A structured decision-making approach to climate change
adaptation in the forest sector
by Dan W. Ohlson1, Greg A. McKinnon2 and Kelvin G. Hirsch3
ABSTRACT
Climate change presents a risk to the composition, health, and vitality of Canada’s forests and forest sector. Effects may
be either negative or positive, and will interact in complex ways over many spatial and temporal scales depending on
such factors as physical geography, forest type, and forest management practices. Given the apparent vulnerability of
forests and the forest sector to climate change, it is prudent that forest and forest-based community managers begin to
develop adaptive strategies to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of climate change. A flexible planning
framework that incorporates key principles of structured decision-making and risk management is presented as a
practical way to integrate climate change adaptation into forest management planning.
Key words: climate change, forest, impacts, adaptation, vulnerability, risk management, planning
RÉSUMÉ
Les changements climatiques présentent des risques en matière de composition, de santé et de vitalité des forêts et du
secteur forestier du Canada. Les effets peuvent être soit négatifs, soit positifs et entraîneront des interactions complexes
à de multiples niveaux spatiaux et temporaux en fonction de facteurs comme la géographie physique, le type de forêt et
les pratiques d’aménagement forestier. Étant donné la vulnérabilité apparente des forêts et du secteur forestier face aux
changements climatiques, il serait prudent que les aménagistes forestiers et les gestionnaires des communautés dépendantes des forêts commencent à élaborer des stratégies d’adaptation afin de minimiser les risques et maximiser les bénéfices reliés aux changements climatiques. Un cadre flexible de planification qui comporte des principes clés de prise de
décision structurée et de gestion du risque est présenté en tant que moyen pratique d’intégrer l’adaptation aux changement climatiques au sein de la planification de l’aménagement forestier.
Mots clés : changements climatiques, forêt, conséquences, adaptation, vulnérabilité, gestion du risque, planification
Dan W. Ohlson
Greg A. McKinnon
Introduction
The composition, health, and vitality of Canada’s forests and
forest sector are strongly linked to climate and climate variability. While climate has always been subject to natural
1Compass Resource Management Ltd., 200–1260 Hamilton St.,
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 2S8. E-mail: dohlson@
compassrm.com
2Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Climate Impacts and
Adaptation Research Network–Forest Sector, Northern Forestry
Centre, 5320–122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5. E-mail:
[email protected] (corresponding author).
3Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern
Forestry Centre, 5320–122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5.
E-mail: [email protected]
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005, VOL. 81, No. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
variation, and forests have
adapted accordingly, there is
now a growing consensus in
the scientific community
that the global climate is
warming due to anthropogenic factors and that the
rate of warming is likely to
accelerate at an unprecedented rate during the 21st century (IPCC 2001). While the
absolute magnitude of predicted changes is uncertain,
Kelvin G. Hirsch
there is a high degree of confidence in the direction of
changes and in the recognition that climate change effects
will persist for many centuries.
Climate change effects are expected to occur faster and
be more pronounced over the mid- and high latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere continents (IPCC 2001). With more
than 400 million ha of forested land, including a significant
portion of the world’s boreal forests, there is keen interest in
climate change effects on Canada’s forests and their management. Recent research into the potential effects of climate change on Canadian forests has raised awareness of the
need to address climate change in forest management practices (Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry 2003, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation
Directorate 2004).
97
Table 1. Potential biophysical effects of climate change on Canadian forests
Potential negative* effects
Potential positive* effects
•
Increased frequency and severity
of fire due to a longer fire season,
drier conditions, and more
lightning storms
•
Faster tree growth resulting from a
longer growing season/longer
frost-free periods
•
Expanded ranges and increased
winter survival for insects causing
increased defoliation and tree kill
•
Enhanced plant productivity
stimulated by increased levels of
carbon dioxide for photosynthesis
•
More extreme weather events
such as ice storms, heavy winds,
and severe drought
•
Increased plant hardiness in
some species
•
Individual species niches lost to
moisture stress or competition
from exotic species
•
Forest migration into previously
treeless landscapes, and increased
afforestation opportunities
are the potential effects on the ecosystem
services provided by Canada’s forests, including air and water purification, wildlife habitat, medicinal plants, nutrient cycling, and
erosion control.
