1. ASSESSING THE CLIMATE READINESS OF MINNESOTA’S NATURE-BASED TOURISM- DEPENDENT NORTH SHORE REGION THROUGH A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS Karly Bitsura-Meszaros | Jordan W. Smith, Ph.D. | Mae A. Davenport, Ph.D. | Erin Seekamp, Ph.D.

2. INTRODUCTION Adaptation is a process with no one-size-fits all solution Coastal Climate Readiness project 1 1. Assess the capacity of local communities to adapt to changing climatic conditions 2. Determine the risks to nature-based recreation resources and tourism destinations 3. Develop and deliver web-based decision support tools for adaptive planning PROJECT ACTION TEAM 1. (Bitsura-Meszaros et al., 2015)

3. STUDY REGION The North Shore of Minnesota

4. NATURE-BASED RECREATION- DEPENDENT Cook and Lake classified by the USDA as nonmetro recreation counties 1 Seasonal tourism and recreation activities MINNESOTACOOK COUNTY LAKE COUNTY Employment 2 10%40%21% Establishme nts 2 9%25%24% Wages 2 4%29%7% Gross Sales 3 4%11%28% 1. (Johnson, 2002) 2. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013) 3. (Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2012) Percent of Leisure & Hospitality Industry Makeup

5. By 2065, medium (RCP4.5) emissions scenario models project 1 : Average daily high temperatures will increase by 4.1  F Average daily ice thickness at inland lakes will decrease by 2.9 inches Average daily snow depth will decrease by 5 inches Climate-driven changes could impact recreation demand 2,3 Complex vulnerability Incremental changes and physical impacts CLIMATE-DRIVEN CHANGES 1. (IPCC, 2014) 2. (Scott, 2007) 3. (Richardson, 2004)

6. PURPOSE REVEAL THE SYNERGIES BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PLANNING AND THE EXISTING DECISION- MAKING PROCESSES GUIDED BY LOCAL AND REGIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS Why? None of the communities along the North Shore have engaged in formal adaptation planning as of yet Tourism and recreation industries often rely on municipal governments to take a leadership role in local climate adaptation 1 Local planning and management strategies developed to fulfill non-climate related goals are often harmonious with the goals of climate change adaptation actions 2 The capacity to cope with climate change is an ongoing process 1. (Turton, 2010) 2. (Bierbaum, 2013)

7. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Traditional natural resource management Developed for stable climate conditions Transition towards more proactive adaptive management approaches 1 Adaptive capacity Impacted by existing institutions and governance networks 2 Adaptive management of natural resources Scientific & social learning, management actions are monitored and adjusted 3 Increases present-day resilience Decisions made by local stakeholders and resource managers affect communities’ capacity to cope with climate-driven changes 4 1. (Stankey, 2005) 2. (Noble, 2014) 3. (Lee, 1999) 4. (J.W. Smith, 2012)

8. EVALUATION FRAMEWORKS LFA APPLICATIONS Logical Framework Analysis 1. (Coleman, 1987) 2. (Baker, 2012) 3. (Bassett, 2010) 4. (Baynham, 2013) 5. (Tang, 2010) 6. (Preston, 2011) 7. (R.B. Smith, 1996) 8. (Wamsler, 2014) 9. (Wheeler, 2008) 2. PURPOSE 1. GOAL 3. OUTPUTS 4. INPUTS The reason for undertaking the project. What the project is expected to achieve in development terms. The activities to be undertaken and the resources available to produce the outputs. The specific results to be produced by the management of inputs. OUTCOMES- FOCUSED PROCESS-BASED Early focus on evaluating mitigation strategies 1,2,3,4,5 Evaluations of climate adaptation planning stages 6,7,8,9

9. EVALUATING ADAPTATION POTENTIAL Common indicators of plan quality 1,2,3,4,5,6 Factual analyses to form an information base Clear goals and objectives Development of effective strategies Facilitation of implementation and monitoring A few recurring themes: Stakeholder engagement 4,7,8 Integration or coordination with other policies 4,7,9 Assigning roles and responsibilities 3,4,7 No established comprehensive evaluation criteria 10 1. (Baker, 2012) 2. (Bassett, 2010) 3. (Baynham, 2013) 4. (Ellis, 2010) 5. (Preston, 2011) 6. (Tang, 2010) 7. (Ivey, 2004) 8. (Wilhite, 2000) 9. (Wamsler, 2014) 10. (Conley, 2003)

10. IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE, WIDELY ACCEPTED PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA? Preston et al.’s evaluation tool for climate adaptation plans 1 ADAPTATION STAGES AND PROCESSES GOAL-SETTING STOCK-TAKING DECISION-MAKING IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION Articulation of objectives, goals and priorities Identification of success criteria Assessment of human capital Assessment of social capital Assessment of natural capital Assessment of physical capital Assessment of financial capital Stakeholder engagement Assessment of climate drivers Assessment of non-climate drivers Assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/or risk Acknowledgement of uncertainties Options appraisal Exploitation of synergies Mainstreaming Communication and outreach Definition of roles and responsibilities Implementation Monitoring, evaluation and review 1. (Preston, 2011)

11. METHODS Preston et al.’s 1 tool may lack the ability to evaluate multiple types of plans This study iteratively amends that assessment tool to: Suit the context of small outdoor recreation-dependent communities Make it more generalizable and transferable Be able to evaluate natural resource plans for adaptive management It seeks to: Reveal if existing management plans address climate-related impacts Determine if the region has the ability to execute planning processes necessary for enhancing adaptive capacity. An Overview 1. (Preston, 2011)

12. A detailed written protocol of items was produced to enhance reliability 1,2 All criteria were reworded to consider the outcomes of the plans as implementation instead of climate adaptation “Consideration of what successful adaptation will look like and how it will be measured” “Consideration of what successful plan implementation will look like and how it will be measured” METHODS Development of Evaluation Instrument 1. (Ellis, 2010) 2. (Stevens, 2014) 3. (Davenport, 2011) Modifications were structured around North Shore recreation 3 FOREST RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES WILDLIFE INFRASTRUCTURE Walking Hiking Camping Boating Swimming Fishing Nature Observation Supports recreation

13. METHODS Selection of Management Plans Identified by consultations with stakeholders and Google search queries N = 16 TYPES OF PLANS Soil and Water Management Emergency Management Transportation Plans Wildfire Management Coastal Management Land Use INCLUSION CRITERIA Cook or Lake County Extent entirely within region Grand Portage Indian Reservation Contains management strategies

14. METHODS Scoring of Evaluation Criteria Scoring was done against a written protocol 1 Scores were assigned using a three-point scale 2 0 = criteria not present in the plan 1 = criteria present in the plan without assessment or evidence 2 = criteria present in the plan with an assessment and articulation of evidence Recorded in Microsoft Excel with descriptive information Notes kept 1. (Stevens, 2014) 2. (Preston, 2011)

15. METHODS Reliability Assessment The 16 plans were divided evenly and evaluated by five external coders Utilized Krippendorff’s alpha (α) with ordinal difference function 1,2 and also calculated percent agreement 1. (Krippendorff, 2011a) 2. (Krippendorff, 2011b)

16. METHODS Spatial Analysis Spatial planning plays an important role in developing climate adaptation strategies 1,2 Overlay analysis performed to portray the density of management coverage across the region 1. (Eikelboom, 2013) 2. (Greiving, 2012) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17. RESULTS Evaluation Tool Existing governance contexts Capacity to design management measures Forest resources Water resources Wildlife Recreational Experiences Government-owned and managed Privately-owned Government-owned and publicly managed Climate-related General Climate-related General Forest resources Water resources Wildlife Recreational Experiences Infrastructure Forest resources Water resources Wildlife Recreational Experiences Infrastructure Assessment of climate/non-climate drivers Mainstreaming Stakeholder engagement Assessment of climate drivers Assessment of non-climate drivers Assessment of impacts, vulnerability and risk Acknowledgement of assumptions/uncertainties Options appraisal Exploitation of synergies Communication and outreach Definition of roles and responsibilities Implementation Monitoring, evaluation and review Articulation of objectives, goals and priorities Identification of success criteria Assessment of human capital Assessment of natural capital Assessment of physical capital Assessment of financial capital Assessment of social capital PRESTON, WESTAWAY & YEUN’S 19 CRITERIA Mainstreaming Implementatio n & Evaluation Decision- Making Stock-Taking Goal-Setting

