System Feedbacks 2
Maintenance ofkastom and
respect
Social cohesionand trust in
communities
Money incommunities
Amount of landused for cash
cropsAccess to
provincial ornational markets
Number ofpeople being
educated
Desire foreconomicprosperity
Stress incommunities
+
Ability to sellproduce
+
+
Tendency forindividualistic
attitudes
+
Desire tomake money
+
+
+
Ability topay school
fees
+
++
Purchase ofimported modern
products inKahua
+
-
Intrinsic desire foreconomicprosperity
+
Income fromcash crops
+
Capital for investing inincome generating
activites+
Ability toaddressproblems
-
+
-
Jeaolousy
+
-Ability to maintain and
manage crosscommunity institutional
structures
+
+
-
+
Consumptionof alcohol
-
+
+
-
R8
Desire forprosperity
R9
R10
R11
R12
R14
B1
Impact ofincreasing money
Ability toaddress
problems
R15
Maintainingcohesion
R16
Cross communitycollaboration
+
Ability torespond toproblems
Access tomedicalfacilities
+
Ability tosupplement
diet withimported food
+
+
B2
B3
R7
+
Jealousy
R13
+
System Feedbacks 2 & 3
Number ofpeople
Maintenance ofkastom and
respect
Social cohesionand trust in
communities
Money incommunities
Demand for andconsumption of forestor marine resources
Availabilityhousing
materials
Amount of landused for cash
crops
Yields fromfood gardens
Access toprovincial or
national markets
Likelihood ofland disputes
Number ofpeople being
educated
Desire foreconomicprosperity
+
Stress incommunities-
+
Ability to sellproduce
+
+
Tendency forindividualistic
attitudes
+
Desire tomake money
+
+
-
Amount of foodavailable in
Kahua
-
+
Price paid by outsidebuyers for cash crops
+
Ability topay school
fees
+
+
Access to moresophisticated resourceextraction technologies
+
Purchase ofimported modern
products inKahua
+
-
Amount of land usedfor food gardens
+
Intrinsic desire foreconomicprosperity
+
Number births
+
+
Amount of landin use
+
Pressure onecologicalsystems
Availability ofclean water
-
-
+
- Income fromcash crops
+
Capital for investing inincome generating
activites+
+
Ability toaddressproblems
-
+
-
Jeaolousy
+
-
+
+
-
-
Ability to adaptivelymanage change in
Kahua
-
Ability to maintain andmanage cross
community institutionalstructures
+
+
+
+
-
+
Consumptionof alcohol
-
+
+
R1
Populationgrowth
R2
R3
R4
R5
Decline in provisionof ecological services
R6
Trade offs inland use
+
-
R8
Desire forprosperity
R9
R10
R11
R12
R14
B1
Impact ofincreasing money
Ability toaddress
problems
R15
Maintainingcohesion
R16
Response toenvironmental
change
Cross communitycollaboration
B4
Land disputesand socialcohesion
Technology andresource use
+
Ability torespond toproblems
Access tomedicalfacilities
+
+
Ability tosupplement
diet withimported food
+
+
+
B2
B3
R7
Food versuscash
-+
-
+
Jealousy
R13
+
R18
R17
Policies andprogrammes
encouraging incomegeneration
+
+
Educationprogrammes
+
Support for the KahuaAssociation
+
Demand for andconsumption of forestand marine resources
+
Social cohesionand trust
-Fuel prices
-
System Feedbacks
Population growth, stress and cash crops
Desire for prosperity, cash crops, income
Social cohesion, individualism and ability to address
problems
Variable influences of increasing income
Most external influences are
enabling income
generation
Key opportunity:
the Kahua Association
Drivers: Key findings
• Population growth and desire for prosperity are two key drivers of change
• Key factors are increasing access to markets
• Responses to change reinforce problems
• Little option other than to continue to follow existing path?
3. How does this influence long term vulnerability to future change?
What happens on other islands?
• In Bellona– no environmental change– people migrate to capita &
send money– No change in Number
people & per capita impact• Can’t migrate from Kahua
– instead use local resources (timber, land) to make money and buy food.
Value of food gardens vs cash crops
Program A Program B Program C
Gue•
• •
• ••
Water
quality
• •
• •• •
Food gardens • • • • •
Cocoa
gardens• • • • • • •
Cost $500 $300 $0
• Valuing ecosystem services
• People willing to pay very high sums to maintain services
• Gardens worth SBD$13,149 p.a. (US $877)
• Cocoa production similar value, but imported food is expensive
• So cash crops don’t fully compensate for loss food gardens
Kenter et al. Under Review
Trajectory of Vulnerability
• Result of current responses:– No decrease in key endogenous drivers – Increasing per capita impact on environment/resources;– Some increase in money (but not enough to replace
subsistence food);– Increasing conflict, loss social cohesion;– Decreasing capacity to govern environmental resources;– Becoming locked in to high costs fossil fuel dependency;
• Vulnerability to future global change (economic and climate) is increasing
• Potentially reinforced by aid/development
Wider Implications
• ‘Snapshot’ of vulnerability;
• Context of vulnerability is not static;
• Responses/adaptations can increase vulnerability;
• Solomon Islands highlights how much of human behaviour is about displacing environmental impact;
• Key question: How can we link understanding from historical case studies & contemporary case studies to better inform adaptive strategies?
