-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
Resilience in river basin management: A comparative analysis of approaches toward resilience in the Columbia River Basin and Murray-Darling Basin
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2018
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Graham, Marinda
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Resilience in river basin management:
A comparative analysis of approaches toward resilience in the
Columbia River Basin and Murray-Darling Basin
by
Marinda Graham
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
December 2018
©2018 by Marinda Graham. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Marinda Graham
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shawn Hazboun, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Resilience in river basin management:
A comparative analysis of approaches toward resilience in the
Columbia River Basin and Murray-Darling Basin
Marinda Graham
Given the increasing scarcity of freshwater availability from river basins, the traditional
command-and-control approach toward basin management is becoming obsolete.
Viewing river basins as social-ecological systems and managing for social-ecological
resilience is a novel approach that is starting to gain credibility and momentum, leading
to the research question: Are principles of resilience theory being utilized in the
management of river basins and if so, which principles are most prevalent? A secondary
question was also posed: Where resilience theory is being utilized, how is it being
applied? Using qualitative content analysis, management plans for the Columbia River
Basin in the US and the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia were coded using seven
principles of resilience and an ecosystem service model. Two levels of documents were
examined: documents at the basin-wide level and documents at the catchment or subbasin
level. At the basin-wide level, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was evaluated against the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program. Overall the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program exhibited more
resilience thinking than the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. At the catchment or subbasin
level, Catchment Action Plans from the state of New South Wales were evaluated against
Subbasin Plans from the state of Washington. The Catchment Action Plans exhibited a
high degree of resilience thinking whereas the Subbasin Plans exhibited only a marginal
degree of resilience thinking. When combined as overarching plans, the lack of cohesion
and continuity between the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the New South Wales
Catchment Action Plans weakened the overall result for the Murray-Darling Basin.
Strong connectivity between the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and
the Washington State Subbasin Plans strengthened the overall result for the Columbia
River Basin. The additional evaluation of ecosystem services did not contribute much
insight.
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Research Question .......................................................................................................... 2
Thesis organization: ........................................................................................................ 3
Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
Columbia River Basin ................................................................................................. 4
Murray-Darling Basin ............................................................................................... 11
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16
Social-Ecological Systems and Ecosystem Services .................................................... 17
Resilience theory........................................................................................................... 20
Resilience as a management approach.......................................................................... 22
Resilience as a framework for evaluating river basin management ............................. 24
Seven Principles of Resilience ...................................................................................... 25
Management principles ............................................................................................. 25
Governance principles .............................................................................................. 27
iv
Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................... 31
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 31
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 34
Coding Frames .............................................................................................................. 36
Trialing the coding frame ............................................................................................. 41
Double code .............................................................................................................. 41
Evaluate and Modify: Results of Trial ...................................................................... 42
Code remaining documents .......................................................................................... 43
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 44
Results: MDBP and CRBFWP ..................................................................................... 45
Principles of resilience .............................................................................................. 47
Conclusion for MDBP and CRBFWP Results ............................................................. 52
Results: NSW CAPs and WA subbasin plans .............................................................. 53
Principles of resilience .............................................................................................. 55
Conclusion for NSW CAPs and WA subbasin plans ................................................... 60
Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 61
Resilience in the management of the MDB vs. the CRB.............................................. 61
Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 62
Treatment of slow variables and feedbacks .............................................................. 62
Integrating principles of resilience is not all or nothing ........................................... 63
v
Cohesion and continuity of plans is critical .............................................................. 64
Using principles of resilience as a tool to evaluate river basin management plans ...... 65
Evaluating how ecosystem services are tied to resilience principles............................ 67
Study limitations and recommendations for future research ........................................ 68
Chapter 6: Conclusion....................................................................................................... 69
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 73
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 86
vi
List of Acronyms
ACT
Australian Capital Territory
BPA
Bonneville Power Association
CAP
Catchment Action Plan
CAS
Complex Adaptive Systems
CRB
Columbia River Basin
CRBFWP
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
MA
Millennium Assessment
MDB
Murray-Darling Basin
MDBA
Murray-Darling Basin Authority
MDBP
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
NPCC
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
NSW
New South Wales
PNW
Pacific Northwest
SDL
Sustainable Diversion Limit
SES
Social-Ecological System
WA
Washington
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Columbia River Basin
Figure 2: Map of subbasins under the NPCC Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program
Figure 3: Map of Murray-Darling Basin
Figure 4: First dimension of coding frame being trialed
Figure 5: Second dimension of coding frame, supports ecosystem services, showing
hierarchy of subcategories.
Figure 6: First dimension of coding frame finalized
Figure 7: Principles of resilience and ecosystem services relationship in MDBP
Figure 8: Principles of resilience and ecosystem services relationship in CRBFWP
Figure 9: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
NSW CAPs
Figure 10: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
WA subbasin plans
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: First Nations and Tribal Nations in the CRB
Table 2: Programs and agencies involved in CRB
Table 3: Programs and agencies involved in MDB
Table 4: Traditional Owner Nations in the MDB
Table 5: Summary of seven principles of resilience. Adapted from Biggs et al., 2012
Table 6: Summary of the ecosystem service categories and freshwater services as defined
by the Millennium Assessment, 2005.
Table 7: Documents analyzed for the CRB
Table 8: Documents analyzed for the MDB
Table 9: Comparison of resilience principles in the MDBP and the CRBFWP
Table 10: Comparison of resilience principles in the NSW CAPs and the WA subbasin
plans
ix
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my thesis reader Shawn Hazboun for the insightful feedback
and advice she gave me during the revision process of my thesis. I could not have
finished this thesis without her invaluable guidance. I would also like to thank Ted
Whitesell for his help early on in the thesis process, which included the development of
the thesis prospectus and the literature review. Finally, I would like to extend a huge
thank you to the faculty and staff of the MES program. I had an incredible experience and
learned more than I thought was possible.
I also need to thank my family and friends for their support throughout my time in
the program. I could not have survived the thesis process without the empathy and
sympathy I received. Thank you for listening to me laugh, cry, panic, and celebrate, just
to name a few of the many emotions I have experienced while writing my thesis.
x
Chapter 1: Introduction
Freshwater is one of the earth's most vital resources and is a critical component of
human well-being (Miller et al., 2016). Ensuring sustainable use and continued
availability of freshwater is critical for all living species on the planet, however this is
being challenged by the rapid rise of global water consumption (World Water Council,
2000). Human-created climate change and loss of biodiversity are impacting the
availability of freshwater yet increasing social and economic demands continue to persist
(Rockström et al., 2014). Issues that result from water scarcity are not about the water
itself but about how people interact with the water (Connell, 2011). Since the 1960s,
withdrawals from rivers have doubled and the amount of water in reservoirs has
quadrupled (Millennium Assessment, 2005; Rockström et al., 2014). River basins are one
of the most important sources of freshwater on the planet, however for most major rivers
systems, the rate of extraction is exceeding the capacity, putting the resilience of the
systems in jeopardy (Millennium Assessment, 2005; World Water Council, 2000).
River management is, in essence, conflict management (Wolf, 2007). In response
to rapid development and stressors such as climate change, management approaches for
river systems must be able to address current conflicts in freshwater usage as well as
anticipate and adapt to future conflicts (Kenney, 2006). When water reform is viewed as
a social process, the current command-and-control approach towards river management
becomes obsolete (Connell, 2011). Balancing the many competing uses of river systems
is the key towards resolution and reform. However, understanding the multiple
conflicting uses of rivers and the impacts on the overall system is complex because river
systems do not exhibit simple, linear behavior (Cosens & Williams, 2012). Therefore, a
1
relevant framework for evaluating the functions and health of the river as a social system
must be applied (Rockström et al., 2014).
Because river basins provide essential services not just for ecosystems but for
humans as well, one novel but increasingly popular approach is viewing river basins as
social-ecological systems (SESs), allowing for humans to be part of the river basin as
opposed to separate from it when considering management options (Cosens et al., 2014;
Huitema et al., 2009; Ostrom, 2009). When managing a river basin as an SES, resilience
emerges as a central part of river management (Green et al., 2013; Parsons et al., 2016;
Parsons & Thoms, 2017). Defined as the ability of a system to respond to disturbances
and absorb change while preserving its core structure and functions (Cosens et al, 2014;
Walker & Salt, 2006), resilience can be a powerful mechanism for managing and
adapting to the changes we are encountering and will continue to encounter in our river
basins (Folke, 2016). The notion of a self-repairing river basin is no longer valid and
management approaches must actively address enhancing and strengthening a basin's
capacity to provide for social systems as well as ecosystems (Folke, 2003).
Research Question
This leads to my research question: are principles of resilience theory being
utilized in the management of river basins and if so, which principles are most prevalent?
A secondary question is: where resilience theory is being utilized, how is it being
applied? In an attempt to answer these questions, I evaluated and compared how concepts
from resilience theory were being applied in management approaches for the Columbia
River Basin (CRB) in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) in the United States and for the
Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia. Few studies exist that explore the application
2
of resilience theory to real-world situations (Baird et al., 2016; Sellberg et al., 2018), so
my research could contribute to building knowledge in this area. In addition,
understanding the similarities and differences of how resilience is being integrated in the
recently developed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Columbia River Basin plans may
potentially lead to valuable insights that can be leveraged by management personnel on
both sides. This cross-case comparison may be of practical value for managers of other
river basins and of academic value for researchers interested in exploring different
approaches (Kenney, 2006). Comparative perspectives also facilitate exchanges of best
practices and lessons learned for management reform (Garrick & Bark, 2011), yet very
few comparative studies have focused specifically on resilience as a management
approach for river basins (Parsons & Thoms, 2017).
Thesis organization:
I have divided this thesis into six chapters. The first chapter introduced my thesis
topic and the research questions I will be addressing. The remainder of the first chapter
provides background information on the two river basins that are the research subjects of
this thesis: the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest and the Murray-Darling
Basin in Australia. Chapter 2 consists of a review of literature starting with ecosystem
services and SESs. I then review resilience theory broadly, then narrow focus on
resilience as a management approach, followed by resilience as a framework for
evaluating river management. I finish with a brief review of comparative analyses that
exist for river basins in an attempt to demonstrate the contribution of my research. In
chapter 3, I detail the methods I used for my research, including the software, the specific
documents used as data, and the building and trialing of the coding frame. I present the
3
results in chapter 4, followed by a discussion of the results in chapter 5. I conclude with
chapter 6, which will include suggestions for additional areas of research.
Background
Columbia River Basin
Described as an organic machine (White, 1995), a river lost (Harden, 1996), and a
river captured (Pearkes, 2016), the Columbia River and its many tributaries have long
been ingrained in Pacific Northwest economy, livelihood, and culture. As the largest river
system in the PNW, the CRB covers an area over 670,000 square kilometers (Bonneville
Power Administration et al., 2001). Approximately 15% of the CRB is located in interior
British Columbia in Canada with the remaining 85% located across seven states of the
United States (Figure 1) (National Research Council, 2004). Numerous subbasins
produced by the tributaries of the mainstem river exist within the drainage area
(Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001), each with individual goals, objectives,
and needs. In addition, there are 14 affiliated tribes in the United States portion of the
CRB and three First Nations groups in the Canadian portion of the CRB (National
Research Council, 2004) (Table 1). The multiple agencies and laws, as well as state,
local, and tribal governments contribute to a complex jurisdictional structure that
provides immense challenges for basin management (Cosens, 2010).
4
Figure 1. The Columbia River Basin in the PNW of the United States and British
Columbia in Canada. Locations of dams on the river are also depicted. Reprinted from
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2014.
5
Table 1: First Nations and Tribal Nations in the CRB. Adapted from Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 2014.
Tribe (US) or First Nation (CA)
Country
State (US) or Province
(CA)
Ktunaxa Nation
CA
British Columbia
Okanagan Nation
CA
British Columbia
Secwepemc Nation
CA
British Columbia
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation
US
Washington
Kalispel Tribe of Indians
US
Washington
Spokane Tribe of Indians
US
Washington
Confederated Tribes and Bands of
the Yakama Nation
US
Washington
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
US
Idaho
Coeur d’Alene Tribe
US
Idaho
Nez Perce Tribe
US
Idaho
US
Idaho
US
Idaho
US
Montana
Confederated Tribes of the Grande
Ronde Community of Oregon
US
Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Warms
Springs Reservation of Oregon
US
Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation
US
Oregon
Burns Paiute Tribe
US
Oregon
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the
Fort Hall Reservation
Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck
Valley Indian Reservation
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Nation
6
In addition to the complexity of basin management, the basin itself has been
plagued by over-allocation of existing water supply, uncoordinated efforts between the
various managing entities, and conflicting objectives among stakeholders (Cosens, 2010;
Mote et al., 2014). Alterations such as dams, reservoirs, irrigation systems, and
navigation channels have impacted the stability of the once wild river (Harden, 1996).
Potential shocks such as climate change, changes in policy, and land use changes can
destabilize and even transform critical basin attributes that currently contribute to
economic, social, and environmental wellbeing within and beyond the basin (Cosens &
Williams, 2012; Hand et al., 2018). Adaptation to these projected changes is critical to
ensure the overall health of the economy, ecology, and culture in the Pacific Northwest
(Hand et al., 2018).
Governance and management of the CRB is one of North America's most
jurisdictionally complex (National Research Council, 2004). The legal and institutional
framework for decision-making is comprised of a mosaic of treaties, executive directives,
court rulings, and legislative enactments (National Research Council, 2004). Table 2 lists
a few of the programs and agencies involved in the United States to illustrate the many
sources that can affect decisions regarding basin management.
7
Table 2: Programs and agencies involved in CRB. Adapted from National Resource
Council, 2004.
Columbia River Basin Programs, Administrations, Councils
· Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC)
· Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
· Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Federal Government
· US Army Corps of Engineers
· US Environmental Protection Agency
· US Forest Service
· US Fish and Wildlife Service
· US Geological Survey
· US Bureau of Indian Affairs
· US National Marine Fisheries Service
· US National Park Service
· US Bureau of Reclamation
· US Department of the Interior
Native American Tribes
· Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
· Tribes from Table 1
State & Local Government
· Washington
· Oregon
· Idaho
· Montana
Stakeholders
· Power interests
· Irrigation interests
· Navigation interests
· Environmental interests
· Recreation interests
There is no integrated management plan for the CRB. The closest to a basin-wide
integrated plan is a program under the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC), formed as a result of the 1980 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act (also known as the Northwest Power Act) (Connell, 2011). The
8
intention behind the creation of the NPCC was to consider the multiple contending
interests from the various groups involved (see Table 2) and broker solutions that best
meet overall needs (National Research Council, 2004). As such, one of the key
responsibilities of the NPCC is to mitigate the impacts of hydropower generation on CRB
fish and wildlife, including and especially endangered species.
The key program to achieve these responsibilities is the Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Program (CRBFWP), which is implemented primarily by four states
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana), the Columbia Basin tribes, and federal fish and
wildlife agencies (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2014). The CRBFWP
addresses the entire 670,000 square kilometers of the CRB as well as the Columbia River
mainstem and subbasins, of which there are 62 (Figure 2). Out of the 62 subbasins, 59
have subbasin plans consisting of objectives, goals, and measures that are a significant
part of the Program and are core elements of the Program. The subbasin plans provide a
critical component of the project review process for Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) funding and also serve as inputs to projects and programs outside of the BPA,
including projects and programs in the transboundary areas of Canada (Northwest Power
and Conservation Council, 2014).
9
Figure 2. Map of subbasins under the NPCC Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program.
Retrieved from Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2014.
The primary document produced that provides overall guidance and governance
for the NPCC was evaluated as part of this thesis. In addition, subbasin plans were also
evaluated, however due to the large number of subbasin plans as well as the differences
between state agencies, laws, permitting processes, and so on, 27 subbasin plans for
Washington State were the focal point for my research. Because 69% of the land in
Washington State is in the CRB (roughly 184,827 km2), the management approaches in
Washington are important to understand due to the downstream impacts to the
surrounding states (Muckleston, 2003). It should be noted that the subbasin plans near the
state border do partially encompass areas from neighboring states since state boundaries
do not often coincide with subbasin boundaries.
10
Murray-Darling Basin
The challenges outlined for the CRB are not confined to river basin management
in the Pacific Northwest but apply to basin management in general. The Murray-Darling
Basin (MDB) in Australia, described as the 'mighty' Murray (Hammer et al., 2011),
shares many of the same challenges with the Columbia River Basin, the most significant
including over-allocation of resources, highly variable streamflow, and difficulty
coordinating management across multiple jurisdictions (Connell, 2011). Spanning four
states and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the MDB drainage area covers slightly
over one million square kilometers and is considered the most important river system in
Australia due to the amount of agriculture in the basin (Hart, 2016b; Hammer et al.,
2011) (Figure 3). In addition to existing ecological degradation from over-allocation, the
Millennium Drought (1997-2009) brought to light the need for more oversight and
coordination between the various uses of water from the system (Miller et al., 2016;
Neave et al., 2015). Increasing severity and occurrence of droughts is anticipated due to
climate change, which further highlighted the need for water reform in the basin (CSIRO,
2008; Colloff et al., 2015; Grafton et al., 2013; Neave et al., 2015).
11
Figure 3. Map of Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. Retrieved from the Murray-Darling
Basin Authority, https://www.mdba.gov.au/discover-basin.
To address the existing and future challenges facing the MDB, the MurrayDarling Basin Authority (MDBA) was formed in 2008 and tasked with creating and
implementing a centralized basin management plan focused on sustainable water reform
(MDBA, 2012). One of the key aspects of the plan was the establishment of Sustainable
Diversion Limits (SDLs), which sets limits on how much water can be taken from the
basin. Each state has unique SDLs and the MDBA will monitor the amount of water each
12
state takes in order to ensure compliance. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan (referred to as
the Plan) was approved in 2012 and implementation of the plan was targeted for
completion in 2019 (MDBA, 2012). However, due to feedback from the states and
pending changes to some of the parameters, some components of the Plan are now
expected to take until 2024 to reach completion (Hart, 2016a). Compliance to the SDLs is
still required beginning in July 2019 (MDBA, 2012).
With the adoption of the Plan, responsibility for basin management is under the
leadership of the Australian government. Similar to management of the CRB, successful
management of the MDB is interconnected with many other agencies, including 46
aboriginal nations (Tables 3 & 4) (Hart, 2016b). Key governing bodies exist for resource
management specific to each of the states. In the state of New South Wales (NSW),
Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) are key governing bodies that facilitate
resource management strategy and investment for the specific catchment area of the
MDB (New South Wales, 2005). Catchment level action plans (CAPs) for each of the
seven defined areas of NSW that lie within the MDB were evaluated as part of this thesis
to allow for comparison with the Washington State subbasin plans. Seventy-five percent
of the land in NSW is in the MDB, compared to 69% of the land in Washington State in
the CRB, drawing parallels between the importance of the river basins to both of these
states (Geography, 2015).
13
Table 3: Programs and agencies involved in MDB. Adapted from MDBA, 2012.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Murray-Darling Basin Program Leads
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)
Federal Government and National Programs
Office of Environment and Heritage
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Livestock Health and Pest Authority
Research and Development Agencies
National Parks
Greening Australia
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
Commonwealth Environmental Water Office
Traditional Owners
Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN)
Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN)
State, Territory, & Local Government
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Queensland
Australian Capital Territory
Stakeholders
Power interests
Irrigation interests
Environmental interests
Recreation interests
14
Table 4: Traditional Owner Member Nations for the Murray Lower Darling Rivers
Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN).
Adapted from http://www.mldrin.org.au/membership/nations/ and http://nban.org.au/.
Murray Lower Darling Rivers
Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN)
Barapa Barapa
Barkindji
Dhudhuroa
Dja Dja Wurrung
Latji Latji
Maraura
Mutti Mutti
Nari Nari
Ngarrindjeri
Ngintait
Nyeri Nyeri
Tatti Tatti
Taungurung
Wadi Wadi
Wamba Wamba
Waywurru
Wegi Wegi
Wergaia
Wiradjuri
Wolgalu
Wotjobaluk
Yaitmathang
Yita Yita
Yorta Yorta
Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations
(NBAN)
Barkindji (Paakintji)
Barunggam
Bidjara
Bigambul
Budjiti
Euahlayi
Gamilaroi
Githabul
Gunggari
Gwamu (Kooma)
Jarowair
Kambuwal
Kunja
Kwiambul
Maljangapa
Mandandanji
Mardigan
Murrawarri
Ngemba
Ngiyampaa
Wailwan
Wakka Wakka
Conclusion
In this chapter, I established the critical importance of freshwater to humans and
to ecosystems. I also highlighted how global water consumption is continuing to rise,
leading to overallocation of freshwater resources. I established that rivers are one of the
15
most important sources of freshwater and that river basin management needs to evolve
from the widely-used command-and-control approach to one focused on resilience. I
introduced the concept of rivers as SESs and how resilience theory has recently emerged
as a framework for management of SESs. I then introduced my research question of
whether resilience theory is being integrated into water management plans, and if so, how
is it being applied. To address the question, I stated my research would focus on two
prominent river basins: the Columbia River Basin in the PNW of the US and the MurrayDarling Basin in the southwest section of Australia. I briefly described both river basins
and presented a few of the current challenges with river basin management they
experience. In the next chapter I conduct a literature review on SESs, resilience, and their
contexts within river basin management.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Support for resilience thinking has progressively increased in subsequent years
and gained momentum in across multiple disciplines and fields (Folke, 2016). The
establishment of the Resilience Alliance (RA), a multi-disciplinary international research
organization, in 1999 helped to establish resilience as a viable theory and approach (RA,
https://www.resalliance.org). From 2004 to 2014, Google searches for "resilience"
increased by 124% (Baggio et al, 2015) and the number of scientific publications on
resilience theory increased from five in 2001 to over 300 in 2016 (Sterk et al., 2017).
While these figures demonstrate the growing popularity in resilience theory, they also
16
represent growing confusion over the definition and meaning (Chapin et al., 2009; Folke,
2006; Martin-Breen & Anderies, 2011; Sterk et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2004).
In the following chapter I attempt to address the confusion surrounding the
meaning of resilience by narrowing down the specific purpose for which I am using
resilience. To start, because I use resilience theory to evaluate management approaches
for a specific type of SES – a watershed – I provide an overview of social-ecological
systems and how these relate to ecosystem services. I then follow with resilience theory,
including background of how it originated as well as evolved to the multiple definitions
and meanings that exist today. From there I will narrow down the definition of resilience
to SESs. Finally, I will narrow down the definition of resilience even further by focusing
on resilience as a tool for management of SESs. I finish with a discussion on how these
concepts have been applied to river basins.
Social-Ecological Systems and Ecosystem Services
For millennia, humans have been altering the earth and its ecosystems to meet
their physical, social, and spiritual needs (Berkes et al., 2008; Folke et al., 2011). As a
result, nearly every ecosystem on the planet has been impacted by humans, either directly
through intentional action or indirectly as a consequence of human actions (Folke, 2006;
Rockström et al., 2014), particularly during the last 50 years, where the ecosystems have
been changing more rapidly and extensively than ever before (Millennium Assessment,
2005). Because humans have altered nearly every ecosystem on the planet, the concept
of a pristine ecosystem untouched by humans is no longer valid (Berkes et al., 2008).
Despite the overwhelming evidence that humans influence ecosystems and the
services they provide, the overlap between social science and ecological science was
17
limited until late in the 21st century, when the separation of social systems and
ecosystems began to be recognized as “artificial and arbitrary” (Berkes et al., 2008;
Folke, 2006, p. 262). The term social-ecological systems (SESs) was coined not only to
describe the linkage between these two systems but also represent their integrated nature
(Berkes & Folke, 1998; Folke et al., 2007), i.e. an SES is a cohesive system whose
overall dynamics are characterized by the interactions and feedbacks between
components in the ecological system and the social system (Folke et al., 2010). In this
context, humans, communities, societies, cultures, and economies are all a part of the
system and not merely acting on the system (Cumming et al., 2017; Folke, 2016).
Foundational to SESs is the assumption that they behave as complex adaptive
systems (CAS) (Folke et al., 2006; Levin et al., 2013), characterized by the ability to selforganize and adapt, withstand uncertainties, and interact in unpredictable ways (Gros,
2008; Norberg & Cumming, 2008). SESs are also characterized by non-linear dynamics,
strong reciprocal feedbacks between the social and ecological components, and multiple
basins of attraction (Berkes et al., 2008; Levin et al., 2013). The cumulative impact of
these characteristics implies change and continual evolution, which are inherent in SESs
(Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Therefore, disturbance and change are viewed as an
integral part of an SES rather than unusual or rare (Cumming et al., 2017).
Changes in an SES can occur slowly or more quickly as in the case of a sudden
shock or disturbance (Biggs et al., 2015). When a critical threshold is crossed, the SES
can undergo a regime shift and evolve into something new and different (Walker et al.,
2006). This change in regime is caused by the transcendence of a critical threshold and
reversing back to the original or desired configuration is difficult if not impossible (Biggs
et al., 2015). Understanding critical interactions in an SES and how these interactions
18
impact thresholds and the system's ability to adapt or transform is highly complex and
difficult to articulate. In order to better understand, describe, and predict possible
outcomes due to change in an SES, researchers have increasingly turned to resilience as a
lens for evaluation (Biggs et al., 2015; Rockström et al., 2014). Resilience theory,
reviewed below, facilitates the understanding of complexity within an SES by providing
a framework for evaluation (Cosens, 2010).
Another aspect of social-ecological interactions are ecosystem services, defined as
the benefits humans obtain from ecosystems. Ecosystem services connect and integrate
SESs (Biggs et al., 2015; MA, 2005). In the past 60 years however, the use of ecosystem
services has come at the cost of social and ecological degradation because humans
typically manage ecosystems to maximize the ecosystem services most valued by the
society (Spangenberg et al., 2014), often at the expense of ecosystem services not being
as highly valued (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Biggs et al., 2015). Ecosystems need to be
healthy to adequately and sustainably provide ecosystem services critical for society’s
physical, social, and spiritual needs, (Millennium Assessment, 2005).
The challenge of ensuring ecosystems can continue to sustainably provide
ecosystem services, both now and in the future, has resulted in a variety of new
approaches, one of which is the resilience approach (Folke et al., 2010; Walker & Salt,
2006). Foundational to the resilience approach is that social systems and ecosystems
cannot be decoupled and humans are embedded in the biosphere (Berkes et al., 2003).
Resilience theory therefore has a strong focus on SESs (Biggs et al., 2015).
19
Resilience theory
Resilience is a relatively new way of thinking about an ecosystem and has been
described as the “science of surprise” (Folke, 2016, p. 5). Resilience first emerged as an
ecological perspective in the 1960s and early 1970s as a result of research on interacting
populations, such as predator and prey, and their response to ecological stability theory
(Holling, 1961; Lewontin, 1969; May, 1972). In 1973, C.S. Holling formally introduced
the widely accepted definition of ecological resilience, defining it as "a measure of the
persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still
maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables" (p. 14). While the
ability to absorb shocks is a critical component of resilience, the definition of resilience
has expanded in recent years to include the ability of a system to reorganize, renew, and
even transform to a new state (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke, 2006; Gunderson & Holling,
2002).
Although the concept of resilience was originally defined in the context of
ecosystems, resilience has been applied to social systems as well (Adger, 2000; Holling,
2001). Social resilience as defined by Adger is the ability of the social structure of human
communities to withstand external shocks (2000). Social resilience can also be viewed as
the ability to achieve well-being even if significant modifications of behavior or changes
to the structure of social frameworks need to occur (Hall & Lamont, 2013). In other
words, social resilience refers to an outcome in which a group of people retain their wellbeing when faced with challenges to it by adapting or transforming their behavior or the
structure of their social framework (Holling, 2001).
20
Extending the concept of resilience from ecological systems and social systems to
SESs was a logical progression in the application of resilience theory. Using a purely
social resilience lens, humans have demonstrated abundant skill at dealing with change
and adapting, however the adaptation is often at the expense of the related ecosystems
(Smit & Wandel, 2006). Correspondingly, focusing only on ecological resilience often
leads to tunnel vision in decision making and consequently wrong conclusions (Folke,
2006). Biggs et al. define resilience of an SES as the capacity of an SES to retain its
ability to maintain ecosystem services and human well-being when faced with
disturbance, by buffering shocks as well as adapting or transforming as a consequence of
change (2015). Cosens et al. further elaborate that resilience "describes the ability of a
complex system to continue to provide the full range of ecosystem services in the face of
change" (2014, p. 7). In social-ecological resilience, the focus is on concepts of
reorganization and renewal as opposed to recovery (Bellwood et al., 2004).
The more resilient an SES is, the more it is able to withstand larger shocks and
disturbances without going through a regime shift (Walker et al., 2006). In other words,
the resilience of an SES is the capacity to handle variations and changes but still continue
to develop (Sterk et al., 2017). Loss of resilience in a SES indicates loss of adaptability,
leaving the SES vulnerable (Folke, 2006). Human action can erode resilience and shift an
ecosystem into a less desirable state that could lead to impacts on the development and
livelihood of society (Gunderson, 2000; Folke et al., 2005). When humans manage
ecosystem services for only a few resources, such as managing a watershed only for
hydropower or irrigation, resilience can be eroded making the social-ecological system
vulnerable.
21
Resilience as a management approach
Flexibility and emergence are core attributes of SES management and governance
(Folke, 2016). Resilience in an SES is characterized by an emphasis on change,
unpredictability, and persistence (Holling, 1973), the latter of which is addressed most
often by more progressive adaptive management styles (Sterk et al., 2017). To that end,
resilience should be considered a critical component of adaptive management, not a
substitute for it (Rockström et al., 2014). Rather than trying to control change, as is the
management approach when ecosystems are viewed as stable systems with equilibrium
points, the resilience perspective promotes management approaches that focus on
building or enhancing the capacity of an ecosystem to adapt to change (Berkes et al.,
2003; Smit & Wandel, 2006). Resilience is distinctly different from stability, the core
lens of traditional command-and-control management (Sterk et al, 2017), which is
characterized by an emphasis on constancy, predictability, and efficiency (Holling, 1973).
When viewing disturbance through a traditional lens, SESs are thought to self-repair and
return to a state of stability and equilibrium via predictable mechanisms (Folke, 2006).
However, when viewing disturbance through a resilience lens, SESs learn, self-organize,
and continue to develop in the way they respond to disturbance (Norberg & Cumming,
2008).
By viewing disturbance in an SES through the lens of resilience, there is great
potential for new management approaches using innovation and development (Folke,
2006). Because the resilience perspective views the future as unpredictable and surprise
as inevitable, enhancing ecosystems capacity to adapt to change increases the chances of
sustaining desirable pathways (Adger et al., 2005). Desirable, as defined by Daily, refers
to the ability of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services that enable the development
22
of human society (1997). The focus is on change instead of stability because surprise and
uncertainty are inevitable (Berkes et al., 2003). This approach is a marked departure from
the historically dominant command-and-control management approach with goals of
controlling variability (Folke, 2006). A resilience approach to SES management
integrates concepts of self-organization, adaptation, and learning, thus enhancing
variability (Folke, 2006).
The proponents for the SES resilience approach recommend adaptive
management to deal with uncertainties. However, in practice a gap exists between the
theory of adaptive management and the actual implementation (Cosens & Williams,
2012; Huitema et al., 2009). The largest gap lies with resolving conflicts and agreeing to
trade-offs, which is a function of governance, not management (Cosens et al., 2014).
Adaptive governance can address these gaps by providing direction and oversight for
conflict resolution and trade-offs, allowing management to operationalize the decisions
(Cosens, 2011). Adaptability in the context of SES refers to the “capacity of people to
build resilience through collective action” whereas transformability is the “capacity of
people to create a fundamentally new SES when ecological, political, social, or economic
conditions make the existing system untenable” (Folke, 2006, p.262). The collaboration
of a diverse set of stakeholders is critical to adaptive governance as is the ability for the
stakeholders to operate at different social and ecological scales (Olsson et al., 2004).
Management of SESs in a way that supports societal needs and development now
and in the future is a major challenge (Lambin, 2005). Some resource managers are
coming to the realization that the social system and the ecological system need to be
managed as one integrated entity (Sterk et al., 2017). However, the linkages in SESs
require an extensive transdisciplinary framework that employs the concepts and
23
approaches of many of the natural and social sciences (Chapin, 2009; Walker et al.,
2006).
Viewing an ecosystem through the lens of resilience shifts the management lens
from the traditional command-and-control approach, which addresses change through an
emphasis on the return to stability (Folke, 2006). By contrast, the resilience approach
offers a fresher management lens which highlights coping with and adapting to, rather
than controlling, change, perhaps even using the change to transform the system to a new
state and function (Carpenter & Gunderson, 2001; Rockström et al., 2014; Walker et al.
2006). In this context, surprise and uncertainty are built into the management thinking
and therefore are better addressed and dealt with (Walker at al., 2006). Instead, in the
command-and-control philosophy, the goal is to remove the disturbance and instead
enhance the growth of usually one ecosystem service (Folke, 2006). The consequence of
this approach is that the economic health of a region can become reliant on this one
ecosystem service, making it vulnerable when changes or disturbances occur that alter the
ability to continue to deliver the ecosystem service (Folke, 2006). Additionally, it is
typically less advantaged people and regions that suffer when this occurs (Gunderson &
Holling, 2002).
Resilience as a framework for evaluating river basin management
Managing river basins for resilience is still a relatively unexplored area (Walker et
al., 2006). There are very few precedents for assessment of river ecosystem resilience
(Parsons et al., 2016). While several resilience frameworks proposed in the literature
(Cosens, 2010; Folke et al., 2010; Marshall, 2010; Nelson et al., 2007; Ostrom, 2009;
Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010), none of these frameworks have been validated by empirical
24
results (Biggs et al., 2015) or have been used for evaluation of river basin management. A
resilience framework published by Biggs et al. in 2012 has been identified as being
suitable for evaluation of river policy and management (Gilvear et al., 2016; Parsons &
Thoms, 2016). The framework resulted from a rigorous review of resilience-based
literature and an equally rigorous vetting process by the authors and consists of seven
principles (Biggs et al., 2012). This framework serves as the basis of my thesis analysis.
Seven Principles of Resilience
The seven principles of resilience identified by Biggs et al. are grouped into two
areas, those that relate to enhancing resilience through management practices and those
that relate to enhancing resilience through governance (2015). Three principles are
related to enhancing resilience through management: 1) maintain diversity and
redundancy, 2) manage connectivity, and 3) manage slow variables and feedbacks. The
remaining four principles are related to enhancing resilience through governance by
creating key attributes of governance that: 4) foster complex systems thinking, 5)
encourage learning and experimentation, 6) broaden participation, and 7) promote
polycentricity.
Management principles
Maintain diversity and redundancy
It is widely accepted that both diversity and redundancy are vital to the resilience
of an SES (Chapin et al., 2009; Elmqvist et al., 2003; Ostrom, 2005). When an SES
encounters change or disturbance, diversity increases the number of ways in which the
different SES elements can respond (Biggs et al., 2012). Redundancy serves as a safety
25
net against disturbance or unexpected change by providing similar elements that can
either partially or completely substitute for each other (Rosenfeld, 2002).
Manage connectivity
Connectivity is defined by the extent to which parts of the SES interact and the
ease with which species, resources, or social actors can disperse or migrate across
landscapes such as habitats, patches, or social groupings (Bodin & Prell, 2011). The
structure of the SES is dependent on the linkages between different elements, therefore
the degree of connectivity in an SES impacts overall resilience (Nystrom & Folke, 2001).
These linkages can also enhance resilience by connecting elements vital to ecosystem
recovery after a disturbance occurs (Biggs et al., 2015).
Manage slow variables and feedbacks
Variables impacting an SES operate on a range of timescales (Gunderson &
Holling, 2002). “Slow” and “fast” variables do not have fixed timescales and are instead
slow or fast relative to the other variables in a particular SES (Biggs et al., 2012). Slow
variables change more gradually than the other variables in the SES and typically
determine the overall structure and processes of the SES whereas feedbacks from fast
variables impact the dynamics of a system (Biggs et al., 2015). In an ecological system,
examples of slow variables include erosion control or long-term changes in rainfall (MA,
2005). In a social system, examples include changes in legal systems or societal values
(Abel et al., 2006). Changes in the slow variables and feedbacks of an SES can lead to
regime shifts if certain thresholds are crossed, therefore clearly defining and managing
for critical thresholds is a way to increase resilience (Scheffer et al., 2009). Monitoring
changes in the slow variables and feedbacks of an SES can help identify when system
resilience is degrading and in danger of experiencing a regime shift (Biggs et al., 2012).
26
Governance principles
Foster CAS thinking
CAS thinking involves accepting that uncertainty is pervasive in an SES and
viewing SESs as continually evolving systems as opposed to steady state systems (PahlWostl, 2007). Fostering CAS thinking in resource management emphasizes holistic
management approaches versus reductionist management approaches where individual
system components are managed separately (Holling & Meffe, 1996).
Encourage learning
Learning has been accepted as foundational to addressing uncertainty in an SES
and fundamental for building resilience (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Walters, 1990).
Because knowledge is never complete and uncertainty and change are inevitable in an
SES, learning must be continually adapted based on the best available information
(Chapin et al., 2009; Walker & Salt, 2006).
Broaden participation
Participation is defined as having relevant stakeholders actively engaged in both
the management and governance processes (Biggs, et al., 2012). Better management
plans result from a broader participation of stakeholders due to the representation of
multiple perspectives (Colfer, 2005). Not limited to planning only, participation can
occur in all stages of the management process, from developing goals to monitoring
outcomes. In governance, individuals directly affected by potential changes in policy
should be able to participate in order to share knowledge and help shape solutions. The
more inclusive a process is, the more community resilience is bolstered (Elster, 2006).
27
Promote polycentricity
A polycentric governance system consists of multiple levels of governing bodies
operating at different scales (Ostrom, 2005). Each level has autonomy within a defined
geographic area and is usually matched to the magnitude of the problem being solved
(Folke et al., 2007). A polycentric approach facilitates the implementation of other
resilience principles, notably learning and experimentation, participation, and
redundancy, therefore, polycentricity has an indirect impact on resilience (Biggs et al.,
2015). It should also be noted that operationalizing polycentricity in SESs is not well
understood (Biggs et al., 2015).
The seven principles are briefly summarized in Table 5 below.
28
Table 5: Summary of seven principles of resilience. Adapted from Biggs et al., 2012.
Management attributes
Maintain diversity and
redundancy
Manage connectivity
Manage slow variables
and feedbacks
Governance attributes
Foster CAS thinking
Encourage learning and
experimentation
Broaden participation
Promote polycentricity
Description
Diversity increases the number of ways in which the
different SES elements can respond (Biggs et al., 2012).
In addition, redundancy provides similar elements that can
substitute for each other either partially or completely
(Rosenfeld, 2002).
Linkages in an SES can enhance resilience by connecting
elements vital to ecosystem recovery after a disturbance
occurs (Biggs et al., 2015).
