Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Area

205

Chapter 8 · A resilien cepproac h to adaptat ion act

organization (formal rights and responsibilities and the level of social cohesion). Some authors recognize the importance of diversity in the resource base (see Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). The other cross-cutting factor, embracing change as the norm, would be expressed in the ease with which new conditions are recognized and acknowledged, in the readiness to modify established practices and engage in less routine activities. Knowledge transmission and learning processes – Learning constitutes another recurrent element in resilience indicator frameworks, especially indicators of conventional education (Jordan and Javernick-Will, 2012). Examples of operational indicators include secondary school completion, take up of post-secondary training and number of master degrees and doctorates in the region (Ross et al., 2010), as well as household education average (FAO, 2010; Morrone et al., 2011). This is basically the metric proposed in the ASI work (Nymand Larsen et al., 2010). However, such an indicator cannot inform about the status of traditional or local knowledge in a community. There are other forms of information that could be employed for making such assessments, that include key milestones, use of indigenous languages, and number of young people participating in particular rites of passage or cultural activities, among others. Social or collaborative learning processes are deeply embedded in theories of resilience (Krasny et al., 2010). Examples of indicators proposed in this context can inform the kind of composite knowledge/learning indicator proposed here. Bergamini et al. (2013) included in some kind of resilience indicators: documentation of agriculture biodiversity; innovation in agricultural biodiversity management for improved resilience and sustainability; access and exchange of agricultural biodiversity; transmission of traditional knowledge from elders, parents and peers to the young people in a community; cultural traditions related to biodiversity; number of generations interacting with the landscape; practices of documentation and exchange of local knowledge; use of local terminology or indigenous languages; and women’s knowledge about biodiversity and its use. Being able to assess the two-way linkages between social and ecological systems is crucial and the link between peoples and places also constitutes a recurrent theme (Jordan and Javernick-Will, 2012). Linking back to learning and knowledge, Magis (2010) suggested measuring “ how well people understand the opportunities and limitations of the natural environment in and surrounding their community ” or “c ommunity members’ belief in their ability to affect community’s well-being ”. Ross et al. (2010) proposed assessing “ people-to-place connections ” notably through stewardship, level of attachment to the community, connection to the country for indigenous groups, and community shared vision. These types of qualitative information can be assembled in participatory processes or collected using questionnaires, where respondents indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with a statement. Such results can be expressed using an ordinal scale method such as the Likert scale. Capacity for self-organization – Capacity for self-organization resides in the dynamic between actions taken and social structure. For example, one element often mentioned is the

more explicit the normative, social and political issues related to resilience, and reintroduce agency into the equation (see Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). However, meaningful linkages between biophysical variables and socio-economic variables remain understudied, under-monitored and under-assessed (Jarvis et al., 2013). Designing resilience indicators entails significantmethodological challenges, some of which are general to social indicators.The focus on interacting social and ecological systems adds a new layer of complexity, as the abstract, multidimensional and dynamic character of resilience makes it especially difficult to measure. Notwithstanding these challenges, a framework of well-constructed indicators can contribute to greater clarity not only about whether resilience is growing or declining, but also about important directional trends in the underlying factors that contribute to resilience. The basic framework proposed includes the five resilience ingredients discussed in Section 8.3. With this framework providing an overall structure, a wider body of research is drawn upon to propose the following general principles to develop such a framework: Process has its own value – indicators are likely to be most valuable where elaborated on through a process of co- production, using participatory methods similar to those used in the scenarios work discussed in Chapter 5. Many of the benefits of participatory methods have already been enumerated in Chapter 5, with processes of shared reflection, social learning, and local engagement important vehicles for developing the information needed to fill the indicators framework. But beyond providing important information, the process itself can also contribute to building local capacity for further learning and self-organization, and is envisioned as a means for further developing the indicators themselves by testing what has meaning for participants. Qualitative indicators invite further discussion – while it is sometimes assumed that indicators should be quantitative, there are many easily accessible and highly useful indicators that are either qualitative or make use of tools such as the Likert scale.This is especially important in a setting such as theArctic, where quantitative social data are typically not readily available (Nymand Larsen et al., 2010, 2015). Qualitative assessments of particular characteristics can be placed on a simple scale based on whether or not the status is deemed adequate – or based on whether or not it is trending in a desired direction. Inviting further discussion about how the indicators are structured and what they actually reveal is expected to support further refinement and testing of these measures. Cross-cutting ingredients – Diversity and assuming change are cross-cutting ingredients, and can therefore inform the types of information sought for assessing the status of each of the three remaining ingredients (knowledge/learning, self-organization, livelihoods).While diversity is manifested in substantively different ways in knowledge/learning, self-organization and livelihoods, can each be analyzed on a continuum with diversity characterized in terms of conventional at one end of the continuum and traditional at the other.As a cross-cutting indicator, it is important to assess overall diversity of livelihood options (for example, market and non-market food sources), knowledge (conventional education and traditional knowledge) and capacity for self-