Helping land trusts prepare for a new climate: experiences of challenges and facilitators for translating knowledge about climate change adaptation in Ontario, Canada
Abstract
The environment is changing under the impact of climate change, but many Ontario land trusts still operate with the goal of maintaining historic patterns of biodiversity. This misalignment of conditions and goals may render the important work of these land trusts less effective. To help improve this situation, we conducted several knowledge translation activities to inform Ontario land trusts about possible climate change adaptation options. Throughout the knowledge translation activities, we collected participants’ comments and examined them with hypothesis and descriptive coding to reveal data about challenges and facilitators, which we grouped into themes with pattern coding. The results helped us identify challenges and facilitators that land trusts experience when participating in climate change knowledge translation and attempting to adapt to climate change. The challenges include a lack of resources, limited technical skills and species knowledge, and competing priorities and perspectives. Facilitators include a general interest in climate change, use of tools for adaptation planning, and resource sharing. To increase climate change adaptability in the Ontario land trust sector, we recommend greater collaboration between land trusts, modest modifications to existing conservation actions, shifting from passive to active conservation, and moving from species-level to community and ecosystem function conservation goals.
1. Introduction
Land conservation is the practice of protecting and managing natural areas and natural resources to safeguard them against destruction and degradation by impacts from human activities. Traditional practices of land conservation revolve around maintaining historical conditions in protected areas, where the location of protected areas is based on available space and political feasibility (Hannah et al. 2002). Often, these land conservation practices are designed to protect specific threatened species (Hagerman and Chan 2009; Lawler 2009) and are created on an assumption of a static climate system and pattern of biodiversity (West et al. 2009; Hagerman et al. 2010; Tingley et al. 2014).
However, climate change has added a new, major stress factor that is putting pressure on natural areas and biodiversity worldwide. Given the reality of climate change and other threat factors such as land cover conversion and the spread of invasive species (Corlett 2016), the assumption of static conditions is no longer tenable and traditional land conservation practices and policies are no longer sufficient (Wyborn et al. 2016; Abrahms et al. 2017). Land conservation practices need to be re-envisioned. This includes an expansion of the tools and techniques used to incorporate climate change considerations and take a more future oriented, dynamic and anticipatory approach (Bernazzani et al. 2012; Wyborn et al. 2016; van Kerkhoff et al. 2019). Protected areas still play an important role in conservation. But in the face of climate change, protected areas management needs to evolve and we require a broader set of approaches to address this challenge (Armstrong et al. 2015).
It is evident that barriers exist to the implementation of novel climate change adaptation measures in land conservation and related fields. For example, practitioners and decision-makers involved in natural resource management across four regions in the USA and Canada experienced barriers to climate change adaptation implementation due to lack of resources, lack of expertise, and lack of knowing how to translate information about local climate impacts into management actions (Lonsdale et al. 2017).
Land conservation in many countries globally is pursued by a variety of stakeholders including federal, provincial and local governments, nongovernmental organizations and private landowners. In North America, land trusts are an important component of the land conservation sector. Land trusts are non-governmental organizations with the goal to conserve land for future generations. The Land Trust Alliance, created in 1982, is a national umbrella organization advocating on behalf of the growing land trust sector in the USA (Land Trust Alliance, n.d.). In 2016, the Land Trust Alliance conducted a workshop focusing on land conservation in a changing climate. They found that an increasing number of USA land trusts are starting to incorporate climate change considerations in their work. However, these land trusts also tend to experience challenges in adapting their operations to a changing climate because of limitations to the capacity and usefulness of their traditional conservation tools (Gentry et al. 2017).
Compared to the USA, the land trust sector in Canada is less thoroughly developed and less well resourced. While the first Canadian land trust was established over 100 years ago, the land trust sector in Canada only accelerated in the 1990s. The three current provincial umbrella organizations in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec formed in the 1990s and a national advocacy organization, the Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts, was formed in 2022 (Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts, n.d.). These delayed developments are part of the reason that the current knowledge base about the Canadian land trust sector is relatively small and scattered across organizations relative to the USA. This lack of knowledge includes a limited understanding of how Canadian land trusts are approaching the challenges presented by climate change and how land trusts could be supported in their pursuit of climate change adaptation.
The work we are presenting here was intended to pursue two objectives: (1) translate scientific knowledge about climate change adaptation for and with Ontario land trusts to support them in moving toward increased climate change adaptation capacity, and (2) form a better understanding of the challenges and facilitators for translation of scientific knowledge about climate change adaptation.
Focusing on Ontario, we present the results of our work in translating scientific knowledge of climate change into the land conservation practice space, helping land trusts to build their own understanding of climate change adaptation, and supporting them to prepare their own climate change adaptation initiatives. We also discuss what we learned from this knowledge translation process and make recommendations for approaches that could be valuable to other land conservation organizations in moving toward enhanced climate change adaptation.
2. Background
2.1. Study context
Ontario, Canada, consists of a complex mosaic of natural and human-dominated landscapes. The province has high biological diversity, especially in its southern portion, which is one of the most biodiverse regions of Canada. The region harbours over 6000 species of vascular plants, birds, butterflies and moths, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles (Natural Heritage Information Centre 2018). The Mixedwood Plains ecozone in the southernmost portion of Ontario (Fig. 1), show an especially high concentration of species (Fox and Soaper 1955; Allen et al. 1990).
Fig. 1.
Ontario's geomorphological features such as the Niagara Escarpment create heterogeneous habitats that increase species diversity for birds, plants, and lichens compared to surrounding areas (Matheson and Larson 1998; Matthes et al. 2000). The Niagara Escarpment is one of 19 Canadian UNESCO World Biosphere Reserves and contains at least 150 species of fauna that are of conservation concern (Government of Canada 2022). Ontario also holds most of North America's alvars, a globally rare but highly diverse ecosystem (Schaefer and Larson 1997).
Despite the impact of forestry and other resource extraction industries, northern and central Ontario, in the Hudson Bay Lowlands and Ontario Shield ecozones (Fig. 1), has retained much of its natural cover of forests and wetlands. However, southern Ontario's Mixedwood Plains ecozone has experienced extensive loss of natural cover, which started with European settlement initiated approximately 200 years ago. In 2022, Ontario's population exceeded 15 million with approximately 90% of this population residing in the Mixedwood Plains ecozone. Consequently, conversion of natural cover to agriculture has been very extensive in this region. Ontario now accounts for 25% of Canada's agricultural lands and 20% of the country's gross farm receipts (Capmourteres et al. 2018). These changes in land cover have led to losses of various plant and animal species as well as declines in their populations. In addition to agriculture, natural land has been lost to urban expansion (ECCC 2021) and infrastructure development such as road networks (Quinby et al. 2022).
Southern Ontario is a hotspot for several endangered species in Canada (Coristine et al. 2018) and loss of these species is correlated with increasing land use intensity (Kerr and Cihlar 2004). These trends continue into the present day with recent studies showing changes in fish communities correlated with losses of riparian habitat and increases in cottage development along lakes (Finigan et al. 2018), as well as changes in bird communities due to changes in land cover (Frei et al. 2018; Yalcin and Leroux 2018).
2.2. Land conservation and land trusts in Ontario
Land trusts are non-governmental, not-for-profit, environmental charities that work to protect lands and waters. They may be regional, provincial or national. Their primary goal is to acquire ecologically sensitive lands and waters, or interests in land and waters (i.e., conservation easements) for conservation purposes in the interest of future generations. Some land trusts also have an interest in conserving lands and waters of recreational, scenic, historical and agricultural value in perpetuity for an overall community benefit. Many land trusts incorporate research and education into their conservation programs.
While most land conservation in northern and central Ontario is provided through statutory protected areas (MNRF 2019), most of the land conservation in southern Ontario is undertaken by environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) and private landowners (Drescher et al. 2017; Olive and Penton 2018). In Canada, growth in land trust numbers, particularly on a regional scale, did not significantly advance until the 1990s. However, it is estimated that at present more than 100 ecological land trusts are operating across Canada (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.). The Ontario Land Trust Alliance (OLTA), an umbrella and advocacy organization for Ontario land trusts, was established in 2002. By 2020, OLTA had 34 local land trust member organizations, collectively protecting more than 43 500 hectares of significant natural lands and waters and sensitive wildlife habitat (Ontario Land Trust Alliance, n.d.).
The proliferation of the land trust movement over the last few decades is tied to a community desire to protect land beyond the mechanisms that governments can reasonably provide. While some protected areas in central and northern Ontario are very large, In the Mixedwood Plains of southern Ontario, where endangered species occur in the highest densities, statutory protected areas such as provincial or federal parks are very small and cover little cumulative area (MNRF 2019). In addition, government and other agencies are constrained in their ability to protect valued species and habitats on private lands (Merenlender et al. 2004). The strong population growth of southern Ontario with its rapid land development, and the decrease in public funds for land conservation, also contributed to the land trust movement and a need to engage new mechanisms to conserve land (Gustanski et al. 1999; Campbell and Salus 2003).
However, the organizational capacity of land trusts in Ontario varies significantly. Many small land trusts are run completely by volunteers with no paid staff members while some of the larger land trusts have up to ten or more paid staff members. In addition, stress factors such as population growth, industrial development, and infrastructure expansion tend to be amplified close to large population centres and therefore vary significantly throughout the province, often being much higher in southern Ontario than in northern Ontario. This is causing conservation priorities for rural versus urban land trusts, or southern versus northern land trusts, to be quite different.