Monitoring changes in the slow variables and feedbacks
of an SES can help identify when system resilience is
degrading and in danger of experiencing a regime shift
(Biggs et al., 2012).
Description
Encourages holistic management approaches and
accepting that uncertainty is an inherent property of the
SES (Holling & Meffe, 1996).
Learning is foundational to addressing uncertainty in an
SES and fundamental for building resilience (Gunderson
& Holling, 2002; Walters & Holling, 1990).
Participation means that relevant stakeholders actively
engaged in both the management and governance
processes. The more inclusive a process is, the more
community resilience is bolstered (Elster, 2006).
Polycentricity consists of multiple levels of governing
bodies operating at different scales (Ostrom, 2005). Each
level has autonomy within a defined geographic area and
is usually matched to the magnitude of the problem being
solved (Folke et al., 2007).
Comparative Analyses of River Systems
Until recently there has not been much cross-fertilization among the various
disciplines involved in river management (Barrett & Constas, 2014), making comparative
analysis challenging (Sterks et al., 2017). Additionally, given the diversity of geographic,
socio-economic, and political conditions of river basins, comparing complex river basins
is difficult in and of itself. That is not to imply comparisons should not be undertaken,
29
only that the boundaries and parameters of the comparative analysis should be carefully
chosen so that inherent differences are minimized and also recognized. One issue is the
lack of a common framework to compare river basins, making any such analysis that
much more difficult. By applying social-ecological systems theory using a resilience
framework, I aim to provide a solid baseline for sound comparison.
At a global level, there is a lack of literature focused on systematic analysis and
comparison of river basin plan content (Kazbekov et al., 2016). Although comparative
studies of basin plans exist that focus on public discourse and perspectives, water
problems, and governance structure (e.g. Garrick & Bark, 2011; Eberhard et al., 2017),
comparative studies that focus on basin plan content, logic, and function are not common
(Wescoat, 2005). Furthermore, comparative studies attempting to identify transferable
best practices between other regions of the world and the western United States are rare
(Wescoat, 2005). No comparative analysis of the existence of resilience theory in
management approaches exists between the Columbia River Basin and the MurrayDarling Basin.
Conclusion
This chapter has examined the literature on social-ecological systems, ecosystem
services, and resilience theory to provide insight on the overlap and interdependence
between them. I started with an overview of social-ecological systems (SESs), describing
how the term social-ecological system was first coined, the definition of SESs, and the
main characteristics of SESs. I followed by describing ecosystem services and their role
in connecting and integrating the social system with the ecosystem in an SES. I also
30
described how resilience theory has emerged as a management approach to ensure the
continued sustainability of ecosystem services.
I then provided a comprehensive overview of resilience theory, including how it
originated and evolved to an approach for managing SESs. I followed by describing
resilience-based management, including its relationship to adaptive management and the
key differences between resilience-based management and command-and-control-based
management. I also outlined the benefits of resilience-based management. I described the
challenges of applying resilience as a framework for evaluating river basin management
and described a novel study published by Biggs et al. in 2012 that identified seven
principles of resilience. I used these seven principles as the foundation of my
methodology, which is described in the next chapter. I finished the literature review with
a review of studies focused on comparative analyses of rivers, of which there are few, to
demonstrate the potential contribution of my research.
Chapter 3: Methods
Overview
The overall goal of this research is to identify patterns of resilience and to
understand how resilience theory was being applied in river basin management. To do
this, I conducted document analysis utilizing qualitative content analysis (QCA), assisted
by MAXQDA software for analysis. QCA was used to detect the presence and patterns of
the resilience principles outlined by Biggs et al. (see Table 5) in planning documents for
two river basins. For the Columbia River Basin, I analyzed the 2014 Columbia River
31
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program document as well as 27 associated subbasin
management plans within Washington State. For the Murray-Darling Basin, I analyzed
the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan as well as catchment action plans for the basin’s
seven subregions in the state of New South Wales. In each of these documents, I coded
whether or not (and which) resilience principles were present.
Additionally, when resilience principles were present, I examined whether and
how consideration of ecosystem services was integrated. The ecosystem services I
considered were those identified in the Fresh Water chapter in "Ecosystems and Human
Well-being: Current State and Trends," a document created over the span of 4 years by
the Millennium Assessment (MA), an international group of over 1,360 experts (MA,
2005). The ecosystem services for freshwater as defined by the MA fall under four
general categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural.
Provisioning ecosystem services consist of material or energy outputs from an
ecosystem. For freshwater, the MA outlined six provisioning ecosystem services: 1)
fishery/food, which consists of fish and other aquatic organisms consumed for food or
medicinal purposes; 2) navigation, meaning water used for transportation for barges and
other water vessels; 3) hydropower, water for generating electricity; 4) industrial,
meaning water used for manufacturing; 5) irrigation, water for agricultural purposes; and
6) consumption/municipal, which consists of water used for drinking and other household
purposes (2005).
Regulating ecosystem services regulate quality of the ecosystem, and for
freshwater the MA outlined three regulating ecosystem services: 1) erosion control,
which buffers the erosion of soil from land, river banks, and river beds; 2) flood control,
32
which buffers excess flooding through of flood control infrastructure such as flood plains;
and 3) water quality, which consists of natural filtration as well as water treatment
(2005).
Supporting ecosystem services provide services that support habitat for critical
species interactions as well as nutrient cycling. For freshwater, the MA defined three: 1)
ecosystem habitat/predator-prey, which consists of those ecosystem services that provide
vital habitat; 2) primary production, which includes carbon storage and release; and 3)
nutrient cycling such as nitrogen and phosphorus (2005).
Finally, cultural ecosystem services provide spiritual enrichment as well as
recreation. The three ecosystem services defined for freshwater are 1) existence and wellbeing; 2) tourism, which includes sport fishing; and 3) recreation, which includes river
rafting, and wind surfing (2005). The results are summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Summary of the ecosystem service categories and freshwater services as defined
by the Millennium Assessment, 2005.
Ecosystmem Service Category
Provisioning
Description
Material or energy outputs from an ecosystem
Freshwater Ecosystem Services
Fsihery/food
Navigation
Hydropower
Industrial
Irrigation
Consumption/municipal
Regulating
Regulates the quality of the ecosystem
Erosion control
Flood control
Water quality
Supporting
Provide services that support habitat for critical Ecosystem habitat/predator-prey
species interactions as well as nutrient cycling. Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Cultural
Provides spiritual enrichment as well as
recreation
Existence and well-being
Tourism
Recreation
33
My analysis is qualitative. I did not attempt to quantify the results because in
many instances, paragraphs were repeated in the management plan which skewed any
quantitative results. Also, because the nature of the purpose of the documents, large parts
of the management plans are focused on targets and implementation details, which serve
a critical purpose in the plans but when taken proportionally skew results as well. Thus,
quantitative analysis would not have made sense.
In the following sections I will describe the three steps in my methods: 1) Data
selection, 2) Building the coding frame, and 3) Trialing the coding frame.
Data Collection
The document evaluated for the CRB at the basin level was the Columbia River
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2014 (CRBFWP). Because the Columbia River Basin
spans seven states and parts of British Columbia, at the subbasin level I evaluated
Subbasin Plans for Washington State (WA) to reduce complexity. All documents were
publicly available online and links to the documents are provided in Appendix A. These
documents are listed in Table 7.
34
Table 7: Documents evaluated for the CRB
Document name
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2014
Asotin Subbasin Plan
Crab Creek Subbasin Plan
Elochoman & Skamakowa Subbasin Plan
Entiat Subbasin Plan
Estuary Tributaries Subbasin Plan
Grays Subbasin Plan
Klickitat Subbasin Plan
Lake Chelan Subbasin Plan
Little White Subbasin Plan
Lower Columbia Mainstem and Estuary Subbasin Plan
Lower Cowlitz Subbasin Plan
Methow Subbasin Plan
Palouse Subbasin Plan
Pend Oreille Subbasin Plan
Salmon Subbasin Plan
San Poil Subbasin Plan
Spokane Subbasin Plan
The Okanogan Subbasin Plan
Tucannon Subbasin Plan
Upper Columbia Subbasin Plan
Upper Cowlitz Subbasin Plan
Upper Mid-Columbia Subbasin Plan
Walla Walla Subbasin Plan
Wenatchee Subbasin Plan
White Salmon Subbasin Plan
Wind Subbasin Plan
Yakima Subbasin Plan
35
The document evaluated for the MDB at the basin level was the Murray-Darling
Basin Plan (MDBP). Because the MDB spans four states and the Australian Capital
Territory (ACT), I evaluated Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) from the state of New
South Wales (NSW). All documents were publicly available online and links to the
documents are provided in Appendix B. These documents are listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Documents evaluated for the MDB
Document name
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment Action Plan
Central West Catchment Action Plan
Lachlan Catchment Action Plan
Murray Catchment Action Plan
Murrumbidgee Catchment Action Plan
Namoi Catchment Action Plan
Western Catchment Action Plan
Coding Frames
The first step in creating my coding frames was to create a set of concept-driven
categories and sub-categories based on the seven principles described by Biggs et al.
(2012). The primary coding frame consisted of the seven principles of resilience outlined
by Biggs et al. (see Table 5). Subcategories of management and governance were created
as well.
The first dimension of the coding frame, Principles of resilience, contains two
subcategories: present and not present. A present code was applied when a sentence was
36
related to the principles of resilience. Sentences not related to resilience or that were
unclear given the context (or lack of context) were not coded and were excluded from the
analysis. For example, sentences referencing "adaptive management" would not
necessarily be coded as present unless the context of the sentence specifically applied to
resilience. While adaptive management can be indicative of resilience, it is also widely
practiced in non-resilient management styles such as command-and-control. It should be
reiterated that sentences coded as not present were no longer considered at this point as
they were not relevant to my research question.
The present code is further subdivided into governance and management,
depending on whether the type of resilience being supported is related to the management
of the river basin or the governance of the river basin. Management and governance are
further subdivided into subcategories in order to capture more specific data if present.
Management is subdivided into diversity and redundancy, connectivity, and slow
variables and feedback. Governance is subdivided into CAS thinking, learning and
experimentation, participation, and polycentricity.
As part of the trial phase, I also added two subcategories to the coding frame to
determine the frequency with which they were arising and whether these additional codes
would add the pertinent information to my analysis. The first subcategory is climate
change, which was added to slow variables and feedback. Climate change was mentioned
in several places in the document used for the coding trial, and due to the global concern
regarding climate change, I thought it would be of interest to know where and in which
documents this concern was being addressed.
37
The second subcategory I added was monitoring, which was added to learning
and experimentation. Monitoring is a key aspect of learning and experimentation in
resilience thinking, but it is also a key aspect on non-resilience thinking such as
command-and-control. Adding monitoring as a second dimension served two purposes.
First, it helped during the analysis phase to understand how much of learning and
experimentation was due to monitoring versus experimentation or other types of learning
that contribute to resilience thinking. Monitoring, while valuable, is a form of passive
adaptive management, while experimentation and other types of learning are forms of
active adaptive management (Biggs et al., 2015), so having a mechanism to separate
monitoring better represents the entire subcategory of learning and experimentation.
Second, monitoring was mentioned throughout the document used in the coding trial and
was in fact the most prevalent of all of the codes. As such, separating monitoring from
other approaches provided more information to analyze learning and experimentation.
The first dimension of the coding frame is shown in Figure 4 below.
38
Figure 4: First dimension of coding frame, principles of resilience, showing
hierarchy of subcategories. Only one code (the common denominator) from this figure
was assigned to each sentence.
Subcategories were only coded if the sentence is exclusively related to that
category or subcategory, otherwise the sentence gets coded as the parent code, i.e. the
common denominator. For example, in the Lower Columbia mainstem subbasin plan, the
sentence "there is a continual need to connect ourselves as individual, corporate, and
community citizens to our river," (p. 199, 2010) shows that resilience is present and
specifically tied to connectivity; as such, it would be coded as connectivity. In contrast,
the sentence "integrated, resilient, and diverse biological communities are restored and
39
maintained in the lower Columbia River and estuary" is not tied specifically to a single
management practice since "integrated" represents connectivity and "diverse" represents
diversity and redundancy. Therefore, the sentence is coded as management.
In addition to the first dimension, Principles of resilience, a second dimension,
Related to ecosystem services, was added to the coding frame in order to capture whether
the presence or partial presence of resilience is tied to an ecosystem service or not (see
Figure 5).
Figure 5: Second dimension of coding frame, supports ecosystem services, showing
hierarchy of subcategories. Only one code from this figure gets assigned (the common
denominator).
40
The subcategories of Related to ecosystem services are yes and no, and both of
these are further subdivided into provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural. Each
of these are further subdivided into subcategories of specific ecosystem services based on
the Millennium Assessment for freshwater ecosystem services (2005), described above
and summarize in Table 6. The freshwater ecosystems services are then further divided:
Provisioning is subdivided into fishery/food, navigation, hydropower, industrial,
irrigation, and consumption/municipal. Supporting is subdivided into ecosystem habitat,
primary production, and nutrient cycling. Regulating is subdivided into erosion control,
flood control, and water quality. Cultural is subdivided into existence and well-being,
tourism, and recreation.
