An overview of proven Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment tools for forests and forest-dependent communities across the globe:a literature analysis

Caterina Guidi•Giovanni Di Matteo•Stefano Grego

Abstract Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment(VA)tools for forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities are important for making decisions and understanding the impact of climate change on both social and natural systems.However,the tools are poorly coordinated,making it difficult for policymakers to carry out VAs properly.The aim of this study was to analyze VA literature worldwide to find representative case studies in terms of methods and tools applied and which have been successful in performing VAs on forests and forest-dependent communities.All successful VA studies analyzed had common characteristics such as significant funding,data availability and technical capacity.An additional characteristic was the development of an integrated approach that considered the vulnerability of both ecosystems and communities by combining qualitative and quantitative methods.Community members and relevant stakeholders were significantly involved in a participatory process that concluded with the identification of adaptation measures.The case studies also revealed how policymakers need to choose suitable methods and tools to undertake efficient assessment of vulnerabilities.They need to consider several aspects of the VA process such as subject matter,availability of resources,time and scale.

Keywords Vulnerable forest ecosystems·Bibliographic analysis·Forest-based community ·Policy-maker decision supporting·Adaptation actions

Introduction

Under the Paris Agreement,the Parties involved in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)agreed to keep a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels,and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase even further to 1.5°C.To accomplish this goal,the Parties also agreed to maximize Greenhouse Gas Emissions(GHGs)as soon as possible.Countries were asked to reduce their GHGs and propose long-term GHG reduction strategies by 2020.Article 5 of the Paris Agreement recognizes the central role of forest ecosystems in achieving the 2°C goal,and consequently Parties are encouraged to implement and support forest ecosystems,including through results-based payments(e.g.,Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation(REDD+),and the role of conservation,sustainable forest management and forest carbon sink enhancement).Article 5 acknowledges the potential of forest ecosystems to mitigate climate change and their importance in achieving non-carbon benefits,such biodiversity,indigenous peoples’rights,human rights,land rights,livelihoods.Article 7 clearly affirms that actions need to be taken to mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to the impacts of climate change,and that they should therefore be treated together.

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment(VA)is the first step to taking action on adaptation.It is an important mechanism for obtaining information on ‘‘what to adapt to and how to adapt’’(Füssel and Klein 2006).It also defines the nature and magnitude of the threat that may harm a given social system at different geographic scales(i.e.,country,region,sector or community),thus providing a basis for preparing adaptation measures that will reduce potential harm(Bouroncle et al.2017;Metternicht et al.2014;Tonmoy et al.2014;Weis et al.2016).Vulnerability is a function of the degree of system exposure to climate hazards,the sensitivity to changing climate on a given system or social association,and the system’s adaptive capacity to plan and implement adaptation measures(Bouroncle et al.2017;IPCC 2014;Weis et al.2016).

While several VAs in agricultural systems have been carried out(Bouroncle et al.2017;Mallari 2016;Steiner et al.2017),little is known about the application of VAs to the forestry sector.

It was therefore necessary to analyze successful case studies at local(community)and national levels since coordination between different scales is crucial for countries pursuing effective climate change adaptation(Brugnach et al.2014;Halofsky et al.2017;McCormick 2016;Meadow et al.2015).These case studies highlight the importance of natural,socio-economic and political aspects in undertaking VAs in order to plan how best to adapt forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities.

At a community level,VAs are generally used by forest dependent communities and local forestry authorities to develop local adaptation strategies or for mainstreaming adaptation into existing community plans(GIZ 2013c).At a national level,VAs are a tool to help forest managers and climate change decision-makers in planning strategic programs and actions(Williamson et al.2012).

The aim of this study is to analyze the world-wide VA literature for successful methods and tools in vulnerability assessments.The rationale is to provide scientific evidence to show the utility of using successful policies to withstand and adapt to climate change by analyzing previous vulnerability assessments.

Materials and methods

We reviewed the literature according to the method applied to an increasing extent by the social sciences(Petticrew and Roberts 2006).It has also been recently used in climate-related cultural heritage research(Fatoricánd Seekamp 2017).Published literature on VA was retrieved by performing a comprehensive keyword search in bibliometric international databases such as CAB Abstracts International,AGRICOLA,Data Bank,and Google Scholar.These databases were selected because they cover most life science disciplines including agriculture and forestry.Web platforms such as we ADAPT and Adaptation Community.net were also used because they specifically focus on climate change adaptation issues.Ten sets of English keywords were used to capture the relevant literature and this search identified 418 documents:(1)115 related to overall climate change vulnerability;(2)41 to forest vulnerability assessment;(3)22 to vulnerability assessment of forest-dependent people;(4)21 to vulnerability assessment of forest-based people;(5)31 addressing vulnerability assessment at local levels;(6)39 addressing vulnerability assessment at community scale;(7)18 addressing vulnerability assessment at national level;(8)16 addressing vulnerability assessments at national scale;(9) 98 addressing climate change adaptation;and (10)17 addressing climate change resilience.

