Advertisement

Ecosystem-Based Strategies for Community Resilience to Climate Variability in Indonesia

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 42)

Abstract

Rural communities have long been using ecosystems to sustain their livelihoods, especially in times of disasters when forests act as safety nets and natural buffers. However, it is less clear how climate variability influences changes in land uses, and their implications for human well-being. We examined how forests and trees can reduce human vulnerability by affecting the three components of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. A total of 24 focus group discussions and 256 household surveys were conducted in two smallholder-dominated rural landscapes in Indonesia, which were affected by floods, drought and disease outbreaks. Our results suggest that forests and trees are important in supporting community resilience and decreasing their vulnerabilities to climate-related stresses in different ways. The role of trees varied according to the type of ecosystem service, whether provisioning or regulating, in relation to the phase of the climatic hazard, either in the pre-disaster phase or in the post-disaster recovery phase. It is therefore important to distinguish between these elements when analyzing people’s responses to climatic variability in order to fully capture the contribution of forests and trees to reducing people’s vulnerability. Landscape spatial characteristics, environmental degradation and community awareness of climate variability are crucial because if their linkages are recognized, local people can actively manage natural resources to increase their resilience. Interventions related to forests and trees should take into consideration these aspects to make ecosystem services a valuable option for an integrated strategy to reduce disaster risks and climate-related vulnerabilities.

Keywords

Climate variability Climate change adaptation Ecosystem services Ecosystem-based adaptation Natural resource management Social-ecological systems Social vulnerability 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the local communities of Nanga Jemah, Tubang Jaya, Selopuro, Sendangsari for their participation in the research activities. We also thank Nyimas Wardah for her help in the study preparations and the fieldwork in West Kalimantan and Central Java; Siti Nurika Sulistiani and Tutup Kuncoro for their help in Central Java data collection; Serge Rafanoharana for his support in producing the maps; Glen Mulcahy, two anonymous reviewers, and the book editors for their valuable comments and reviews. This research was carried out by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. It received financial support from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) under the Agreement 63650.