Land trusts across Ontario tend to protect natural environments that are generally high in biodiversity but often located in regions with high threats of habitat degradation, fragmentation and habitat loss, threats that are compounded by the effects of climate change. In more southern regions of the province, where development pressures are higher, land trusts tend to protect smaller land parcels. Often, these parcels are among the few lands in their particular region that have been left relatively undisturbed by development or that are known to contain specific endangered species or their habitats. Since southern Ontario harbors one of the largest concentrations of species-at-risk in Canada, it may also be unsurprising that this region is home to many land trusts working to protect these species and their habitats. In more central and northern regions of Ontario, development pressures through urban expansion, infrastructure and industry are relatively lower. Despite the undeniable impacts of forestry operations on forest species composition and structure, threats of species loss, habitat degradation and habitat loss in these regions may be relatively smaller than in southern Ontario (Thompson et al. 2003, 2009; Vanderwel et al. 2009) and land trusts arguably may have an opportunity of protecting larger intact natural areas or significant wildlife corridors. Through their stewardship efforts, land trusts in Ontario are in a unique position to build resilience to climate change by protecting lands and waters that sequester carbon, regulate water flows, conserve ecological integrity, and maintain biodiversity.
2.3. Climate change in Ontario
The International Panel on Climate Change (2021) clearly articulated that Earth's climate has warmed at a rate that is unprecedented in recent millennia. Global surface temperatures have increased over the last four decades, with larger increases over land than over the oceans (IPCC 2021). In addition, warming continues to increase more each decade compared to previous decades (IPCC 2021). These global patterns play out across Canada as well although Canada is seeing larger increases than the global average. In Canada, the annual mean temperature has increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2018 (Vincent et al. 2020). The warming trends are more pronounced during winter than during summer, suggesting Canada's climate is becoming much less cold in winter, not just warmer in summer (Vincent et al. 2018).
Precipitation in Ontario has also increased with particularly large changes seen in southern Ontario (Mekis and Vincent 2011). Specifically, the number of days with rainfall and heavy rainfall as well as warm summer days (>25° C) and hot nights (>22° C) have increased in the southern portions of Ontario (Vincent et al. 2018). While the data for northern Ontario are more limited by shorter time series and fewer measuring stations, results for this region similarly suggest fewer consecutive frost days (≤0° C) and more warm summer days (>25 °C), as well as decreases in snowfall (Vincent et al. 2018). For Ontario overall, annual average temperatures from 1948 to 2008 have increased by approximately 1.5 °C (Gough et al. 2016). From 1979 to 2016, Ontario's annual total precipitation increased by 8%, with much greater increases in winter (24%) than summer (4%) (Deng et al. 2018). Increases in both temperature and precipitation across Ontario are expected to continue into the future regardless of climate projection scenarios (Ontario Climate Change Data Portal, n.d.). Depending on the exact location and climate change scenario used, average annual temperature increases of 1.6° C to 6.8 °C and average annual precipitation increases of 51 mm to 136 mm are projected by 2100 (Ontario Climate Data Portal, n.d.).
Climatic changes in Ontario are one of the drivers of the range changes for birds (Coristine and Kerr 2011), fish (Alofs et al. 2014) and mammals (Kennedy-Slaney et al. 2018). Consequently, traditional protected areas conservation based on assumptions of static conditions may not be sufficient anymore to achieve some species-based conservation targets in this region.
3. Climate change adaptation knowledge translation
3.1. Knowledge to action process framework
For the purposes of the current knowledge translation work, we are building on the knowledge to action process framework (Graham et al. 2006). While originally developed for education in the health professions, since its inception it has been applied in many other disciplines including in environmental sciences. The knowledge to action process framework separately deals with knowledge creation and with knowledge in action. The knowledge creation component is located at the centre of the framework. Here, new knowledge is generated through inquiry, which is then synthesized and expressed through knowledge products and tools (i.e., knowledge tailoring) (Fig. 2) (Graham et al. 2006). Knowledge in action is represented by an action cycle surrounding the central knowledge creation component of the framework (Graham et al. 2006). In this cycle, a problem is identified, knowledge is selected for translation, then knowledge is adapted to the required context and implemented through interventions, including strategies for overcoming barriers (Fig. 2). The use of knowledge should be monitored, and the results of knowledge use evaluated, enabling actions that support sustained and most effective knowledge use and perhaps lead to a new round of the action cycle. Graham et al. (2006) clearly acknowledged possible feedback loops between the stages of the action cycle as well as continuous influences of created knowledge on the action cycle stages. It is entirely probable that additional feedback loops exist from the action cycle to knowledge creation, but Graham et al. (2006) did not explicitly cover this form of interaction except for mentioning the complex and dynamic nature of the knowledge to action process.
Fig. 2.
The main actor in the current knowledge translation process was the Climate Action Working Group (CAWG) of the Ontario Land Trust Alliance (OLTA). Our knowledge translation work maps on several components of the knowledge to action process framework (Graham et al. 2006), with special focus on the action cycle of the framework. Our work covers problem identification, knowledge selection, adaptation of knowledge to the relevant context, assessment of knowledge use barriers, and implementation of an intervention process. The monitoring of knowledge use and the evaluation of the monitoring results to support actions for sustained knowledge use are ongoing and will continue into the future; therefore they are not extensively covered here.
3.2. Problem identification
In 2018, we completed a land trust climate change adaptation study inquiring into the existing knowledge of, approaches to, and levels of climate change adaptation by Ontario land trusts (Fig. 3). Drawing on survey responses from 15 land trusts (over one third of all OLTA and non-OLTA land trusts in Ontario) and subsequent key stakeholder interviews, several key results emerged that point toward the vulnerability of many land trusts to climate change. This study pointed toward a possible disconnect between existing climate change science, expected climate change impacts, and adaptation actions in the land trust and conservation communities. It appeared that it is difficult for some land trusts and conservation practitioners to translate climate change science into adaptation actions on a local scale.
Fig. 3.
3.3. Climate action working group of the Ontario land trust alliance
In response to the results from the land trust climate change adaptation study, and to help address the identified lack of knowledge and capacity, in 2018 OLTA created the Climate Action Working Group (CAWG) (Fig. 3). The CAWG includes representatives from the land trust community, OLTA staff, and academics, and is the main actor in the knowledge translation process. The goals of the CAWG are (1) to provide research, guidance and support to enhance private land conservation in Ontario under climate change, (2) to provide a platform for climate change information sharing, and (3) to increase public awareness of climate change as it affects land conservation.
In support of its goals, CAWG took several actions that map on the action cycle of the knowledge to action process (Graham et al. 2006). CAWG set out to develop tools, resources, and interventions to translate climate change science into on-the-ground land stewardship activities and develop communications tools that demonstrate the importance of land conservation and stewardship to combat climate change.
CAWG work was operationalized along two parallel strands: (1) increasing land trusts’ understanding of the interactions between climate change and land conservation, and (2) development of a tool that helps land trusts to build knowledge about their local climate change risks and adaptation options (Fig. 3). The culmination and meeting point of these two strands was a series of workshops for use of the climate change risk assessment tool for Ontario land trusts. From there flowed steps for the building of a community of practice (Wenger 2011; Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015) for climate change adaptation and risk assessment and adaptation actions taken by individual land trusts (Fig. 3). These actions and their mapping on the knowledge to action process are described below.
3.4. Climate change vulnerability assessment tool
The land trust community across Ontario plays a significant role in preserving biodiversity in areas with high threats from climate change. Based on past and ongoing research, those directly engaged in on-the-ground conservation efforts experience some uncertainty around assessing vulnerability and increasing resilience of conservation lands. The climate change vulnerability assessment tool (CCVAT) developed by OLTA is meant to help land trusts build resilience to climate change by informing conservation practitioners about climate change risks and adaptation options.
The CCVAT provides a framework which assists conservation practitioners in understanding how climate change may impact their local conservation lands. Users input information about a conservation area including conservation targets, other existing threats (e.g., invasive species, infrastructure development), and geographic location. Users then work through a series of steps to gain an understanding of the climate projections for their specific region under various timeframes and emission scenarios. They identify climate stressors and consider how they may impact the conservation area and assess the conservation lands’ adaptive capacity based on a range of social and ecological factors. Once the user has worked through these steps, the tool provides a vulnerability score for each conservation target allowing the user to prioritize land stewardship actions. The final step in the process includes consultation of information sourced from an adaptation options database developed by Parks Canada. Conservation practitioners are encouraged to review these adaptation options and consider whether they could implement them to help address various climate stressors and increase climate resilience.
The CAWG piloted the CCVAT in 2019-2020 with four Ontario land trusts. The participating OLTA members and conservation practitioners worked through the tool steps, identified vulnerabilities to conservation lands, developed action plans, and implemented stewardship actions to build climate change resilience. The CCVAT was then updated based on feedback from the conservation practitioners to increase its accessibility and usefulness for Ontario land trusts.
3.5. Climate change vulnerability survey
In 2021, CAWG developed a survey to better understand land trusts’ knowledge of climate change, how vulnerable they believe they might be to the effects of climate change, and whether they are taking any actions to decrease their vulnerabilities. The survey also included questions that inquired into the resources that land trusts might have used when assessing their climate change vulnerability and whether the land trusts believe they might benefit from additional tools that might help them in their assessments. This survey was shared electronically with all OLTA member land trusts. The results from this survey provided additional information about land trusts’ perspectives on climate change related conservation challenges, as well as potential resource and information needs. This information was then used to tailor the subsequent knowledge translation work to connect with these perspectives and needs.
3.6. Climate action video series
To demonstrate the importance of land conservation and stewardship as a way of building climate-resilient communities, the CAWG worked with a team of communications specialists to develop a series of educational videos. Three of the videos featured individual land trusts located in southern and central Ontario (Ontario Land Trust Alliance 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Each of the videos provided information about a specific land conservation project the land trust was working on and the role of that project in building community climate resilience. A fourth video was developed to highlight the role of land trusts across Ontario in mitigating and adapting to climate change. This series of videos was released online in 2021. Access to the videos was promoted through several online channels, including OLTA's website and email newsletter, and the social media feeds of land trusts, individual conservation practitioners, and CAWG members.
3.7. Climate action webinar series
Following the release of the climate action video series, CAWG hosted a climate action webinar series. This was a series of three virtual webinars for land trusts, allied conservation practitioners, and other individuals interested in land conservation. The webinars were developed to foster knowledge and learn about climate change impacts and actions being taken both locally and internationally. Each webinar consisted of one or several presentations, followed by a question-and-answer period during which the audience was able to converse with presenters. Each webinar was facilitated by a member of CAWG who introduced the webinar topic and the presenters, moderated questions from the audience, and provided additional questions or commentary. The webinars brought together national and international practitioners, decision-makers and researchers in the land conservation field.
The first webinar consisted of a keynote presentation. The main goal of this webinar was to draw public attention to the work of CAWG, especially from individuals who operate in the land conservation field. This webinar focused on the important contributions of land conservation for building communities that are resilient to climate change. The second webinar gathered international conservation experts from the USA and Australia. The main goal of this webinar was to share international perspectives on the effects of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem functions, as well as land conservation measures taken in response or anticipation of these effects. The third webinar gathered conservation experts from Ontario. The focus of this webinar was to share insights on the interactions between land conservation and climate change including Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives.
Following each webinar, and we circulated a post-event survey to participants. This survey was meant to gain an understanding of knowledge gained from the webinar, whether the information provided might influence the work of the participant in the future, and questions related to the quality of the presenters and presentations. The climate action webinar series was promoted through online and social media channels, primarily OLTA's website and email newsletter, as well as the social media feeds of land trusts and CAWG members.
3.8. Climate change vulnerability assessment tool workshop series
Following the climate action webinar series, CAWG hosted a series of three workshops to further increase land trusts’ understanding of climate change impacts for land conservation, approaches for climate change vulnerability assessments, and possible climate change adaptation responses. The workshops provided land trusts with hands-on experience with the CCVAT. Each workshop included an overview of one or two steps of the CCVAT use, a case study presented by a land trust that participated in the 2019–2020 CCAVT pilot, followed by breakout sessions where land trusts were grouped by region to work through the CCVAT process for a selected property.
To understand the usefulness of the tool, the knowledge transfer that occurred, and the knowledge gaps that remained, CAWG sent participants a post-event survey after the third workshop. This survey aimed to gather information about the knowledge and skills participants built through workshop participation, whether the participants were likely to apply the learned content in the future, and general questions about the quality of the workshops. In addition, the survey aimed to capture elements of the CCVAT the participants felt were most important, those that remained unclear, and those that were not covered adequately in the workshops. The workshops were promoted through the previous climate action webinar series, as well as through several online and social media channels, such as OLTA's website and email newsletter, and the social media feeds of CAWG members.
3.9. Climate change vulnerability knowledge application
The CCVAT was used by four Ontario land trusts to assess potential climate change vulnerabilities for their land conservation operations. Following these assessments, OCAWG developed a climate action plan for one property of each participating land trust. These climate action plans outlined priority activities that would increase climate change resilience on the selected property.
The main climate change vulnerabilities identified by the four land trusts revolved around species range changes and their impacts on community composition, as well as negative impacts of contaminants carried by increased surface water runoff. Adaptation measures taken included: (1) building buffers between roads and sensitive ecosystems to limit salt damage, (2) expanding forests along creek banks to reduce erosion and sediment input, (3) assisting migration of plant species’ seed material in line with projected latitudinal movement of climate envelopes, and (4) enriching forest seedling and sapling bank diversity in former monoculture plantations.
Implementation of the climate action plans commenced in 2020 and is ongoing. This was a first step in the practical implementation of climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation measures in the Ontario land trust sector with support by the CAWG.
3.10. Climate change adaptation community of practice
In October 2022, the Summit of Canadian Land Trusts took place in Ottawa, Ontario. Over 160 participants from across Canada attended the Summit. At this Summit, the CAWG presented the CCAVT and other resources produced by the group. The presentation included a breakout session where participants were asked to work through a few steps of the CCVAT to understand how climate change may impact conservation targets on conservation lands. After the breakout session, participants reconvened and shared learnings and recommendations. This was the first step in the process of forming a climate change adaptation community of practice (Wenger 2011) for the Ontario land trust sector.
4. Methods
Following each step in the knowledge translation process, participants were asked to provide feedback through surveys. The feedback responses were gathered in a database. In addition, workshop sessions were audio recorded and the recordings transcribed. The transcripts were added to the previously mentioned database. The database was then used to assess how the knowledge translation process unfolded and whether the knowledge translation process was successful in furthering land trust climate change adaptation. For this purpose, we conducted a text analysis of the database inquiring about challenges and facilitators that were experienced by land trust conservation practitioners when growing their understanding of climate change, assessing their climate change vulnerability, planning climate change adaptation measures, and implementing these adaptation measures.
Text coding followed an iterative process and drew on several coding approaches. In first cycle coding, we used hypothesis coding to infer general challenges and facilitators experienced by conservation practitioners, and we used descriptive coding to understand specific emerging challenges and facilitators. In second cycle coding, we used pattern coding to identify related groups of data, recognize challenge and facilitator themes, and attribute meaning to these themes (Saldaña 2009). All coding and text analysis was conducted in MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2020 (Release 20.4.1).
This study has been reviewed by the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics and clearance has been granted (ORE # 45356).
5. Findings
In the following sections, we report on the experiences of land trust representatives and other land conservation practitioners with the previously described climate change adaptation knowledge translation process. The entire process in its totality led to 185 participations and 68 instances of feedback and comment, from individuals belonging to at least 35 different organizations. Given these participations and corresponding feedback instances, our overall response rate is 37%. The exact number of unique participants cannot be calculated because participation, collected feedback, and comment data were anonymized to protect participants’ identities.
We cover challenges and facilitators for the uptake of climate change adaptation knowledge as well for the application of this knowledge. Our analyses led to the identification of four major challenge themes and three major facilitator themes. While some of the themes seem clearly separate, others are more connected or even overlapping.
5.1. Challenges
5.1.1. Lack of resources
Many land trusts, especially smaller ones, struggle with continuously low levels of funding. Low funding levels affect these organizations in various ways, of which perhaps the most obvious is staff shortages and a reliance on unpaid volunteers to conduct many core activities, for example land stewardship work. As addressed by a land trust staff member: “Activities are often driven by time and staffing constraints, and as everything … [by] money issues.” (ID 6677)
The available land trust staff hardly has enough time and resources to get all work done, even under normal circumstances. If additional challenges, such as climate change, are added to the existing ones, there is a high likelihood that these additional challenges cannot be addressed given the available resources. As voiced by a land trust member “Most land trusts apply for grant dollars to fund projects and activities. Are there grant dollars readily available for climate change adaptation?” (ID 6677) A lack of financial resources can make it even difficult for land trusts to apply for government grant programs because these often require matching funds and preparatory work. These constraints make it very difficult for land trusts to break through a cycle of underfunding and to finance additional projects that may be required for climate change adaptation. As explained by another land trust staff member:
Often climate change adaptation projects are multi-year and hard to fund. Government funds often require a one-to-one match, which can be difficult for some land trusts. It is hard to find funding for the planning phase of projects, and without that phase, it is hard to develop comprehensive grant applications. (ID 18455)
Continuing lack of financial resources also means that many land trusts find it difficult to finance active land management (e.g., removal of invasive species) on their lands. Instead, land trusts may opt for land conservation through fee simple land acquisition or accepting conservation easements. By necessity, these lands would have to be relatively pristine and may not require active land management but can be managed passively (e.g., allowing population dynamics to unfold without intervention). As one land trust member remarked:
We have a rather fairly passive management approach to a lot of these things. We see to that nature take its course here, as best we can. So, we are not used to, or we are not used to doing a lot of it, with a few exceptions. (ID 92552)
However, in many instances climate change adaptation requires at least some minimum level of active land management, such as reducing other compounding risk factors that might occur simultaneously with changes in climate.
5.1.2. Limited technical skills and understanding of climate change
Many smaller land trusts largely or completely run on volunteers for their land conservation planning and activities. Working with volunteers provides many benefits to these organizations, such as keeping expenses low, creating closer connections with their local communities, and using opportunities to educate local community members about land stewardship. Volunteers usually are passionate about their land trust and its mission to conserve local lands. However, working with volunteers also can come with some challenges. Many volunteers tend to be youth or older adults that are retired, because these individuals may have more disposable time than people during their main working lifetime. While many volunteers are greatly skilled, others may lack some of the knowledge base required for assessing and responding to local climate change risks. For example, one land trust member mentioned:
The climate projection part, of course, is important … some people do not understand these numbers. What does that mean? How does that affect whatever I want to do? And that is the thing, that there is a gap that needs to be filled. (ID 73199)
Other volunteers may lack the skills and technical capacity (e.g., computer skills) to run modern software tools that can support the technical planning of climate change adaptation. As one workshop moderator commented: “One person was not a “computer person,” so really struggled with just navigating Excel and Zoom” (ID 24785). Especially younger volunteers (e.g., students) may work for a land trust only for a short time before they move on to other career opportunities. For a land trust, this limits the value of any potential training of such volunteers and may reduce a land trust's willingness to make such an investment.
If professional land conservation staff members are available at the land trusts, they are often overworked and lack the time to provide advanced training for their volunteers. These staff members may also lack the time to acquire training in new technical skills and knowledge for themselves. When asked what land trusts would need to support their climate change adaptation efforts, many mentioned the need for more staff: “Additional resources for more staff time” (ID 18192). They also indicated that they needed better access to data as well as planning and assessment tools:
At this point, we would like to have access to data and assessment tools to better understand and implement a plan to address adverse effects of climate change in our watershed. (ID 77161)
The existing shortage of technical skills, data, and knowledge means that many land trust staff members and volunteers have limited ability to generate climate change adaptation solutions themselves. To address such capacity limitations, land trusts might prefer to hire additional staff, or attract more volunteers, who do not need to be trained but already possess the required new knowledge and skills. As one webinar attendee mentioned when asked what their land trust needed to improve their climate change adaptation efforts: “Experienced staff to do the work!” (ID 50645) Of course, this would require additional funds, which are hard to acquire especially for small land trusts. Alternatively, land trusts might welcome it if third parties could provide the required capacity and suggest solutions to the land trusts who only had to implement them. As remarked by one land trust member:
I would suggest that [the Ontario Land Trust Alliance] provide a [climate change] specialist over a three-year period that would work directly with land trusts to evaluate their current projects and see where the adaptations could be of most benefit. (ID 6677)
5.1.3. Limited knowledge of species ecology and land holdings
Individual land trust members can be uncertain about ecological responses to climate change, especially at the species level. This may be caused by a lack of scientific information that is available for certain species, by a lack of access to the relevant knowledge databases, or a lack of time to acquire deeper species-level knowledge. As one workshop participant indicated:
It might be harder and harder, especially for some species that we do not know much about, you know, […] for some of those species-at-risk snakes […] And we are like, … we do not know. (ID 1195)
While most land trusts prepare property management plans, some smaller land trusts may not have such plans, as they are too resource- and capacity-constrained to create them. As one land trust member remarked: “Those are land trusts that just do not have the staff capacity to undertake that sort of planning” (ID 18455). Being understaffed and overworked, some land trust employees also may not have extensive amounts of time to spend in the field and get to know all land trust properties equally well. Consequently, they may be uncertain how a property is or should be managed. Some land trusts are conducting ecosystem restoration projects or have done so in the past. However, some smaller land trusts tend to mainly conserve land passively, i.e., they acquire relatively pristine lands and protect them against development, but they may not actively manage these lands. As one land trust staff member remarked:
Land trusts that do passive management, […] hold title only, do not have [property management] plans and do not do any on the ground stewardship work. This can be the case with small-size land trusts. (ID 1195)
But climate change adaptation requires understanding of chains of mechanisms and interactions. It also requires drawing up a climate change adaptation plan and then implementing it. Unfortunately, when property management is largely passive or when assessment of climate change vulnerability is constrained by limited knowledge of species and property, it is difficult to conceive of what should be changed in a property's management to enable climate change adaptation.
5.1.4. Competing priorities and perspectives on land management
Land trusts have a large range of responsibilities such as donor management, land transactions, required monitoring, community outreach, and so forth. These responsibilities are very tangible and mostly require immediate attention, leaving little time, energy, and focus to attend to and care about less tangible or seemingly less immediate issues such as climate change adaptation. In addition, climate change may seem to be such a huge problem that it discourages some land trusts from taking any action at all. Therefore, smaller-scoped and more tangible tasks compete for the limited resources available and push climate change adaptation toward lower priority. As one land trust staff member explained:
[Climate change] feels like an insurmountable problem, and so land trusts tackle more in-your-face issues. […] Climate change projects may require more resources and planning than others, so land trusts tackle smaller, more manageable projects instead. (ID 18455)
In addition, some land trusts do not perceive climate change to be a challenge they might have to deal with. Leadership among these land trusts may believe that nature will just take care of itself. This perspective may be especially present among land trusts that are located outside of more densely developed areas or in remote regions, and that might not experience many additional other threats. As one land trust member explained:
We […] cannot see how such a [climate change] assessment will make any difference to our present management actions as we have very limited management actions on our lands anyway - we just let nature manage things on the land without human interventions. This is unlikely to change our plans. Knowing that it will be hotter or drier, or more fires will happen, will not alter our property management actions as far as I can see. (ID 76830)
On the other hand, other land trusts that are located in more densely settled areas, may experience a larger number of development-related threats to their landholdings compared to more remote land trusts. These land trusts might have too many urgent land conservation issues to deal with to leave much time for the longer-term work on climate change adaptation. As one land trust staff member shared:
I think location and proximity to urban environments may be at play here. More remote land trusts might have less concerns than urban locations with a lot of public access. These urban issues may outweigh climate change concerns because they are more in-your-face. (ID 18455)
5.2. Facilitators
5.2.1. Interest in addressing climate change
Many land trusts have the perception that they know what climate change looks like in general terms and they have a basic understanding of climate change adaptation options. Some land trusts even have staff members who work in additional positions for other organizations on issues surrounding climate change. Individuals such as these can bring valuable outside experience to the land trust, illustrated by comments such as “Various staff work on various climate change committees, so I'm unsure what other resources are needed” (ID 8980). However, there is a widespread readiness and interest among many land trusts to learn more about how climate change adaptation is looking in practical management terms in a land conservation context. For example, when asked what additional resources their land trust required for climate change adaptation, one staff member remarked they needed “help choosing [climate change adaptation] actions to help mitigate effects on conservation values” (ID 93459).
Certainly, some land trusts feel overwhelmed by the prospect of having to do any more work and by the perception that climate change adaptation is fully outside their control. However, other land trusts understand that land conservation by itself often is a form of climate change adaptation and mitigation. This argument could be used to convince land trusts that climate change adaptation is not unachievable. For example, one staff member of a land trust remarked:
I feel like it is similar with these whole nature-based climate solutions. There is all this kind of new funding going towards that. And it is like, most of that is work that we are already doing. It is just a different way of packaging it up. (ID 10381)
In addition, it might help many land trusts to realize that part of the work they are doing already might only require some modest modifications to further their climate change adaptation goals. For example, when restoration work is done and re-seeding of an area is required, some flexibility could be considered in the geographic origin of the seed source. As one land trust staff member stated:
So much of what we do to protect the sites already helps create resilience in the face of climate change. […] And these are not necessarily always add-ons, but there could be tweaks. Like, we were going to do two acres of restoration and typically we would just get local seed sources and not think twice about it. But this made us really think, should we maybe expand that because local is not the best when you are taking a long-term lens. (ID 1195)
As well, land conservation can be understood as an approach to climate change mitigation through increasing carbon stocks in restored vegetation or protecting carbon stocks in existing vegetation. Other co-benefits of conserved lands include the management of floodwaters and micro-climate regulation. Highlighting these global (carbon) and local (water, micro-climate) benefits may serve as arguments to strengthen the case for the land conservation work done by land trusts. Land trusts might be able to utilize this perspective to rally support for expanding their landholdings, which may help in climate change adaptation through larger protected areas, more buffer spaces, and corridors. As one land trust staff member explained:
I would be much more interested in considering how our protected properties can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation, and how our land securement plans could be tailored to make even greater contributions in this area. (ID 52336)
5.2.2. Using tools to simplify complex situations for reasoned decision-making
Every land trust is different and there is great diversity in contextual factors (e.g., organizational structure, finances, threats), characteristics of the landholdings, and the specific ecosystems protected. This diversity is an important asset for the land trust sector overall, but it also may lead to the impression that there is limited opportunity to easily transfer learnings between land trusts or to draw general conclusions, and that every land trust has to “start from zero.” In addition, since many land trust staff members already are at or beyond capacity with their usual set of tasks, there is limited opportunity to do any additional communications work and exchange diverse learnings between land trusts. In such circumstances, using an abstracted climate change adaptation model that applies a slightly simplified, less complex structure to land trusts may compel land trusts to re-think their situation. Such a simplified model may prompt land trusts to explain implicit assumptions, clarify intuitive understandings, and focus on main factors. As one land trust staffer explained in a workshop:
It is interesting still to get fresh ideas from [the tool]. And it also taught us, when we went through the tool with the [area name], the end result was the tool was saying this is a pretty secure property. It does not have high vulnerability because it is not having all these conflicting issues of housing and all of these other things. (ID 71093)
Applying a structured model may also help land trusts express their situation in a common language and framework that allows more easy comparison between landholdings or land trusts. And the opportunity to use a well-structured tool for climate change adaptation planning, such as the climate change vulnerability assessment tool that was developed for the current knowledge translation process, can support land trusts in their reasoned decision-making based on clear and explicit assumptions and relationships. At the very least, it can form the basis for further discussion. These discussions could involve exploring “what if” scenarios regarding different climate change futures, the responses of different ecosystem types, the cumulative effects of co-occurring threats, and different adaptation options and choices, perhaps leading to modified management plans. As one workshop participant mentioned:
It is a nice tool to use to help you prioritize the more than enough work everybody is trying to get done. We always think about the [area name] as this high priority area for protection, which it is. But the tool helped us realize that, you know, it does not mean it needs hands-on attention right now. There are other habitats we could focus more on. (ID 71093)
5.2.3. Sharing resources
Many smaller land trusts are very resource constrained and have no or very limited access to climate change databases. In addition, if climate change information is publicly available, often it is not presented in an easily digestible and locally relevant format. Given these constraints, it might help land trusts if resources could be shared such as access to specialized knowledge databases (e.g., databases of down-scaled climate change data or practical climate change adaptation options). As one workshop participant explained:
For example, through [software name], you can look up other projects and we have actually pulled some information for [key environmental indicators] from other open projects online. Because now they have your [software name] online. So even if it was a [online platform] situation, if people were willing to share things, you know, obviously not sensitive or you can strip location information, or like you said, kind of like a menu, that would be amazing because something that we struggle to have actions associated with, that was in there. (ID 52455)
Other land trusts are constrained in the number of staff members, their time, and funds. In this situation, use of a shared climate change adaptation support person could be very helpful. Such a position possibly could be funded by an umbrella organization for land trust advocacy, such as the OLTA, or by larger conservation agencies, some of which are of national level and much better resourced than most land trusts. As one workshop participant explained:
Many of us understand the need to adapt to climate change, but we see having a lack of knowledgeable staffing as the obstacle. […] I would suggest that [the Ontario Land Trust Alliance] provide a [climate change] specialist over a three-year period that would work directly with [land trusts] to evaluate their current projects and see where the adaptations could be of most benefit. (ID 6677)
Since the use of a model requires translation of practical knowledge and on the ground issues into conceptual model terms and some land trust staff members or volunteers may not be familiar with these tasks, discussions among staff members or volunteers and “power” users at times may be required. Such discussions can provide useful spin-off effects for the exchange of experiences, clarification of approaches, and so forth that might not happen otherwise. In this sense, the potential challenges of using a model can serve as the required impetus to try overcoming potential communications barriers between land conservation practitioners. When this sort of communication is formalized and scaled up to a larger group of individuals that share a common interest, then the formation of a community of practice (Wenger 2011) may be possible and could support knowledge sharing about climate change adaptation between land trusts. For example, a desire for this kind of communications platform was expressed by an audience member in a climate change adaptation webinar:
I hope to get some insight into what other groups are working on, which could possibly be implemented in our area. (ID 73854)
Naturally, one of the challenges for the success of any resource or knowledge sharing structures would be how to ensure its persistence over the longer term. Many of the difficulties that limit land trusts’ initial engagement with climate change adaptation knowledge in the first place, also apply and may even be magnified when considering changes to land trusts’ strategies and operations that would be required for truly lasting climate change adaptation. As one workshop participant observed “We really are on the adaptation front of, you know, how do we manage these lands for the long-term given what is coming” (ID 1195). As with many other issues, durable and dedicated funding is a central factor that would allow the creation and maintenance of lasting structures (e.g., staff positions or communications platforms) that support land trusts in climate change adaptation activities over the long term.
6. Discussion
A recent literature review of private land conservation studies worldwide identified Canada as one of the most studied countries, following the USA, Australia and South Africa (Cortés-Capano et al. 2019). However, besides a few notable exceptions (e.g., Gerber 2012; Bunce and Aslam 2016), land trusts have not been studied much in Canada even though they are an increasingly important approach to private land conservation. At the same time, there has been increasing interest in trying to understand how land trusts could adapt their operations in response to the impacts of climatic change on the distribution of plant and animal communities (e.g., Ruddock et al. 2013; Rissman et al. 2015; Owley et al. 2018). Our work is addressing this combined need for increased knowledge on Canadian land trusts and on land trust climate change adaptation. Focusing on land trusts in Ontario, Canada, the experiences gathered through our knowledge translation process demonstrated a number of challenge and facilitator themes for the uptake and application of climate change knowledge.
6.1. Challenges and facilitators
Our results mirror the findings of other studies in the conservation decision-making space. Regularly encountered factors that influence the use of evidence in decision-making include the accessibility of evidence; the relevance and applicability of evidence; the capacity, resources, and finances of a participating organization; and transaction costs for learning the evidence (Kadykalo et al. 2021; Cooke et al. 2023). Many land trusts that participated in our knowledge translation activities reported funding constraints as a challenge to pursuing climate change work at their organization. Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as land trusts, are often facing funding challenges that affect their ability to do mission work or take on additional projects (Weerawardena et al. 2010; Beachy 2011; Lasby and Barr 2018; Canada Helps 2022). Various studies have demonstrated that many NGOs lack adequate funding, particularly predictable and long-term funding, to sustain operations (Weerawardena et al. 2010; Beachy 2011). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic was a very difficult time for all NGOs, causing losses of revenue, increased costs, and demand for their services outstripping capacity (Ontario Nonprofit Network 2022). Of all Canadian NGOs, environmental organizations receive a very small proportion of the donations from overall charitable giving in Canada, ranging between 2% and 5% over the last two decades (Lasby and Barr 2018; Canada Helps 2022). These funding challenges in turn affect organizational capacity in the form of staff recruitment, retention, and training, staff time allocation, volunteer training and supervision, and access to resources needed to address climate change.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation actions are lacking at global and national scales, despite the known urgency of the crisis. Multiple studies have identified that adaptation is not being undertaken by many groups due to lack of capacity, unclear frameworks, lack of understanding of real or anticipated climate change impacts, and confusion of what needs to be done (Lemieux and Scott 2011; Lemieux et al. 2011; Eisenack et al. 2014; Baird et al. 2016; Stafford-Smith et al. 2022; Barr et al. 2021; Henstra 2017) . Our experiences suggest that capacity constraints in the land trust community are manifested in several ways. Land trusts reported lack of staff time, volunteer time, technical expertise and knowledge about lands as barriers to acting on climate change. Much like businesses in Canada, the majority of NGOs tend to be small organizations with 60% having less than 10 employees (Statistics Canada 2007). Unlike small businesses, however, NGOs rely very heavily on volunteers for labour with the average Canadian NGO having a full-time equivalent split of 36% volunteers and 64% employees and contractors (Statistics Canada 2007).
The story is quite different for environmental NGOs where the split is skewed much heavier towards volunteers (70% volunteers and 30% staff) (Statistics Canada 2007). Recent reports show the trend continues with 90% of Canadian charities employing ten or fewer full-time staff and 58% being fully run by volunteers (Canada Helps 2022). NGOs are also facing a human resources crisis for recruitment and retention of staff members, likely due to precarious and lower paying work than other sectors (Ontario Nonprofit Network 2022).
Paralleling the previously described national-level trends, most Ontario land trusts are small and depend on volunteers for labour. Of the 24 Ontario land trusts for which data was available at the time of the current study, thirteen (54%) had ten or fewer staff members and eight (33%) had no paid staff members at all (M. Johnston-Clayton, personal communication, March 9, 2023). These capacity restrictions often result in staff members who are overworked and unable to take on additional projects or challenges, such as climate change adaptation, or to train and supervise additional volunteers. A mixture of staffed and volunteer land trusts participated in our knowledge translation activities, but the majority (76%) of those who participated in the workshop series were land trusts with salaried staff members, suggesting that adequate human resources is a key component of engaging with climate change adaptation work.
But a lack of climate change adaptation capacity is not limited to the environmental NGO sector in Canada. A recent study by Barr and Lemieux (2021) indicates that also Canadian national parks seem to lack progress on climate change adaptation despite the growing understanding of a need to do so. The evidence suggests that while national parks may have strengths such as in the mapping of the local ecological resources and access to climate change planning tools, there are challenges such as in the training of staff members and their empowerment to take climate change action (Barr and Lemieux 2021).
Given that land trusts operate in a range of locations, with differing geographic and demographic pressures and concerns, it is unsurprising that there is also a range of perceptions for how to best prepare for climate change. Adaptive management approaches may be avoided for numerous reasons including difficulty understanding climate science (Nordgren et al. 2016), resource deficits (Lonsdale et al. 2017), cognitive dissonance or apathy toward the problem (Davidson and Kecinski 2022), or a preference for a passive management approach (Hagerman and Satterfield 2013). The latter is particularly prevalent in more remote land trusts where larger intact habitats are being protected and where the range of acute environmental threats might be relatively lower compared to land trusts located in more densely developed regions.
Despite the reluctance of some land trusts to actively engage in climate change adaptation, most land trusts already make management decisions for their stewarded lands that regularly align with climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. Decision makers consider environmental, financial, and policy factors when choosing management practices to minimize environmental impacts to soil and water quality, and in doing so support climate change mitigation efforts. Land trusts have an important role in protecting existing forests, reforesting areas, and reducing emissions from deforestation, which might be the alternative for the lands in question. Simply setting aside land for conservation, protecting it from development or degradation, can be a climate change mitigation strategy (Huang et al. 2019). There is an opportunity to more strongly and effectively integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation actions that could lead to a more efficient allocation of financial funds to both kinds of projects, and reduction of trade-offs between various land use activities (Locatelli et al. 2016).
Restoring highly ecologically sensitive lands can improve water quality (Johnson et al. 2016), enhance wildlife habitat (Hiller et al. 2015), reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Gelfand et al. 2011), reduce soil erosion and nutrient loads (Gleason et al. 2011), and limit potential flood damage (Todhunter and Rundquist 2008). Reframing climate change adaptation strategies as modest changes to the on-the-ground land conservation work already being done may help lift the existing philosophical constraints or perceptions that are preventing climate change adaptation action now. This may result in an overall increase in land trusts involved in this work and overall community awareness, preparedness, and action.