18. RESULTS Evaluation Scores Percent of assigned scores out of total possible Percent of plans within each score range

19. Evaluation Criteria

21. RESULTS Intercoder Reliability All StagesGoal-SettingStock-Taking Decision- Making Implementati on & Evaluation Plan α Agreement α α α α 10.6467%1.00100%0.1346%0.8175%0.7975% 20.4258%0.8350%-0.5527%0.6775%0.5375% 30.4058%0.0050%0.8091%0.3344%-0.3825% 40.3146%-0.500%0.1836%0.3256%-0.1750% 50.5758%0.0050%0.6555%0.4356%0.5375% 60.4149%0.0050%0.7164%0.4350%-0.750% 70.6370%1.00100%0.5064%0.7369%0.5375% 80.5164%1.00100%0.4855%0.5469%-0.1350% 90.5858%0.8350%0.4836%0.4075%0.6050% 100.4558%0.0050%0.5664%0.4463%0.0725% 110.7673%0.250%0.5264%0.9781%1.00100% 120.3470%1.00100%0.7982%0.0656%0.5375% 130.7679%1.00100%0.7973%0.7381%0.0075% 140.2348%0.0050%-0.0355%0.3238%0.5375% 150.8179%1.00100%0.7573%0.5875%1.00100% 160.4646%0.0050%-0.1727%0.5963%-0.4025% Overa ll 0.5 2 61% 0.4 6 63% 0.4 1 57% 0.5 2 64% 0.2 7 59% Recommended values: Krippendorff’s α ≥ 0.667 1 Percent Agreement ≥ 80% 2 Contributing factors Rarely present criteria α degrades rapidly with low variance 3 Dividing plans evenly among five external evaluators 1. (Krippendorff, 2004a) 2. (Stevens, 2014) 3. (Krippendorff, 2004b)

22. Management Plan Spatial Density

24. CAN EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS BE USED TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE? Decision-making - Assessment of climate-related impacts (50% 1’s or 2’s) Cook and Lake County hazard mitigation, local water, and community wildfire plans Superior National Forest and Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Overall, no adequate risk assessments or strategies Lacked climate projections, baseline information and option appraisals Fundamental changes will be necessary to respond to climate changes 1 1. (West, 2009)

25. DO NORTH SHORE COMMUNITIES HAVE POTENTIAL FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING? North Shore Strengths Considered wider governance networks more frequently than Preston et al. 1 Acknowledged North Shore assets outside of obligated management areas North Shore Weaknesses Absence of monitoring, evaluation and redesigning management measures Poorly defined success criteria, and assessments of vulnerability Science and information and human and financial capital barriers Do local governments perceive climate adaptation to be their responsibility? 1. (West, 2009)

26. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY DO TO HELP THE NORTH SHORE? Better understanding of the region’s collective vulnerability Can guide decision-makers who are updating resource management plans Mainstreaming Spatial analysis map as a prompt Discussion about collaboratively managed resources Share resources Decision-making support tools 1. (Preston, 2011)

27. LIMITATIONS Low intercoder reliability Applicability limited to tourism and outdoor recreation dependent communities. These communities are not homogenous Only content found within the management plans was evaluated Sample limited to regional resource management plans

28. Mae A. Davenport, Ph.D. Erin Seekamp, Ph.D. KARLY BITSURA- MESZAROS kameszar@ncsu.edu JORDAN W. SMITH, PH.D. jwsmit12@ncsu.edu ASSESSING THE CLIMATE READINESS OF MINNESOTA’S NATURE-BASED TOURISM- DEPENDENT NORTH SHORE REGION THROUGH A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS