Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

Session Overview
TT 3.4.A: Towards a Mountain Resilience Report: Regenerating mountain systems by Systemic Innovation
Wednesday, 11/Sep/2019:
1:30pm - 3:00pm

Session Chair: Tobias Luthe
Moderator: Romano Wyss
Location: THEOLOGIE - Madonnensaal
Session Topics:
Workshop 3.4.A: Towards a Mountain Resilience Report: Regenerating mountain systems by Systemic Innovation

Session Abstract

In times of climate change and disruptive social and economic change, resilience of mountain social-ecological systems (SES) comprises the flexibility to respond to changes (adaptive capacity) and the diversity to prepare for changes (innovative capacity). From a spatial, landscape perspective, resilient SES absorb and reorganize in response to (climate) change to maintain the provision of ecosystem services. This workshop intends to set the methodological and collaborative base for a proposed “Mountain Resilience Report” (MRR) that assesses both adaptive and innovative capacities of mountain social-ecological systems (SES) - analogue to the Arctic Resilience Report (ARR) of the Arctic Council. The goal is to collect existing knowledge and build new capacity on assessing the “dynamic state” of mountain SES resilience to interconnected environmental changes – including ecosystem services generating landscapes, socio-cultural communities, local economies and socio-technical systems (STS). The proposed MRR should be developed in close cooperation with existing data collection and sharing networks, such as Mountain Sentinels, Mountain Research Initiative, Sustainable Mountain Tourism Alliance, and alike.

The specific resilience focus in this workshop is on understanding and incubating innovative capacity to create (“design”) and implement effective, real-world solutions for building regenerative mountain SES and STS, respectively – and how this innovative capacity relates to and builds upon resilient landscapes and land use. Innovation within complex SES and STS is systemic and should be regenerative by design – generating systems that contribute net-positive to their surrounding socio-cultural-economic and ecological (ecosystem services generating landscapes) environment.

As one point of departure, a proposed MRR could be connected with the ongoing effort to create a network of mountain observatories for social-ecological data collection (GNOMO). Real-World Laboratories (RWL) play an important role in experimenting with and illustrating systemic innovation, spanning across all economic sectors, related to local cultural and geographic differences, and being participative for local stakeholders. GNOMO and RWL could be integrated units to complement existing (spatial) datasets, and to create “living” modules where the effects of systemic innovation in regards with resilience can be illustrated, explored, and evaluated.

Invited participants contribute with flash talks specific to the below stated questions. Smaller groups engage in design thinking and report back to the entire group about their proposed design of the MRR. The stated questions will be summed up and put into perspective, applying system mapping techniques. Final steps will lead to a basic work plan with a time frame and responsibilities.

Intended workshop outcomes are 1. Setting the personal and knowledge base for writing a joint review paper on the state of assessment and implementation of resilience in mountain SES and their innovativeness, intended for MRI Mountain Research and Development Journal; 2. With this paper, setting the base for writing a joint research funding proposal to develop a first Mountain Resilience Report.

Question 1: What methods, approaches and experiences can we share up to today to assess resilience of mountain SES/STS, and what can be learned from the Arctic Resilience Report?

Question 2: How can we specifically assess and monitor the “innovativeness” of mountain systems, i.e. their regenerative character? What are good practice examples?

Question 3: How can this assessment be linked to the GNOMO, RWL, Mountain Sentinels, and other approaches? What are geographic system boundaries, at least to start with?

No contributions were assigned to this session.

Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Conference: IMC 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.128+CC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany