International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

A survey of governance approaches to ecosystem-based disaster risk T

reduction: Current gaps and future directions
⁎
Annisa Triyantia, , Eric Chub
a
Governance and Inclusive Development, Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Climate change will increase the unpredictability, magnitude, and frequency of both slow and rapid onset dis-
Disaster risk reduction aster events. Although large-scale engineered interventions have been common for the purposes of risk reduction
Governance and adaptation in the past, emerging ecosystem-based approaches are gaining attention. In contrast to ‘hard’
Ecosystem-based approaches infrastructure, ecosystem-based solutions that integrate risk management priorities with natural processes are
Climate change adaptation
touted as being more cost effective, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable. Current developments
Eco-DRR
in ecosystem-based approaches to climate adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-
Ecological engineering
DRR) tend to focus on scientific projections, engineering techniques, and their respective roles in shaping
economic benefits. However, recent studies show that effective implementation of such solutions is dependent on
the governance practices and interactions between relevant actors, interests, and institutional structures. In
response, this paper reviews the current status of governance studies in the context of EbA and Eco-DRR. The
analysis is grounded in the interdisciplinary theories of governance, socio-ecological systems, infrastructure
studies, and multilevel politics, with sources derived from scientific databases including Scopus and Science
Direct advanced query. Based on the review, we evaluate existing governance theories, assessment methods, and
implementation through illustrating emblematic examples from around the world. The paper concludes with a
synthesis of governance gaps and opportunities, and notes that while emerging ecological engineering ap-
proaches provide distinct opportunities, there is a lack of comprehensive assessment beyond diagnosing po-
tential financial, institutional, and political shortfalls. We therefore highlight the need for future research on the
socio-ecological, spatial/scalar, and political dimensions of EbA and Eco-DRR.

1. Introduction
‘The integrated management of land, water, and living resources
that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.
The Convention on Biological Diversity [1] and the Millennium
The application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a
Ecosystem Assessment [2] both highlight the emerging role of eco-
balance of the three objectives, including conservation, sustainable
system-based approaches to tackling global environmental change. The
use, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of
application of ecosystem-based approaches was later introduced and
the utilization of resources’ [1].
referred to in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–20151 [3], Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2025 [4], and the recent The concepts of ecosystem-based climate change adaptation (EbA)
outcome of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change [5]. Recent re- and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) were later in-
search has shown that ecosystem-based strategies can either be an al- troduced as an extension to the sustainable use of resources, and were
ternative to hard engineering structures – which can be non-flexible, presented as ‘win-win’ solutions [6].
spatially disruptive, and expensive – or be combined with hard en- Despite these global developments, a recent review by Huq et al.
gineering options to achieve effective disaster risk reduction and cli- showed that mainstreaming ecosystem-based strategies into actual po-
mate change adaptation [6,7]. The Convention of Biological Diversity licies, strategies, and interventions is in fact a governance challenge
defines ecosystem-based approaches as: [8]. Van den Hoek et al. similarly argued for the need to address social

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Triyanti), [email protected] (E. Chu).
The ecosystem perspective was mainly addressed under ‘Priority for Action 4’ of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015. It encouraged the sustainable use and management of
1

ecosystems, including better land-use planning and development activities to reduce risk and vulnerabilities.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.005
Received 30 May 2017; Accepted 5 November 2017
Available online 07 December 2017
2212-4209/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

uncertainties through unpacking the governance implications of theories of governing Eco-DRR. By far the most common umbrella
emerging Eco-DRR and ecological engineering efforts [9]. Others have theory used is socio-ecological systems (SES), which takes into account
further noted that such challenges are magnified when dealing with coupled social and environmental challenges in an interconnected
complex and uncertain governance arenas associated with multi-scalar world [14]. SES is often applied to resilience to emphasize the com-
environmental risks [6,10–13]. However, beyond the recognition that plexity of socio-ecological dynamics. It highlights the ability of systems
the governance of ecosystem-based approaches remains challenging, to absorb disturbances while maintaining their structures and functions
there has so far been no comprehensive analysis into which aspects of [15]. The argument is that resilience thinking embraces the interaction
governance – i.e., whether the decision-making processes, resource between ecosystems and human well-being. Furthermore, it sets the
networks, institutional arrangements, political powers and authority, or goal of preparing the system to tolerate – or bounce back from – current
other determinants – shape the opportunities for and constraints to and future environmental changes exacerbated by climate change. In
action in the context of Eco-DRR. Table 1, we list the prominent concepts and theories used as a basis for
In response, this paper presents a comprehensive synthesis of the governing SES.
current literature to highlight the status of governance studies in the Building on theories of SES and resilience, the concept of adaptive
context of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). Research governance focuses on learning and knowledge co-production within
on ecosystem-based approaches is constantly evolving – with many governance systems and in their interventions to adapt to external
evaluating it from global to local scales as well as from state-centric to shocks [27,32,33]. However, significant challenges for adaptive gov-
decentralized and devolved actors and process – although there is an ernance have been identified, including the presence of institutional
overwhelming focus on diagnosing governance constraints (i.e., in and legal barriers to ecosystem-based adaptation [29]. Examples of
terms of finance, political jurisdiction, bureaucratic capacity, etc.) and such constraints range from the lack of institutions supporting eco-
not on governance opportunities. As a result, in addition to reviewing system-based approaches, poor law enforcement, corruption, and the
the literature, this paper explores the various governance opportunities lack of political will [29].
that could enable future research and practice. Some theories apply adaptive governance to climate change [36]
This paper is divided into seven sections. Section 1 introduces Eco- and risk [34]. Both approaches build upon previous work on SES and
DRR as a governance challenge. Section 2 elaborates on the methods argues that in order to govern climate change and to cope with emer-
used in the literature survey. Section 3 reviews the theories of Eco-DRR ging risks, policy-makers must embrace the notion of participation
and Section 4 discusses the main methods of Eco-DRR. Section 5 ex- among stakeholders [26]. Necessary elements for effective participatory
plores a number of emblematic examples, illustrates how Eco-DRR is governance include decentralization, accountability, responsiveness,
applied in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, as participation, and inclusiveness [34]. Scholars of climate risks further
well as charts emerging trends such as ecological engineering. Finally, propose that governance should denote both the institutional structures
Section 6 elaborates on the gaps in the study of governing Eco-DRR and and the policy processes that guide collective actions to regulate, re-
Section 7 concludes by highlighting opportunities for future research. duce, or control environmental problems [34].
Emerging theories on transformative governance further pinpoint
2. Survey methodology the importance of change, innovation, and technology in governing
complex systems [34]. Transformative governance is rooted in ecolo-
For the literature survey, we selected databases from Scopus and gical theory, and highlights new capacities such as increased risk tol-
Science Direct since both provide advanced research query tools that erance, significant systemic investment, and restructured economies
help to focus and narrow down results based on searchable keywords. [39]. Transformative governance often explores new ecosystem-based
We employed a semi-structured method, which allowed us to add innovations for addressing both disaster risks and climate change.
several prominent key literatures in addition to filtered literatures from Chaffin et al. provide an example of transformative efforts associated
structured queries extracted from the scientific databases. The key- with building green infrastructures in Cleveland, United States, which
words used in the search were ‘Ecosystem PRE/0 based AND disaster enhanced resilience by transforming vacant lots, land, and industrial
AND risk AND governance’ for both databases. This search method sites into habitat for biodiversity, urban agriculture, and green infra-
resulted in 172 entries from Science Direct and 313 entries from structure [39]. In another example, Ziervogel and Ziniades [42] de-
Scopus. For the purposes of achieving a wider scope, we selected Scopus scribe the FLOW (Fostering Local Wellbeing) program in Bergrivier
as our main source to conduct the review. From it, 313 entries were Municipality, South Africa, which embraced the concept of ‘transfor-
screened and filtered into 149 articles that were most relevant to the mative capacity’. By involving youth in civil society, business, and
topic of Eco-DRR and governance. Our criteria for relevancy were based government agencies, the program boosted innovation to tackle climate
on: (1) the inclusion of ecosystem-based approached to DRR and cli- change, resource depletion, and inequality [42]. Key activities were
mate change and (2) the inclusion of discussions on management, asset mapping, including mapping the municipal water and sewage
governance, and politics. systems to promote bioswales and recycling programs, as well as
After the application of these three criteria, we were left with 127 building capacity of civil society through movie-making and story-
entries for in-depth analysis. Of these 127 entries, 20% (28 entries) telling.
were theoretical in nature; 28% (38 entries) were discussions of as- Finally, some theories pursue an ecological economics perspective,
sessment methodologies; 45% (61 entries) were illustrations of parti- which argues that in order to cope with risks and extreme changes,
cular case studies or examples; and finally, 7% (10 entries) were a sustainable development should be the priority rather than capital-led
combination of theory, methodology, and illustration. For the purposes economic growth [41]. This notion is clearly articulated through efforts
of this review, we only selected the theory, methodology, and case to balance ecological sustainability with economic co-benefits to
study-based entries. Also, we added eleven key publications that were achieve sustainable livelihoods [22]. However, in order to convince
not listed in our initial search results. Online public academic search policy-makers to make investments in ecosystem-based approaches,
engines such as Google Scholar were utilized for this purpose. In total, evidence creation tools such as valuation of ecosystem services are
we surveyed 138 entries. Fig. 1 provides a schematic of our methodo- believed to be the most appropriate [22]. As a policy justification, it
logical approach. provides tangible and evidence-based data on the benefits of preserving
ecosystems for the providers, suppliers, and beneficiaries of ecosystem
3. Governance theories and Eco-DRR services.

As noted earlier, we identified a total of 28 entries that interrogate

12
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

Fig. 1. Document sources, screening, and output of

the review process.

Table 1 current conditions of a particular socio-ecological system. This method

Theoretical literatures. uses a semi-quantitative method to structure complex environmental
problem and bridges the gaps between science, policy, and manage-
Theory Sources
ment [45,49–51]. This method was initially implemented in the form of
Governance of socio-ecological systems and resilience [14,16–25] Pressures-States-Response (PSR) by the Organisation for Economic and
Adaptive governance [14,26–33] Cooperation Development (OECD), and is now commonly used across
Climate change and risk governance [34–37]
coastal areas to help stakeholders formulate coastal management
Transformative governance [38–40]
Ecological economics [22,41]
practices [49]. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has since
added two components – namely “Driving Forces” and “Impact” – to
identify and assess progress toward sustainable development [49].
4. Methods for governing Eco-DRR Furthermore, this method is often also combined with other assess-
ments such as Bayesian Belief Networks, which help stakeholders un-
Our review shows that there are different methodologies associated derstand the cumulative impacts of different policy decisions and in-
with documented Eco-DRR interventions, with a variety of governance terventions [45,50,51]. Despite its comprehensiveness, some have
assumption embedded within each. In this section, we elaborate on the critiqued DPSIR for being a simplistic approach that fails to account for
six broad methodologies for governing Eco-DRR, which include deci- the complexity of multi-scalar and systemic environmental risks [49].
sion-support tools, integrated management and network analyses, Another decision-support method that is relevant to Eco-DRR is the
economic assessments, spatial knowledge generation tools, main- Transformative Adaptation Research Alliance (TARA) approach, which
streaming approaches, and transdisciplinary approaches. Table 2 sum- employs an ecosystem perspective to climate change adaptation [52].
marizes these results. Rooted in theories of transformative governance [39], TARA presents
three types of transformations, namely transformation of ecosystems,
4.1. Decision-support tools transformation of decision context, and transformation as developing
the capacity for adaptive governance. The first – transformation of the
As a type of decision support tool, the Driver-Pressure-State ecosystem – is defined by a permanent shift to an alternative stable
(change)-Impact-Response (DPSIR)2 method can help identify the state, as in resilience thinking [52]. It considers the changes in how the
ecosystem is perceived, especially how one ecosystem relates to others;
the use of ecosystem services for societal benefit; and the options to
2
There are different terminologies used for this method. For example, the European manage the ecosystem in an appropriate manner. Second, the
Environment Agency (EEA) uses “driving-forces” instead of driver.

13
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

Table 2
Methodological literatures.

Methods Examples Sources

Decision support tools • DPSIR (Drivers-Pressure-State(change)-Impact-Response) [12,43–52]

• Transformative Adaptation Research Alliance (TARA) approaches
• Fit for Purpose Governance
• Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
• Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model
• Multiple actor analysis
• Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)
Integrated management and network analysis • Marine Integrated Decision Analysis System (MIDAS) [53–59,79]
• Integrated Flood Management
• Integrated island management (IIM)
• Collaborative disaster management
• Bayesian networks
Economic assessment • Valuation of ecosystem services and ecological economics approach [60–64]
Spatial tools and knowledge generation tools • GIS, spatial planning [65–70]
• PRISMA for Information need in coastal ecosystem-based adaptation
Mainstreaming approach • Spatial ecosystem-based adaptation priorities at the sub-national level and local planning [71,72]
Transdisciplinary approach • Participatory approach to understanding change in coastal social-ecological systems [23,50,73–77]
• Ecology approach to science–policy integration in adaptive management of social-ecological systems
• Private mainstreaming
transformation of decision context involves recognizing the need to coordinated networks of institutions and communities that bridge
evolve governance arrangements due to dynamic and changing eco- habitats and stakeholders at the scale of socioecological processes…
systems [56]. The third type is governance change to support trans- with the common goals of maintaining ecosystem services and se-
formation in the context of adaptation, which refers to developing curing human health and well-being” [56].
adaptive and transformative governance capacities to accommodate
IIM is currently applied through a coordinated network across the
uncertainties and changes in the system.
Pacific Ocean [56], where it is promoting ecosystem-based efforts to
To operationalize the three types of transformations mentioned
simultaneously address climate change, disaster risk reduction, and
above, the TARA approach incorporates three conceptual elements that
ecosystem conservation [78]. The MIDAS approach, on the other hand,
help stakeholders in decision-making and formulating transformative
offers an interface to model potential scenarios in dealing with certain
ecosystem-based adaptation actions. These include, first, the ‘values-
threats, such as the analysis of oil spills on coastlines and the spatial
rules-knowledge’ perspective for identifying decision-making contexts
risks caused by mangrove degradation in Belize's Marine Management
that enable or constrain adaptation [39]. The second is ‘adaptation
Area (MMA) [57]. These scenarios are designed based on an interactive
pathways’, which evaluates implementation through ecosystem services
platform that simulates problems perceived by the users and managers
assessments and the values-rules-knowledge perspective in order to
of the Belize's MMA, including fishers, tourism operators, state en-
explore possible actions based on available options and alternatives in
vironmental agencies, and the general public [57].
an uncertain environment to avoid maladaptation [52]. The third is
‘adaptation services’, which is a subset of ecosystem services that pro-
4.3. Economic assessment
vides benefits for people to adapt. The identification of these three
elements reflects the need to understand changes in adaptation services
Economic assessments are important tools for understanding the
provided by ecosystems, incorporate values-rules-knowledge on how to
economic value of ecological buffers, food/genetic resources, and re-
use adaptation services, as well as understand the changing aspects of
creational opportunities [60]. Previous studies have shown that eco-
decision-making to guide adaptation pathways. In general, the TARA
nomic assessments are not explicitly referred to in many ecosystem
approach emphasizes the critical elements of governance – i.e., the
management policies [67] and have not been well documented in
explicit process of transforming decision contexts and societal values as
current research [61]. For Eco-DRR, economic valuation of ecosystems
part of implementation – compared to EbA and Eco-DRR [52]. It also
provides insights into the co-benefits of ecosystems besides their reg-
suggests the need for implementing adaptation through redistributing
ulating functions to reduce disaster risks and climate change impacts
power and agency for social change [52]. This can be achieved through
[61,63]. It also offers useful economic perspectives on the scope within
a more bottom-up approach, such as by involving stakeholders in the
which adaptation can be a co-benefit [61]. However, one limitation of
co-learning, co-development, and co-construction of future scenarios.
economic assessments is the need to incorporate human behavior and
uncertainty into their calculation [62]. An example of the successful
4.2. Integrated management
application of economic assessments was found in Durban, South
Africa, where ecosystem-based measures had a moderate benefit-cost
Several tools for operationalizing integrated management are listed
ratio whereas infrastructure-based measures had a lower benefit-cost
in Table 2. These tools have generally been used in the context of
ratio [63]. Economic assessments are particularly useful for informing
flooding and sea level rise [58], water resources management [70], as
processes of designing market-based approaches – such as through
well as coastal zone management [44,55]. However, for the purposes of
certain incentives – for ecosystem conservation [60] (see Section 5.1).
this survey, we looked specifically into Integrated Island Management
(IIM) and Marine Integrated Decision Analysis System (MIDAS) as no-
4.4. Knowledge generation and spatial tools
table examples. Both cases reflect the principles of integrated coastal
zone management, which deals with coastal systems as a whole,
The literature on ecosystem management focuses mainly on the
spanning accross boundaries and involving different actors, resources,
planning and implementation of strategic processes and goals such as
and sectors to achieve certain goals [79]. In the case of IIM, integrated
conservation or disaster management. In the context of Eco-DRR,
management is defined as:
however, the study of ecosystem services and its co-benefits have been a
“Sustainable and adaptive management of natural resources through major focus for reducing socio-economic vulnerability to disaster

14
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

Table 3
Case studies and empirical literatures.