Both the public and private sectors are
increasingly recognizing that consideration
of climate change impacts (or opportunities)
such as these should become a formal part of
their long-term planning processes, policy
development, and investment decisions.
However, despite this recognition, most sectors lack proven examples of fully developed
plans or decisions that take climate change
impacts and adaptation considerations into
explicit account.
Development and Evaluation of Climate
Change Adaptations
*Note that these characterizations may not be mutually exclusive, and may vary by management objective.
The biophysical effects of climate change on Canadian
forests are expected to be numerous. Effects may be either
negative or positive, and they will interact in complex ways
over many spatial and temporal scales depending on physical geography, forest type, forest management practices, etc.
A sample list of some of the potential biophysical effects that
may be experienced on a local or regional basis is provided
in Table 1.
Biophysical effects will have numerous corresponding
and inter-related socio-economic effects. Throughout
Canadian forests, many communities are heavily reliant on
the forest sector market economy. Significant changes in
timber supply, whether through increased forest disturbance or decreased forest productivity, will have wide-ranging effects on the profitability of local industries and
employment levels in local communities. Effects will also
extend to the provincial and federal government levels,
where the revenues from taxes and resource rents provide
the basis of program and service provision. In addition to
those benefits captured by the market system, forests also
provide numerous non-market benefits to Canadians by
providing aesthetic, cultural, and heritage value.
Parks and protected areas, which provide valued recreation opportunities and serve important conservation and
heritage aims, may face particular challenges if the maintenance of native species and ecosystems is not possible in a
fixed location (Scott et al. 2002). Perhaps most overlooked
Given the reality of climate change and the
apparent vulnerability of forests, forest
resource users, and communities, it is prudent that forest managers and forest-based community
leaders begin to develop adaptive strategies to minimize the
risks and maximize the benefits of climate change.
Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustments in ecological, social, and economic systems in response to actual
or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts.
These include changes in processes, practices, and structures
to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change (Smit and Pilifosova
2001).
In some circumstances, it might be most appropriate to
allow adaptations to occur autonomously, in a natural and
unmanaged way. For example, long-term unmanaged shifts
in species composition in a timber supply area (i.e., ecological system change) might be followed by autonomous
adaptations in the private sector to utilize the new type of
forest resource (i.e., economic systems change). In other circumstances, it might be most appropriate to undertake
adaptations in a planned, proactive manner. For example,
long-term shifts in forest disturbance patterns that threaten
ecological, social, or economic systems might necessitate
planned adaptations in the form of targeted regeneration,
silviculture, or protection strategies.
The development of climate change adaptation plans
requires an evaluation of all the costs and all the benefits of
alternative strategies, undertaken in the face of multiple
uncertainties, in the context of existing institutional
arrangements and stakeholder engagement processes. Some
of the challenges that must be addressed in this process, as
highlighted in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (Ahmad
and Warrick 2001), include the following:
Predicting impacts – Modelling methods are improving
in terms of resolution, baselines and process-orientation;
however, challenges remain with the validation and integration of predicted impacts across sectors and systems.
Treatment of uncertainties – Greater attention to detail
is required regarding how key uncertainties are expressed
(quantitatively or qualitatively), communicated, and integrated into evaluation and decision-making processes.
98
JANVIER/FÉVRIER 2005, VOL. 81, NO. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
In the forest sector, climate-associated impacts such as
drought, wildfire, and outbreaks of insects and diseases—
which are already a concern—can be expected to become
more frequent and severe as the climate warms (Gauthier et
al. 2004). In turn forest productivity, ecosystem functioning,
and habitat values will be affected, in many cases adversely.
Forest-based communities and industries, which are by
their nature dependent on the health and vitality of adjacent
forests, are similarly placed at risk by climate change (Hauer
et al 2001, Davidson et al 2003).
Climate Change Impacts
Costing and valuation – Debate continues around the
strengths and limitations of various techniques (i.e.,
cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, multi-criteria
methods, etc.). While some form of “multi-objective” assessments seem preferred, challenges remain in terms of aggregating and integrating across multiple metrics for decisionmaking purposes (Bell et al. 2001).
