Using an inverted funnel analogy to develop a theory of change supporting resilient ecosystem-based adaptation in the Great Lakes Basin: a case study of Lincoln, Ontario, Canada

Riverine and coastal communities along the St Lawrence River and the Great Lakes have been exposed to frequent flooding and erosion over the centuries (Bartolai et al. 2015; Hudon1997; Maghrebi et al. 2015). This region represents at the same time an important economic and socio-cultural system where large populations are located along its coast (Bartolai et al. 2015; Carter and Steinschneider 2018; Gronewold et al. 2013; Maghrebi et al. 2015). Future climate scenarios project important changes including increased variability on lake water levels, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and gradual disappearance of ice in most of the St Lawrence and Great Lakes Basin, which may amplify a number of hydrometeorological hazards (WMO 2015; Bartolai et al. 2015).

Over the past years, water levels in the Great Lakes Basin have been setting historical high records across the Basin (GLAM 2018). These record levels have led to the exposure of coastal communities to increased flooding and erosion. For example, in Lake Ontario, the springs of 2017 and 2019 had significant shoreline flooding events (EC/NOAA 2020). With increased variability in water level, partly due to climate change, coastal habitat can be lost due to erosion (Theuerkauf and Braun 2021). New hydrometeorological conditions and flow regimes require longer term planning approaches. As a result, agencies, such as the International Joint Commission, have recognized the need to develop performance indicators and geographical coping zones for assessing this risk, which includes consideration of socio-economic impacts (GLAM 2018).

These changes have brought considerable environmental, physical, social, and psychological challenges for coastal municipalities and their residents. These challenges differ geographically. Several communities are exposed to risks due to coastal development where land degradation may lead to further damage and gradual displacement of the population and therefore loss of both municipal revenue and natural capital (Angel and Kunkel 2010). Other communities may face pressures from the demands of different economic sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and urban development, leading to increased risk, especially during extreme weather events (EPA 2019; Bush et al. 2014). While large cities have populations with a relatively wide range of ages (although still older than in the 1960’s), rural and remote smaller communities within the Great Lakes Basin, such as the Niagara Region, are composed of an aging population (Méthot et al. 2015; Niagara Region 2022a, 2022b).

In the Niagara Region, climate change impacts are consistent with national projections (Bush and Lemmen 2019). They include an increase in annual average temperature, days with temperatures over 30 °C, heat waves of three or more consecutive days, length of the growing season, with May and September significantly warmer, average number of frost-free days with 10 more per year compared to 1970, rainfall with less snow in winter, and frequency of heavy rain events, especially in spring (Penney 2012; Gronewold and Rood 2019). These broader impacts are particularly relevant for the Region’s public and private infrastructure, health care, as well as sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and other businesses. For instance, in the agricultural sector, vineyard production, especially for the signature icewine, may be impacted by reduced revenues (Garg 2020; Hewer and Gough 2020).

Some communities and conservation authorities have become early adopters in moving forward with climate action to address these hydrometeorological challenges (Henstra and Thistlethwaite 2017), with varying degrees of success (Feltmate and Moudrak 2021). For example, in identifying vulnerable coastal areas for priority management action, hazard zones for erosion have been identified for protection activities along the Lake Huron shoreline (MVCA 2020). The International Joint Commission has developed Coastal Performance Indicators to fulfill a similar protection and monitoring function (GLAM 2018). The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has established an Advisory Council on Coastal Resilience to develop a series of recommendations on how to adapt to climate change (files.constantcontact.com/267a5a2d401/8c56291a-c088-49b8-9718-7f315f8c3ebd.pdf). Along coastlines, it is common to see residents on the front line as their private property becomes impacted (FOCA 2016). However, the property ownership question is much more complex, with other competing interests such as private, public, agricultural, business, and land developers. Solutions are often developed without consultation with adjacent landowners or regulators under the belief that shoreline ownership is an individual’s prerogative. Changing levels of risk in these overlapping coping zones have created a palpable conflict in values between private property ownership, increasingly faced with difficult adaptation and hazard mitigation choices, and more concerted public responses, such as open space parks planning.