Case study Country/region Source

Ecosystem-based hazard mitigation and general UK; Iceland; USA; Indonesia; Germany [82–89]
livelihood improvements
Valuation of ecosystem services Caribbean Region; Tropical Pacific, Southern Oceans, and UK coastal seas; Philippines; [90–94,134,135]
Indonesia; Gulf of Mexico
Knowledge co-production South Africa; Caribbean; Southeast Asia; SIDS [95–98]
Community-based, inclusive, and participatory Thailand; Ethiopia; South Africa; Trinidad and Tobago; Pacific; Bangladesh; Ecuador; India; [78,99–111]
approaches South Africa; Colombia; Belize; USA; Fiji; Brazil
Political discourse Nicaragua; Mali [112,113]
Science-policy interface Germany; Gulf of Mexico [22,102,114]
Policy and governance design Austria; Gulf of Mexico; Myanmar; India [115–119]
Mainstreaming EbA into the multi-level governance for South Africa; Germany; Sweden; Australia; India; Seychelles; UK; Samoa, Cambodia; Pacific [10,11,29,120–132]
CCA and DRR Islands; Antarctica
Innovative green infrastructure for ecosystem-based The Netherlands; Australia [9,21,101,133]
DRR and CCA

impacts. Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz, for example, evaluated the among scientists and to promote the results for better policy-making
method of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- [76]. However, as the authors continue, to influence policy, the re-
Analysis (PRISMA) [68]. This method generates a systematic review search should be appropriately supported by effective communication
based on clearly defined questions, which helps to narrow down the and science-policy integration. In light of this, the concept of in-
specific combination of knowledge for analysis. Other important tools formation ecology is proposed as an effective approach for integrating
such as GIS can help analyze the spatial distribution of potential eco- science and policy cultures [73]. This approach helps to combine in-
system services, and therefore is often used as a basis for planning and formation technology with the ecological contexts in which it is em-
management. In the context of Eco-DRR, multi-criteria analyses such as bedded.
ecological resilience modelling against sea level rise [69] and green
infrastructure spatial modelling – which integrates storm water man- 5. Case studies of governing Eco-DRR
agement, social vulnerability, green space, air quality, urban heat is-
land, and landscape connectivity [70] – have helped support decision- Our results show that mitigating the risks of coastal disasters such as
making and management by providing guidelines for future green in- tsunami, flood, storm surge, and coastal inundation are the primary
frastructure. functions of Eco-DRR [82–84]. In terms of the regional distribution,
nine emblematic case studies are found in Asia, whereas case studies in
4.5. Mainstreaming approach Africa and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) are most limited,
with three case studies for each region. Furthermore, seven case studies
A recent study by Wamsler et al. reviewed how EbA can be co- in the Americas and six case studies from Europe are identified. In this
herently implemented in local planning in Sweden [80]. The study re- section, we describe these examples based on different governance
vealed that although EbA has been integrated into national strategic strategies for implementing Eco-DRR, which are further summarized in
adaptation planning, at the district and local municipality levels, eco- Table 3.
system-based measures are limited and continue to focus on biodi-
versity conservation rather than on reducing climate and disaster risk or 5.1. Valuation of ecosystem services
providing developmental co-benefits. Wamsler et al. subsequently
identify the benefits of ecological structures and why they are needed A recent study shows that the number of EbA actions are limited
for increasing the capacity of local authorities to reduce climate risks. compared to the potential of existing ecosystem resources [83]. In
For example, through using spatial tools, an inter-scale governance 2006, for example, the valuation of the UK's marine biodiversity sup-
analysis can be conducted to identify the opportunities for adopting ported the development of marine legislation and led to the National
ecological engineering structures to improve storm water management Ecosystem Assessment, which subsequently also provided input to the
[80]. Another example can be seen in South Africa, where officials from UK's Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. However, the challenge lies in
Namakwa District Municipality and Alfred Nzo District Municipality, in the lack of EbA in formal regulation, which could have negative impacts
partnership with the private sector, used biome maps to define primary on ensuring the collection of new data – especially the non-use values of
areas for EbA [71]. multiple ecosystem services that are currently deficient – to further
support EbA policy-making in the UK [93]. In the Caribbean, recent
4.6. Transdisciplinary approach research highlighted a gap in understanding factors that could poten-
tially determine the value of ecosystem services for protecting shor-
A transdisciplinary approach allows for the bridging between sci- elines from coastal storms. To address this problem, Rao et al. identified
entists, policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders across different size, level of development, GDP, type of ecosystem, wind speed, storm
sectors and institutions. However, there are often barriers and gaps frequency, and EbA implementation model as baseline variables for
among these actors, including poor coordination and a lack of in- calculating the value of ecosystem services [92].
tegrated knowledge [50,73,74,76]. Several approaches attempt to close Better valuation of ecosystem services can support market-based
these gaps, for example by including the private sector and businesses incentives to promote biodiversity conservation, such as through
in adaptation strategies [75] or through ‘private mainstreaming’ ap- Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) [134]. PES is defined as ‘a vo-
proaches [81]. This latter approach introduces wider inter-organiza- luntary, conditional agreement between at least one 'seller' and one
tional capacity, which builds linkages among heterogeneous institu- 'buyer' over a well-defined environmental service – or a land use pre-
tions and agencies in climate adaptation [81]. For example, a recent sumed to produce that service’ [135]. It tackles the trade-offs between
study of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia showed that participatory land owner's interest and external actors, particularly in terms of pro-
techniques can be incorporated to develop transdisciplinary projects moting biodiversity conservation [135]. However, the complexity of

15
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

valuation methods often constrains PES uptake. Ruckelshaus et al. no- discursively framing ecosystem-based approaches. In northern Mali, for
ticed that other external barriers such as property rights, governance example, a political campaign to return Lake Faguibine to a Prosopis
(e.g., local to international jurisdiction), and the alignment of providers forest ecosystem has triggered conflict among local groups [112]. In the
and beneficiaries can also impact the effective use of PES [91]. long term, the Prosopis forest will reduce the community's vulnerability
to drought since it is an excellent source of fodder during drought
5.2. Knowledge co-production approaches periods. However, local communities tend to only look at the short-term
implications of the loss of agricultural land in place of maintaining the
For EbA and Eco-DRR, knowledge co-production is valuable because Prosopis forest. During the course of the conflict, issues of power and
it identifies the current status of knowledge and provides directions for marginalization are clearly shown between regional politicians and
future research and decision-making [97]. For example, a recent review local communities, as well as between men and women in extending
of food security in small island developing states (SIDS) analyzed the their voices and interests [112]. Different political interests became a
use of local knowledge within the context of community-based disaster significant barrier to achieving sustainable use of ecosystem services.
risk reduction [95]. The study shows that gaps include the lack of co- The study recommended the need for multilevel, participatory, in-
herence in approaching food security in line with the ecosystem-food- tegrative, and gender-sensitive approaches to managing conflicts in
climate nexus; the lack of a regional framework despite similarities newly decentralized political arenas that are pursuing ecosystem based-
among SIDS; and the lack of knowledge integration [95]. The study adaptation [112].
proposes deepening the relationship between ecosystems, food security, Another study by Benessaiah and Sengupta in Estero Real,
and climate change through empowering local knowledge of EbA and Nicaragua, elaborates on the significance of power relations in influ-
Eco-DRR. In addition, it proposes the need to ensure that information encing governance outcomes of EbA. In this case, shrimp aquaculture
developed and shared at regional and national levels is made under- was introduced as a new concept for privatizing coastal ecosystem re-
standable for local needs. sources, which made small-scale shrimp farmers lose their ponds [113].
Another study conducted in Indonesia and the Philippines on However, the existence of strong social ties among small-scale fish
coastal disaster risk reduction also mentioned the need for utilizing farmers helped mitigate the negative impacts of privatization. They
local knowledge for research and policy-making [96]. The study con- negotiated their position to communally manage the lagoons with ad-
cluded that in order to facilitate better adaptation measures, the iden- ditional consideration for reducing the impacts of environmental de-
tification of local knowledge based on different types and uses – such as gradation [113]. The study promotes a co-management approach with
folklore, rituals, ceremony, and customary law – are needed. However, clear guidelines for addressing power relations between a resource-
a recent study of disaster management in South Africa by Sitas et al. dependent people and industries and government.
illustrated that some of the active barriers undermining the objective of
knowledge co-production can include preconceived assumptions, en- 5.5. Science-policy interface
trenched disciplinary thinking, and confusing terminology [98]. To
tackle these problems, all knowledge stakeholders should be involved The collection of data on ecosystem valuation and socio-ecological
in ecosystem-based management, and in the case where it cannot be conditions requires effective collaboration between politicians, com-
afforded, the use of knowledge brokers can help [98]. munities, private actors, and researchers [102,114]. The involvement of
researchers is important for monitoring, assessing, and forecasting
5.3. Community-based and participatory approaches scenarios [114]. One example is the coastal afforestation project in
Bangladesh's National Adaptation Programme of Action. A study by
In the United States, ecosystem-based planning is being adopted by Ahammad et al. showed how the Ministry of Environment and Forest in
different state governments. For example, in the case of the Everglades Bangladesh managed to facilitate science-policy integration through
in Florida, participatory ecosystem-based approaches have been taken knowledge co-production [102]. Scientific assessments were conducted
into account by Florida's Department of Environmental Protection to to explore the sensitivity of coastal ecosystems, which in turn affected
facilitate local spatial planning and law enforcement [99]. In this case, local vulnerability. The evaluation of ecosystem benefits attributed to
the local community is consulted during the preparation of a compre- mangroves has been formulated into a policy to reduce land degrada-
hensive plan, which is legally binding and should be consistent with tion in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. In this case, the main success
existing state laws on ecosystem management. factors mentioned are strong institutional leadership from government
Research has also shown that sustainable EbA can simultaneously authorities and the collaborative approach to ecosystem management
increase community resilience [56,101]. In the case of Durban, South [102].
Africa, biodiversity has been framed as a bio-infrastructure that in-
creases the supply of ecosystem services and provides multiple long- 5.6. Policy and governance design
term benefits for local communities, particularly through accessing
natural resources and livelihood opportunities [101]. However, chal- A study by Jordan and Benson of the Gulf Coast of the United States
lenges to this approach lie in the capacity of local actors, which is also a shows that decision-making among stakeholders have the potential for
problem noted by a recent case study of community-based EbA in being complementary, conflicting, or overlapping in nature [116].
coastal Bangladesh [102]. This study illustrated the challenges faced by Jordan and Benson conclude that certain modes of governance can
a community-based coastal afforestation project, where low capacity of produce different levels of effectiveness in the sustainability of a certain
the local government hampered its implementation. Conversely, a study coastal ecosystem. In their study of three sites along the Gulf of Mexico,
of local action in Monkey River Village, Belize, showed that by affili- a networked, participatory, and consensus-based regime showed to be
ating with bridging institutions – such as journalists, researchers, and effective in facilitating a more sustainable coastal system, especially at
local NGOs – communities can mobilize and facilitate policy change the local level. For example, in Tampa Bay, Florida, the objective was to
[103]. Such forms of activism are successfully supporting local claims preserve the existing mangrove functions and water quality, which was
to political legitimacy, while also helping to raise the community's supported by a strong regional platform, namely the Tampa Bay Re-
awareness of increased soil erosion rates. gional Planning Council [116]. On the Louisiana coast, where disaster
and climate change impacts are the main problems, the authors found
5.4. Political discourse that reactive policies and hierarchical governance hinder efforts toward
finding a sustainable solution [116]. Beyond the Gulf of Mexico, re-
Several case studies highlight the role of power relations in search by Hernández-González et al. on Austria's flood risk