References

  1. Adger N (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Dev 27(2):249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amdu B, Ayehu A, Deressa A (2013) Farmers’ perception and adaptive capacity to climate change and variability in the upper catchment of Blue Nile, Ethiopia. African Technology Policy Studies Network, ATPS working paper no 77Google Scholar
  4. Andrade Pérez A, Fernández Herrera B, Cazzolla Gatti R (eds) (2010) Building resilience to climate change: ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field. IUCN, Gland, 164 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelsen A, Wunder S (2003) Exploring the forest – poverty link: key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR occasional paper 40Google Scholar
  6. Arkin H, Colton R (1963) Table for statistics. Barnes and Noble Publication: Barnes & Noble, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Boissière M, Locatelli B, Sheil D et al (2013) Local perceptions of climate variability and change in tropical forests of Papua, Indonesia. Ecol Soc 18(4):13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05822-180413 Google Scholar
  8. Bosch JM, Hewlet JD (1982) A review of cacthment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J Hydrol 55:3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CBD- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Report of the fifth meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  10. CBD- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009) Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: report of the second ad hoc technical expert group on biodiversity and climate change. Technical series no. 41, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  11. Colls A, Ash N, Ikkala N (2009) Ecosystem-based adaptation: a natural response to climate change. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  12. DFID- Department for International Development of the UK (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, Numbers 1–8. Department for International Development, London. Also available on www.livelihoods.org
  13. Ditsuwan T, Liabsuetrakul T, Chongsuvivatwong V et al (2011) Assessing the spreading patterns of dengue infection and chikungunya fever outbreaks in lower southern Thailand using a geographic information system. Ann Epidemiol 21(4):253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doswald N, Osti M (2011) Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation and mitigation: good practice examples and lessons learned in Europe. The BfN-Skripten, BonnGoogle Scholar
  15. Eakin H (2000) Smallholder maize production and climatic risk: a case study from Mexico. Clim Chang 45:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison D, Futter N, Bishop K (2012) On the forest cover-water yield debate: from demand to supply-side thinking. Glob Chang Biol 18:806–820. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EM-DAT International Disaster Database (2013) Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. www.emdat.be. Accessed 28 Oct 2014
  18. EU- Commission of the Europian Communities (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher M, Chaudhury M, McCusker B (2010) Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev 38(9):1241–1250. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gbetibouo GA (2008) How can African agriculture adapt to climate change? Insights from Ethiopia and South Africa: understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change and variability. The case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI Research Brief 15–8Google Scholar
  23. GIZ, Göhler D, Müller F, Mytanz C et al (2013) Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). In: Environment and climate change. Deutsche Gesellschaft für. Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHGoogle Scholar
  24. Godoy R, Jacobson M, Wilkie D (1998) Strategies of rain-forest dwellers against misfortunes: the Tsimane’ Indians of Bolivia. Ethnology 37(1):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey CA, Chacón M, Donatti CI et al (2013) Climate‐smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv Lett 7(2):77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heath M, Phillips J, Munroe R et al (eds) (2009) Partners with nature: how healthy ecosystems are helping the world’s most vulnerable adapt to climate change. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT et al (2010) The TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA). In: Hossain F, Gebremichael M (eds) Satellite rainfall applications for surface hydrology. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN: 978-90-481-2914-0, p 3–22Google Scholar
  29. Iglesias A, Rosenzweig C (2007) Climate and pest outbreaks. Encycl Pest Manag 2:87–89Google Scholar
  30. Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Verbeeten E et al (2007) The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. For Ecol Manag 251:45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (2012) Summary for policymakers. In: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF et al (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on cimate change. Field CB, Barros VR, Mach KJ et al Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. IUFRO (2009) Adaptation of forest and people to climate change – a global assessment report. Seppälä R, Buck A, Katila P (eds) IUFRO world series vol 22, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones L, Ludi E, Levine S (2010) Towards a characterisation of adaptive capacity: a framework for analysing adaptive capacity at the local level. Overseas Development Institute. Background Note, December 2010Google Scholar
  36. Jones HP, Hole DG, Zavaleta ES (2012) Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalinda T (2011) Multiple shocks and risk management strategies among rural households in Zambia’s Mazabuka District. J Sustain Dev 7(5):52–67. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v7n5p52 Google Scholar
  38. Kant S, Nautiyal JC, Berry RA et al (1996) Forest and economic welfare. J Econ Stud 23(2):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lanjouw P (1999) Rural nonagricultural employment and poverty in Ecuador. Econ Dev Cult Chang 48(1):91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liswanti N, Sheil D, Basuki I et al (2011) Falling back on forests: how forest-dwelling people cope with catastrophe in a changing landscape. Int For Rev 13(4):442–455Google Scholar
  41. MacKinnon K (1996) The ecology of Kalimantan. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Maddison DJ (2007) The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Research working paper of World Bank Policy, no 4308Google Scholar
  43. McSweeney K (2004) Natural insurance, forest access, and compounded misfortune: forest resources in smallholder coping strategies before and after Hurricane Mitch, northeastern Honduras. World Dev 33(9):1453–1471. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naylor RL, Battisti DS, Vimont DJ et al (2007) Assessing risks of climate variability and climate change for Indonesian rice agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(19):7752–7757. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701825104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paavola J (2008) Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environ Sci Pol 11:642–654. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pattanayak SK, Kramer RA (2001) Worth of watersheds: a producer surplus approach for valuing drought mitigation in eastern Indonesia. Environ Dev Econ 6:123–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Percepatan Pembangunan Sanitasi Pembangunan [PPSP] (2013) Buku Putih Sanitasi. Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Pramova E, Locatelli B, Brockhaus M et al (2012) Ecosystem services in the national adaptation programmes of action. Clim Pol 12(4):393–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.647848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M et al (2010) Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60:576–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts D, Boon R, Diederichs N et al (2011) Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face. Environ Urban 24(1):167–195. doi: 10.1177/0956247811431412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodríguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett GS (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28Google Scholar
  52. Rodríguez Osuna V, Börner J, Nehren U et al (2014) Priority areas for watershed service conservation in the Guapi-Macacu region of Rio de Janeiro, Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Ecol Process 3:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shackleton S, Shackleton C (2004) Everyday -resources are valuable enough for community-based natural resource management programme support: evidence from South Africa. In: Fabricius C, Koch E (eds) Rights, resources and rural development: community-based natural resource management in southern Africa. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Simelton E, Quinn CH, Batisani N et al (2013) Is rainfall really changing? farmers’ perceptions, meteorological data, and policy implications. Clim Dev 5(2):123–138. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2012.751893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sudmeier-Rieux K, Masundire H, Rizvi A, Rietbergen S (eds) (2006) Ecosystems, livelihoods and disasters: an integrated approach to disaster risk management. IUCN, Gland/Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. Surono BT, Sudarno I, Wiryosujono S (1992) Geology of the Surakarta Giritontro Quadrangles, Java. Geological Research and Development Center, BandungGoogle Scholar
  57. Takasaki Y, Barham B, Coomes O (2004) Risk coping strategies in tropical forests: floods, illnesses, and resource extraction. Environ Dev Econ 9:203–224. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X03001232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas DS, Twyman C, Osbahr H et al (2007) Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Clim Chang 83:301–322. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9205-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tompkins EL, Mensah A, King L et al (2013) An investigation of the evidence of benefits from climate compatible development. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. Working paper no 124. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, UK, 2013Google Scholar
  60. UNEP (2012) Ecosystem-based adaptation guidance: moving from principles to practice. Travers A, Elrick C, Kay R et al (eds) United Nations Environment Programme Working Document 2012Google Scholar
  61. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] (2013) National inventory submissions. UNFCCC, BonnGoogle Scholar
  62. Vincent JR, Kaosa-ard M, Worachai L et al (1995) The economics of watershed protection: a case study of Mae Taeng River, Thailand. TDRI and HIID, Bangkok/Cambridge, MA. Policy BriefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vogel C (2000) Usable science: an assessment of long-term seasonal forecasts amongst farmers in rural areas of Sourth Africa. S Afr Geogr J 82(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Völker M, Waibel H (2010) Do rural households extract more forest products in times of crisis? evidence from the mountainous uplands of Vietnam. Forest Policy Econ 12(6):407–414. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wattenbach M, Zebisch M, Hattermann F et al (2007) Hydrological impact assessment of afforestation and change in tree-species composition–a regional case study for the Federal State of Brandenburg (Germany). J Hydrol 346(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wunder S, Börner J, Shively G (2014) Safety nets, gap filling and forests: a global-comparative perspective. World Dev 64(1):S29–S42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIFOR, Center for International Forestry ResearchBogorIndonesia
  2. 2.CIRAD, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour Le Développement, UPR Forêts et SociétésMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CIFOR, Center for International Forestry ResearchLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations