A review of adaptation options in fisheries management to support resilience and transition under socio-ecological change

• P J Woods
• J I Macdonald
• H Bárðarson
• S Bonanomi
• W J Boonstra
• G Cornell
• G Cripps
• R Danielsen
• L Färber
• A S A Ferreira
• K Ferguson
• M Holma
• R E Holt
• K L Hunter
• A Kokkalis
• T J Langbehn
• G Ljungström
• E Nieminen
• M C Nordström
• M Oostdijk
• A Richter
• Giovanni Romagnoni
• C Sguotti
• A Simons
• N L Shackell
• M Snickars
• J D Whittington
• H Wootton
• J Yletyinen
• Mary Hunsicker

Abstract

Social-ecological systems dependent on fisheries must be resilient or adapt to remain viable in the face of change. Here, we identified possible interventions (termed “adaptation options”) from published literature, aimed at supporting social or ecological resilience and/or aiding adaptation to changes induced by environmental or social stressors. Our searches centered on nations/regions across North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, encompassing fisheries literature with and without a climate change focus, to compare how, when, and by whom interventions are currently or potentially implemented. We expected that adaptation options within a climate change context would have a greater focus on enhancing social resilience due to a connection with climate change adaptation assessment methodology. Instead, we found a greater focus on ecological resilience, likely indicating a focus on management adaptation. This pattern, along with the more extensive use of social adaptation options responsively and outside the context of climate change, along with an importance in bottom-up influences in implementing them, suggests a general lack of centralized planning and organization with regards to adaptation of stakeholders. Determining how adaptation options are created, chosen, and implemented is a crucial step within or external to ecosystem-based management, especially if planned stakeholder adaption is the goal.

• DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab146

Cite this activity

@article{Woods2021,
  Title = {A review of adaptation options in fisheries management to support resilience and transition under socio-ecological change},
  Author = {Woods, P J and Macdonald, J I and Bárðarson, H and Bonanomi, S and Boonstra, W J and Cornell, G and Cripps, G and Danielsen, R and Färber, L and Ferreira, A S A and Ferguson, K and Holma, M and Holt, R E and Hunter, K L and Kokkalis, A and Langbehn, T J and Ljungström, G and Nieminen, E and Nordström, M C and Oostdijk, M and Richter, A and Romagnoni, Giovanni and Sguotti, C and Simons, A and Shackell, N L and Snickars, M and Whittington, J D and Wootton, H and Yletyinen, J and Hunsicker, Mary},
  Editor = {},
  Journal = {ICES Journal of Marine Science},
  Year = {2021},
  Doi = {10.1093/icesjms/fsab146},
  Abstract = {Social-ecological systems dependent on fisheries must be resilient or adapt to remain viable in the face of change. Here, we identified possible interventions (termed “adaptation options”) from published literature, aimed at supporting social or ecological resilience and/or aiding adaptation to changes induced by environmental or social stressors. Our searches centered on nations/regions across North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, encompassing fisheries literature with and without a climate change focus, to compare how, when, and by whom interventions are currently or potentially implemented. We expected that adaptation options within a climate change context would have a greater focus on enhancing social resilience due to a connection with climate change adaptation assessment methodology. Instead, we found a greater focus on ecological resilience, likely indicating a focus on management adaptation. This pattern, along with the more extensive use of social adaptation options responsively and outside the context of climate change, along with an importance in bottom-up influences in implementing them, suggests a general lack of centralized planning and organization with regards to adaptation of stakeholders. Determining how adaptation options are created, chosen, and implemented is a crucial step within or external to ecosystem-based management, especially if planned stakeholder adaption is the goal.},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Woods, P J
AU  - Macdonald, J I
AU  - Bárðarson, H
AU  - Bonanomi, S
AU  - Boonstra, W J
AU  - Cornell, G
AU  - Cripps, G
AU  - Danielsen, R
AU  - Färber, L
AU  - Ferreira, A S A
AU  - Ferguson, K
AU  - Holma, M
AU  - Holt, R E
AU  - Hunter, K L
AU  - Kokkalis, A
AU  - Langbehn, T J
AU  - Ljungström, G
AU  - Nieminen, E
AU  - Nordström, M C
AU  - Oostdijk, M
AU  - Richter, A
AU  - Romagnoni, Giovanni
AU  - Sguotti, C
AU  - Simons, A
AU  - Shackell, N L
AU  - Snickars, M
AU  - Whittington, J D
AU  - Wootton, H
AU  - Yletyinen, J
AU  - Hunsicker, Mary
TI  - A review of adaptation options in fisheries management to support resilience and transition under socio-ecological change
T2  - ICES Journal of Marine Science
PY  - 2021
DO  - 10.1093/icesjms/fsab146
AB  - Social-ecological systems dependent on fisheries must be resilient or adapt to remain viable in the face of change. Here, we identified possible interventions (termed “adaptation options”) from published literature, aimed at supporting social or ecological resilience and/or aiding adaptation to changes induced by environmental or social stressors. Our searches centered on nations/regions across North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, encompassing fisheries literature with and without a climate change focus, to compare how, when, and by whom interventions are currently or potentially implemented. We expected that adaptation options within a climate change context would have a greater focus on enhancing social resilience due to a connection with climate change adaptation assessment methodology. Instead, we found a greater focus on ecological resilience, likely indicating a focus on management adaptation. This pattern, along with the more extensive use of social adaptation options responsively and outside the context of climate change, along with an importance in bottom-up influences in implementing them, suggests a general lack of centralized planning and organization with regards to adaptation of stakeholders. Determining how adaptation options are created, chosen, and implemented is a crucial step within or external to ecosystem-based management, especially if planned stakeholder adaption is the goal.
ER  - 

Details

Research Spectrum