16
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

management plans (FRMPs) showed that in order to prevent conflict, consequential than the natural system itself [9]. Environmental un-
improved coordination among different regions through a comprehen- certainties of the project – including climate impacts, water quantity
sive land-use planning approach is necessary [119]. In this vein, the and quality, and technological innovation pathways – were proven to
authors suggest including the planning and development of green in- not be a problem. On the contrary, social uncertainty – in the form of
frastructure as an arena for consensus-based decision-making. economic, cultural, legal, political, administrative, and organizational
challenges – are far more constraining. One example mentioned by van
5.7. Mainstreaming EbA and the multi-level governance of CCA and DRR Slobbe et al. is the existence of the Anti-Sand Engine Action Committee,
who argued that recreational safety and drinking water quality can be
Although EbA is beginning to receive global policy attention affected by the Sand Engine project [133]. The movement was suc-
[121,122], efforts to mainstream EbA and Eco-DRR approaches from cessful in negatively influencing the public's perception. Furthermore,
national to local levels have not been critically evaluated. This is a to be able to manage social uncertainties, the research pinpointed the
challenge particularly for island nations in the Pacific Ocean that are need to cope with diverse knowledge frames and interests through
experiencing severe climate change impacts and disaster risks. For participation, cooperation, and dialogue among stakeholders.
many of them, there is yet to be integrated climate adaptation and Another challenge of ecological engineering is the lack of empirical
disaster risk reduction policies within sectoral plans [10]. baseline data to initiate the combined approach. Perkins et al. shows
Factors that could potentially improve the effectiveness of main- that current data on biodiversity and existing ecosystem services is
streaming EbA can been found in the Seychelles. These include lea- lacking, which prohibits the evaluation of ecological impacts in the case
dership, institutional mechanisms, science–policy nexus, decision- of coastal structure and its effectiveness [21]. Given these recent les-
making structures, stakeholder involvement, and technological in- sons, emerging theories and strategies of ecological engineering require
novation [126,127]. In the case of EbA implementation in the UK, a further institutional support. This support must facilitate participation,
study by Burch et al. evaluated different barriers to mainstreaming dialogue, and the co-production of knowledge, especially for un-
approaches, which include uncertainty of funding and climate change covering the social impacts of either existing ‘hard’ engineering or pi-
as a policy priority; organizational silos leading to insufficient com- peline ecological engineering structures.
munication; and a legacy of policies that deliver sub-optimal outcomes
in the event of a changing climate [124]. Furthermore, in Samoa and 6. Governance opportunities and challenges
Cambodia, the barriers to mainstreaming EbA primarily lie in the in-
stitutional and legal constraints at the national level [29]. For example, From our literature survey, we find several governance opportu-
in Samoa, the lack of institutional capacity, resources, and adequate nities and challenges that are reflected in the theories, methods, and
laws made the management of natural resources fully dependent on case studies of governing EbA and Eco-DRR. In general, existing gov-
customary law. In Cambodia, the lack of agency amongst resource-de- ernance theories – including socio-ecological systems and resilience,
pendent communities is exacerbating poverty, illegal resource extrac- adaptive governance, climate risk governance, transformative govern-
tion, poor law enforcement, and corruption [29]. ance, and ecological economics – have provided strong foundations
Finally, although adaptation measures are often implemented lo- upon which to further assess emerging EbA and Eco-DRR interventions.
cally, local governance can be constrained due to limited capacity In terms of existing methods and case studies, we noted several im-
[29,123]. Pasquini et al. conducted a study on the barriers to main- portant dimensions, which include economics, institutions, and spatial
streaming climate adaptation around the world [123], which concluded planning and implementation at the national, sub-national, and local
that party politics at the local level reduces the effective performance levels. Furthermore, emerging innovation and technology – such as
and operation of local governments. In addition, there is a danger of ecological engineering – serve as opportunities for the future im-
public officials abusing their power for political gain instead of for the plementation of EbA and Eco-DRR.
public good. To tackle this problem, the authors suggest that national Theories of ecological governance and ecological economics are
governments provide stricter controls in appointing senior municipal clearly reflected through diverse methodologies and case studies. The
officials [123]. economic aspects of ecosystem services – including ecosystem valuation
– are increasingly used to better inform decision-making and to support
5.8. Innovation in green infrastructure for ecosystem-based approaches to market-based mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services. A
DRR and CCA challenge is the lack of data on the non-use values of ecosystems (i.e.,
recreational satisfaction or indirect use of ecosystem in the food chain)
Since 2012, the literature has shown that ecological engineering – as well as multi-related ecosystems economic valuation (i.e., multiple
also referred to as bio-infrastructure, soft engineering, or green infra- ecosystem services among different land uses) [137].
structure – can be an innovative solution to current contradictions be- Institutional aspects are addressed mainly through the identification
tween unsustainable infrastructural development and ecological pre- of actors and stakeholders; their capacity and interaction among dif-
servation [9,21,70,101,133]. Unlike traditional engineering ferent actors; ways to develop resources and capacities; and the as-
approaches, which focus on solving problems with technological de- sessment of compatible governance modes for implementing EbA and
signs [136], ecological engineering provides protection against disaster Eco-DRR. This has been specifically targeted in decision support tools
and climate change impacts by combining infrastructural approaches such as in the example of TARA and different integrated management,
with ecosystem services, which further promotes sustainable, adap- mainstreaming, and transdisciplinary approaches. It has also been re-
table, multifunctional, and economically feasible strategies. The so- flected in the case studies, especially in the context of science-policy
called ‘soft’ engineering approach can also minimize the impacts of interface and the processes for mainstreaming EbA into climate adap-
large-scale engineering projects that tend to neglect biodiversity and tation and disaster risk reducation across different governance scales.
prohibit communities to gain access or benefit from livelihood im- The opportunities presented by spatial planning and implementation
provements [21]. for mainstreaming EbA and Eco-DRR across national, sub-national, and
Ecological engineering was first piloted in The Netherlands, parti- local levels are also strongly reflected in our review. In terms of
cularly in the context of coastal protection against land subsidence, sea- methodologies, many authors have suggested using collaboration
level rise, storm surges, and flooding through the Building with Nature platforms that facilitate discussion and consensus among policy-ma-
Project (BwN) [133]. However, a study on the application of the Sand kers, government authorities, NGOs, local communities, private sectors,
Engine technology implemented in the Netherlands by van den Hoek and researchers (e.g. as highlighted in the TARA approach, integrated
et al. showed that the social implications of the project were more management, and different transdisciplinary arrangements). Different

17
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

community-based, knowledge co-production, and networked ap- complemented by the study of the institutional and political dimensions
proaches, as well as integrated spatial management and science-policy of governance, with particular focus on the ‘lived experiences’ of local
interfaces have come through very strongly. Although fewer in number, politicians, implementation agents, and community beneficiaries.
the cases of emerging innovation and technology of combined ecological Similarly, with the methodology, there are opportunities for expanding
and ‘hard’ engineering have been ground breaking. The hybrid ap- into different regional contexts. Future research must interrogate the
proach – also known as ecological engineering – has the potential to implications for ‘alternative’ governance models – i.e., ones that are not
mitigate the ecological impacts from traditional engineering ap- state-centric – such as self-governance, polycentric governance, and
proaches. other more inclusive or participatory approaches. The theory of trans-
Besides the opportunities mentioned above, we noticed several formative governance and the TARA approach, for example, could be
challenges in terms of socio-political dynamics. Very few assessment opportunities to provide guidelines for incorporating the institutional
methods and case studies critically evaluated the politics of EbA and and political dimensions of governance. Finally, recent studies also shed
Eco-DRR in the form of different power relations, negotiated spaces, light on the need to analyze resource/capacity inputs, institutional
equity and justice, and the role of community mobilizations. Instead, processes, and governance outcomes in the case of emerging ecological
many of the cases focused on idealised elaborations of accountability, engineering and green infrastructure approaches [9,21,138].
legitimacy, and adaptability [34]. For example, there have been no In sum, future studies must focus on building comprehensive op-
discussions of how governance actors are interacting with each other or erationalization strategies based on existing governance theories and
how political behaviors, authorities, and powers can influence the methodologies, while also lending additional focus on appropriate in-
governance outcomes of EbA and Eco-DRR. Other prominent issues tegrated assessments that evaluate important socio-political, institu-
such as equity, inclusiveness, and justice are still largely absent, as are tional, and power dynamics found across different spaces, scales,
nuanced analyses of the diversity, complexity, and competing socio- communities, and political arenas. The criteria for integrated assess-
political scales. A structured methodology for diagnosing the opportu- ments should be sourced from the ground up, but should also be
nities and constraints of socio-political dynamics across different con- available for translation across different contexts. This would ensure
texts is therefore required. robust science-based – but also contextually appropriate – policy out-
comes that are consistent with future EbA and Eco-DRR aspirations.
7. Synthesis: towards a critical governance approach to Eco-DRR These results will be important for further interrogating issues of gov-
and ecological engineering erning emerging trends and innovations in EbA and Eco-DRR, including
in the case of ecological engineering or green infrastructure.
Although the literature on the governance processes, interactions,
and outcomes of EbA, Eco-DRR, and ecological engineering is only re- References
cently emerging, many authors highlight how governance is increas-
ingly the main challenge facing disaster risk reduction and climate [1] Secretariat CBD, The Ecosystem Approach, CBD Guidelines, Montreal, 2004.
change adaptation. Future research should therefore consider the ex- [2] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.
isting literature and enrichment of case studies with clear oper- 1439.003〉.
ationalization steps to catalyze policy changes. Our inventory of the [3] UNISDR, Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of na-
different principles of governance – as well as how it is applied in tions and communities to disasters, World Conf. Disaster Reduction, January,
2005, pp. 1–25. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004〉.
different contexts – can be useful for adaptive learning. In particular, [4] UNISDR, Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, in: Third United Nations
our review highlighted several notable gaps. World Conf. Disaster Risk Reduct., 2015, pp. 1–25. 〈http://dx.doi.org/A/CONF.
First is the lack of diverse disciplinary representation. Currently 224/CRP.1〉.
[5] UNFCCC, Paris Climate Change Conference-November 2015, COP 21, 2015.
there are few social and political scientists involved in EbA and Eco- 〈http://dx.doi.org/FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
DRR research, which has contributed to an overall lack of critical, re- [6] M. Renaud, F.G. Sudmeier-Rieux, K. Estrella, The Role of Ecosystems in Disaster
flective evaluations of governance. Although most authors either ex- Risk Reduction, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2013.
[7] R. Triyanti, A. Walz, Y.Marfai, MA. Renaud, FG. Djalante, Ecosystem-based dis-
plicitly or implicitly refer to theories of socio-ecological systems and
aster risk reduction in Indonesia: unfolding challenges and opportunities, in:
resilience, the topic of Eco-DRR is still very much dominated by the Disaster Risk Reduct. Indones., Springer, India, 2017.
natural sciences. Our survey uncovered many methodological and [8] N. Huq, J. Hugé, E. Boon, A.K. Gain, Climate change impacts in agricultural
empirical examples that use ecological and economic assessments (such communities in rural areas of coastal bangladesh: a tale of many stories,
Sustainability 7 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7078437.
as ecosystem valuation and cost-benefit analyses); however, there have [9] R.E. van den Hoek, M. Brugnach, A.Y. Hoekstra, Shifting to ecological engineering
been no corresponding methodologies for assessing the political, social, in flood management: introducing new uncertainties in the development of a
and institutional dimensions of Eco-DRR or ecological engineering. Building with Nature pilot project, Environ. Sci. Policy 22 (2012), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.05.003.
Furthermore, there are only two case studies on political discourses in [10] H.S. Grantham, E. McLeod, A. Brooks, S.D. Jupiter, J. Hardcastle, A.J. Richardson,
the context of EbA and Eco-DRR. E.S. Poloczanska, T. Hills, N. Mieszkowska, C.J. Klein, J.E.M. Watson, Ecosystem-
Second, there are no methodologies that promote integrated as- based adaptation in marine ecosystems of tropical Oceania in response to climate
change, Pac. Conserv. Biol. 17 (2011).
sessments to analyze the diverse and complex socio-political dynamics [11] C. Wamsler, Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: transformation toward
associated with implementing EbA and Eco-DRR. This may be ad- sustainability in urban governance and planning, Ecol. Soc. 20 (2015), http://dx.
dressed by first developing a database of regional and local case studies, doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230.
[12] M.W. Whelchel, A.W., Beck, Decision tools and approaches to advance ecosystem-
with the objective of assessing lessons, developing evaluative criteria,
based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the twenty-first
unpacking the politics behind different projects, and highlighting po- century, in: Ecosyst. Disaster Risk Reduct. Adapt. Pract., Springer International
tential implementation approaches across different contexts. This is Publishing, 2016, pp. 133–160.
[13] F. Kloos, J, Renaud, Overview of ecosystem-based approaches to drought risk
particularly needed in the context of governing new innovations such as
reduction targeting small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, in: Ecosyst. Disaster
ecological engineering. Furthermore, we find inconsistencies in termi- Risk Reduct. Adapt. Pract., Springer international publishing, 2016, pp. 199–226.
nology across the board, where similar projects can be referred to as [14] C. Folke, Å. Jansson, J. Rockström, P. Olsson, S.R. Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin III,
ecosystem-based adaptation or ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. A.-S. Crépin, G. Daily, K. Danell, J. Ebbesson, T. Elmqvist, V. Galaz, F. Moberg,
M. Nilsson, H. Österblom, E. Ostrom, Å. Persson, G. Peterson, S. Polasky,
Developing robust assessment criteria will help with reducing this W. Steffen, B. Walker, F. Westley, Reconnecting to the biosphere, Ambio 40
confusion. (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y.
However, the several gaps mentioned above can also be seen as [15] B. Walker, C.S. Holling, S.R. Carpenter, A. Kinzig, Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social – ecological systems, Ecol. Soc. 9 (2004) 5, http://dx.
potential opportunities. There are rich theoretical traditions that help to doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.258101.
frame current ecosystem-based practices. These can be further