The research described in this paper forms part of a larger study on how Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin coastal communities are responding to the challenges posed by climate change and whether they incorporate and then implement, or not, adaptation strategies as part of their plan. This article summarizes the results of a case study involving one Lake Ontario community, the Town of Lincoln. The project is based on two main concepts: community resilience and ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. Ecosystem-based adaptation is often considered a Nature-based Solution (NbS) as it is based on the ecosystem approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity and uses in large part the natural environment as part of the strategy to reduce impacts of climate change (CBD 2019; IUCN 2020; Vasseur 2021). NbS can go further in enhancing resilience and consider any actions that address challenges that societies are facing by protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring natural or modified ecosystems (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019; IUCN 2020). In the case of ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal solutions include soft or green infrastructure such as enhancement of vegetation diversity along a shoreline, planting windbreaks, placing sediment in the nearshore (beach nourishment), or managed realignment but sometimes with grey infrastructure if required. In agriculture, it may include adding natural windbreaks or hedgerows or cover crops. NbS are potential ways for many communities to ensure sustainability of some of their economic activities such as agriculture and tourism (Monahan et al. 2020; Ilieva and Amend 2019). Nature’s contribution to adaptation has become a focus in the social-ecological transformation literature (Colloff et al. 2019).

Concurrent with ecosystem-based adaptation, resilience-based approaches have become popular since the late 2000s (Flood and Schechtman 2014). Resilience is a widely discussed term, with multiple definitions depending on the discipline, including engineering, ecological, social, community, psychological, and social-ecological resilience (see the following literature reviews: Bahadur et al. 2010; Reid and Botterill 2013; Brown et al. 2021; Walker 2020). Reid and Botterill (2013) warn that careful thought is needed on how resilience is used in policy debates, providing several examples in Australia of how policy and plans would change based on the use of different definitions of resilience. Gunderson (2010) and Aldrich (2012) have highlighted the relevance of considering ecological and human communities as part of resilience research in the face of natural disasters. How best to create useful metrics for resilience has been an ongoing debate in the scientific and policy literature.

Recent attempts at measuring resilience describe a desirable end state for individuals, organizations, and communities (Summers et al. 2018). For instance, in a post-disaster context, personal and familial socio-psychological well being, organizational and institutional and infrastructural restoration, economic and commercial resumption of services and productivity, and operational regularity of public safety and government are all important (Aldrich 2012). In this sense, measuring resilience along these dimensions before disaster occurs may be key. Along these lines, Berkes and Ross (2013) call for an integrated approach in considering overall social resilience. For example, community infrastructure can be assessed and managed via explicit asset-based community development. Also, knowledge, skills, and learning can be enhanced through explicit acknowledgement of the cross-cutting nature of climate adaptation and resilience planning. In summary, determining community resilience can be informed by measuring specific practices across three overall dimensions: readiness (for action), responsiveness (to events and circumstances), and revitalization (transformation of structures and processes), while at the same time considering the influence of social cohesion (Rodin 2014). To do so, a community-based adaptation approach is based on the participation of people in the community to design strategies that contribute to managing risk, community development, as well as other climate change adaptation actions. It is important to note that ecosystem-based adaptation can effectively be combined with community-based adaptation as some of their premises such as community participation and engagement are common to both (Vasseur 2021).

Further, co-creation of usable knowledge between researchers and community members – an actor-centred approach – is an important step for overcoming barriers to climate action, and especially adaptation (Cohen et al. 2006; Moser and Ekstrom 2010; Eisenack et al. 2014, Plante et al. 2016, Vasseur et al. 2018; Vasseur 2021). One particular starting point in crafting effective knowledge co-creation opportunities is by examining the role social capital and social networks play in supporting effective environmental governance (Cohen et al. 2012). These networks, which include actor/organization ties, can be identified and mapped via participatory processes. From there, a relevant theory of change can be developed which incorporates perspectives on hazards, risk management, community resilience, and nature’s contribution to adaptation. In this paper, the distinction is made between the terms co-production (how knowledge is produced) and co-construction (how solutions are crafted).

