2022

Woods, P J; Macdonald, J I; Bárðarson, H; Bonanomi, S; Boonstra, W J; Cornell, G; Cripps, G; Danielsen, R; Färber, L; Ferreira, A S A; Ferguson, K; Holma, M; Holt, R E; Hunter, K L; Kokkalis, A; Langbehn, T J; Ljungström, G; Nieminen, E; Nordström, M C; Oostdijk, M; Richter, A; Romagnoni, G; Sguotti, C; Simons, A; Shackell, N L; Snickars, M; Whittington, J D; Wootton, H; Yletyinen, J

Social-ecological systems dependent on fisheries must be resilient or adapt to remain viable in the face of change. Here, we identified possible interventions (termed “adaptation options”) from published literature, aimed at supporting social or ecological resilience and/or aiding adaptation to changes induced by environmental or social stressors. Our searches centered on nations/regions across North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, encompassing fisheries literature with and without a climate change focus, to compare how, when, and by whom interventions are currently or potentially implemented. We expected that adaptation options within a climate change context would have a greater focus on enhancing social resilience due to a connection with climate change adaptation assessment methodology. Instead, we found a greater focus on ecological resilience, likely indicating a focus on management adaptation. This pattern, along with the more extensive use of social adaptation options responsively and outside the context of climate change, along with an importance in bottom-up influences in implementing them, suggests a general lack of centralized planning and organization with regards to adaptation of stakeholders. Determining how adaptation options are created, chosen, and implemented is a crucial step within or external to ecosystem-based management, especially if planned stakeholder adaption is the goal.