Early management approaches to impacts and adaptation emphasized scenario-driven impact assessment methods where climate change scenarios were identified, biophysical and socio-economic impacts were estimated, and
management strategies were developed. More recently, vulnerability assessment methods have been promoted where
key system vulnerabilities are first identified, and adaptive
strategies are developed and evaluated in the context of
existing decision processes (Smit and Pilifosova 2002,
Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). Adaptation strategies can be
either proactive or reactive. Proactive approaches to adaptation are more likely to avoid or reduce damages than reactive responses because planning among government institutions and important economic sectors will enhance
resilience to the effects of climate change (Easterling III et al.
2004). A proactive approach to adaptation can improve
capacities to cope with climate change by taking climate
change into account in long-term decision-making.
Some authors are beginning to draw the linkages
between these emerging methods in the climate change
impacts and adaptation field and more established methods
from the fields of natural hazards and human health risk
management fields (Brooks 2003, Turner et al. 2003).
Increasingly, standard risk management methods are being
adopted to directly address the challenges discussed above.
A review of recent guidance documents (e.g., UNEP/IES
1998, UKCIP 2003, UNDP/GEF 2003) and related supporting literature reveals two important themes:
• a shift toward adopting an overall structured decisionmaking approach as the guiding framework for developing and evaluating adaptation strategies, and
• the increased application of formal methods for defining,
evaluating and communicating risks and uncertainties.
This shift toward a more structured decision-making,
risk-based approach parallels the shift toward undertaking
“integrated assessments” of climate change impacts and
adaptation. Indeed, as policy-makers strive for practical
ways to address cross-sector and non-climate issues together, the need for increased structure becomes more pronounced (Cohen et al. 1998).
Practitioners require simple, straightforward guidance to
begin gaining practical experience in developing and evaluating climate change adaptation strategies. Below we outline
a simple, flexible planning framework that incorporates key
principles of structured decision-making and risk management (Fig. 1) as drawn from a review of recent guidance
documents and related literature. The immediate focus here
is on the planning and decision-making steps, recognizing
that effective implementation and monitoring using an
adaptive management cycle is also an integral part of an
overall approach to climate change adaptation.
Step 1. Define the problem and set management objectives
Clearly formulating and specifying the management prob-
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005, VOL. 81, No. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
Fig. 1. A framework for developing and evaluating climate change
adaptation strategies.
lem is perhaps the most important and least appreciated
step in the development and evaluation of adaptation
strategies. Rarely will processes be undertaken that are driven solely by climate change issues. More often, climate
change will be only one of several important factors that will
be addressed in a plan or decision. A good rule of thumb is
to start with the simplest representation of the problem and
then increase complexity only as long as it improves decision-making.
As a first step, managers should make a direct statement
of the adaptation problem and the required decision or
evaluation context. What is the main driver? Does it involve
a new policy or a major project? Who are the decision-makers? The problem statement must clearly identify the scope
and the scale of the issues being addressed, both spatially
and temporally. As necessary, this should include a succinct
summary of all key biophysical/ecological, socio-economic,
policy and institutional considerations as listed in Table 2.
Once the climate adaptation problem and decision-making context is defined, management objectives should be
clearly articulated. Management objectives define the things
that matter, the resources or management endpoints that
decision makers and stakeholders care about, and that may
be vulnerable to climate change.
A good set of management objectives should be comprehensive (addressing relevant items of concern), concise
(manageable in number so as not to overly complicate the
process), measurable (using either quantitative or qualitative performance measures), and controllable (within the
context and authority of the process).
Management objectives can often be derived from existing plans or guiding policy statements. They should be stated by clearly identifying both the object of importance and
the direction of preference, e.g., maximize timber supply,
protect or enhance recreation, minimize implementation
costs. In most forest management contexts, objectives can be
99
Table 2. Considerations to address during problem definition.
organized into environmental, social, and
economic categories. Clearly stated manKey biophysical/ecological considerations
agement objectives should form the basis
on which all adaptation strategies are
Define the planning and management area
developed and later evaluated.