18
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

[16] W.N. Adger, T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, J. Rockström, Social-ecological capacity: building foundations for inclusive, thriving, and regenerative urban
resilience to coastal disasters, Science 309 (2005) 1036, http://dx.doi.org/10. settlements, Sustainability 8 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8090955.
1126/science.1112122 (80-). [43] J. Rijke, R. Brown, C. Zevenbergen, R. Ashley, M. Farrelly, P. Morison, S. van Herk,
[17] L. Lebel, Governance and coastal boundaries in the tropics, Curr. Opin. Environ. Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance opera-
Sustain. 4 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.12.001. tional, Environ. Sci. Policy 22 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.
[18] J. Rockström, M. Falkenmark, C. Folke, M. Lannerstad, J. Barron, E. Enfors, 06.010.
L. Gordon, J. Heinke, H. Hoff, C. Pahl-Wostl, Water Resilience for Human [44] V. Maccarrone, F. Filiciotto, G. Buffa, S. Mazzola, G. Buscaino, The ICZM Balanced
Prosperity, (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/CBO9781139162463. Scorecard: a tool for putting integrated coastal zone management into action, Mar.
[19] O. Woolley, Ecological Governance: Reappraising Law's Role in Protecting Policy 44 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.024.
Ecosystem Functionality, (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ [45] S.J. Metcalf, E.I. van Putten, S.D. Frusher, M. Tull, N. Marshall, Adaptation options
CBO9781107447080. for marine industries and coastal communities using community structure and
[20] K. Kotschy, R. Biggs, T. Daw, C. Folke, P. West, Principle 1 – Maintain Diversity dynamics, Sustain. Sci. 9 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0239-z.
and Redundancy, (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.004. [46] R. Nicholls, B. Zanuttigh, J. Vanderlinden, R. Weisse, R. Silva, S. Hanson,
[21] M.J. Perkins, T.P.T. Ng, D. Dudgeon, T.C. Bonebrake, K.M.Y. Leung, Conserving S. Narayan, S. Hoggart, R.C. Thompson, W.D. Vries, P. Koundouri, Developing a
intertidal habitats: what is the potential of ecological engineering to mitigate Holistic Approach to Assessing and Managing Coastal Flood Risk, (2014), http://
impacts of coastal structures? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 167 (2015), http://dx.doi. dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397310-8.00002-6.
org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.10.033. [47] J.M. Bryson, B.C. Crosby, M.M. Stone, Designing and implementing cross-sector
[22] A.D. Guerry, S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin, collaborations: needed and challenging, Public Adm. Rev. 75 (2015), http://dx.
M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M.W. Feldman, doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432.
C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P.M. Kareiva, B.L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, [48] B. May, From Informant to Actor to Leader: Social-ecological Inventories as a
B. Reyers, T.H. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, B. Vira, Natural capital and Catalyst for Leadership Development in Participatory Community Climate Change
ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice, Proc. Natl. Adaptation, (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139149389.014.
Acad. Sci. USA 112 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112. [49] R.L. Lewison, M.A. Rudd, W. Al-Hayek, C. Baldwin, M. Beger, S.N. Lieske,
[23] N.J. Bennett, J. Blythe, S. Tyler, N.C. Ban, Communities and change in the an- C. Jones, S. Satumanatpan, C. Junchompoo, E. Hines, How the DPSIR framework
thropocene: understanding social-ecological vulnerability and planning adapta- can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal
tions to multiple interacting exposures, Reg. Environ. Change 16 (2016), http:// systems, Environ. Sci. Policy 56 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0839-5. 11.001.
[24] K. Bruckmeier, Social-Ecological Transformation: Reconnecting Society and [50] S.A. Maskrey, N.J. Mount, C.R. Thorne, I. Dryden, Participatory modelling for
Nature, (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-43828-7. stakeholder involvement in the development of flood risk management interven-
[25] J.L. Davidson, C. Jacobson, A. Lyth, A. Dedekorkut-Howes, C.L. Baldwin, tion options, Environ. Model. Softw. 82 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
J.C. Ellison, N.J. Holbrook, M.J. Howes, S. Serrao-Neumann, L. Singh-Peterson, envsoft.2016.04.027.
T.F. Smith, Interrogating resilience: toward a typology to improve its oper- [51] C.J. Smith, K.-N. Papadopoulou, S. Barnard, K. Mazik, M. Elliott, J. Patrício,
ationalization, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08450- O. Solaun, S. Little, N. Bhatia, A. Borja, Managing the marine environment, con-
210227. ceptual models and assessment considerations for the European marine strategy
[26] C. Folke, T. Hahn, P. Olsson, J. Norberg, Adaptive governance of social-ecological framework directive, Front. Mar. Sci. 3 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.
systems, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 (2005) 441–473, http://dx.doi.org/10. 2016.00144.
1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511. [52] M.J. Colloff, B. Martín-López, S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, R. Gorddard, P.-
[27] F. Biermann, M.M. Betsill, J. Gupta, N. Kanie, L. Lebel, D. Liverman, H. Schroeder, Y. Longaretti, G. Walters, L. van Kerkhoff, C. Wyborn, A. Coreau, R.M. Wise,
B. Siebenhüner, R. Zondervan, Earth system governance: a research framework, M. Dunlop, P. Degeorges, H. Grantham, I.C. Overton, R.D. Williams, M.D. Doherty,
Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 10 (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ T. Capon, T. Sanderson, H.T. Murphy, An integrative research framework for en-
s10784-010-9137-3. abling transformative adaptation, Environ. Sci. Policy 68 (2017), http://dx.doi.
[28] A. Lavell, M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-Wood, org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007.
S. Myeong, S. Moser, K. Takeuchi, O.D. Cardona, S. Hallegatte, M. Lemos, C. Little, [53] D. Ferrol-Schulte, M. Wolff, S. Ferse, M. Glaser, Sustainable livelihoods approach
A. Lotsch, E. Weber, Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, in tropical coastal and marine social-ecological systems: a review, Mar. Policy 42
Vulnerability, and Resilience, (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.007.
CBO9781139177245.004. [54] A. Holdschlag, B.M.W. Ratter, Multiscale system dynamics of humans and nature
[29] J. Chong, Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation: progress and in The Bahamas: perturbation, knowledge, panarchy and resilience, Sustain. Sci. 8
challenges, Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 14 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0216-6.
10.1007/s10784-014-9242-9. [55] C. Liquete, C. Piroddi, E.G. Drakou, L. Gurney, S. Katsanevakis, A. Charef, B. Egoh,
[30] R.M. Wise, I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S.E. Park, H.C. Eakin, E.R.M. Archer Van Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal
Garderen, B. Campbell, Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of ecosystem services: a systematic review, PLoS One 8 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.
pathways of change and response, Glob. Environ. Change 28 (2014), http://dx. 1371/journal.pone.0067737.
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002. [56] S.D. Jupiter, A.P. Jenkins, W.J. Lee Long, S.L. Maxwell, T.J.B. Carruthers,
[31] C. Folke, Resilience (Republished), Ecol. Soc. 21 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10. K.B. Hodge, H. Govan, J. Tamelander, J.E.M. Watson, Principles for integrated
5751/ES-09088-210444. island management in the tropical Pacific, Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20 (2014).
[32] D. Huitema, W.N. Adger, F. Berkhout, E. Massey, D. Mazmanian, S. Munaretto, [57] S. Gopal, L. Kaufman, V. Pasquarella, M. Ribera, C. Holden, B. Shank, P. Joshua,
R. Plummer, C.C.J.A.M. Termeer, The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, Modeling coastal and marine environmental risks in Belize: the marine integrated
and effects. Introduction to the special feature, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2016), http://dx.doi. decision analysis system (MIDAS), Coast. Manag. 43 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.
org/10.5751/ES-08797-210337. 1080/08920753.2015.1030292.
[33] J.B. Zedler, What's new in adaptive management and restoration of coasts and [58] A.M. Juarez Lucas, K.M. Kibler, Integrated Flood Management in developing
estuaries? Estuaries Coasts 40 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016- countries: balancing flood risk, sustainable livelihoods, and ecosystem services,
0162-5. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 14 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2015.
[34] O. Renn, Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, (2012), 1068180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781849772440. [59] Ö. Bodin, D. Nohrstedt, Formation and performance of collaborative disaster
[35] E.A. Rosa, O. Renn, A.M. McCright, The Risk Society Revisited: Social Theory and management networks: evidence from a Swedish wildfire response, Glob. Environ.
Governance, (2013). Change 41 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.004.
[36] N. Chanza, A. De Wit, Enhancing climate governance through indigenous [60] T. Kroeger, F. Casey, An assessment of market-based approaches to providing
knowledge: case in sustainability science, S. Afr. J. Sci. 112 (2016), http://dx.doi. ecosystem services on agricultural lands, Ecol. Econ. 64 (2007) 321–332, http://
org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20140286. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.021.
[37] N. Kabisch, N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, [61] S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, B. Locatelli, S. Wunder, M. Brockhaus, Ecosystem-based
D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, K. Zaunberger, A. Bonn, Nature-based adaptation to climate change: what scope for payments for environmental ser-
solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives vices? Clim. Dev. 3 (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2011.582277.
on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action, Ecol. Soc. 21 [62] D.S. Holland, J.N. Sanchirico, R.J. Johnston, D. Joglekar, Economic Analysis for
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239. Ecosystem-based Management: Applications to Marine and Coastal Environments,
[38] B.C. Glavovic, Coastal innovation imperative, Sustainability 5 (2013), http://dx. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781936331246.
doi.org/10.3390/su5030934. [63] A. Cartwright, J. Blignaut, M. De Wit, K. Goldberg, M. Mander, S. O’Donoghue,
[39] B.C. Chaffin, A.S. Garmestani, L.H. Gunderson, M.H. Benson, D.G. Angeler, D. Roberts, Economics of climate change adaptation at the local scale under
C.A. Tony, B. Cosens, R.K. Craig, J.B. Ruhl, C.R. Allen, Transformative conditions of uncertainty and resource constraints: the case of Durban, South
Environmental Governance, (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- Africa, Environ. Urban. 25 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
110615-085817. 0956247813477814.
[40] T. Chung Tiam Fook, Transformational processes for community-focused adapta- [64] I.E. van Putten, S. Jennings, S. Frusher, C. Gardner, M. Haward, A.J. Hobday,
tion and social change: a synthesis, Clim. Dev. 9 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10. M. Nursey-Bray, G. Pecl, A. Punt, H. Revill, , Building blocks of economic resi-
1080/17565529.2015.1086294. lience to climate change: a south east Australian fisheries example, Reg. Environ.
[41] P. Lawn, Resolving the Climate Change Crisis: The Ecological Economics of Change 13 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0456-0.
Climate Change, (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7502-1. [65] L. Rist, J. Moen, Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience
[42] G. Ziervogel, A. Cowen, J. Ziniades, Moving from adaptive to transformative thinking, For. Ecol. Manag. 310 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.

