8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Journal Article Comparative Resilience in Five North Pacific Regional Salmon Fisheries(2010) Augerot, Xanthippe; Smith, Courtland L."Over the past century, regional fisheries for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) have been managed primarily for their provisioning function, not for ecological support and cultural significance. We examine the resilience of the regional salmon fisheries of Japan, the Russian Far East, Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington-Oregon-California (WOC) in terms of their provisioning function. Using the three dimensions of the adaptive cycle—capital, connectedness, and resilience—we infer the resilience of the five fisheries based on a qualitative assessment of capital accumulation and connectedness at the regional scale. In our assessment, we evaluate natural capital and connectedness and constructed capital and connectedness. The Russian Far East fishery is the most resilient, followed by Alaska, British Columbia, Japan, and WOC. Adaptive capacity in the fisheries is contingent upon high levels of natural capital and connectedness and moderate levels of constructed capital and connectedness. Cross-scale interactions and global market demand are significant factors in reduced resilience. Greater attention to ecological functioning and cultural signification has the potential to increase resilience in Pacific salmon ecosystems."Working Paper Cultural Capital and Natural Capital Interrelations(1992) Folke, Carl; Berkes, Fikret"The importance of natural capital and the relationships between natural capital and human-made capital are of fundamental interest in ecological economics. But a consideration of these two kinds of capital alone fall short of providing the essential elements for the analysis of sustainability. A more complete conceptualization of the interdependency of the economy and the environment requires attention to social/cultural /political systems as well. We use the term cultural capital to refer to factors that provide human societies with the means and adaptations to deal with the natural environment. Cultural capital, as used here, includes factors such as social/political institutions, environmental ethics (world view) and traditional ecological knowledge in a society. The three types of capital are closely interrelated. Natural capital is the basis for cultural capital. Human-made capital is generated by an interaction between natural and cultural capital. Cultural capital will determine how a society uses natural capital to create human-made capital. Aspects of cultural capital, such as institutions involved in the governance of resource use and the environmental world view, are crucial for the potential of a society to develop sustainable relations with its natural environment."Conference Paper A Monograph on Historical Change of the Relationship Between the Common Forest and the People of Katsuyama Village, Northern Flank of Fuji, Regarding the Change of Economical Position of the Bamboo Work as Subsistence Forest Production(2013) Ogasawara, Akira; Ikeguchi, Hitoshi"In the hilly or mountainous of Japan, people usually had been used to make the daily tool from bamboo. In this area, villages have maintained common forest to get a timber and fuel. Within such Japanese tradition, peoples in Katsuyama village, on northern flank of Mt. Fuji, are now well known as the maker of bamboo basket made from 'Suzutake' bamboo (Sasamorpha borealis) grows under their common forest. In this monograph, we try to describe the historical change of economical position of this bamboo work in Katsuyama and discuss the value of regional accumulation of cultural capital as technique."Journal Article Understanding Household Connectivity and Resilience in Marginal Rural Communities through Social Network Analysis in the Village of Habu, Botswana(2012) Cassidy, Lin; Barnes, Grenville"Adaptability is emerging as a key issue not only in the climate change debate but in the general area of sustainable development. In this context, we examine the link between household resilience and connectivity in a rural community in Botswana. We see resilience and vulnerability as the positive and negative dimensions of adaptability. Poor, marginal rural communities confronted with the vagaries of climate change, will need to become more resilient if they are to survive and thrive. We define resilience as the capacity of a social-ecological system to cope with shocks such as droughts or economic crises without changing its fundamental identity. We make use of three different indices of household resilience: livelihood diversity, wealth, and a comprehensive resilience index based on a combination of human, financial, physical, social, and natural capital. Then, we measure the social connectivity of households through a whole network approach in social network analysis, using two measures of network centrality (degree centrality and betweenness). We hypothesize that households with greater social connectivity have greater resilience, and analyze a community in rural Botswana to uncover how different households make use of social networks to deal with shocks such as human illness and death, crop damage, and livestock disease. We surveyed the entire community of Habu using a structured questionnaire that focused on livelihood strategies and social networks. We found that gender, age of household head, and household size were positively correlated with social connectivity. Our analysis indicates that those households that are more socially networked are likely to have a wider range of livelihood strategies, greater levels of other forms of social capital, and greater overall capital. Therefore, they are more resilient."Working Paper Assessing the Management Performance of Biodiversity Conservation Initiatives and Investments: an Institutional Approach(2004) Rudd, Murray A."An institutional analysis framework for assessing the management performance of biodiversity conservation investments and initiatives is developed in this chapter. While the focus is on biodiversity, the framework is also more widely applicable to problems involving the provision of public goods. This institutional approach is useful for a number of reasons. First, it uses capital assets to describe the state-of-the-world and specify the full spectrum of resource flows available to resource users. This allows analysts to frame the goals and objectives of various actors in terms of the attributes and characteristics of natural, manufactured, human, social and economic capital, and facilitate transparent discussions regarding sustainability. Second, this approach explicitly integrates the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework with the results-based management approach increasingly being used in the private and public sectors. The IAD framework provides a system for classifying rules and norms according to their function and to incorporate them into the action-activity-output-outcome-impact hierarchies used for results-based management. Third, the integrated institutional framework can be applied at different levels of analysis--political, policy implementation, and operational--in such a way that stimulates thoughtful policy design, analyses, and monitoring of biodiversity conservation investments and initiatives. Taking a multi-level perspective to policy design and implementation is necessary if we are to understand the dynamics of adaptive management, develop effective and efficient conservation investments and initiatives, and account for the full range of direct and indirect benefits of ecological research activities."Working Paper Extending the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework(2003) Odero, Kenneth K."This paper proposes an extension to the sustainable livelihoods framework by introducing a sixth asset, information capital. Information capital is a critical livelihood asset. Adding information capital as a core asset in the sustainable livelihoods framework promises to improve our understanding of peoples' livelihoods. The paper focuses on the framework area called livelihood assets. It reviews the sustainable livelihood framework particularly the role of capital assets in livelihoods analysis. Information capital is then defined followed by a discussion of why it is important. Finally, case studies drawn from literature and empirical research are cited."Journal Article Building Capital through Bioregional Planning and Biosphere Reserves(2001) Brunckhorst, David"The need to implement innovative approaches to sustainability is now more critical than ever. This discussion draws on parts of the puzzle that must be assembled to achieve integrated, cross-tenure and jurisdictional management of whole regions and their peoples for a sustainable future. A regional, landscape ecology approach helps us to move on from theory and historical lessons to boldly design and adaptively develop novel on-ground models. To take an entirely different approach from conventional thinking, I draw from Common Property Resource (CPR) theory and experience, together with practical experience from the Bookmark Biosphere project. The characteristics of successful enduring Common Property regimes are identified and discussed in light of critical needs to maintain and restore social and ecological capital. I then highlight the concepts and logistical objectives behind the 30-year-old UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program, which appears to have great potential as an operational framework within which these changes can be made."Working Paper Financing Mitigation in Smallholder Agricultural Systems: Issues and Opportunities(2011) Havemann, Tanja"This chapter describes obstacles to financing mitigation in smallholder agricultural systems, and provides recommendations to overcome these; it also emphasizes how smallholder agricultural finances overlaps with carbon finance. Analysis and recommendations are based on literature reviews and the author’s experience. Descriptions of obstacles to financing both smallholder carbon credit projects and agricultural projects involving smallholders are given. Overlapping barriers are: ability to manage risks, access to inputs, aggregation, best practices and capacity and tenure, property rights and enforcement. The conclusion is that existing agricultural investment barriers are fundamental to the livelihoods of many, and go far beyond carbon finance issues, although significant overlap is acknowledged. By tackling these barriers, it may be possible to unlock some of the potential mitigation from agriculture. Vice-versa, 'fit-for-purpose' carbon finance for mitigation could help to overcome some existing barriers faced by smallholders. The paper provides recommendations to a variety of stakeholders on how they could help design fit-for-purpose carbon finance."