We initially screened the publications by title,abstract and keywords to identify ones that specifically focused on Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities at national and local scales.This was followed with a full-text review.We discarded 232 documents as they appeared in two searches or more(duplicates).Of the remaining 186 documents,80 were selected for the final review while the rest were discarded as they did not fully reflect the ten keyword sets.

The final literature review included case studies that fully met six criteria(Table 1).The case studies showed detailed descriptions of methods and results since there was usually only a general description of the analysis and result.

Results and discussion

The 80 studies selected for the final evaluation included six(Tables 2 and 4)that were exemplary because they:(a)used qualitative and quantitative assessments methods and integrated these approaches;(b)involved all stakeholders from local to national levels;(c)assessed vulnerability not only of forests but also of communities dependent on or related to forests;and(d)incorporated a range of scales,both temporal and spatial(Tables 2 and 4).Our evaluation determined how these studies incorporated the above and how they enhanced the utility of their conclusions and recommendations to the actors involved in climate change vulnerability assessment.

Table 1 Criteria to select case studies in the final literature review

Table 2 Case studies assessing VAs of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities at a local scale

Analysis of case studies at a local scale

Three case studies assessed VAs of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities at a local scale(Table 2).The first was carried out by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers(CCFM)Climate Change Adaptation Initiative(CCAI).It is described in ten reports available on the CCAI website.

The CCAI study aimed at identifying existing VA projects at local and national scales to understand Canadian sustainable forest management vulnerability properly and the related opportunities for adaptation planning(Johnston and Edwards 2013).At a local scale,a VA of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities was undertaken in Vanderhoof,British Columbia.The analysis was made by Williamson et al.(2008)and focuses on a community-based project to examine the impact of mountain pine beetle infestation on forest resources and the associated economic consequences on forest-based communities.This case study applied an analytical definition of VA according to Williamson et al.(2007).

Historical climate data was retrieved from a database developed by the Canadian Forest Service(McKenney et al.2006)to analyze and reconcile the observed climate data with local residents’perception of changing climate.The analysis of future climate scenarios involved simulating results from three General Circulation Models(GCMs).The related climate data was used to elaborate new models and methods for forecasting forest productivity changes,species changes and wild fire risks under climate change contexts.

The second case study referred to two forest-dependent communities of Cameroonian forest ecosystems to assess local people’s vulnerability to climate change and consequently identify their specific needs for adaptation purposes(Bele et al.2013).A preparatory analysis was performed to review the literature addressing the risks and vulnerabilities related to climate change(i.e.,technical reports,grey literature,scientific papers,policy research working papers,national communications and specific programs),with special attention to the impact on local communities.The related data was analyzed to identify key-stakeholders and the local authorities(see Supplementary Table S1).Participatory Action Research involved local community members(e.g.,men,women,different ethnic groups,community leaders)and local institutions(local or national NGOs,local administration representatives)in specific adaptation strategies.Group discussions were held to allow local community members and institutions to discuss the impacts of climate change and what could be done to adapt.Brainstorming,historical trend analyses and diagnosis were some of the tools used to examine how climatic conditions affected the communities and the impacts of climate change on their livelihoods.

A second analysis was carried out by surveying information on the knowledge of local communities,their perceptions of climate change,and the related impacts and adaptive actions.Local farmers(n=24)and traditional leaders(n=35)involved in community decision-making were mostly interviewed in French and/or local languages about livelihoods,agriculture,climate change impacts and their perceptions of climate change.The surveys revealed some climate change indicators,e.g.,increased drought,crop failures,shifting seasons and increasingly heavy rain downpours during the rainy season.

The third case study was carried out with the forest dependent communities of Malemba and Mensiau in Indonesia.The aim of the study was to increase resilience under climate change scenarios(Santoso et al.2011).The vulnerability assessment considered socio-ecological systems in accordance with the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation(TroFCCA)project(Locatelli et al.2008b).A preliminary analysis found that it was useful to perform VAs with specific objectives,i.e.,understanding what made the villagers vulnerable.The VA also addressed potential climate change scenarios.Preliminary information(geographical setting,environmental,ecosystem and climate characteristics,and community livelihoods)was collected to characterize the local context by reviewing published data and reports(see Table S2).A list of questions was prepared to cover three socio-ecological vulnerability focus areas:(1)vulnerability of ecosystem services to climate change;(2)vulnerability of villagers in relation to ecosystem services reduction;and(3)adaptive capacity of the socio-ecological system.Two main questions were proposed per focus area(Table 3),converted into keyvariable statements,and finally assessed and scored based on findings from field observations and discussions.