19
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

08.033. 1016/j.marpol.2013.01.009.
[66] Y. Li, Y. Shi, S. Qureshi, A. Bruns, X. Zhu, Applying the concept of spatial resilience [92] N.S. Rao, A. Ghermandi, R. Portela, X. Wang, Global values of coastal ecosystem
to socio-ecological systems in the urban wetland interface, Ecol. Indic. 42 (2014), services: a spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values, Ecosyst. Serv.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.032. 11 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.011.
[67] N. Sitas, H.E. Prozesky, K.J. Esler, B. Reyers, Exploring the gap between ecosystem [93] R.D. Cavanagh, S. Broszeit, G.M. Pilling, S.M. Grant, E.J. Murphy, M.C. Austen,
service research and management in development planning, Sustainability 6 Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: a useful way to manage and conserve
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6063802. marine resources? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
[68] P.C. Sierra-Correa, J.R. Cantera Kintz, Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving 1098/rspb.2016.1635.
coastal planning for sea-level rise: a systematic review for mangrove coasts, Mar. [94] B.S. Thompson, J.H. Primavera, D.A. Friess, Governance and implementation
Policy 51 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.013. challenges for mangrove forest Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): empirical
[69] M.C. Hernandez-Montilla, M.A. Martinez-Morales, G.P. Vanegas, B.H.J. De Jong, evidence from the Philippines, Ecosyst. Serv. 23 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.
Assessment of hammocks (Petenes) resilience to sea level rise due to climate 1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.007.
change in Mexico, PLoS One 11 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. [95] J. Mercer, T. Kurvits, I. Kelman, S. Mavrogenis, Ecosystem-based adaptation for
0162637. food security in the AIMS SIDS: integrating external and local knowledge,
[70] S. Meerow, J.P. Newell, Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Sustainabilty 6 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6095566.
growing resilience in detroit, Landsc. Urban Plan. 159 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/ [96] L. Hiwasaki, E. Luna, Syamsidik, J.A. Marçal, Local and indigenous knowledge on
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005. climate-related hazards of coastal and small island communities in Southeast Asia,
[71] A. Bourne, S. Holness, P. Holden, S. Scorgie, C.I. Donatti, G. Midgley, A socio- Clim. Change 128 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1288-8.
ecological approach for identifying and contextualising spatial ecosystem-based [97] B. Reyers, J.L. Nel, P.J. O’Farrell, N. Sitas, D.C. Nel, Navigating complexity
adaptation priorities at the sub-national level, PLoS One 11 (2016), http://dx.doi. through knowledge coproduction: mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155235. risk reduction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
[72] C. Wamsler, From risk governance to city–citizen collaboration: capitalizing on pnas.1414374112.
individual adaptation to climate change, Environ. Policy Gov. 26 (2016), http:// [98] N. Sitas, B. Reyers, G. Cundill, H.E. Prozesky, J.L. Nel, K.J. Esler, Fostering col-
dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.1707. laboration for knowledge and action in disaster management in South Africa, Curr.
[73] B.G. Eddy, B. Hearn, J.E. Luther, M. van Zyll de Jong, W. Bowers, R. Parsons, Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.
D. Piercey, G. Strickland, B. Wheeler, An information ecology approach to scien- 007.
ce–policy integration in adaptive management of social-ecological systems, Ecol. [99] S.D. Brody, Ecosystem Planning in Florida: Solving Regional Problems through
Soc. 19 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06752-190340. Local Decision-making, (2012).
[74] M. Spires, S. Shackleton, G. Cundill, Barriers to implementing planned commu- [100] T.R. McClanahan, J. Cinner, Adapting to a Changing Environment: Confronting
nity-based adaptation in developing countries: a systematic literature review, the Consequences of Climate Change, (2012).
Clim. Dev. 6 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.886995. [101] D. Roberts, R. Boon, N. Diederichs, E. Douwes, N. Govender, A. Mcinnes,
[75] A. Sarzynski, Public participation, civic capacity, and climate change adaptation in C. Mclean, S. O’Donoghue, M. Spires, Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in
cities, Urban Clim. 14 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.08.002. Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face,
[76] C.F. Benham, K.A. Daniell, Putting transdisciplinary research into practice: a Environ. Urban. 24 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247811431412.
participatory approach to understanding change in coastal social-ecological sys- [102] R. Ahammad, P. Nandy, P. Husnain, Unlocking ecosystem based adaptation op-
tems, Ocean Coast. Manag. 128 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman. portunities in coastal Bangladesh, J. Coast. Conserv. 17 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
2016.04.005. 10.1007/s11852-013-0284-x.
[77] R.J. Keenan, Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a [103] M. Karlsson, G.K. Hovelsrud, Local collective action: adaptation to coastal erosion
review, Ann. For. Sci. 72 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13595-014-0446-5. in the Monkey River Village, Belize, Glob. Environ. Change 32 (2015), http://dx.
[78] S. Jupiter, S. Mangubhai, R.T. Kingsford, Conservation of biodiversity in the pa- doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.002.
cific islands of oceania: challenges and opportunities, Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20 [104] D.S. Prado, C.S. Seixas, F. Berkes, Looking back and looking forward: exploring
(2014). livelihood change and resilience building in a Brazilian coastal community, Ocean
[79] K.P. Fabbri, A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal Coast. Manag. 113 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.018.
zone management, Ocean Coast. Manag. 39 (1998) 51–62, http://dx.doi.org/10. [105] H. Reid, L. Faulkner, Assessing how participatory/community-based natural re-
1016/S0964-5691(98)00013-1. source management initiatives contribute to climate change adaptation in
[80] C. Wamsler, L. Niven, T.H. Beery, T. Bramryd, N. Ekelund, K.I. Jönsson, Ethiopia, 2015. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38670-1_72〉.
A. Osmani, T. Palo, S. Stålhammar, Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: [106] P. Sonia Lin, Ecosystem’s Role in Empowering Communities to Face Global
harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change, Ecol. Environmental Change: Community-based Ecological Mangrove Restoration in
Soc. 21 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08266-210131. Thailand, (2015).
[81] J.M. Keenan, Private mainstreaming: using contracts to promote organizational [107] A. Chandra, P. Gaganis, Deconstructing vulnerability and adaptation in a coastal
and institutional adaptation, Projections (2016). river basin ecosystem: a participatory analysis of flood risk in Nadi, Fiji Islands,
[82] M. Glaser, A. Breckwoldt, R. Deswandi, I. Radjawali, W. Baitoningsih, S.C.A. Ferse, Clim. Dev. 8 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1016884.
Of exploited reefs and fishers - a holistic view on participatory coastal and marine [108] C. Ofoegbu, P.W. Chirwa, J. Francis, F.D. Babalola, Assessing forest-based rural
management in an Indonesian archipelago, Ocean Coast. Manag. 116 (2015), communities' adaptive capacity and coping strategies for climate variability and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.022. change: the case of Vhembe district in south Africa, Environ. Dev. 18 (2016),
[83] N. Huq, A. Stubbings, How is the role of ecosystem services considered in local http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.03.001.
level flood management policies: case study in Cumbria, England, J. Environ. [109] H. Reid, Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-
Assess. Policy Manag 17 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ based natural resource management, Clim. Dev. 8 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
S1464333215500325. 1080/17565529.2015.1034233.
[84] C. Seijger, G. Dewulf, J. Van Tatenhove, H.S. Otter, Towards practitioner-initiated [110] E. Chu, I. Anguelovski, D. Roberts, Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: as-
interactive knowledge development for sustainable development: a cross-case sessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in
analysis of three coastal projects, Glob. Environ. Change 34 (2015), http://dx.doi. cities, Cities 60 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.016.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.004. [111] J.C. Ellison, A. Mosley, M. Helman, Assessing atoll shoreline condition to guide
[85] C.A.T. Arnold, Framing Watersheds, 2012. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ community management, Ecol. Indic. 75 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
CBO9781139519762.015〉. ecolind.2016.12.031.
[86] M. Kolahi, T. Sakai, K. Moriya, M.F. Makhdoum, Challenges to the future devel- [112] H. Djoudi, M. Brockhaus, B. Locatelli, Once there was a lake: vulnerability to
opment of Iran's protected areas system, Environ. Manag. 50 (2012), http://dx. environmental changes in northern Mali, Reg. Environ. Chang. 13 (2013), http://
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9895-5. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0262-5.
[87] N. Ahmed, S. Rahman, S.W. Bunting, An ecosystem approach to analyse the li- [113] K. Benessaiah, R. Sengupta, How is shrimp aquaculture transforming coastal li-
velihood of fishers of the Old Brahmaputra River in Mymensingh region, velihoods and lagoons in Estero Real, Nicaragua?: the need to integrate social-
Bangladesh, Local Environ. 18 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839. ecological research and ecosystem-based approaches, Environ. Manag. 54 (2014),
2012.716407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0295-x.
[88] A.M. Ágústsdóttir, Ecosystem approach for natural hazard mitigation of volcanic [114] H. Von Storch, K. Emeis, I. Meinke, A. Kannen, V. Matthias, B.M.W. Ratter,
tephra in Iceland: building resilience and sustainability, Nat. Hazards 78 (2015), E. Stanev, R. Weisse, K. Wirtz, Making coastal research useful - Cases from prac-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1795-6. tice, Oceanologia 57 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2014.09.001.
[89] S.A. Beichler, Exploring the link between supply and demand of cultural eco- [115] A. Galvani, Macro and Micro Green- Celebrating the International Year of Forests,
system services-towards an integrated vulnerability assessment, Int. J. Biodivers. (2013).
Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 11 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015. [116] S. Jordan, W. Benson, Governance and the gulf of Mexico coast: how are current
1059891. policies contributing to sustainability? Sustainability 5 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
[90] J. Clifton, Compensation, conservation and communities: an analysis of direct 10.3390/su5114688.
payments initiatives within an Indonesian marine protected area, Environ. [117] D. Govindarajulu, Urban green space planning for climate adaptation in Indian
Conserv. 40 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000076. cities, Urban Clim. 10 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.09.006.
[91] M. Ruckelshaus, S.C. Doney, H.M. Galindo, J.P. Barry, F. Chan, J.E. Duffy, [118] E.L. Webb, N.R.A. Jachowski, J. Phelps, D.A. Friess, M.M. Than, A.D. Ziegler,
C.A. English, S.D. Gaines, J.M. Grebmeier, A.B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, Deforestation in the Ayeyarwady Delta and the conservation implications of an
J. Polovina, N.N. Rabalais, W.J. Sydeman, L.D. Talley, Securing ocean benefits for internationally-engaged Myanmar, Glob. Environ. Change 24 (2014), http://dx.
society in the face of climate change, Mar. Policy 40 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.10.007.

20
A. Triyanti, E. Chu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 32 (2018) 11–21

[119] Y. Hernández-González, M.G. Ceddia, E. Zepharovich, D. Christopoulos, municipal case studies in the Western Cape, South Africa, Clim. Dev. 7 (2015),
Prescriptive conflict prevention analysis: an application to the 2021 update of the http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.886994.
Austrian flood risk management plan, Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016), http://dx. [129] T. Beery, S. Stålhammar, K.I. Jönsson, C. Wamsler, T. Bramryd, E. Brink,
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.007. N. Ekelund, M. Johansson, T. Palo, P. Schubert, Perceptions of the ecosystem
[120] P.N. Lal, T. Mitchell, P. Aldunce, H. Auld, R. Mechler, A. Miyan, L.E. Romano, S. services concept: opportunities and challenges in the Swedish municipal context,
Zakaria, A. Dlugolecki, T. Masumoto, N. Ash, S. Hochrainer, R. Hodgson, T.U. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.002.
Islam, S. Mc Cormick, C. Neri, R. Pulwarty, A. Rahman, B. Ramalingam, K. [130] M. Sheaves, I. Sporne, C.M. Dichmont, R. Bustamante, P. Dale, R. Deng,
Sudmeier-Reiux, E. Tompkins, J. Twigg, R. Wilby, National systems for managing L.X.C. Dutra, I. van Putten, M. Savina-Rollan, A. Swinbourne, Principles for op-
the risks from climate extremes and disasters, 2012. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ erationalizing climate change adaptation strategies to support the resilience of
CBO9781139177245.009〉. estuarine and coastal ecosystems: an Australian perspective, Mar. Policy 68
[121] N. Lopoukhine, N. Crawhall, N. Dudley, P. Figgis, C. Karibuhoye, D. Laffoley, (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.014.
J. Miranda Londoño, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith, Protected areas: providing [131] E. Vivekanandan, R. Hermes, C. O’Brien, Climate change effects in the Bay of
natural solutions to 21st century challenges, Sapiens 5 (2012). Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem, Environ. Dev. 17 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
[122] A.S. Mori, T.A. Spies, K. Sudmeier-Rieux, A. Andrade, Reframing ecosystem 1016/j.envdev.2015.09.005.
management in the era of climate change: issues and knowledge from forests, Biol. [132] C. Wamsler, S. Pauleit, Making headway in climate policy mainstreaming and
Conserv. 165 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.020. ecosystem-based adaptation: two pioneering countries, different pathways, one
[123] L. Pasquini, R.M. Cowling, G. Ziervogel, Facing the heat: barriers to main- goal, Clim. Change 137 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1660-y.
streaming climate change adaptation in local government in the Western Cape [133] E. van Slobbe, H.J. de Vriend, S. Aarninkhof, K. Lulofs, M. de Vries, P. Dircke,
Province, South Africa, Habitat Int. 40 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Building with nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies, Nat.
habitatint.2013.05.003. Hazards 66 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0612-3.
[124] S. Burch, P. Berry, M. Sanders, Embeddingclimate change adaptation in biodi- [134] J. Farley, R. Costanza, Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global, Ecol.
versity conservation: a case study of England, Environ. Sci. Policy 37 (2014), Econ. 69 (2010) 2060–2068, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014. [135] S. Wunder, The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical
[125] D.G.M. Miller, Antarctic Marine Living Resources: “The Future is not What it Used conservation: essays, Conserv. Biol. 21 (2007) 48–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
to be”, 2014. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6582-5_3〉. j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x.
[126] C. Wamsler, C. Luederitz, E. Brink, Local levers for change: mainstreaming eco- [136] H.T. Odum, B. Odum, Concepts and methods of ecological engineering, Ecol. Eng.
system-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability transi- (2003) 339–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.08.008.
tions, Glob. Environ. Change 29 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. [137] E.M. Bennett, G.D. Peterson, L.J. Gordon, Understanding relationships among
2014.09.008. multiple ecosystem services, Ecol. Lett. 12 (2009) 1394–1404, http://dx.doi.org/
[127] A. Khan, V. Amelie, Assessing climate change readiness in Seychelles: implications 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.
for ecosystem-based adaptation mainstreaming and marine spatial planning, Reg. [138] E. van Slobbe, H.J. de Vriend, S. Aarninkhof, K. Lulofs, M. de Vries, P. Dircke,
Environ. Change 15 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0662-4. Building with nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies, Nat.
[128] L. Pasquini, G. Ziervogel, R.M. Cowling, C. Shearing, What enables local govern- Hazards 65 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0342-y.
ments to mainstream climate change adaptation? Lessons learned from two

21