Identify key issues, differentiating between short and long term
For each management objective, a corIdentify key uncertainties (climate or otherwise) and information gaps
responding performance measure (also
called evaluation criterion or decision
Key socio-economic considerations
attribute) is required to serve as the basis
for describing the absolute or relative perDefine the linkages with local/regional economic activity and social values
Identify key issues, differentiating between short and long term
formance of alternative risk management
Identify key uncertainties (climate or otherwise) and information gaps
strategies in measurable terms. For example, for the general management objective
Key policy and institutional considerations
to maximize timber supply, the performance measure might be the average annual
Define the existing policy/regulatory framework and constraints
timber volume available for harvest. This
Define the time horizon for the plan/decision
measure meets several important criteria:
Identify the institutions, jurisdictions and stakeholders involved and their
it is predictive (using basic timber-supply
authority/mandates
modelling techniques), accurate (directly
Identify available resources (e.g., staff, budget, data, models, etc.)
relating to the stated objective), understandable (to all stakeholders) and practical (developed using readily available
information and resources). While usually
From a process perspective, it is beneficial to first assess
developed in quantitative terms, in some circumstances it
vulnerabilities under the current climate before attempting
might be appropriate or necessary to develop performance
to address alternative future climate scenarios (UNDP/GEF
measures qualitatively using constructed scales.
2003). The experience and knowledge of managers, experts,
In a risk management context, such as when addressing
and stakeholders can often be relied on to quickly document
the future effects of climate change, performance measures
the most important system vulnerabilities. For example, it
should also be designed to report the nature, extent and sigmay be determined that certain management objectives are
nificance of uncertainty and variability. For example, the
sensitive to variations in key climate-driven effects such as
average annual timber volume discussed above could be
drought frequency or annual frost-free days. Consideration
represented as a probability distribution. This information
of past weather variability and extremes may provide useful
can be critical to expose if, for instance, alternative manageinsight into potential vulnerabilities under different future
ment strategies have similar “expected” outcomes (e.g., averclimate change scenarios.
age harvest volume) but differ widely in the probability of
General information on future climate scenarios is often
extreme outcomes (e.g., harvest volume falling below levels
readily available from established sources (e.g., the IPCC,
that would trigger mill shutdown).
the Canadian Climate Impacts and Scenarios Project).
Depending on the evaluation circumstances and available
Step 2. Assess system vulnerabilities
The extent to which an ecosystem or socio-economic system
is vulnerable is a function of the system’s exposure and sensitivity to climate change (or other) impacts, and on the
adaptive capacity of the system itself. Exposure is the degree
to which elements of a climate-sensitive system are in contact with climate while sensitivity is the degree to which a
system can be affected by climate change without accounting for adaptation (Easterling III et al. 2004). Adaptive
capacity, on the other hand, is a measure of a system’s ability to adjust to realized or even anticipated environmental
changes.
In order to conduct a vulnerability assessment, the first
task is to trace the exposure pathways that lead from climate
to our previously stated management objectives. Influence
diagrams (Fig. 2), also called conceptual models or impact
hypothesis diagrams, link stressors (such as climate change
or other system influences) to management objectives (such
as timber supply or recreation). They can be used to identify important exposure pathways, communicate system vulnerabilities, and target information collection efforts. They
also provide the initial basis for the development of quantiFig. 2. Conceptual model of a forest management problem relating
tative models and methods.
key climate factors and management objectives.
100
JANVIER/FÉVRIER 2005, VOL. 81, NO. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
agement strategies made up of
different combinations of measures selected from each category.
Fig. 3 shows how a strategy table
can be used to assemble alternative management strategies (i.e.,
A vs. B) from a set of categorized
lists of management measures.
In the conceptual example, strategy A comprises forest protection measures 1.1 and 1.2, regeneration measures 2.1 and 2.2,
and silviculture measure 3.1, etc.
Alternative strategies can be
developed to address specific climate change scenarios (e.g., a
major increase in drought frequency or decreases in annual
frost-free days) or to represent
different management goals
Fig. 3. Use of a strategy table to guide development of management strategies.
(e.g., to target a more diverse
tree species mix, or alternative
size class distribution).
resources, regionally specific future climate scenarios can be
The goal in this step is to systematically develop alternadeveloped in a number of different ways. First, it may be
tive, internally consistent adaptation strategies that will
possible to use additional bio-climate modelling to downaddress long-term vulnerabilities to climate change or take
scale global climate change scenario predictions into useful
advantage of opportunities. The development and evaluaregional-scale predictions. Alternatively, experts can be contion steps (see below) are often undertaken iteratively looksulted or simple what-if gaming can be used to develop
ing at three to five alternative strategies at a time. In most cirfuture climate scenarios.
cumstances, incorporating a base case or do-nothing strateThe overall intent of the vulnerability assessment step is
gy into the mix helps to bring into focus the incremental
to document key exposure pathways and to identify which
costs and benefits of other proposed management strategies.
management objectives are sensitive to change under both
current and future climate scenarios.