Analysis of case studies at a national scale

We selected three case studies addressing VAs of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities at a national scale(Table 4).

The first case study was carried out in Australia to provide information to forest policymakers and managers when adopting climate change adaptation measures.The definition of the VA was in accordance with the one formulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.A preliminary analysis was carried out to examine VA components by reviewing policy-related literature from a wide range of sources,including peer-reviewed articles,industry guidelines and manuals,reports and documents produced by government departments and website resources(see Table S3).

Qualitative research methods,according to Wood et al.(2010),were used to get direct stakeholder engagement.Representative Australian organizations(e.g.,forestry and farmer organizations,investment scheme organizations and forestry researchers)involved in forest conservation were identified to engage the stakeholders in forest policy and forest management issues.Semi-structured interviews based on a set of open-ended questions were devised to get useful information on the biophysical and socio-economic impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems.Additional questions also addressed adaptive capacity issues and the related constraints perceived by forest stakeholders.The stakeholders always used scenarios to generate discussions on climate change adaptation issues according to Cock field et al.(2010).

The second case study was carried out in Tunisia to identify the most vulnerable ecosystems at a national level.More detailed vulnerability assessments were carried out in the country.A VA on cork oak forests identified climate change impacts and consequently proposed adaptation options(GIZ 2013a).

Quantitative data was mainly used in this study(i.e.,related to climate,soil,land use and livestock)as it was available from international(WorldClim)and national databases.Forest stakeholders were also consulted in order to obtain more qualitative input and recommendations.

The VA of cork oak forests required the current state of the ecosystem to be analyzed since national data and information sources referred to national forest inventories,bio-climatic maps,local climate and fire data only.The VA did not use specific modeling tools as it focused on several vulnerability socio-economic factors(e.g.,sensitivity to forest fires,overgrazing and hydrological deficits)based onexpert judgment.Forest units were mapped by Geographic Information System(GIS)with different levels of vulnerability to obtain climate projections up to 2050 under SRES(Special Report on Emissions Scenarios)A2 and B2.Additional biophysical and socio-economic variables were also used to create climate projections,e.g.,forest aging,and population and livestock projections at a national level.

Table 3 Guide questions for in-depth discussions with villagers and local community leaders

Table 4 Case studies on VAs of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities at a national scale

The third case study was in Madagascar with the aim of:(1)performing VAs in the main regional forest ecosystems;i.e.,dry forests and mangroves and related forest-dependent communities;and(2)defining possible adaptation measures that should be adopted in local land-use and forest management plans.

The analysis was focused on reviewing existing documentation and reports on historical,current and projected climate changes,and those addressing VAs of forest ecosystems(i.e.,GIZ 2013b;INSTAT 2011a,b)(see Table S4).This analysis was necessary since data on climate change and adaptation in Madagascar are mainly at a national level since meteorological stations cannot monitor local temperature or rainfall patterns.Therefore,it was necessary to integrate local perceptions into the analysis to get a complete picture of social and ecological vulnerability.A field study conducted across 12 communities in the Boeny region surveyed local perceptions of climate change.Three different methods were used.First,three focus group discussions were held in each community with local representatives and authorities(i.e.,the mayor,councilors and elders)on issues related to the main local economic activities(i.e.,agriculture, fishery,stock breeding).Mapping and seasonal calendars were used and historical profiles and vulnerability matrices were compiled to stimulate the discussions.Secondly,15 individual interviews were carried out in each community to get the quantitative data on local livelihoods and the related impacts of climate change.Thirdly,representatives of the elders of each community were interviewed to obtain useful information on historical events and past climate variations.

A retrospective analysis of the analyzed literature

Forest policymakers need to be guided by several factors when selecting the methods and tools for VA,i.e.,subject matter,availability of resources,time and scale.

At a community level,VAs are generally used by forest dependent communities and local forestry authorities to develop adaptation strategies or for mainstreaming adaptation into existing community plans(GIZ 2013c).At a national level,VAs are used as a support tool for forest managers and climate change decision-makers in planning strategic forestry programs and actions(Williamson et al.2012).However,even though several methods and tools are available to carry out VAs of natural and/or social systems,they are not properly coordinated(Fritzsche et al.2014;Locatelli et al.2008a).This is because the ecosystem tools are generally quantitative(Dessai and Hulme 2004;Eakin and Luers 2006;Füssel 2007;Füssel and Klein 2006),while social methods are often qualitative(Cutter et al.2009;Danzé et al.2009;Eakin and Luers 2006;Fellmann 2012;Füssel 2007;Locatelli et al.2008a).Both qualitative and quantitative analyses are helpful when making VAs,especially when traditional knowledge and input from indigenous communities has to be incorporated into the assessment process(Briske et al.2015).Qualitative methods are particularly important when uncertainties about climatic and socio-economic scenarios mean that this information cannot be analyzed to assess future impacts and associated vulnerabilities.Moreover,time horizons and geographic scales differ greatly between large-scale,long-term ecosystem modeling and local,short-term social vulnerability assessment(Locatelli et al.2008a).The temporal and spatial scales of quantitative modeling-based methodologies tend to be longer and larger than qualitative methodologies as the latter focus on local spatial and temporal scales and contexts.In most cases,vulnerability at a community scale is assessed at the level of current climate changes and associated short-term variability.Therefore,it represents a starting point for understanding vulnerability to future climate conditions(GIZ 2013c).Here the challenge is to build methods that would facilitate the links between the various approaches to vulnerability,i.e.,quantitative and qualitative methods(Di Matteo et al.2015;Locatelli et al.2008a).