Several facilitating factors were also identified that have led to climate change adaptation action in land trusts and could be used to encourage more action across Ontario. Collaboration between conservation organizations was identified as an important facilitator for climate change adaptation action. Our experiences suggest that this collaboration could consist of the sharing of resources and regular communication between these organization. Other studies have also found that collaboration between organizations can be an important opportunity for facilitating climate change adaptation actions such as a study in several North American landscapes including northern Ontario (Lonsdale et al. 2017). This collaboration does not need to be just between conservation organizations. Relationships built between various kinds of actors including environmental NGOs, local governments, Indigenous communities, landowners, and scientists can be effective at mobilizing resources, broadening support, and more fulsome implementation in local contexts (Russell et al. 2014; Lonsdale et al. 2017). In addition, collaboration among agencies with neighboring jurisdictions can support regional efforts for climate change adaptation, as suggested by a study of two regions in Colorado and South Dakota, USA (Lemieux et al. 2015).
Our experiences suggest that land trusts can benefit in their climate change adaptation planning from the use of tools that support the analysis of climate change vulnerabilities. Use of these tools can help shift priorities to account for potential climate change impacts, an important consideration when entering into conservation easements, a frequently used strategy for land trusts (Rissman et al. 2015; Owley et al. 2018). Application of these and related tools often is facilitated by collaboration between users when learning to use the tool and acquiring the required data. This collaboration requires users to communicate explicitly with each other about the study areas and clarify any inconsistencies in knowledge and understanding. In this way, using a tool can help users think more deeply about their climate change problem, even if they do not continue to use the tool afterwards. For instance, Reiter et al. (2018) found that users of environmental decision support systems for climate change adaptation tended not to continue using the tools after their development phase. But the majority of end users valued the tools, and their experiences with the tools led them to engage in climate change adaptation actions and changed their understanding of climate change adaptation. Not surprisingly, though, continued user support by organizations that developed climate change adaptation tools has been identified as a factor leading to even greater success in facilitating change in climate change adaptation practices (Reiter et al. 2019). While not addressed in our knowledge translation study thus far, building on the abovementionedorganizational support function, one of the end goals of the currently described knowledge translation process is the creation of a climate change adaptation community of practice under the guidance of OLTA, which is expected to lead to even greater gains for land trusts’ climate change adaptation.
6.2. Knowledge translation and organizational change
Our work is connecting with several elements of the Knowledge to Action Process Framework (Graham et al. 2006). We have created a knowledge translation tool, the climate change vulnerability assessment tool (CCVAT), that has synthesized much of the available climate change knowledge for Ontario, and have cast it into a form that is tailored for the land conservation context. We have designed and implemented knowledge intervention initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and knowledge of climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation options for Ontario land trusts, as well as creating enabling situations that allow land trusts envision and plan climate change adaptation projects. Subsequently, we have worked with several land trusts to use their new knowledge about climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation and apply it in several pilot land conservation projects. Finally, we have started the process of spreading climate change adaptation knowledge further throughout the land trust community and promote its sustained use with initial steps at forming a community of practice (Wenger 2011).
A considerable body of research exists that covers various aspects of the process of knowledge translation for better conservation decision-making. Often, this research identifies scientists who are creating research outputs that may be ill-suited for practical application as the reason for insufficient knowledge translation (e.g., Kharouba 2024). However, the responsibility for generating conditions under which practice-relevant knowledge can be created and exchanged, is shared by science producers and science users who need to work together (Bisbal and Eaton 2022; Ladouceur et al. 2022; Cooke et al. 2023; Bisbal 2024). A critical component in the Knowledge to Action Process Framework (Graham et al. 2006) is the connection of knowledge creation to the action cycle. Well-adapted synthesis products are required for this connection to work, but this step requires user needs to be (made) known to scientists (Cooke et al. 2023). Boundary organizations can help here by bridging between scientists and practitioners, serving as knowledge brokers, and producing boundary objects that facilitate knowledge exchange (Kadykalo et al. 2021; Bisbal and Eaton 2022).
The CCVAT, produced by OLTA as a boundary object to promote the uptake of climate change adaptation knowledge by land trusts, provided the abovementionedbridge between science and practice (Cooke et al. 2023). The CCVAT thus presented the connection between knowledge creation and the action cycle in the Knowledge to Action Process Framework (Graham et al. 2006). However, our results highlight that even under conditions of an identified science need (i.e., climate change adaptation by land trusts) and existence of a tailored boundary object (i.e., CCVAT), barriers for knowledge translation remained. The current knowledge translation project embraced learning of new evidence as a social process that engaged groups of researchers and practitioners (Toomey 2023). But despite these favorable conditions, barriers were observed among land trusts relating to lack of resources, limited technical capacity and domain knowledge, as well as competing priorities.
The elements of the Knowledge to Action Process Framework (Graham et al. 2006) that are less well developed in our work so far relate to the monitoring of climate change knowledge use and evaluation of the outcomes of knowledge use. However, the involvement of OLTA as a key stakeholder in the current knowledge translation work promises sustained momentum for this initiative. As a leading institution in the land trust movement in Ontario and in Canada, OLTA is well positioned to periodically reach out to member land trusts and other land conservation practitioners and inquire about their progress in climate change adaptation work. Current advice suggests that such inquiries should cover quantitative and qualitative data collection approaches, where quantitative data offer the possibility of generalizing results while qualitative data can indicate deeper meaning and provide contextual information (Straus et al. 2010). The results from this inquiry could then be used to influence how climate change adaptation knowledge might be further translated and applied in the land conservation sector into the future.
The next steps for increasing climate change preparedness of the Ontario land conservation sector include the continued sharing of resources and tools with the community through webinars and workshops. While OLTA represents the interests of Ontario land trusts, it also draws much interest from other land conservation practitioners that regularly participate in OLTA activities and make use of OLTA resources. An important facilitator will be to secure funding that can be used to improve the existing climate change adaptation tool. For instance, the accessibility of the tool could be increased by creating a general user interface that reduces as much as possible any requirements for prior knowledge and experience with computing software. Also, the knowledge database that is underlying the tool could be continuously expanded with newly emerging scientific information (e.g., new downscaled climate change projections or species ecological information) and experiential information contributed by land conservation practitioners, as is possible with some other conservation decisions-making tools (Margoluis et al. 2013; Christie et al. 2022; Cooke et al. 2023).
Other uses for additional funding might include actions to overcome capacity limitations in the land conservation sector, for example through a dedicated climate change adaptation outreach position. Such a position could be housed by a regional or national land conservation organization such as OLTA or the recently formed Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts. Other steps that can help overcome challenges for climate change adaptation include fostering a community of practice to increase the use of shared resources, communications between organizations, and access to background literature and studies. As well, collaboration with other organizations across sectors (e.g., governmental conservation agencies) may help overcome institutional limitations and facilitate regional climate change adaptation (Lonsdale et al. 2017). Finally, collaboration might be beneficial across jurisdictions, such as with the Land Trust Alliance in the USA, which has well-established climate change tools and programs in place that could be adapted to the Ontario context and applied here (e.g., Water Words that Work 2018).
6.3. Recommendations
Based on the experiences of our knowledge translation process thus far, we are proposing four recommendations. If implemented, we believe that these recommendations can support the land trust sector in improved climate change adapted land conservation:
1.
While many Ontario land trusts are connected through the Ontario Land Trust Alliance and gather at an annual conference, land trusts should try to be even more proactive in frequently and regularly communicating and collaborating with other organizations, inside and outside the Ontario land trust sector (Eisenack et al. 2014). This will help land trusts take advantage of existing resources, reduce transaction costs (e.g., time required searching for information), increase resource use efficiency, and coordinate regional scale responses to climate change adaptation needs.
2.
Many Ontario land trusts appear concerned that climate change adaptation is too large a problem to address. However, land trusts should understand that through their normal operations they already do much work that is supporting adaptation to climate change, such as reducing or limiting pressures on natural ecosystems. Much of this work does not have to be totally re-structured but may only require modest modifications to make it more climate change adaptive. The conscious alignment of climate change adaptation and mitigation actions might lead to greatest efficiency of efforts and resilience (Locatelli et al. 2016) .
3.
Many Ontario land trusts own land holdings with the goal to protect undisturbed natural areas and manage these lands passively. However, given the projected changes in biophysical conditions and the introduction of invasive species, land trust should acknowledge that there may be a need to shift to a more active management style (Coristine and Kerr 2011).
4.
Many land trust goals are focused on species level objectives such as the presence of specific rare species or limiting the introduction of invasive species. However, climate change effects naturally will entail species range shifts, which may lead to some species being lost from certain land holdings, while other, novel species may be gained. Instead of focusing management plans too much on specific species, it may bear value to consider objectives that are less readily affected by climate change such as high levels of species richness or ecosystem functioning (Leuzinger and Rewald 2021).
7. Conclusions
Ontario land trusts are an important part of the provincial land conservation sector. Given the projected climate change impacts for the Province of Ontario, land trusts should prepare themselves for operations in a changing environment, which is different from the traditional land conservation work assuming static environmental conditions. Here we have presented work on the translation of knowledge about climate change adaptation in the Ontario land trust sector. Applying the Knowledge to Action Process Framework (Graham et al. 2006), we have selected relevant knowledge for translation, adapted it to the required context, and then implemented the translation through a series of interventions. Next steps for this process involve the evaluation of the use of this knowledge and support of sustained knowledge use. Our experiences demonstrate that uptake of climate change adaptation knowledge and its application in the Ontario land trust sector is somewhat limited by lack of resources, especially funding and trained staff members, limited ecological knowledge of species and ecosystem responses to climate change, and the crowding out of climate change concerns by other seemingly more pressing issues. However, climate change adaptation should be facilitated by the understanding that existing land trust operations may require only modest modifications to more efficiently address climate change concerns. The use of support tools can facilitate reduction in inconsistencies in ecological knowledge, more well-structured problem-solving approaches, and decision-making for climate change adaptation. In addition, inter-organizational collaboration across sectors and jurisdictions should help overcome resource constraints and enable regional climate change adaptation efforts. Relatively modest additional investments earmarked for climate change adaptation initiatives that are directed at central organizations of the land trust sector could help coordination of individual land trust efforts, knowledge sharing among organizations, and overcoming sector-wide capacity issues. Improved coordination, knowledge sharing, and increased capacity in turn would support the land trust sector in fulfilling its potential as an important component in adaption of land conservation to climate change in Ontario.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all individuals and organizations who participated in this study. We appreciate the help provided by Stephanie Barr, John Bice, Jeffrey Driscoll, Mikayla Johnston-Clayton, Steve Knechtel, and Sheila Zimmer, who contributed to the knowledge translation activities and to earlier versions of this article. This study has been made possible financially through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant number 611-2019-0365).
