Post on 31-Mar-2015
transcript
Photo: Zainab Mogul, Cambridge Bay, NU
Sustainability Planning inArctic Resource Communities
Michelle Boyle and Hadi Dowlatabadi,University of British Columbia
withMembers of the Nunavut Economic Developers
Association
Acknowledgements
• Climate Decision Making Center, Carnegie Mellon University (NSF SES-034578) and former HDGEC
• SSHRC, Northern Development Program and Doctoral Fellowship Program
• INAC, Northern Scientific Training Program• SSHRC/DFO, Oceans Management Research
Network• Nunavut Economic Developers Association• Susan Rowley, James Tansey
The Research Project
• Historic patterns of development in the arctic and its relationship to communities.
• Current community priorities, control and capacity.
• Strategic planning tools for adaptation.
Agenda
• Theoretical frameworks for community adaptation
• Comparison with an actual planning process (analysis and results)
• Implications for building adaptive capacity in communities
Climate vulnerability sets priorities
Sensitivity to climate change
Community priorities
Models of community adaptation:
Response
All vulnerabilities set priorities
Sensitivity to multiple stresses
Sensitivity to climate change
Community priorities
Models of community adaptation:
Response
Response
Community control
Local control is limited
Sensitivity to multiple stresses
Sensitivity to climate change
Community priorities
Models of community adaptation:
Successful Responses
A fuller pictureModels of community adaptation:
Adaptive Capacity
Community control
Sensitivity to multiple stresses
Sensitivity to climate change
Community priorities
External resources
Hypotheses
• H0: Communities identify risks from climate change
as a special priority.
• H1a: Communities enjoy control commensurate with
their priorities.
• H1b: Communities enjoy control over matters
involving climate change adaptation.
• H2: CEDO priorities and resources match needs for
broader community development planning.
Nunavut Economic Development Strategy (NEDS) 2003
THE LAND- Respecting the land- Maintaining our mixed economy- Building on the knowledge of our Elders
OUR PEOPLE- Economic development for youth- Education and training- Basic needs: housing, hospitals and schools
OUR COMMUNITY ECONOMIES- Community capacity building and organizational development- Small and Inuit business development- Building the knowledge base
OUR TERRITORIAL ECONOMY- Putting the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to work- Sector development and support systems- Infrastructure: from buildings to broadband- Accessing the global marketplace
Method
• NEDS 2003– 143 Action Items
(excluding 24 implementation items)
• NEDA priority identification
• Our informed judgments about broader community priorities, sensitivity and levels of control
Caveats:• Action items as units of
observation.• NEDS as reflection of
priorities– broad guiding principles– 4 forms of capital: E,H,S,P
High Community PrioritiesTHE LAND- Respecting the land- Maintaining our mixed economy- Building on the knowledge of our Elders
OUR PEOPLE- Economic development for youth- Education and training- Basic needs: housing, hospitals and schools
OUR COMMUNITY ECONOMIES- Community capacity building and organizational development- Small and Inuit business development- Building the knowledge base
OUR TERRITORIAL ECONOMY- Putting the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to work- Sector development and support systems- Infrastructure: from buildings to broadband- Accessing the global marketplace
CharacterizingCommunity Priorities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Community Priorities
Actions
None Low Medium High
Climate Sensitivity & Community Priority
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
None Low Medium High
Climate Sensivity
Action Items
Not a priority Low priority Medium priority High priority
Community control
Community Priorities
Sensitivity to multiple stresses
Sensitivity to climate change
High Community priorities9%
91%
Characterizing Community Control
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Community Control
Number of Action ItemsNone Low Medium High
Community Control & Community Priority
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
None Low Medium High
Community Priorities
Number of Action Items
No Control Low Control Medium Control High Control
Community Control &Climate Sensitivity
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
None Low Medium High
Climate Sensitivity
Number of Action Items
No Control Low Control Medium Control High Control
Characterizing Community Priorities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Community Priorities
Number of Action ItemsNone Low Medium High
Characterizing Community & CEDO Priorities
0
20
40
60
80
100
Community CEDO
Priorities
Number of Action Items
None Low Medium High
“Make the implementation of the community development plan the primary task of the community economic developer.”
Conclusions
• H0: Communities identify risks from climate
change as a special priority.
• H1a: Communities enjoy control commensurate
with their priorities.
• H1b: Communities enjoy control over matters
involving climate change adaptation.
• H2: CEDO priorities and resources match needs
for broader community development planning
Implications for building adaptive capacity in arctic communities
• Climate adaptation should become mainstream in community planning.
• Responsibilities should be better coordinated across scales relevant to resource allocation and regulation in Nunavut.
• Responsibilities should be better coordinated across jurisdictions within communities.
Questions?
Climate Sensitivity and Community Control
• communities have incomplete control over both climate sensitive and non-climate sensitive items
INCIDENCE (RATIO) Community Control
Climate Sensitivity
No control Low Medium High
Not Sensitive 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.14Low 0.48 0.10 0.24 0.19Medium 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.05High 0.33 0.50 0.00 0.17
Community Priorities and Community Control
• control is not sought for low priority items?
INCIDENCE (RATIO) Community Control
Community Priority
No control Low Medium High
Not a priority 0.94 0.06 0.00 0.00Low 0.68 0.11 0.11 0.11Medium 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.18High 0.20 0.34 0.31 0.14
• communities have incomplete control over higher priority items