Theory of change, at its most basic, is a structured model of how planned interventions are meant to work (Mayne 2015). It is used in planning and evaluation studies (Lam 2020), and more recently in sustainability science (Oberlack et al. 2019) to map project resources and activities to specific outputs and ultimate overall benefits. A theory of change approach is useful in understanding how a community transitions from adaptation and resilience planning to specific activities, concrete actions, and measurable changes in building adaptive capacity and resilience. This study used a variety of lenses to make sense of local challenges in the Town of Lincoln case study. These lenses include assessing community assets, community resilience, social capital, co-creating knowledge with actors, and developing a practice-relevant theory of change.

In this paper, one of the key research questions was related to how communities move from climate change and resilience planning to concrete climate action while exploring understanding of nature’s contribution to adaptation (Colloff et al. 2019). We wanted to contribute an understanding to the question of how climate change adaptation and resilience planning is contextualized, structured, mapped, and then implemented to enable sustained and lasting change within affected communities.

A community profile was developed (brocku.ca/unesco-chair/resources/). It was useful for the Town staff and research team in that it created a comprehensive social-ecological summary that highlighted the diverse natural capital within the community, as well as detailed current social capital and economic diversity of the Town and its broader place within the Niagara Region and Great Lakes Basin. Briefly, the profile highlighted a rich natural environment, which includes the Niagara Escarpment, provincially designated Green Belt, additional provincial parks, and conservation areas. The population of Lincoln is steadily increasing, influenced by its proximity to Hamilton and Toronto. As the Town remains a rural setting, it aims to become a Centre of Excellence for Agriculture. The unemployment rate (prior to the pandemic) was lower than the provincial average and household income slightly higher than the provincial average. The Town has developed several strategies regarding housing and tourism, among others.

Lincoln is aware of some of the major hazards that can increase its vulnerability, such as snowstorms, hailstorms, droughts, and flooding. The population at risk is located mainly along the Lake Ontario shoreline and the various creeks that flow from the Niagara Escarpment toward the Lake and well as transportation due to its location both above and below the Niagara Escarpment. Water vulnerability is relatively high in some areas of the Town where agriculture is also important. This richness formed the basis of the social network analysis and theory of change presented below. In addition, for the theory of change, various focus group discussions (see Supplementary Material, Table S2) identified several, specific issues. The agriculture focus group identified experiences with extreme weather events and increased patterns of uncertainty; they identified priorities such as access to reliable water, technical guidance for landowners, and green infrastructure standards. In the case of the tourism discussion, fluctuating water levels, habitat loss, and declining wildlife population have experienced impacts. Their priorities were identified as linking conservation with tourism, wetland protection, and ecosystem restoration. For the youth focus group, lived experiences were related to flooding and extreme weather events, and their priorities were access to public transportation, more relevant climate data, and making adaptation more affordable. The virtual shoreline focus group reflected on the findings of the project StoryMap. Those participants suggested a number of potential options for increasing shoreline resilience, which included standardized coastal risk assessment tools and solutions, increased use of green infrastructure as a protection mechanism and tax relief/subsidies to lessen the financial impact of risk reduction. This group also identified the need to involve elected officials at all levels in searching for sustainable solutions.

The case study described in this paper suggests a useful future direction for similar community climate action and related sustainability initiatives. In general, the Town can be considered to have a high degree of adaptive capacity, both operationally as well as strategically (Armitage 2005). Operationally, it has the technical resources and political engagement to manage resources within the community. Strategically, it has community dynamics and culture which supports consultation, engagement, and responsiveness to external challenges. Our results, through the theory of change, identified a positive path process that can be further implemented in the long term to continue monitoring changes. The use of a mixed-methods approach was effective in integrating data from various sources and aspects into this process.

Structured community profiles are an important first-step for inventorying resilience-relevant assets. The information, once collected and collated, defines a baseline from which to view the current situation and identify future challenges (Scherzer et al. 2019). For the Town, this was found to be an important integrative tool to incorporate natural, cultural, social, and economic characteristics in one document. Quite often, each of these community aspects can tend to be treated in silos. The profile was also a useful way to start a conversation about building resilience to future climate risk. For instance, in terms of vulnerability, challenges related to high water levels, extreme rainfall, and flooding were only some of the hazards the community mentioned facing. In addition, mandated hazard, impacts and risk assessment (HIRA) exercises also can identify other relevant hazards such as water quality and human health emergencies (Webb 2016). These challenges in turn lend themselves to a broader discussion of sustainability, ecosystem-based approaches, and overall community resilience (Richardson 2010; Brown et al. 2021). This broader view was further validated by the various focus groups, which reflected the views of community members. For example, water supply and access for the agriculture sector; ecosystem connectivity and conservation for the tourism sector; active transportation for youth; and availability of technical guidance and advice on innovative coastal protection measures for private shoreline landowners.

