Social-Ecological Change, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity in the Mckenzie River Valley, Oregon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social-Ecological Change, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity in the McKenzie River Valley, Oregon Timothy B. Inman, Oregon State University Hannah Gosnell, Oregon State University Denise H. Lach, Oregon State University Kailey Kornhauser, Oregon State University This study explores perceptions of long-term residents regarding links between governance, land- scape, and community change in the McKenzie River Valley (MRV) in western Oregon and pro- vides a general assessment of factors affecting resilience and adaptive capacity. Residents inter- viewed indicated that dramatic changes driven by market competition, timber industry changes, increased regulation, and rural restructuring have occurred in both the landscape and community. The changes that have transpired have redefined the relationship between the community and the landscape, moving away from local dependence on timber harvests to an economy focused on tourism and other ecosystem services. In doing so the community has transitioned from one with a logging community identity to one that has begrudgingly become a retirement and vacation com- munity. We found that the social-ecological system (SES) in the MRV is still in the midst of reor- ganization in the wake of the 1990s Timber Wars. As a result of low institutional capacity, the system is vulnerable to exogenous drivers of change. Using a modified version of Ostrom’s (2009) framework for SES analysis, this study recommends policymakers and policy entrepreneurs take three key steps to facilitate enhanced resilience and adaptive capacity: 1) support transboundary management strategies that transcend landownership classifications; 2) tighten system feedbacks to include more local influence; and 3) develop local multilayered institutions organized vertically and horizontally. Future research should explore the potential for collaborative forestry and stew- ardship contracting to enhance social-ecological resilience in this valley. Keywords: Amenity migration, community resilience, collaborative conservation, governance, industrial forestry, Northwest Forest Plan, restoration, rural restructuring, stewardship forestry, timber wars, transboundary management, U.S. Forest Service ural landscapes throughout into retirement and recreation-based commu- the American West are ex- nities. Driven by social, regulatory, political, periencing tremendous economic, and technological changes this change. Over the course of process of rural restructuring (Gosnell and the 20th century many for- Abrams 2009; Nelson 2001) is spurring ques- est ecosystems once filled tions regarding the short and long-term sus- withR diverse stands of timber became frag- tainability and identity of rural America. As mented and were replaced with relatively ho- Stauber (2001:33) contends, “For some parts mogenous even-aged harvest units. Commu- of rural America, the slow slide to no longer nities once supported by sawmill operations being viable – economically, socially, or po- and filled with young families have transi- litically – is within sight.” In some places, tioned, or are in the process of transitioning, however, communities have found ways to 69 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV innovate and adapt with changing structures this approach has been difficult to implement in order to remain viable (Kelly and Bliss as rural communities experiment with new 2009; Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). ways to remain economically viable in a re- Central to rural restructuring is a shift source-constrained environment. in the definition of the relationship between This paper uses a resilience perspec- humans and the environment, a process that tive to analyze local perceptions of social- has occurred several times in the relatively ecological relationships in transition in the short history of habitation of the western McKenzie River Valley (MRV) in the west American landscape. Past relationships in- central Cascades of Oregon and identify pol- cluded a boom and bust period of rapid ex- icy implications. In subsequent sections we ploitation and settlement during the 19th cen- review literature on SES resilience and pre- tury; stability and conservation efforts that sent a framework for analysis along with a stretched from the beginning of the 20th cen- description of methods. Next, local percep- tury well into the 1960s and 70s; and efforts tions regarding governance, landscape, and at preservation and resilience that began in community change in the MRV are cata- the latter quarter of the 20th century (Kelly loged. We conclude with a discussion of find- and Bliss 2009; Nelson and Dueker 1990). ings and provide several policy recommenda- Most recently, the relationship between hu- tions. mans and rural landscapes can be seen as What this study reveals is a discon- marked by uncertainty as policy makers nect in the trajectories of social and ecologi- struggle to implement a complex systems ap- cal systems and a corresponding need for bet- proach that fully recognizes both the ecolog- ter institutional support for navigating new ical and human elements of the landscape. relationships between communities and the A growing body of scholarship con- forest to help cultivate a restoration economy. siders the relationship between human and ecological systems in rural, resource-depend- Conceptualizing Social-Ecological Resili- ent communities in terms of resilience and ence in Rural, Resource-Dependent Com- adaptive management (Benson and Garme- munities stani 2011; Bone et al. 2016; Chaffin, Craig and Gosnell 2015; Gosnell et al. 2017). A re- Resilience scholarship offers a framework for silience approach recognizes the coupled na- analysis that helps explain forces that aid in ture of the natural and human environments facing change and adversity. Here we explore and their linked dependency and looks at var- the literature as it pertains to resilience in iables that affect the ability of a system to SESs and specifically in rural, traditionally adapt to change. From a resilience perspec- resource-dependent communities. tive, social-ecological systems (SESs) are complex adaptive systems that may be best Social-Ecological Systems managed in ways that promote adaptability and the ability to absorb disturbances. Eco- Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004:18) de- logically this suggests an ecosystem manage- fine a social-ecological system (SES) as “an ment regime that aims for overall health of ecological system intricately linked with and ecosystem function as the end goal of man- affected by one or more social systems.” In- agement policies, which has the potential to herent in the concept is the recognition that limit resource extraction opportunities and the health and well-being of ecological sys- harm resource-dependent human communi- tems are innately linked to the external forces ties. From a social sustainability perspective, influencing and attempting to manage their HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 70 function (Berkes and Folke 1998). This more appropriately allows for the dis- Ostrom (2009) proposed a multi-level cussion of community changes in contexts nested framework for SES analysis com- not directly tied to its role in resource man- prised of four subsystems: resource system, agement. resource unit, governance system, and users. Community has multiple definitions Each of these subsystems is nested within that represent various dimensions of human other social, economic, political, and ecolog- relationships encompassed by the term. As ical systems and is comprised of a variety of Magis (2010) notes, communities include variables found in the literature to affect re- both place-based and relationship-based ele- silience (discussed below). The interactions ments. Included in the geographic element of that occur between the relevant subsystems community are local institutions present in produce outcomes that in turn shape the sus- the area. The relationship element focuses on tainability of the SES in question and reshape interactions and common beliefs held among the subsystems and their subsequent interac- local residents. Lee and Field (2005) expand tions. By isolating each subsystem and its key the conceptualization of community to in- variables researchers and policymakers are clude communities that share common feel- better able to assess and improve manage- ings and beliefs but are not necessarily pre- ment by targeting efforts at key variables and sent in the same geographic location. As Do- interactions. noghue and Sutton (2006) emphasize, this is We adapted Ostrom’s framework for important for many unincorporated rural ar- our analysis of the McKenzie River Valley eas that nonetheless share a sense of commu- SES (Figure 1). nity. We use this latter definition of commu- nity to describe the small towns within the MRV, an area that is unincorporated but shares a school, a common history, and rela- tionships with government and social organi- zations. The governance subsystem is dis- cussed in terms of the formal and informal in- stitutional structures that influence decision making regarding both the resource and so- cial systems. In the MRV this includes gov- ernment agencies, non-governmental organi- zations (NGOs), the timber industry, market influences, and cultural norms. The land- scape subsystem includes ecological aspects as well as the built environment. We use this model in conjunction with variables found in the literature for each appropriate subsystem Figure 1. Adapted model for the analysis of to guide our assessment of the relative resili- social-ecological