Step 4. Evaluate and decide
Once alternative risk management strategies are developed,
Step 3. Develop risk management strategies
they must be evaluated in terms of their effects on the statWhile some adaptive responses to climate change will be
ed management objectives. A simple format for structuring
autonomous (i.e., those that occur naturally without public
the evaluation is shown in Fig. 4, where the cells of the
sector intervention), others will need to be planned and
matrix are filled in with expected consequences of each
proactive. Step 3 involves developing a sound risk managestrategy on each management objective using the performment strategy as a collection of planned, proactive measures
ance measures.
using a structured approach.
The primary means of developing the necessary results
The first task in developing a strategy is to brainstorm
and information for a consequence table are simulation
and categorize a list of all possible management measures.
modelling or expert judgements, or some combination of
Some initial screening of measures (say for technical or
the two. Regardless of the approach taken, the requirement
institutional feasibility) is often necessary or appropriate.
is to clearly project the expected outcomes, i.e., the costs and
The focus should be on identifying a wide range of different
benefits, of each proposed strategy. As noted above, particumeasures to address any given management objective idenlar care should be given to reporting the nature, extent, and
tified in Step 1, or any given vulnerability identified in Step
significance of uncertainty and variability in all projected
2. For instance, again using the example of managing a timresults. For example, one strategy may have a higher expectber supply area, various measures will be available for forest
ed or mean result for a given objective, but also a relatively
regeneration (e.g., planting drought-tolerant genotypes,
high probability of catastrophic outcome, whereas another
controlling invasive species), silviculture treatment (e.g.,
strategy may have a lower expected or mean result, but also
managing tree densities and species composition, altering
a lower probability of catastrophic disturbance. These types
rotation age), and fire protection (e.g., increasing suppresof trade-offs should be highlighted to decision-makers, parsion capability, developing fire-smart landscapes). Many
ticularly because the goal is to identify and select managemeasures will have sub-options or variations that can be
ment strategies that are robust in the face of uncertainties
defined in terms of spatial or temporal scales of implemenpresented by alternative future climate scenarios.
tation or cost levels.
The value of the consequence table format is that it effiFrom a screened and categorized list of potential measciently summarizes the trade-offs that may exist either
ures, we can then begin to develop a range of broader manacross strategies or across objectives. Selection of the best
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005, VOL. 81, No. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
101
As a first step, the active engagement of all
interests in Canada’s forest sector on the issue
of climate change impacts and adaptation is
imperative. The issues presented by climate
change, as well as the far-reaching consequences of forest management decisions,
require that an integrated socio-economic/
environmental strategy to adapt to climate
change begin to be developed, without delay.
References
The application of structured decision-making and risk
management approaches as described above can support
forest managers in the development of local, regional, or
national strategies intended to minimize the adverse effects
of climate change, or to maximize the benefits. Such
approaches can support the evaluation of trade-offs both
within and outside the traditional bounds of the sector. In
all cases, these strategies should be evidence-based and
proactive. On-the-ground delivery of appropriate risk management strategies can be expected to 1) occur at a variety of
scales, 2) vary spatially, and 3) be subject to local policy and
operational constraints.
Ahmad, Q.K. and R.A. Warrick (Eds.). 2001.
Methods and tools. Chapter 2 in Climate change
2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (J.J. McCarthy, O.F.
Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White,
eds.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, and New York, NY.
Bell, M.L., B.F. Hobbs, E.M. Elliot, H. Ellis and Z.
Robinson. 2001. An evaluation of multi-criteria
methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. Journal of
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 229–256.
Brooks, N. 2003. Vulnerability, risk and Adaptation: a conceptual
framework. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38, Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, Norwich, United Kingdom. 16 p.
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate. 2004.
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective.
Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Climate
Change Impacts and Adaptation Program, Ottawa. 174 p. Available
online at http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca.