The use of targeted, participatory social network analysis, in conjunction with other methods, such as focus groups and key informant interviews, helped to build a coherent theory of change. Deliberation around questions of climate impacts, learning outcomes and issues of priority led to the definition of key thematic adaptation entry points. From there, discussion of potential actions and success measurement as it relates to key areas of community resilience, could take place (c.f., Oberlack et al. 2019). Further, the analysis was able to identify general characteristics of the climate action network, such as overall density, the presence of bridging actors, the importance of weak ties, and potential structural holes that might impede collaborative action.

A consideration of network leadership opportunities was possible. In a previous study (Baird et al. 2014), organizational and individual leadership in the Niagara Region was identified as a barrier to climate change adaptation action. Results from the current study reveal that this may be incrementally changing. For instance, five nodes in the network were identified as leaders by others in the network. Some were positional by virtue of their roles in Town municipal government, such as mayor, chief administrative officer, and fire chief. Others were found to have connective roles, such as economic development officer, and environmental services manager. Certain organizations identified by Baird et al. (2014), such as the Niagara Region and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, were also mentioned as not taking an active leadership role. In this study, participants were able to identify specific actors within those organizations that are playing a key role in climate action activities (e.g., emergency management, public health, wastewater, and related services; parks and natural space management). This suggests that despite having no one point of contact in these organizations on climate action issues, distributed leadership within these organizations appeared to be developing slowly and “under the radar scope” (May 2017). Further, this study is consistent with others suggesting that dedicated climate change officers can be utilized to perform targeted enabling and connective leadership functions (Stiller and Meijerink 2016). In the Town, the climate change coordinator was able to extend the reach and influence of the municipal governance function via their participation in the various focus groups and other meetings.

It is acknowledged that a multitude of adaptation options are available to shoreline and riverine communities. These options lie on a continuum of action, from either defending the status quo or co-existing with observed changes or ultimately retreating from existing and emerging climate risk altogether (Sinay and Carter 2020). Use of nature-based adaptation is one of these options. Further, shoreline vulnerability to high water levels and flooding is just one of the hydrometeorological and other hazards communities face. Bounding community challenges through an explicit theory of change is one way to comprehensively select and manage adaptation options within broader community sustainable development (Oberlack et al. 2019). It also provides a mechanism, not only for local governments and agencies, but also impacted citizens, the broader community, and civil society to see their place in how knowledge and action are a shared responsibility. In this instance, a resilience lens was applied to frame the benefits of integrated climate action for sustainability, advocating a transparent and streamlined approach (Moudrak and Feltmate 2017).

In conclusion, through this research, we envisioned and tested a process, using both participatory social network analysis and theory of change development to define possible pathways for climate change adaptation that involved community members instead of only municipal authorities. This was accomplished despite the necessary restrictions on face-to-face interactions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, both social and ecological considerations for climate action were co-created. This process addresses concerns raised by resilience scholars, such as Berkes (2007), in dealing with crisis and uncertainty as social acceptance of municipal actions may not always be high if residents are not aware or involved in some manner. Participatory processes and nature-based solutions are a must for communities, and it is now increasingly acknowledged by mayors such as with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (e.g., through the Advisory Council for Coastal Resilience). With a structured theory of change in place, the next research step will involve testing the inverted funnel with participants. This will be completed to ensure that their views are represented in moving from community co-creation to co-production in the long-term. Through the theory of change, this process can be monitored and reported on regular bases.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We would like to thank all the participants who contributed to this study. The Town of Lincoln has been incredibly supportive of this work. This research is supported by the Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction and Response (MEOPAR) Network [1-02-02-035.4]. All research, including interviews, meetings and focus groups, was conducted under Brock University Ethics Approval REB 18-063.