Trialing the coding frame
After building the initial coding frames, I trialed the frame on one of the
documents being analyzed for the CRB and one being analyzed for the MDB. I chose the
documents randomly. The trialing phase served two purposes: first, to ensure I was
coding consistently and second, to make sure the categories and subcategories in the
coding frame could be logically applied to the material I was analyzing. The trialing
phase consisted of two steps: 1) Double Code and 2) Evaluate and Modify.
Double code
In order to ensure I was applying the categories and subcategories consistently, I
performed a double-coding process on the documents I was trialing. Double coding
consisted of coding the trial documents twice, ten days apart, to ensure consistency.
The results of the double coding were consistent, with only seven out of 178
codes not matching. The inconsistencies were due to visual errors that resulted in
41
mistakenly assigning the wrong codes. I corrected this by assigning different colors to the
codes so I could more easily detect a wrong code assigned.
Evaluate and Modify: Results of Trial
For the first dimension of the coding frame, of the two subcategories that I added
to the coding frame, climate change and monitoring, only monitoring added any value to
the analysis. Climate change was only mentioned once, in the introduction, and not tied
to resilience. As such, it was not coded, adding no value to the analysis. Monitoring,
however, was coded 9 times between the two documents, so did contribute to the
analysis. Therefore, climate change was deleted from the coding frame and monitoring
remained in the coding frame. No changes were required for the second dimension of the
coding frame, which focuses on ecosystem services. The final coding frames are depicted
in Figure 5 above and Figure 6 below.
42
Figure 6: First dimension of coding frame finalized
Code remaining documents
With the updated coding frame, I coded 36 documents in total. Two documents
were at the basin level and 34 were at the subbasin or catchment level.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I provided a detailed explanation of the research methodology
used to answer my research questions: Are principles of resilience theory being utilized in
43
the management of river basins and if so, which principles are most prevalent and where
resilience theory is being utilized, how is it being applied? I started with the type of
research methodology used, which was Qualitative Content Analysis. I followed with an
overview of the frameworks used to design the coding frames for my analysis,
specifically the seven principles proposed by Biggs et al. (2012) and freshwater
ecosystem services as defined by the Millennium Assessment (2005). Next, I described
my approach for data collection and the listed the documents that were analyzed in
Tables 7 and 8. Then I detailed specifically how my coding frames were built and then
applied to the data and followed with my methods for trialing, evaluating, and modifying
the frames in order to finalize them for the coding of the documents (Figures 5 and 6). In
the following section I present the results from the coding.
Chapter 4: Results
This results section is divided into two main sections, results from the MDBP and
CRBFWP comparative analysis, followed by results of the CAPs and Subbasin Plans
comparative analysis. Within each of these sections, a summary of how each document or
set of documents integrated resilience is given along with the comparative analysis to
each other. Following the general summaries are the results of each of the seven
principles along with any observations concerning the relationship of the specific
principle to ecosystem services. A summary table for each of the comparative analyses is
also provided.
44
Results: MDBP and CRBFWP
While neither the MDBP or the CRBFWP were resilience-based, elements of
some of the resilience principles were present in both. Table 9 presents a summary of the
comparative analysis. Overall, the MDBP lists resilient ecosystems as an objective, but it
does so in a generic sense that is not actionable. Furthermore, the concept of the MDB as
an SES is nowhere in the document. Management approaches outlined in the MDBP
focus heavily on water quality and quantity and overall are not reflective of resilience
thinking, with the exception of mentioning the desire for productive and resilient
industries and confident communities.
In contrast, the CRBFWP explicitly mentions enhancing ecosystem resilience.
Furthermore, the CRB plan acknowledges that humans are integral parts of the
ecosystem, indicating that the CRB should be viewed as an SES and stating that an
understanding of what is important to people is key to successful ecosystem management.
As far as management principles, the CRBFWP discusses the need to understand and
manage to the natural limitations of a system and that change is inevitable and healthy,
both of which are indicative of resilience thinking. The need for river and dam operations
to be adaptive and flexible enough to mitigate impacts from climate change is
highlighted, as well as the need to identify and evaluate different management options
under various climate-change scenarios.
45
Table 9: Comparative analyses of resilience principles in the MDBP and the CRBFWP.
'0' represents the absence of Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle, '+' represents
the presence of Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle, '-' represents a conflict with
Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle. A double figure such as ‘0/+’ indicates that
some aspects of Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle were mentioned but not
substantively discussed. Refer to Figures 5 and 6 in the methods section for visual
representation of the parent/child relationships in the coding hierarchy.
Principles of
Resilience
Present
Resilience
thinking
(RT) or
specific
principle
(SP)
MBDP
CRBFWP
Comments
General concept of resilience not well
represented in the MDBP. The CRBFWP
had some elements of resilience, in
particular in the guiding scientific
principles
Some aspects of managing for resilience
represented in both the MDBP and the
CRBFWP but not consistently
Diversity present in MDBP but only in the
context of ecological diversity. Diversity
in the CRBFWP includes both ecosystem
diversity and social diversity
Connectivity present in MDBP but only in
the context of ecological connectivity.
Connectivity in the CRBFWP includes
both ecosystem connectivity and social
connectivity
SDLs were calculated using historic data
in the MDBP instead of taking future
projections into account. The CRBFWP
states possible effects of climate change
need to be considered.
Governance of SES not present in MDBP
but the CRBFWP had some elements and
emphasized the CRB needs to be managed
as an SES
The MDBP emphasized learning but not
experimentation. The CRBFWP
emphasized learning and emphasized
experimentation
The MDBP includes some aspects of
monitoring but in the context of
compliance to SDLs. The CRBFWP
represented monitoring
Both the MDBP and the CRBFWP
emphasized participation and inclusion
RT
0
0/+
Management of
SESs
RT, child to
Present
0/+
0/+
Diversity and
Redundancy
SP, child to
management
0
+
Connectivity
SP, child to
management
0
+
Slow Variables
and Feedbacks
SP, child to
management
-
0/+
Governance of
SESs
RT, child to
Present
0
0/+
Learning
and
Experimentation
SP, child to
Governance
+/0
+
Monitoring
SP, child to
Learning
and Exp.
0
+
Participation
SP, child to
Governance
+
+
CAS thinking
SP, child to
Governance
0
0/+
CAS thinking not present in MDBP but
was marginally represented the CRBFWP
Polycentricity
SP, child to
Governance
0
0
CAS thinking net present in MDBP but
was marginally represented the CRBFWP
46
Principles of resilience
Diversity and Redundancy
Diversity and redundancy were marginally present in both the MDBP and the
CRB. In both documents, ecological diversity was the primary focus, however the
importance of cultural diversity and community diversity was identified in the CRBFWP
as an important element for societies being able to deal effectively with change. Because
ecological diversity was the focus in the MDBP, this principle was tied to ecosystem
services, either generally to diversity of the entire ecosystem or specifically to diversity
of ecosystem habitat (Figure 7). Ecosystem services were not as strongly related to
diversity in the CRBFWP, with roughly half of the instances of diversity not related to an
ecosystem service and the other half generally related to diversity of the entire system or
to floodplains (Figure 8). It is important to note that Figures 7 and 8 do not represent
quantitative results, they only describe the relative occurrence of codes from the
ecosystem coding frame (Figure 5 from the Methods chapter). If a code from the
ecosystem service coding frame is not present on the chart, then it was not coded for any
of the seven principles.
47
Figure 7: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
MDBP
48
CRB Code Relation Chart
Participation
Connectivity
Learning and
experimentation
Monitoring
Diversity and redundancy
Slow variables and
feedbacks
CAS thinking
Polycentricity
No ecosystem service
General ecosystem service
Ecosystem habitat/ predator/prey
Regulatory
Flood control
Figure 8: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
CRBFWP
Connectivity
Connectivity was present in both the MDBP and the CRBFWP. The instances of
connectivity in the MDBP all related to an ecosystem service based solely on ecological
connectivity because there is no concept of the basin as an SES (Figure 7). Instances of
connectivity in the CRBFWP are also strongly tied to ecosystem services and ecological
connectivity (Figure 8).
Slow variables and feedbacks
The MDBP scored poorly in this area. With the great deal of emphasis on the
SDLs and a large portion of the document dedicated to the calculations, the calculations
themselves were based on historical climate data and did not take future climate changes
49
into account, which is the antithesis of resilience thinking. Historical records are not
sufficient for planning future scenarios in resilience thinking (Miller et al., 2016).
Climate change projections were omitted due to uncertainty around the potential effects,
which is also in direct conflict with resilience theory, as uncertainty is accepted and
expected. The CRBFWP was fairly neutral in this area, however climate change and
change in general was highlighted as expected and inevitable. Ecosystem services were
related to about half of the instances where slow variables and feedbacks was coded in
both the CRBFWP and the MDBP (Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Learning and experimentation
Learning and experimentation were well represented in the CRBFWP. However,
in the MDBP only learning was emphasized. Because of the heavy emphasis on
Sustainable Diversion Limits SDLs in the MDBP, the focus was primarily placed on
learning by providing open access to data and information related to monitoring and
evaluation in order to improve knowledge of water requirements and causes of water
degradation. In contrast, the CRBFWP explicitly encouraged experimentation as an
approach to learning and dealing with uncertainty. Rather than outlining the mechanism
for learning (i.e. open access to data), the focus of the CRBFWP was on the application
of learning in an adaptive management approach. Learning and experimentation were not
tied to ecosystem services in general for the MDBP (Figure 7) and were tied to ecosystem
habitat or flood control in roughly one third of the instances in the CRBFWP (Figure 8).
Monitoring
For the MDBP, monitoring was primarily mentioned in the context of measuring
compliance against the SDLs, but not in the context of resilience. Furthermore, the
mentions of monitoring were not related to any ecosystem services (Figure 7). For the
50
CRB, monitoring was mentioned in the context of collecting data to better understand and
respond to climate change and for long-term monitoring of habitat for endangered
species, which is indicative of resilience thinking. When monitoring was present in
combination with ecosystems services, it was tied to ecosystem habitat and the need for
monitoring to understand the impacts of change on habitats (Figure 8).
Participation
Of all the principles of resilience, the principle of participation was the most
prominent and well represented in both documents. For the MDBP, a prominent theme in
the plan was publishing information on public websites to make this information easily
available. The information that would be available includes the results of research,
proposed strategies, and proposed adjustments to the MDBP. Requirements for a
minimum timeframe of four weeks for the public to review submissions and provide
feedback were specified to ensure adequate time to participate. Consultation requirements
were also outlined specifying who must be involved in long term planning of water
resources and who from local communities should be included. Finally, participation
from Indigenous people was required so that Indigenous values and uses of water
resources be identified and incorporated into water resource plans. The required inclusion
of Indigenous people in the water resource planning is particularly significant. Less than
1% of the water and land in the basin is owned by Indigenous people, therefore they have
historically been excluded from water management (Hart, 2016a). Participation was not
tied to ecosystem services in general; this is highlighted in Figure 7.
Like the MDBP, the CRBFWP also requires participation from the public in the
form of comments on any recommendations and proposed amendments to the program.
Expectations exist for an "extensive" period of time for the public to comment on
51
proposed amendments and public hearings. Unlike the MDBP, no specific mechanisms
were identified to ensure the public understands how to participate, such as where draft
documents could be obtained. Expectations of participation and collaboration with
federal and state agencies, scientists, and non-traditional organizations were outlined but
without any specific details on who these groups are. The rights of the Native American
tribes in the CRB were recognized although participation was mentioned in the context of
existing treaties as opposed to any new way to encourage and solicit input. Participation
was not tied to ecosystem services in general; this is highlighted in Figure 8.
CAS Thinking and Polycentricity
Neither the principle of CAS thinking nor polycentricity were present in the
MDBP. Only CAS thinking was present in the CRBFWP, but not to any significant
extent. CAS thinking was present in a scientific principle regarding ecosystem
management, whereby ecosystems were recognized as complex, constantly changing, and
largely unknown. This principle co-occurred with Learning and Experimentation as it
was related to the need for ecosystem management to be adaptive and experimental. No
ecosystem service was related to the instance of CAS thinking in the CRBFWP (Figure
8).
Conclusion for MDBP and CRBFWP Results
This comparative analysis revealed that neither document was based on resilience
thinking. However, results indicate that the CRBFWP had a larger number of the
principles represented than the MDBP. The CRBFWP had five out of the seven principles
present (connectivity, slow variables and feedbacks, learning and experimentation,
monitoring, and participation) whereas the MDBP had only one (participation) and was
52
in fact in conflict with one of the principles (slow variables and feedbacks). The
CRBFWS provides a better example of how resilience can be integrated into planning,
especially when a full integration of the resilience principles is not practical or desired.
The results from the secondary coding of ecosystem services did not lead to any
additional insight.
Results: NSW CAPs and WA subbasin plans
In contrast to the comparative analysis of the MDBP and the CRBFWP, there
were plans based on resilience thinking for this part of the evaluation. The CAPs from
NSW were all written based on resilience thinking, and the subbasin plans from WA
were not, although they did have instances of resilience principles. While some of the
WA subbasin plans had a stronger representation of resilience than others, for the
purposes of my research I evaluated them at the aggregate level. See Table 10 for a
summary of the comparison.