References
Abrahms B., DiPietro D., Graffis A., Hollander A. 2017. Managing biodiversity under climate change: challenges, frameworks, and tools for adaptation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26: 2277–2293.
Allen G., Eagles P., Price S. 1990. Conserving Carolinian Canada: conservation biology in the deciduous forest region. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada.
Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts. No Date. Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts. Available from https://ltacanada.ca/.
Alofs K.M., Jackson D.A., Lester N.P. 2014. Ontario freshwater fishes demonstrate differing range-boundary shifts in a warming climate. Diversity and Distributions, 20(2): 123–136.
Armstrong P.R., Larson E.R., Jackson S.T., Sax D.F., Simonin P., Blossey B., et al. 2015. Are conservation organizations configured for effective adaptation to global change? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(3):163–169.
Baird J., Plummer R., Bodin Ö. 2016. Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive Co-management. Regional Environmental Change, 16: 747–758.
Barr S.L., Larson B.M.H., Beechey T.J., Scott D.J. 2021. Assessing climate change adaptation progress in Canada's protected areas. Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes, 65: 152–165.
Barr S.L., Lemieux C.J. 2021. Assessing organizational readiness to adapt to climate change in a regional protected areas context: lessons learned from Canada. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 26(8): 34.
Beachy T. 2011. The changing face of financial sustainability in the non-profit sector. The Philanthropist, 24(1): 119–126.
Bernazzani P., Bradley B.A., Opperman J.J. 2012. Integrating climate change into habitat conservation plans under U.S. Endangered Species Act. Environmental Management, 49: 1103–1114.
Bisbal G.A. 2024. The decision maker's lament: if I only had some science! Ambio, 53: 898–906.
Bisbal G.A., Eaton M.J. 2022. Considering science needs to deliver actionable science. Conservation Biology, 37: e14013.
Bunce S., Aslam F.C. 2016. Land trusts and the protection and stewardship of land in Canada: exploring non-governmental land trust practices and the role of urban community land trusts. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 25(2): 23–34.
Campbell M.C., Salus D.A. 2003. Community and conservation land trusts as unlikely partners? The case of Troy Gardens, Madison, Wisconsin. Land Use Policy, 20(2): 169–180.
Canada Helps. 2022. Canadian Giving Report. Available from: https://www.canadahelps.org/media/The_Giving_Report_2022_04_05.pdf.
Capmourteres V., Adams J., Berg A., Fraser E., Swanton C., Anand M. 2018. Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: a case study from southern Ontario. Agricultural Systems, 167: 176–185.
Christie A.P., Downey H., Frick W.F., Grainger M., O'Brien D., Tinsley-Marshall P., et al. 2022. A practical conservation tool to combine diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based decision-making. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(1): e579.
Cooke S.J., Cook C.N., Nguyen V.M., Walsh J.C., Young N., Cvitanovic C., et al. 2023. Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Environmental Evidence, 12(1): 10.
Coristine L.E., Jacob A.L., Schuster R., Otto S.P., Baron N.E., Bennett N.J., et al. 2018. Informing Canada's commitment to biodiversity conservation: A science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through target 1 and beyond. FACETS, 3: 531–562.
Coristine L.E., Kerr J.T. 2011. Habitat loss, climate change, and emerging conservation challenges in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89(5): 435–451.
Corlett R.T. 2016. Plant diversity in a changing world: status, trends, and conservation needs. Plant Diversity, 38(1): 10–16.
Cortés-Capano G., Toivonen T., Soutullo A., Di Minin E. 2019. The emergence of private land conservation in scientific literature: A review. Biological Conservation, 237: 191–199.
Davidson D.J., Kecinski M. 2022. Emotional pathways to climate change responses. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13(2): e751.
Deng Z., Liu J., Qiu X., Zhou X., Zhu H. 2018. Downscaling RCP8. 5 daily temperatures and precipitation in Ontario using localized ensemble optimal interpolation (EnOI) and bias correction. Climate Dynamics, 51(1-2): 411–431.
Drescher M., Warriner G.K, Farmer J.R., Larson B.M.H. 2017. Private landowners and environmental conservation: a case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario. Ecology and Society, 22(1):44.
ECCC [Environment and Climate Change Canada]. 2021. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Land-use change. Available from: www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/land-use-change.html.
Eisenack K., Moser S.C., Hoffmann E., Klein R.J.T., Oberlack C., Pechan A., et al. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4: 867–872.
Finigan P.A., Mandrak N.E., Tufts B.L. 2018. Large-scale changes in the littoral fish communities of lakes in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 96: 753–759.
Fox W.S., Soper J.H. 1955. The distribution of some trees and shrubs of the Carolinian zone of southern Ontario. Part 111. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, 30: 99–130.
Frei B., Bennett E.M., Kerr J.T. 2018. Cropland patchiness strongest agricultural predictor of bird diversity for multiple guilds in landscapes of Ontario, Canada. Regional Environmental Change, 18: 2105–2115.
Gelfand I., Zenone T., Jasrotia P., Chen J., Hamilton S.K., Robertson G.P. 2011. Carbon debt of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands converted to bioenergy production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33): 13864–13869.
Gentry B.S., Clark S., Kelly C., Morse J. 2017. Land conservation in a changing climate: Stewardship science and financing. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Gerber J.-D. 2012. The difficulty of integrating land trusts in land use planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(2): 289–298.
Gleason R.A., Euliss N.H. Jr., Tangen B.A., Laubhan M.K., Browne B.A. 2011. USDA conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services in the Prairie Pothole Region. Ecological Applications, 21: S65–S81.
Gough W., Anderson V., Herod K. 2016. Ontario Climate Change and health modelling study—report. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Available from: https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/climate_change_toolkit/climate_change_health_modelling_study.pdf.
Government of Canada. 2022. Biosphere reserves. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/conservation/protected-areas/biosphere-reserves-canada.html.
Graham I.D., Logan J., Harrison M.B., Straus S.E., Tetroe J., Caswell W., Robinson N. 2006. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1): 13–24.
Gustanski J.A., Edwards-Jones G., Squires R.H. 1999. The ethics-economics-policy paradigm: the foundation for an integrated land trust conservation decision-support model. Urban Ecosystems, 3(2): 83–111.
Hagerman S., Chan K.M.A. 2009. Climate change and biodiversity conservation: impacts, adaptation strategies, and future research directions. F1000 Biology Reports, 1(16):.
Hagerman S., Dowlatabadi H., Chan K.M.A., Satterfield T. 2010. Integrative propositions for adapting conservation policy to the impacts of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 20: 351–362.
Hagerman S., Satterfield T. 2013. Entangled judgments: expert preferences for adapting biodiversity conservation to climate change. The Journal of Environmental Management, 129: 555–563.
Hannah L., Midgley G.F., Lovejoy T., Bond W.J., Bush M., Lovett J.C., et al. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 16(1): 264–268.
Henstra D. 2017. Climate adaptation in Canada: governing a complex policy regime. Review of Policy Research, 34(3): 378–399.
Hiller T.L., Taylor J.S., Lusk J.J., Powell L.A., Tyre A.J. 2015. Evidence that the Conservation Reserve Program slowed population declines of pheasants on a changing landscape in Nebraska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39: 529–535.
Huang L., Liao F.H., Lohse K.A., Larson D.M., Fragkias M., Lybecker D.L., Baxter C.V. 2019. Land conservation can mitigate freshwater ecosystem services degradation due to climate change in a semiarid Catchment: the case of the Portneuf River Catchment, Idaho, USA. Science of the Total Environment, 651(2): 1796–1809.
IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391pp.
Johnson K.A., Dalzell B.J., Donahue M., Gourevitch J., Johnson D.L., Karlovits G.S., et al. 2016. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs. Ecosystem Services, 18: 175–185.
Kadykalo A.n., Buxton R.T., Morrison P., Anderson C.M., Bickerton H., Francis C.M., et al. 2021. Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conservation Biology, 35: 1725–1737.
Kennedy-Slaney L., Bowman J., Walpole A.A., Pond B.A. 2018. Northward bound: the distribution of white-tailed deer in Ontario under a changing climate. Wildlife Research, 45(3): 220–228.
Kerr J., Cihlar J. 2004. Patterns and causes of species endangerment in Canada. Ecological Applications, 14: 743–753.
Kharouba H.M. 2024. Now is the time for academics to think and act beyond academia. Facets, 9: 1–3.
Ladouceur E., Shackelford N., Bouazza K., Brudvig L., Bucharova A., Conradi T., et al. 2022. Knowledge sharing for shared success in the decade on ecosystem restoration. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 3(1): e12117.
Land Trust Alliance. No Date. Land Trust Alliance. Available from: https://landtrustalliance.org/.