In most of the literature analyzed,qualitative methods were used to assess the social vulnerability of forest-dependent communities as they consider short-term climate change on a smaller scale.On the other hand,quantitative methods were applied for the biophysical vulnerability assessment of forest ecosystems in order to develop longerterm,larger scale climate change adaptation policies.Quantitative methods were also usually more expansive than the qualitative approach since they required additional data,software and methodological knowledge (GIZ 2012,2013a,b,2014).However,a combination of both methods should be used to take advantage of the benefits of the different approaches.In the case studies analyzed,quantitative climate change modeling was scaled down to the appropriate local level and consequently could be used to make a qualitative assessment of the vulnerability of communities.This ecosystem model provides useful information on the vulnerability of ecosystem services to climate change and should therefore be considered for a suitable social system vulnerability assessment(Locatelli et al.2008a).Stakeholders should also be helped to understand the VA results,as they would be able to interpret climate scenarios by integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods(Leichenko et al.2014;Termeer and Dewulf 2014).The case studies analyzed employed this type of integrated approach.The VA of Indonesian forest-dependent communities used both qualitative and quantitative methods in accordance with the Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR)guidelines to assess the vulnerability of a coupled socio-environmental system.In Australia,a qualitative study of a forest-dependent community was helped to understand their perceptions of climate change,but quantitative methods were also employed.In Madagascar,local perceptions were integrated with quantitative data for a complete analysis of social and ecological vulnerability.Tunisia’s VA involved stakeholders to get additional qualitative input and recommendations.

The methods and tools analyzed in these VA studies were successful because they used the participatory process,thus engaging forest-dependent communities and forest policymakers to properly define and implement adaptation strategies.Focus group discussions were held involving representatives from local populations,youth leaders,women’s groups and local authorities.We found that a wide range of tools had been used in the case studies to stimulate the focus group discussions,e.g.,brainstorming,historical trend analysis,diagnosis,visioning,process documentation (in Cameroon);participatory mapping,seasonal calendars and compilation of historical profiles and vulnerability matrices(in Madagascar);dedicated surveys and in-depth interviews(in Canada);guide questions for in-depth discussions from villagers to local community leaders(in Indonesia);and semi-structured interviews to identify stakeholder attitudes,practices and planned actions in the context of climate change(in Australia).

The use of suitable methods helped in understanding local and national vulnerabilities and in developing options to reduce them;the participatory processes allowed stakeholders to identify forest-related measures that would combat climate change.These VA approaches and methods led forest policymakers to adopt successful resilience and adaptation measures.

Table 5 lists the methods and analytical factors that have resulted in successful VA responses in the case studies.

Conclusions

Our analysis of the literature showed several ways to carry out successful VAs of forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities.VAs differ with the size of the assessment(community or national level),the subject matter(socio-economic,biophysical or a combination of both),and the availability and accessibility of data.These issues influence the selection of what method to employ,and can be confusing for practitioners who need to choose the best method.We found that this could be resolved byincluding the key stakeholders in the entire VA process,as they provide invaluable input into the selection of suitable approaches and methods.Moreover,the coordination of quantitative and qualitative methods would help stakeholders accept the results as they would understand them in a more meaningful way.Therefore,stakeholders should be more likely to plan and implement specific measures to reduce vulnerabilities based on these results.

Table 5 Factors and characteristics of the VA case studies

We concluded that a combination of both approaches is the best way to perform a successful VA in forest ecosystems and forest-dependent communities.

AcknowledgementsThe research leading to these results comes from one of the most important activities of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,its Forest and Climate Change Programme.This paper reflects the views of the authors only,and the FAO will not be liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.The results of this study were first summarized in a Master’s thesis entitled ‘‘Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments of forests and forest-dependent people’’at the Sapienza University of Rome(Italy).The authors would like to thank the FAO Forestry Department for the opportunity to conduct the research and for their support.