Cohen, S.J., R.S.J. Tol and A. Magalhaes. 1998. Integration.
Chapter 2 In (Feenstra, J.F., I. Burton, J.B. Smith and R.S.J. Tol
(eds.). Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)/ Institute for Environmental Studies (IES).
Davidson, D.J., T. Williamson and J. Parkins. 2003. Understanding
climate change risk and vulnerability in northern forest-based
communities. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 2252–2261.
Easterling III, W.E., W.H. Hurd and J.B. Smith . 2004. Coping with
global climate change: the role of adaptation in the United States.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. 40 p.
Gauthier, S., D. Gray and C. Li (eds.). 2004. Effects of climate
change on major forest disturbances (fire, insects) and their impact
on biomass production in Canada: synthesis of the current state of
knowledge. Proceedings of a workshop held in Quebec City,
September 21, 2003. Can. For. Serv., Sainte-Foy, Que. ISBN 0-662681550-X, Cat. No. Fo114-2/2004. 55 p.
Hauer, G., T. Williamson and M. Renner. 2001. Socioeconomic
impacts and adaptive responses to climate change: a Canadian forest sector perspective. Can. For. Serv., Edmonton, AB. Info. Rep.
NOR-X-373. 55 p.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001.
Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs , M.
Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson,
eds.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY. 881 p.
Scott, D., J. Malcolm and C. Lemieux. 2002. Climate change and
biome representation in Canada’s national parks system: implications for system planning and park mandates. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 11: 475–484.
Smit, B. and O. Pilifosova (eds.). 2001. Adaptation to climate
change in the context of sustainable development and equity.
102
JANVIER/FÉVRIER 2005, VOL. 81, NO. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
Fig. 4. Consequence table for evaluation of adaptation strategies.
strategy is based on the personal values and risk tolerances
of the given decision-maker, which can vary across stakeholders and circumstances. Therefore, it is important to
distinguish between the technical task of describing consequences, and the values-based task of evaluating consequences and trade-offs. There are a variety of tools and
techniques described in guidebook style documents that
describe in detail the various items that support the evaluation of management strategies (UNEP/IES 1998, UKCIP
2003). The steps described here are most conducive to the
use of multi-criteria evaluation methods; however,
cost–benefit and cost–effectiveness analyses methods can
also be supported once the key decision is distilled down to
a few key trade-offs.
In practice, the development and evaluation of adaptation strategies should be a deliberative process involving
decision-makers, stakeholders, experts, and analysts. It
should also be an iterative process, applying both analytical
techniques and structured negotiations, during which multiple strategy refinements are made until an acceptable balance of all consequences is found. Finally, practitioners
should always be on the look- out for so-called “no regret”
measures, that is, those management measures that are justified across all objectives and perform well under current
climate or any future climate scenarios.
Conclusion
Chapter 18 In McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J.
Dokken and K.S. White (eds.). Climate change 2001: impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, and New York, NY.
Smit, B. and O. Pilifosova. 2002. From adaptation to adaptive
capacity and vulnerability reduction. In Huq, S., J. Smith and R.T.J.
Klein (eds.). Enhancing the capacity of developing countries to
adapt to climate change Imperial College Press, London, UK.
Spittlehouse, D.L. and R.B. Stewart. 2003. Adaptation to climate
change in forest management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and
Management. 4(1). Available online at http://www.forrex.org/jem/
2003/vol4/no1/art1.pdf
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. (2003).
Climate change: we are at risk. Final Report. Government of
Canada, 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. Available online at
http://www.parl.gc.ca.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005, VOL. 81, No. 1 — THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE
Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W.
Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L.
Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher and A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United
States of America. 100 (14): 8074–8079.
United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) 2003.
Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decision-making.
UKCIP Technical Report (R.I. Willows and R.K. Connel, eds.).
UKCIP, Oxford, UK.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/ Global
Environment Facility (GEF) 2003. The adaptation policy framework: user’s guidebook, Final Draft. (Convening Authors: Lim, B.,
I. Burton and S. Huq).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/ Institute for
Environmental Studies (IES) 1998. Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies. (J.F.
Feenstra, I. Burton, J.B. Smith and R.S.J Tol, Eds.).
103