Lasby D., Barr C. 2018. 30 years of Giving in Canada. The Giving Behaviour of Canadians: Who gives, how, and why? Available from https://www.imaginecanada.ca/sites/default/files/2019-05/30years_report_en.pdf.
Lawler J.J. 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource management and conservation planning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162(1): 79–98.
Lemieux C.J., Beechey T.J., Scott D.J., Gray P.A. 2011. The state of climate change adaptation in Canada's protected areas sector. Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes, 55: 301–317.
Lemieux C.J., Scot D.J. 2011. Changing climate, challenging choices: identifying and evaluating climate change adaptation options for protected areas management in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Management, 48, 675–690.
Lemieux C.J., Thompson J., Slocombe D.S., Schuster R. 2015. Climate change collaboration among natural resource management agencies: lessons learned from two US regions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(4): 654–677.
Leuzinger S., Rewald B. 2021. The who or the how? Species vs. Ecosystem function priorities in conservation ecology. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 758413.
Locatelli B., Fedele G., Fayolle V., Baglee A. 2016. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1): 112–128.
Lonsdale W., Kretser H., Chetkiewicz C., Cross M. 2017. Similarities and differences in barriers and opportunities affecting climate change adaptation action in four North American landscapes. Environmental Management, 60(6): 1076–1089.
Margoluis R., Stem C., Swaminathan V., Brown M., Johnson A., Placci G., et al. 2013. Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 22.
Matheson J.D., Larson D.W. 1998. Influence of cliffs on bird community diversity. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76: 278–287.
Matthes U., Ryan B.D., Larson D.W. 2000. Community structure of epilithic lichens on the cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario, Canada. Plant Ecology, 148: 233–244.
Mekis E., Vincent L.A. 2011. An overview of the second generation adjusted daily precipitation dataset for trend analysis in Canada. Atmosphere-Ocean, 49(2): 163–177.
Merenlender A.M., Huntsinger L., Guthey G., Fairfax S.K. 2004. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology, 18(1): 65–76.
MNRF [Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry]. 2017. Ecological land classification—ecoregions. King's Printer for Ontario. Available from https://www.ontario.ca/document/forest-resources-ontario-2016/ecological-land-classification-ecoregions.
MNRF [Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry]. 2019. State of Ontario's Protected Areas Report. King's Printer for Ontario. Available from https://www.ontario.ca/page/state-ontarios-protected-areas-report.
Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2018. Species lists. Available from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre.
Nordgren J., Stults M., Meerow S. 2016. Supporting local climate change adaptation: where we are and where we need to go. Environmental Science & Policy, 66: 344–352.
Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. n.d. What is a land trust? Available from https://www.oakridgesmoraine.org/.
Olive A., Penton G. 2018. Species at risk in Ontario: an examination of environmental nongovernmental organizations. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 62(4): 562–574.
Ontario Climate Change Data Portal. No Date. Ontario Climate Change Data Portal. Available from http://canadaccdp.ca/.
Ontario Climate Data Portal. No Date. Ontario Climate Data Portal. Available from https://lamps.math.yorku.ca/OntarioClimate/index.htm#ocdpfrontpage.
Ontario Land Trust Alliance. n.d. Ontario Land Trust Alliance. Available from https://olta.ca/.
Ontario Land Trust Alliance. 2020a. Climate Action Program—Haliburton Highlands Land Trust. YouTube. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg0waBoPyc.
Ontario Land Trust Alliance. 2020b. Climate Action Program—rare Charitable Research Reserve. YouTube. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7OSREijSF0.
Ontario Land Trust Alliance. 2020c. Climate Action Program—Thames Talbot Land Trust. YouTube. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoHTvW-Ksjk&t=8s.
Ontario Nonprofit Network. 2022. State of the sector during uncertain times. 21pp. Available from https://theonn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Survey-2022-Policy-Report.pdf.
Owley J., Cheever F., Rissman A.R., Shaw R.M., Thompson B.H. Jr., Weeks W.W. 2018. Climate change challenges for land conservation: rethinking conservation easements, strategies, and tools. Denver Law Review, 95(3): 727–779.
Quinby P.A., Elliott R.E., Quinby F.A. 2022. Decline of regional ecological integrity: loss, distribution and natural heritage value of roadless areas in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100584.
Reiter D., Meyer W., Parrott L., Baker D., Grace P. 2018. Increasing the effectiveness of environmental decision support systems: lessons from climate change adaptation projects in Canada and Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 18: 1173–1184.
Reiter D., Meyer W., Parrott L. 2019. Stakeholder engagement with environmental decision support systems: the perspective of end users. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 63: 631–642.
Rissman A.R., Owley J., Shaw M.R., Thompson B. 2015. Adapting conservation easements to climate change. Conservation Letters, 8: 68–76.
Ruddock K., August P.V., Damon C., LaBash C., Rubinoff P., Robadue D. 2013. Conservation in the context of climate change: practical guidelines for land protection at local scales. PLoS One, 8(11): e80874.
Russell S.L., Greenaway A., Carswell F., Weaver S. 2014. Moving beyond “mitigation and adaptation”: examining climate change responses in New Zealand. Local Environment, 19(7): 767–785.
Saldaña J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schaefer C.A., Larson D.W. 1997. Vegetation, environmental characteristics and ideas on the maintenance of alvars on the Bruce Peninsula, Canada. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8: 797–810.
Stafford-Smith M., Rissik D., Street R., Lin B., Doerr V., Webb R., et al. 2022. Climate change adaptation guidance: clarifying three modes of planning and implementation. Climate Risk Management, 35: 100392.
Statistics Canada. 2007. Labour inputs to nonprofit organizations. Statistics Canada—Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE. Accessed at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-001-x/10607/9970-eng.pdf?st=2iUAMPyT.
Straus S.E., Kitson A., Harrison M.B., Graham I.D., Fervers B., Légaré F., et al. 2010. The knowledge-to-action cycle. In Knowledge translation in health care. Edited by S.E. Straus, J. Tetroe, I.D. Graham.
Thompson I.D., Baker J.A., Ter-Mikaelian M. 2003. A review of the long-term effects of post-harvest silviculture on vertebrate wildlife, and predictive models, with an emphasis on boreal forests in Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 177(1-3): 441–469.
Thompson I.D., Baker J.A., Hannon S.J., Rempel R.S., Szuba K.J. 2009. Forest birds and forest management in Ontario: status, management, and policy. The Forestry Chronicle, 85(2): 245–257.
Tingley M.W., Darling E.S., Wilcove D.S. 2014. Fine- and course-filter conservation strategies in a time of climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1322(1): 92–109.
Todhunter P.E., Rundquist B.C. 2008. Pervasive wetland flooding in the glacial drift prairie of North Dakota (USA). Natural Hazards, 46: 73–88.
Toomey A.H. 2023. Why facts don't change minds: insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research. Biological Conservation, 278: 109886.
van Kerkhoff L., Munera C., Dudley N., Guevara O., Wyborn C., Figueroa C., et al. 2019. Towards future-oriented conservation: managing protected areas in an era of climate change. Ambio, 48: 699–713.
Vanderwel M.C., Mills S.C., Malcolm J.R. 2009. Effects of partial harvesting on vertebrate species associated with late-successional forests in Ontario's boreal region. The Forestry Chronicle, 85(1): 91–104.
Vincent L.A., Hartwell M.M., Wang X.L. 2020. A third generation of homogenized temperature for trend analysis and monitoring changes in Canada's climate. Atmosphere-Ocean, 58(3): 173–191.
Vincent L.A., Zhang X., Mekis É., Wan H., Bush E.J. 2018. Changes in Canada's climate: trends in indices based on daily temperature and precipitation data. Atmosphere-Ocean, 56(5): 332–349.
Water Words that Work. 2018. Climate change communications for land trusts—final report. Water Words that Work and Land Trust Alliance. Available from https://a.storyblok.com/f/120093/x/697b0034ea/osi-lta-climate-communications-final-report-03052018.pdf.
Weerawardena J., McDonald R.E., Mort G.S. 2010. Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: an empirical investigation.Journal of World Business, 45(4): 346–356.
Wenger E. 2011. Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Available from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Wenger-Trayner E., Wenger-Trayner B. 2015. Introduction to communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its uses. Available from https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/.
West J.M., Julius S.H., Kareiva P., Enquist C., Lawler J.J., Peterson B., et al. 2009. U.S. natural resources and climate change: concepts & approaches for management adaptation. Environmental Management, 44: 1001–1021.
Wyborn C., van Kerkhoff L., Dunlop M., Dudley N., Guevara O. 2016. Future oriented conservation: knowledge governance, uncertainty and learning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25: 1401–1408.
Yalcin S., Leroux S.J. 2018. An empirical test of the relative and combined effects of land-cover and climate change on local colonization and extinction. Global Change Biology, 24: 3849–3861.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 10 • January 2025
Pages: 1 - 18
Editor: Blane Harvey
History
Received: 22 December 2023
Accepted: 29 July 2024
Version of record online: 4 February 2025
Copyright
© 2025 The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Plain Language Summary
Helping land trusts prepare for a changing climate
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Data curation: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Formal analysis: MD
Funding acquisition: MD
Investigation: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Methodology: MD
Project administration: MD
Resources: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Supervision: MD
Writing – original draft: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Writing – review & editing: MD, DK, JQ, MR
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Information
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: 611-2019-0365
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Michael Drescher, Daria Koscinski, Jenna Quinn, and Morgan Roblin. 2025. Helping land trusts prepare for a new climate: experiences of challenges and facilitators for translating knowledge about climate change adaptation in Ontario, Canada. FACETS.
10: 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0235
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item