Premium
Mapping social–ecological vulnerability to inform local decision making
Author(s) -
Thiault Lauric,
Marshall Paul,
Gelcich Stefan,
Collin Antoine,
Chlous Frédérique,
Claudet Joachim
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/cobi.12989
Subject(s) - vulnerability (computing) , environmental resource management , vulnerability assessment , geography , sustainability , social vulnerability , resource (disambiguation) , adaptive management , adaptive capacity , environmental planning , psychological resilience , ecology , computer science , environmental science , climate change , psychology , computer network , computer security , psychotherapist , biology
An overarching challenge of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation is that relationships between people and nature are difficult to integrate into tools that can effectively guide decision making. Social–ecological vulnerability offers a valuable framework for identifying and understanding important social–ecological linkages, and the implications of dependencies and other feedback loops in the system. Unfortunately, its implementation at local scales has hitherto been limited due at least in part to the lack of operational tools for spatial representation of social–ecological vulnerability. We developed a method to map social–ecological vulnerability based on information on human–nature dependencies and ecosystem services at local scales. We applied our method to the small‐scale fishery of Moorea, French Polynesia, by combining spatially explicit indicators of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of both the resource (i.e., vulnerability of reef fish assemblages to fishing) and resource users (i.e., vulnerability of fishing households to the loss of fishing opportunity). Our results revealed that both social and ecological vulnerabilities varied considerably through space and highlighted areas where sources of vulnerability were high for both social and ecological subsystems (i.e., social–ecological vulnerability hotspots) and thus of high priority for management intervention. Our approach can be used to inform decisions about where biodiversity conservation strategies are likely to be more effective and how social impacts from policy decisions can be minimized. It provides a new perspective on human–nature linkages that can help guide sustainability management at local scales; delivers insights distinct from those provided by emphasis on a single vulnerability component (e.g., exposure); and demonstrates the feasibility and value of operationalizing the social–ecological vulnerability framework for policy, planning, and participatory management decisions.