53
Table 10: Comparative analysis of resilience principles in the NSW CAPs and the WA
subbasin plans. '0' represents the absence of Resilience Thinking or the Specific
Principle, '+' represents the presence of Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle, '-'
represents a conflict with Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle. A double figure
such as ‘0/+’ indicates that some aspects of Resilience Thinking or the Specific Principle
were represented but not fully. Refer to Figures 5 and 6 in the methods section for visual
representation of the parent/child relationships in the coding hierarchy.
Principles of
Resilience
Present
Resilience
thinking
(RT) or
specific
principle
(SP)
NSW
CAPs
WA
subbasin
plans
RT
+
0/+
Management of
SESs
RT, child to
Present
+
0
Diversity and
Redundancy
SP, child to
management
+
0/+
Connectivity
SP, child to
management
+
0/+
Slow Variables
and Feedbacks
SP, child to
management
+
0
Governance of
SESs
RT, child to
Present
+
0
Learning
and
Experimentation
SP, child to
Governance
+
0
+
0/+
+
+
+
0
0/+
0
Monitoring
Participation
CAS thinking
Polycentricity
SP, child to
Learning
and Exp.
SP, child to
Governance
SP, child to
Governance
SP, child to
Governance
Comments
Resilience thinking is foundational to all of
the CAPs but is not for the subbasin plans,
although the subbasin plans do have instances
of resilience.
Managing for resilience is key to the CAPs.
The management in the subbasin plans is not
based on resilience.
Diversity present in CAPs in the context of
social and ecological diversity. Diversity in
the subbasin plans focuses on ecology with
only a few social references
Connectivity present in the CAPs both in the
context of social and ecological connectivity.
A few of the subbasin plans include both
ecosystem connectivity and social
connectivity
SDLs were calculated using historic data in
the MDBP instead of taking future projections
into account. The CRBFWP states possible
effects of climate change need to be
considered.
Governance of SES not present in the
subbasin plans. Well represented in the CAPs
The CAPs emphasized learning but not
experimentation. The subbasin plans had
instances of learning but not compared to the
CAPs
Monitoring is well represented in the CAPs.
The subbasin plans had instances of
monitoring but not compared to the CAPs
Both the CAPs and the subbasin plans
emphasized participation and inclusion
CAS thinking not present in subbasin plans
but represented in the CAPs
Polycentricity was present in CAPs but not as
prevalent as other principles. Not present in
subbasin plans
54
Principles of resilience
Diversity and Redundancy
Diversity and redundancy was the most prominent resilient principle in the WA
subbasin plans and was strongly tied to ecosystem services, in particular ecosystem
habitat (Figure 9). Diversity, however, referred exclusively to ecological diversity.
In the NSW CAPs, diversity and redundancy were strongly represented, and both
social and ecological diversity were addressed. Examples of social diversity included
targets to have more Aboriginal people in resource management, emphasizing knowledge
diversity as well as age, gender, and cultural diversity amongst resource managers,
increasing the diversity of industries in a community to build community resilience, and
increasing the diversity of lifestyle options for people. Roughly 25% of diversity in the
CAPs was tied to ecosystem habitats (Figure 10). It is important to note that Figures 9
and 10 do not represent quantitative results, they only describe the relative occurrence of
codes from the ecosystem coding frame (Figure 5 from the Methods chapter). If a code
from the ecosystem service coding frame is not present on the chart, then it was not
coded for any of the seven principles.
55
WA Subbasin Plans Code Relations
Diversity and redundancy
Connectivity
Learning
Participation
Slow variables and feedbacks
Monitoring
CAS thinking
Polycentricity
No
Yes
Supporting
Nutrient cycling
Ecosystem habitat/ predator/prey
Regulatory
Flood control
Water quality
Fishery/Food
Figure 9: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
WA subbasin plans
56
NSW CAP Code Relation Chart
Learning and experimentation
Connectivity
Diversity and redundancy
Participation
Slow variables and feedbacks
Polycentricity
Monitoring
CAS thinking
Not related to ecosystem service
Supporting
Generally related to ecosystem services
Ecosystem habitat/ predator/prey
Existence and well being
Regulatory
Provisioning
Fishery/Food
Irrigation
Figure 10: Relationship between principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the
NSW CAPs
Connectivity
Connectivity was present in both the WA subbasin plans and the NSW CAPs. The
instances of connectivity in the WA subbasin plans nearly all related to connectivity of
ecosystem habitat, though there were a few instances of connectivity between community
well-being and watershed conditions (Figure 9). The CAPs were more expansive in their
mention of connectivity. In addition to ecological connectivity, examples of social
connectivity included connecting Aboriginal people to the land through participation in
resource management, the connectivity between community health and mental well-being
to the health of river systems, and connectivity between government agencies and local
communities. Loss of connectivity was noted as well, in particular between the
57
Aboriginal elders and youth and between loss of connectivity between Aboriginal people
and the land, leading to the inability to carry out traditional ecological practices. Roughly
one third of the instances of connectivity in the CAPs were tied to ecosystem services,
primarily to ecosystem habitats (Figure 10).
Slow variables and feedbacks
Slow variables and feedbacks were present in both the NSW CAPs and the WA
subbasin plans. In the CAPs, slow variables and feedbacks are mentioned in relation to
taking the Aboriginal 'long view' approach to management, meaning that management
should be viewed in the long term and across generations as well as managing to longterm thresholds and tipping points, instead of to individual metrics. The subbasin plans
are fairly neutral in this area, however climate change and change in general is
highlighted as expected and inevitable. Ecosystem services were not strongly related for
either the CAPs or the subbasin plans (Figure 9 and Figure 10).
Learning and experimentation
Learning and experimentation was the most prominent resilient principle in the
NSW CAPs and was well represented in the WA subbasin plans. Like the CRBFWP, the
focus on learning in the WA subbasin plans is on the application of learning in an
adaptive management approach. Experimentation was not present in the subbasin plans.
In the NSW CAPs, learning was tied to management actions and was more specific and
actionable than in the WA subbasin plans. Like the subbasin plans, experimentation was
prominent although 'learning by doing' was emphasized in a few instances. A desire to
better understand and incorporate Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into learning
was present in both the CAPs and the subbasin plans, however the CAPs were more
specific in regard to how to achieve this, for example by better supporting TEK projects
58
by providing cultural access licenses to cultural water for Aboriginal communities and
helping to connect the younger Aboriginal generations to the elders for better transfer of
TEK. Learning was not tied to ecosystem services in general for the CAPs (Figure 10)
and was tied to ecosystem habitat or nutrient cycling in roughly one third of the instances
in the Subbasin Plans (Figure 9).
Monitoring
Monitoring is present in both the CAPs and the subbasin plans, although a more
consistent approach is taken across the CAPs. The CAPs describe a Monitoring,
Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) system, which provides a strategy and
framework for monitoring. Interestingly, the CAPs also contain targets to measure social
wellbeing through surveys and participation levels. For the subbasin plans, monitoring is
in the context of collecting data to monitor progress of projects that have been
implemented to ensure that targets are being met. The instances of monitoring were not
related to any ecosystem services for either set of documents (Figures 9 and 10).
Participation
Unlike the MDBP and the CRBFWP, participation is not the most prominent
principle of resilience for the WA subbasin plans or for the NSW CAPs. Instances of
participation in the WA subbasin plans are similar to those in the CRBFWP, emphasizing
the importance of participation from the public, local communities, individual land
owners, state and local governments, and Native American tribes. Similarly, instances of
participation in the CAPs emphasized the importance of participation from the public,
local communities, individual land owners, state and local governments, and Indigenous
people. Within the CAPs, goals and targets were specified for participation, as well as
59
measures to ensure the targets were being met. Participation was not tied to ecosystem
services in general for either the CAPs or the subbasin plans (see Figures 9 and 10).
CAS Thinking and Polycentricity
Neither CAS thinking nor polycentricity were present in the WA subbasin plans.
CAS thinking was present in the NSW CAPs but was the least represented of all of the
principles and was not tied to any management action. Rather, the CAPs simply
acknowledged that ecosystems function as CAS. Polycentricity was present in the context
of proposed models, the desire for shared decision making across multiple levels, and
empowering local groups to make decisions. There is no indication that true
polycentricity actually exists in any of the CAPs. No ecosystem services were related to
the instances of CAS thinking or polycentricity (see Figures 9 and 10).
Conclusion for NSW CAPs and WA subbasin plans
The NSW CAPs were clearly more representative of resilience thinking than the
WA Subbasin Plans. The NSW CAPs had six out of the seven principles of resilience and
only lacked the principle of polycentricity, whereas the WA Subbasin Plans only had one
principle present, participation. It should be noted that a few of the Subbasin Plans are
more representative of resilience thinking than others, for example the Lower Columbia
Mainstem Subbasin Plan and the Estuaries Tributary Subbasin Plan, however as an
aggregate they did not represent resilience thinking. As with the analysis for the
CRBFWP and the MDBP, the results of the secondary coding for ecosystem services did
not lead to any additional insights.
60
Chapter 5: Discussion
Resilience in the management of the MDB vs. the CRB
The purpose of my research was to understand how resilience thinking and
resilience principles were being integrated into basin management plans. Building
resilience into water management plans is a potential mechanism not only to mitigate
unforeseen changes due to climate change, overallocation of water resources, and
competing demands for ecosystem services, but also to adapt or even transform in
response to them (Rockström et al., 2014). For my research I focused on the Columbia
River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States and the Murray-Darling
Basin in the southeastern region of Australia and analyzed both basin-wide plans and
subbasin or catchment plans. My analytical approach consisted of Qualitative Content
Analysis (QCA) of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program document at the
basin level and 27 Subbasin Plans from Washington State. Similarly, I conducted QCA
on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan document at the basin level and seven Catchment
Action Plans from New South Wales. I first coded each document for the presence of
seven resilience principles (see Figure 6 in the Methods chapter) and then applied a
secondary code for ecosystem services (see Figure 5 in the Methods chapter). I then
conducted a comparative analysis to better understand the similarities and differences of
the approaches taken.
In the following section I first address three key findings from my research: 1)
the treatment of slow variables and feedbacks is a differentiating factor between the
management plans; 2) incorporating resilience into water management does not have to
be an all-or-nothing endeavor; and 3) cohesion and continuity between basin-wide
61
documents and subbasin-level or catchment-level plans could be improved . Following
the key findings, I discuss my experience using the seven principles as a tool for
evaluating resilience, which may help inform researchers interested in conducting a
similar analysis in the future. I follow with my experience using ecosystem services as a
second level of coding. I conclude by discussing the limitations of my study and propose
recommendations for future research.
Key Findings
Treatment of slow variables and feedbacks
Although the principles of resilience that were the most prevalent across all of the
documents were principles involving participation and learning, the key differentiator
between the plans based on resilience theory, namely the Catchment Action Plans from
New South Wales, and the rest of the plans was the treatment of slow variables and
feedbacks. While the existence of slow variables and feedbacks was acknowledged in the
plans that were not based on resilience theory, no actionable goals or objectives were set.
In the Catchment Action Plans, slow variables and feedbacks were central to the planning
approaches and were used to identify critical thresholds. After the set of critical
thresholds was identified, the Catchment Action Plans centralized management goals,
objectives, targets, and actions around these thresholds. In contrast, the Murray-Darling
Basin Plan directly conflicted with slow variables and feedbacks by using historical
climate data in the calculation of the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs) and ignoring
future climate projections due to uncertainty. Changes in the slow variables and
feedbacks can lead to regime shifts if certain thresholds are crossed, therefore clearly
defining and managing for critical thresholds is a way to increase resilience (Scheffer et
al., 2001).
62
In addition, in the plans that were resilience-based, monitoring was focused on the
both key slow and fast variables that impact the identified thresholds. Monitoring
changes in the slow variables and feedbacks of an SES can help identify when system
resilience is degrading and in danger of experiencing a regime shift (Biggs et al., 2012).
In contrast, the plans that were not based on resilience focused only on managing and
monitoring fast variables.
Another distinction between the plans built on resilience theory is that the slow
variables were not limited to ecological variables. Social-based slow variables such as
age structure of the communities and cultural attitudes toward the environment, both
considered slow variables, were also included in defining the goals, objectives, targets,
and actions of the plans. The planning approach included long-term goals for socialbased slow variables that help build communities with resilience not just to ecological
changes such as climate change but also to changing demographics, enterprises, and
policies. Changes in social-based slow variables can affect ecosystem services, for
example in gradual changes of preferences in ecosystem services (Abel et al., 2006).
Integrating principles of resilience is not all or nothing
Although the New South Wales Catchment Action Plans were built on resilience
principles, integrating resilience into existing water management plans does not have to
be an all-or-nothing endeavor and can instead be done incrementally. The Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program serves as an example. While not built on
resilience, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program considers the river basin
as a social-ecological system, which leads to the assertion that the condition of the basin
ecosystem affects not just species such as salmon but affects humans as well. By
establishing that human health and well-being are reliant on the health of the basin
63
ecosystem, people may feel more strongly connected to the basin and feel more vested in
protecting the health of the basin, which may enhance resilience (Biggs et al., 2015;
Postel & Richter, 2012).
Cohesion and continuity of plans is critical
While the New South Wales Catchment Action Plans represented resilience
thinking, the lack of cohesion and continuity between the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and
the New South Wales Catchment Action Plans becomes apparent when comparing the
results from each in Tables 9 and 10. The lack of agreement on management vision will
likely erode trust between communities and higher levels of government. This could
likely lead to problems in implementation of the Sustainable Diversion Limits established
by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Several of the Catchment Action Plans explicitly
identified the Sustainable Diversion Limits from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as a
potential shock to the ecosystem. A shock is defined as a sudden event or change that
impacts stability of a system (Biggs et al., 2015). Resilient systems can buffer shocks but
there is still a limit to how much of a shock can be absorbed before a regime shift occurs
(Walker & Salt, 2006).
Conversely, although not as representative of resilience thinking as the New
South Wales Catchment Action Plans, there is a much stronger connection between the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and the Washington Subbasin Plans.
The goals and objectives are consistent and there is an acknowledgement between the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and the Washington Subbasin Plans of
the value that each contributes, representing a sound collaboration between governance
and management. There is no such mutual acknowledgement or collaboration between
the MDBP and the CAPs.
64
Using principles of resilience as a tool to evaluate river basin management plans
Overall, the seven principles of resilience were useful for evaluating how
resilience thinking was incorporated into river basin planning. Of the seven principles,
the two least useful principles were Complex Adaptive System (CAS) thinking and
polycentricity. For CAS thinking, there is a knowledge gap in how to apply CAS thinking
to actionable goals, objectives, and targets (Biggs et al., 2015), and this was apparent in
my analysis. When CAS thinking was coded, it was in a generic context and did not lead
to any insights into how it would be applied. Similarly. the challenge with polycentricity
is the lack of understanding of how to operationalize it in SESs (Biggs et al., 2015).
The principle of participation was strongly represented across all of the
documents and the context in which it appeared was similar across all documents, so
evaluating it did not lead to much insight. Perhaps a useful next step would be to evaluate
the documents by looking for the lack of participation in particular areas, where one
group or governing body has much more input than others and analyze for potential
conflicts.
Coding for the principle of learning and experimentation was useful particularly
when looking for support for experimentation. Encouraging experimentation indicates a
willingness to try new approaches and to incorporate new learnings into future planning
(Yevgeny, 2014). Learning is also foundational to adaptive management (Holling, 1978),
which all of the plans were based on. Evaluating monitoring as a separate code from
learning and experimentation was also useful. It highlighted how and what information
was being gathered and whether the information was tied to the goals and objectives
being set. By evaluating monitoring separately, it was easier to discern short-term versus
65
long-term monitoring, which in turn provided clarification for which slow term variables
were being tracked and how. The resilience-based plans contained metrics based on what
is important to monitor versus what is easy or convenient to monitor and did not use
metrics just because the mechanisms for monitoring were already in place.
Slow variables and feedbacks shed light on how long-term planning and
management is incorporated. Although instances of this principle were present in all of
the documents, how it was operationalized was different in each document. For example,
in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the slow variable climate change was ignored, leading
to a direct conflict with this principle. In the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program, the uncertainty around climate change was embraced and attempts to better
understand the potential impacts and incorporate new learnings was explicitly
encouraged. In the Washington Subbasin Plans, climate change was merely
acknowledged and in the New South Wales Catchment Action Plans, slow variables and
feedbacks were foundational. The four different treatments of the same principle indicate
that it is a key differentiator.
The principle of diversity and redundancy was useful for evaluation, however
coding for it highlighted that diversity was much more prevalent than redundancy.
Redundancy has a bad connotation because people associate it with inefficiency in
making decisions, increased costs, and duplication of efforts (Jentoft & Chuenpagdee,
2009). Recommendations of redundancy are not often included in management planning.
Ecological redundancy was not present either, for some of the same reasons as cost but
also because of complexity around how effectively redundant ecosystems can be utilized
in the event that one transforms to another state due to an unexpected shock (Nyström,
2006). Although redundancy was not present, evaluating diversity alone was valuable in
66
that it highlighted how diversity is viewed, as purely ecological or in a social-ecological
context. The more resilience-forward plans emphasized social diversity as equally
important as ecological diversity.
Similarly, connectivity also highlighted the divide been purely ecological
approaches and social-ecological approaches. The more resilience-forward plans
emphasized social connectivity as equally important as ecological connectivity with
respect to enhancing the resilience. An interesting follow up would be to analyze areas
where connectivity is over used, particularly in a social context. For example, a high
degree of connectivity within a certain group may limit diversity of ideas (Biggs et al.
2015). In an ecosystem, connectivity can enhance the spread of fire or invasive pests. I
considered all instances of connectivity as positive, however a deeper analysis might
uncover some negative consequences as well.
Evaluating how ecosystem services are tied to resilience principles
Overall, not much new knowledge was gained from this part of my analysis.
Instead, it confirmed what the literature suggests, that even with a strong focus on
managing a basin for both its ecological and social system components, there remains a
heavy emphasis on ecological ecosystem services (Folke, 2006). This is highlighted in
the absence of cultural ecosystem services in Figures 7, 8, and 9, which represent the
relationship between the principles of resilience and ecosystem services for the MurrayDarling Basin Plan, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, and the
Washington Subbasin Plans respectively. Only Figure 10 for the New South Wales
Catchment Action Plans features a cultural ecosystem service, “existence and wellbeing”. Even so, relative to the other ecosystem services, the co-occurrence of “existence
67
and well-being” is small. The emphasis on ecological ecosystem services perhaps
occurred because cultural ecosystem services are characterized by intangibility (Milcu,
2013; Sukhdev, 2010).
Study limitations and recommendations for future research
There are several limitations to this study. First, because of the volume of data, I
had over 1,500 coded segments. With the large number of coded segments, it is likely
that interesting insights were overlooked. As an example, resilience in the New South
Wales Catchment Action Plans and the Washington Subbasin Plans was evaluated at the
aggregate level. The Catchment Action Plans were all based on resilience-thinking so the
aggregate was representative of all of the plans, however the individual Subbasin Plans
were more varied and some, like the Lower Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan, exhibited
more resilience thinking than others. Due to the large volume of coded segments,
evaluating resilience on a per document basis was not feasible, therefore it is highly
possible that some insights were lost by evaluating the Subbasin Plans at the aggregate
level, particularly those insights related to partial integration of resilience principles in
plans not based on resilience thinking.
Second, while the principles proposed by Biggs et al. 2012 were central to my
methods, this is only one way of thinking about resilience in river basin management.
The work by Biggs et al. represents the first attempt at synthesizing the vast array of
literature on resilience and distilling it down to the most common elements. As such, the
proposed set of principles will almost certainly be refined and modified over time as
more and more studies use these principles for research.
68
Third, this study only covers two river basins and therefore it is unclear how
generalizable my results are to other basin management approaches around the world.
Comparative research on river basins is limited (Wescoat, 2005), and as such other
researchers could select other regions of the world to apply the principles from Biggs et
al. and compare the results with those discussed in this thesis.
One interesting follow on to this thesis would be to use the ecosystem services
coding frame (Figure 5) as the primary coding frame to evaluate the differences between
how ecosystem services are managed in plans based on resilience versus plans not based
on resilience. Through my research, I established that the Washington Subbasin Plans
were not based on the resilience thinking and that the New South Wales Catchment
Action Plans were, making this an ideal document set for comparison. In addition, all of
the plans I evaluated for my research mention partnering with indigenous communities in
the creation of the plans, so another area for further research could be to assess
indigenous viewpoints on the plans as well as how inclusive the process of creating the
plans was from their perspective.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The quality of freshwater resources is crucial for human and ecosystem health
(Miller et al., 2016), yet continued availability and sustainable use is being challenged by
outdated command-and-control approaches toward river basin management (Folke, 2016;
Holling & Meffe, 1996; Rockström et al., 2014). To address this, resilience theory is
emerging as an increasingly popular approach to basin management (Cosens et al., 2014;
Green et al., 2013; Parsons & Thoms, 2017). Very few studies exist that explore the
69
application of resilience theory to real-world situations, so additional research is vital to
the continued adoption of resilience as a viable management option (Baird et al., 2016;
Biggs et al., 2015; Sellberg et al., 2018). Given the lack of studies in this area, the
primary purpose of this thesis was to contribute to the literature by comparing the
similarities and differences of the application of resilience theory to water management in
the Columbia River Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin.
To address the lack of literature exploring the application of resilience theory in
real-world situations, my research focused on the application of resilience theory in the
management of Columbia River Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. I evaluated the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and Subbasin Plans from Washington
State as well as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan document and Catchment Action Plans
from New South Wales for the presence of seven resilience principles as well as how the
resilience principles related to ecosystem services. The result was a comparative analysis
to better understand the similarities and differences of how the principles of resilience
were applied in the management of the two basins.
The results of my research indicated that the treatment of slow variables and
feedbacks is a key differentiator between plans based on resilience theory and plans that
are not. In plans based on resilience theory, slow variables and feedbacks were central to
the planning approaches and used to identify critical thresholds. Management objectives,
targets, and actions were then centralized around these critical thresholds. My results also
showed that integrating resilience principles into management plans is not an all-ornothing endeavor. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia River
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program serves as an example of how principles of resilience can
be incorporated into a plan that is not based on resilience. Finally, my results suggested
70
that cohesion and continuity between management planning at the basin-wide level and
the subbasin or catchment level is critical in order to establish and maintain connections
between multiple levels of governance.
Incorporating resilience thinking into basin management is complex but the
Catchment Action Plans from New South Wales serve as excellent examples of how
resilience theory and principles of resilience can be integrated into water management
plans. In cases where budget, knowledge, and/or personnel limitations prevent the
complete adoption of resilience into water management planning, the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program serves as a
solid example of how principles of resilience can be built into a plan that is not based on
resilience thinking. Overarching goals and objectives, skill and capacity of management
personnel, and tolerance for uncertainty are all important factors to consider when
incorporating resilience thinking into existing plans based on more traditional
approaches.
While my research focused on management of the Columbia River Basin and the
Murray-Darling Basin, the methodology I outlined could be used to evaluate resilience
not only in other water management plans but also in management plans for other areas
of resource management as well. Further research using the seven principles will build
upon the work of Biggs et al. and highlight how the principles can be further refined and
modified. Although incorporating resilience thinking into basin management is complex,
resilience-based management can be a powerful mechanism for adapting to the
challenges the world’s river basins are facing today and will continue to face in the future
(Folke, 2016). Through additional studies focused on the application of resilience theory,
we can continue to improve our knowledge on how to enhance resilience and
71
consequently how to more wisely manage one of the world’s most precious resources,
our river basins.
72
Bibliography
Abel, N., Cumming, D. H. M., & Anderies, J. (2006). Collapse and Reorganization in SocialEcological Systems: Questions, Some Ideas, and Policy Implications. Ecology and
Society, 11(1).
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human
Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockström, J. (2005). Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036-1039.
Baggio, J. A., Brown, K., & Hellebrandt, D. (2015). Boundary object or bridging concept? A
citation network analysis of resilience. Ecology and Society, 20(2). Retrieved from
Baird, J., Plummer, R., Moore, M.-L., & Brandes, O. (2016). Introducing Resilience Practice
to Watershed Groups: What Are the Learning Effects? Society & Natural Resources,
29(10), 1214–1229.
Barrett, C. B., & Constas, M. A. (2014). Toward a theory of resilience for international
development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40),
14625–14630.
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., & Nyström, M. (2004). Confronting the coral reef
crisis. Nature, 429(6994), 827–833.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
stability. In F. Berkes & C. Folke (Eds.), Linking social and ecological systems:
Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience (pp. 1–26).
73
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ecology and Society, 9(1).
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2008). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., … West, P. C.
(2012). Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevenviron-051211-123836
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (2015). Principles for Building Resilience:
Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University
Press.
Bodin, O and Prell, C (2011). Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering
the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Bonneville Power Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, & US Bureau of
Reclamation. (2001). The Columbia River Treaty Inside Story. Portland, OR:
Bonneville Power Administration US Army Corps of Engineers US Bureau of
Reclamation.
Carpenter, S. R., & Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Coping with Collapse: Ecological and Social
Dynamics in Ecosystem ManagementLike flight simulators that train would-be aviators,
74
simple models can be used to evoke people’s adaptive, forward-thinking behavior, aimed
in this instance at sustainability of human–natural systems. BioScience, 51(6), 451–457.
Chapin, F. S., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Olsson, P., Abel, N., … Young, O.
R. (2009). Resilience-Based Stewardship: Strategies for Navigating Sustainable Pathways
in a Changing World. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin (Eds.), Principles of
Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing
World (pp. 319–337). New York, NY: Springer New York.
Colfer, C. J. P. (2005). The equitable forest: Diversity, community and natural resources.
Washington, DC, RFF/CIFOR.
Colloff, M. J., Caley, P., Saintilan, N., Pollino, C. A., & Crossman, N. D. (2015). Long-term
ecological trends of flow-dependent ecosystems in a major regulated river basin. Marine
and Freshwater Research, 66(11), 957–969.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. (2014). Columbia Basin Passage Barriers.
Retrieved from http://www.critfc.org/tribal-treaty-fishingrights/
policy-support/columbia-river-treaty/area-blocked-salmon-columbia-basin/
Connell, D. (2011). Basin Futures Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra:
ANU Press.
Cosens, B. (2010). Transboundary river governance in the face of uncertainty: resilience
theory and the Columbia River Treaty. J. Land Resources & Envtl. L., 30, 229.
75
Cosens, B. (2011). Transboundary River Governance in the Face of Uncertainty: Resilience
Theory and the Columbia River Treaty (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1942877).
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
Cosens, B. A., & Williams, M. K. (2012). Resilience and Water Governance: Adaptive
Governance in the Columbia River Basin. Ecology & Society, 17(4), 128–141.
Cosens, B. A., Gunderson, L., & Chaffin, B. C. (2014). The adaptive water governance
project: Assessing law, resilience and governance in regional socio-ecological water
systems facing a changing climate.
CSIRO. 2008. Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin. A report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
Canberra: CSIRO.Cumming, G. S. (2011). Spatial resilience in social-ecological systems.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Cumming, G. S., Morrison, T. H., & Hughes, T. P. (2017). New Directions for Understanding
the Spatial Resilience of Social–Ecological Systems. Ecosystems, 20(4), 649–664.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services.
Eberhard, R., Margerum, R., Vella, K., Mayere, S., & Taylor, B. (2017). The Practice of
Water Policy Governance Networks: An International Comparative Case Study Analysis.
Society & Natural Resources, 30(4), 453–470.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., & Walker, B. (n.d.).
Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience, 7.
76
Elster, J. (2006). Altruistic behavior and altruistic motivations. Handbook of the economics of
giving, altruism and reciprocity, 1, 183-206.
Folke, C. (2003). Freshwater for resilience: a shift in thinking. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 2027–2036.
Folke, Carl. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
Folke, Carl. (2016). Resilience. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.8
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of SocialEcological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473.
Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The Problem of Fit
between Ecosystems and Institutions: Ten Years Later. Ecology and Society, 12(1).
Folke, Carl, Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology
and Society, 15(4).
Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., … Westley,
F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO, 40(7), 719–738.
Garrick, D., & Bark, R. (2011). Comparative Perspectives on Basin Governance in the
Murray–Darling Basin:: Insights from the western United States. In Basin Futures (pp.
367–384). ANU Press.
Geography. (2015, November 26). Retrieved November 4, 2018, from
https://www.mdba.gov.au/discover-basin/landscape/geography
77
Gilvear, D. J., Greenwood, M. T., Thoms, M. C., & Wood, P. J. (2016). River Science:
Research and Management for the 21st Century. John Wiley & Sons.
Grafton, R. Q., Pittock, J., Davis, R., Williams, J., Fu, G., Warburton, M., … Quiggin, J.
(2013). Global insights into water resources, climate change and governance. Nature
Climate Change, 3(4), 315–321.
Green, O. O., Cosens, B. A., & Garmestani, A. S. (2013). Resilience in transboundary water
governance: the Okavango River Basin. Ecology and Society, 18(2).
Gros, C. (2008). Complex and Adaptive Dynamical Systems: A Primer. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological Resilience--In Theory and Application. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425–439.
Gunderson, L. H. & Holling C.S. (Eds.) (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Island Press.
Hall, P. A., & Lamont, M. (2013). Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era. Cambridge
University Press.
Hammer, M., Balfors, B., Mörtberg, U., Petersson, M., & Quin, A. (2011). Governance of
Water Resources in the Phase of Change: A Case Study of the Implementation of the EU
Water Framework Directive in Sweden. Ambio, 40(2), 210–220.
Hand, B. K., Flint, C. G., Frissell, C. A., Muhlfeld, C. C., Devlin, S. P., Kennedy, B. P., …
Stanford, J. A. (2018). A social–ecological perspective for riverscape management in the
Columbia River Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(S1), S23–S33.
78
Harden, B. (1996). A River Lost: The Life and Death of the Columbia. W.W. Norton.
Hart, B. T. (2016a). The Australian Murray–Darling Basin Plan: challenges in its
implementation (part 1). International Journal of Water Resources Development, 32(6),
819–834.
Hart, B. T. (2016b). The Australian Murray-Darling Basin Plan: factors leading to its
successful development. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 16(4), 229–241.
Holling, C. S. (1961). Principles of insect predation. Annual review of entomology, 6(1), 163182.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley &
Sons.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social
Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405.
Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural
Resource Management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337.
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Yalcin, R. (2009).
Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (CoManagement from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda. Ecology
and Society, 14(1).
79
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem.
Marine Policy, 33(4), 553-560.
Kazbekov, J., Tagutanazvo, E., & Lautze, J. (2016). A global assessment of basin plans:
definitions, lessons, recommendations. Water Policy, 18(2), 368–386.
Kenney, D. S. (2006). In Search of Sustainable Water Management: International Lessons for
the American West and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lambin, E. F. (2005). Conditions for sustainability of human–environment systems:
Information, motivation, and capacity. Global Environmental Change, 3(15), 177–180.
Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A.-S., Norberg, J., de Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., … Walker, B.
(2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy
implications. Environment and Development Economics, 18(02), 111–132.
Lewontin, R.C. 1969. The meaning of stability. in Diversity and Stability in Ecological
Systems, Brookhaven Symp. Biol. 22:13-24.
Marshall, N. A. (2010). Understanding social resilience to climate variability in primary
enterprises and industries. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 36–43.
Martin-Breen, P., & Anderies, J. M. (2011). Resilience: A Literature Review. Retrieved from
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/3692
May, R. M. (1972). Will a Large Complex System be Stable? Nature, 238(5364), 413–414.
MDBA, (2012). Basin Plan 2012.
Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: a
literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3).
80
Millennium Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Current State and Trends.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miller, K. A., Hamlet, A. F., Kenney, D. S., & Redmond, K. T. (2016). Water Policy and
Planning in a Variable and Changing Climate. CRC Press.
Mote, P., Snover, A. K., Capalbo, S., Eigenbrode, S. D., Glick, P., Littell, J., ... & Reeder, S.
(2014). Northwest. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national
climate assessment, 487-513.
Muckleston, K. (2003). International Management in the Columbia River System.
Corvallis, OR.
National Research Council, (2004). Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water
Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival.
Neave, I., McLeod, A., Raisin, G., & Swirepik, J. (2015). Managing Water in the MurrayDarling Basin Under a Variable and Changing Climate. Climate Change, 6.
Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to Environmental Change:
Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
32(1), 395–419.
New South Wales. Natural Resources Commission (2005). Catchment action plans. Natural
Resources Commission, Sydney, N.S.W.
Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. (2008). Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia
University Press.
81
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Lower Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan, 2010.
In Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2014). Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program.
Nyström, M. (2006). Redundancy and response diversity of functional groups: implications for
the resilience of coral reefs. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35(1), 3035.
Nyström, M., & Folke, C. (2001). Spatial Resilience of Coral Reefs. Ecosystems, 4(5), 406–
417.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience
in Social–Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–90.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Self-governance and forest resources. Terracotta reader: A market
approach to the environment, 12.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological
Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419.
Parsons, M., Thoms, M. C., Flotemersch, J., Reid, M., Gilvear, D. J., Greenwood, M. T., &
Wood, P. J. (2016). Monitoring the resilience of rivers as social–ecological systems: a
paradigm shift for river assessment in the twenty-first century. In Gilvear, D. J.,
Greenwood, M. T., Thoms, M. C., & Wood, P. J. (Eds.), River science: Research and
management for the 21st century, (197-220). John Wiley & Sons.
82
Parsons, M., & Thoms, M. C. (2017). From academic to applied: Operationalising resilience in
river systems. Geomorphology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.040
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The implications of complexity for integrated resources management.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(5), 561–569.
Pearkes, E. D. (2016). A River Captured: The Columbia River Treaty and Catastrophic
Change. Heritage House Publishing.
Postel, S., & Richter, B. (2012). Rivers for Life: Managing Water For People And Nature.
Island Press.
Resilience Alliance - Resilience Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2017, from
https://www.resalliance.org/resilience-assessment
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., … PahlWostl, C. (2014). Water Resilience for Human Prosperity. Cambridge University Press.
Rosenfeld, J. S. (2002). Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos, 98(1),
156–162.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in
ecosystems. Nature, 413(6856), 591–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000Sellberg, M.
M., Ryan, P., Borgström, S. T., Norström, A. V., & Peterson, G. D. (2018). From
resilience thinking to Resilience Planning: Lessons from practice. Journal of
Environmental Management, 217, 906–918.
83
Sellberg, M. M., Ryan, P., Borgström, S. T., Norström, A. V., & Peterson, G. D. (2018). From
resilience thinking to Resilience Planning: Lessons from practice. Journal of
Environmental Management, 217, 906–918.
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292.
Spangenberg, J. H., Görg, C., Truong, D. T., Tekken, V., Bustamante, J. V., & Settele, J.
(2014). Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem
functions. Four case studies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management, 10(1), 40–53.
Sterk, M., van de Leemput, I. A., & Peeters, E. T. (2017). How to conceptualize and
operationalize resilience in socio-ecological systems? Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 28, 108–113.
Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Nesshöver, C., Bishop, J., Brink, P. T., ... &
Simmons, B. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the
economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of
TEEB (No. 333.95 E19). UNEP, Ginebra (Suiza).
Tschakert, P., & Dietrich, K. (2010). Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation
and Resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(2).
Walker, B. & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining people and ecosystems in a
changing world.
84
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and
Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006). A
handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in socialecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1).
Walters, C. J. (1990). Large‐Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing.
Ecology, v. 71(6), 2060–2068. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938620
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/29524
Wescoat, J. L. (2005). Water policy and cultural exchange: Transferring lessons from around
the world to the western United States. In search of sustainable water management:
International lessons for the American West and beyond, 1-24.
White, R. (1995). The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River. Hill and
Wang.
Wolf, A. T. (2007). Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 32(1), 241–269.
World Water Council. (n.d.). Vision Report. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from
http://www.worldwatercouncil.org
Yevgeny, K., Esperanza, L., & Dirk, P. (Eds.). (2014). Making Innovation Policy Work
Learning from Experimentation: Learning from Experimentation. OECD Publishing.
85
Appendices
Appendix A: NPCC Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and Washington
Subbasin Plan documents with associated URLs.
Document name
Columbia River Basin Fish
and Wildlife Program 2014
Asotin Subbasin Plan
Crab Creek Subbasin Plan
Elochoman & Skamakowa
Subbasin Plan
Entiat Subbasin Plan
Estuary Tributaries Subbasin
Plan
Grays Subbasin Plan
Klickitat Subbasin Plan
Lake Chelan Subbasin Plan
URL
https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/2014-12_1.pdf
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/asotin-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/crab-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/entiat-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/klickitat-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lake-chelan-subbasin-plan
Upper Mid-Columbia
Subbasin Plan
Walla Walla Subbasin Plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/methow-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/palouse-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/intermountain-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/salmon-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/intermountain-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/intermountain-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/okanogan-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/tucannon-subbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/intermountain-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/upper-mid-columbiasubbasin-plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/walla-walla-subbasin-plan
Wenatchee Subbasin Plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/wenatchee-subbasin-plan
Little White Subbasin Plan
Lower Columbia Mainstem
and Estuary Subbasin Plan
Lower Cowlitz Subbasin
Plan
Methow Subbasin Plan
Palouse Subbasin Plan
Pend Oreille Subbasin Plan
Salmon Subbasin Plan
San Poil Subbasin Plan
Spokane Subbasin Plan
The Okanogan Subbasin Plan
Tucannon Subbasin Plan
Upper Columbia Subbasin
Plan
Upper Cowlitz Subbasin Plan
White Salmon Subbasin Plan
Wind Subbasin Plan
Yakima Subbasin Plan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/lower-columbia-provinceplan
https://www.nwcouncil.org/subbasin-plans/yakima-subbasin-plan
86
Appendix B: Murray-Darling Basin Plan and New South Wales Catchment Action Plan
documents with associated URLs.
Document name
URL
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018
C00114
http://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf
_file/0009/495810/archive_border-riversgwydir-catchment-action-plan.pdf
https://centralwest.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/asset
s/pdf_file/0019/511093/Central-West-CMALLS-Transition-CAP.pdf
https://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd
f_file/0009/495486/archive-lachlancatchment-action-plan-2013-2023.pdf
http://murray.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf
_file/0004/475753/MurrayCAP.pdf
https://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd
f_file/0010/495352/archive_murrumbidgeecatchment-action-plan2013.pdf
https://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd
f_file/0005/496364/archive-namoi-catchmentaction-plan-2010-2020-2013-update.pdf
http://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf
_file/0012/496668/archive-westerncatchment-action-plan-2013-2023_part-a.pdf
Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment Action Plan
Central West Catchment Action Plan
Lachlan Catchment Action Plan
Murray Catchment Action Plan
Murrumbidgee Catchment Action Plan
Namoi Catchment Action Plan
Western Catchment Action Plan
87
