Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
De Grandpré, Ayla
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Global food and wine production are increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change, and other interrelated disturbances, such as political instability, changing consumer preferences, pollution, market disruptions, pandemics, and more. These disturbances test the resilience of agro-ecological systems and require systems to adapt. However, the accelerating rate of change in the Anthropocene and deepening uncertainties have made adaptation increasingly complex. Food and wine producers require tools to help them plan for change and uncertainty, with the goal of increasing their resilience. This research applies an Adaptation Pathways approach to explore if and how food and wine producers in the Okanagan Bioregion, an important agricultural region in Canada, can adapt over time and build their resilience to multiple, dynamic disturbances. Using a mixed-methods approach, including a literature review, desktop analysis, mapping survey, and semi-structured interviews, this research explores the following research questions: What is resilient food and wine production? Which disturbances are affecting the food and wine production landscape in the Okanagan Bioregion? And how and when can local food producers adapt to these disturbances? The results indicate that resilience is the ability for producers to prepare, adjust, innovate or transform for disturbance, and can be translated into practice using a socio-ecological systems model. The results of the desktop analysis and mapping survey highlight complex interactions between social and ecological driven disturbances, but emphasise the risks of changing environmental conditions, chiefly linked to climate change. Using the semi-structured interviews, this research also found that building adaptation pathways that address the multiple disturbances is possible but requires a different approach. Interview participants stressed the need to build general adaptive capacity, rather than responding to specific disturbances. This research contributes to the literature, by building Adaptation Pathways that aim to improve the decision-making capacity of Okanagan producers, and to increase their resilience, or their ability to prepare, adapt, innovate, or transform, in the face of change and uncertainty.
Pathways to Resilience: Building Adaptation Pathways for Local Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion by Ayla De Grandpré B.A. University of British Columbia Okanagan A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies - Sustainability) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) May, 2022 © Ayla De Grandpré 2022 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Pathways to Resilience: Building Adaptation Pathways for Local Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion. submitted by Ayla De Grandpré in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. Donna Senese, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisor Dr. Mary Stockdale, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Lael Parrott, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Eric Li, Faculty of Management University Examiner Click or tap here to enter text. Additional Committee Members include: Dr. John Janmaat, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Global food and wine production are increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change, and other interrelated disturbances, such as political instability, changing consumer preferences, pollution, market disruptions, pandemics, and more. These disturbances test the resilience of agro-ecological systems and require systems to adapt. However, the accelerating rate of change in the Anthropocene and deepening uncertainties have made adaptation increasingly complex. Food and wine producers require tools to help them plan for change and uncertainty, with the goal of increasing their resilience. This research applies an Adaptation Pathways approach to explore if and how food and wine producers in the Okanagan Bioregion, an important agricultural region in Canada, can adapt over time and build their resilience to multiple, dynamic disturbances. Using a mixed-methods approach, including a literature review, desktop analysis, mapping survey, and semi-structured interviews, this research explores the following research questions: What is resilient food and wine production? Which disturbances are affecting food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion? And how and when can local food producers adapt to these disturbances? The results indicate that resilience is the ability for producers to prepare, adjust, innovate or transform for disturbance, and can be translated into practice using a socio-ecological systems model. The results of the desktop analysis and mapping survey highlight complex interactions between social and ecological driven disturbances, but emphasise the risks of changing environmental conditions, chiefly linked to climate change. Using the semi-structured interviews, this research also found that building adaptation pathways that address the multiple disturbances is possible but requires a different approach. Interview participants stressed the need to build general adaptive capacity, rather than responding to specific disturbances. This research contributes to the literature, by building Adaptation Pathways that aim to improve the decision-making capacity of Okanagan producers, and to increase their resilience, or their ability to prepare, adapt, innovate, or transform, in the face of change and uncertainty. iv Lay Summary Food and wine production is affected by many disturbances, from market disruptions and political decisions, to pollution, and climate change. These disturbances are compounding and uncertain, making it difficult for producers to make decisions. This research explores what resilient food and wine production is, which disturbances are impacting production in the Okanagan, and how producers in the region can adapt over time. Drawing on the existing literature and the experiences of food and wine producers, supporters, and decision-makers, this research identified several disturbances, but emphasised those associated with climate change, such as forest fire and drought. Adaptation Pathways, or corridors of adaptation strategies, were built in this research to improve the ability of Okanagan producers to adapt and increase their resilience in uncertain circumstances. The results provide a list of adaptation actions, when they might be applied, and demonstrate that Adaptation Pathways can be address multiple disturbances. v Preface This research was completed under the supervision of Dr. Donna Senese and members of the supervisory committee, Dr. Mary Stockdale, Dr. Lael Parrot and Dr. John Janmaat. Research design was influenced by conversations with Dr. Nicholas Cradock-Henry, and the data collection and analysis were completed by Ayla De Grandpré. Approval from the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board was granted for conducting the mapping survey and semi-structured interviews (Certificate number: H20-02626). vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................x Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 The Study Area ................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 The Physical Landscape and Ecology ........................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Land Use and Management in the Okanagan Bioregion ........................................... 6 1.3.3 The Socio-cultural and Economic Landscape of the Okanagan Bioregion ............... 7 1.4 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review .....................................................................................................11 2.1 Resilience: From theory to application ........................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Theoretical Models of Resilience ............................................................................ 14 2.1.2 Barriers to Applying Theoretical Resilience ............................................................ 17 2.2 Disturbance, Vulnerability and Adaptation for Global Food and Wine Production ....... 19 2.2.1 Disturbance and Vulnerability ................................................................................. 20 2.2.2 Adaptation ................................................................................................................ 28 2.2.2.1 Classifying Adaptation ...................................................................................... 30 2.2.2.2 Staged Adaptation ......................................................................................... 33 2.2.2.3 Agricultural Adaptation in Climate Change Studies .................................... 34 2.3 Adaptation Pathways: A method for managing disturbance under uncertainty ............. 36 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods .....................................................................................41 3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 41 3.2 Research Design and Methods ........................................................................................ 41 3.2.1 Explore the Current Situation .................................................................................. 44 3.2.2 Phase 2: SEI, Identify the Objectives and the Desired Outcomes ........................... 45 3.2.3 Phase 3: Analyze Possible Futures .......................................................................... 48 3.2.4 Phase 4: Develop and Select Adaptation Pathways ................................................. 51 3.2.5 Phase 5: Implement, Evaluate, Monitor and Adjust ................................................ 54 3.3 Positionality and Critical Reflexivity .............................................................................. 54 Chapter 4: Explore the Current Situation and Define the Objectives and the Desired Outcomes ......................................................................................................................................57 4.1 Conceptualizing Resilient Food and Wine Production ................................................... 57 4.2 Disturbances Affecting Local Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion . 61 4.2.1 Disturbances in the Desktop Analysis ..................................................................... 61 4.2.2 Results from the Survey ........................................................................................... 75 4.2.2.1 Geographic Distribution of the Sample ............................................................ 75 4.2.2.2 Place Attachment .............................................................................................. 76 4.2.2.3 Socio-demographic Profile of the Sample ........................................................ 77 vii 4.2.2.4 Disturbances Identified in the Mapping Survey ............................................... 78 4.2.2.5 Perspectives on the Future of Disturbance ........................................................ 87 4.2.2.6 Values and Defining a Desirable and Resilient Future for Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion ......................................................................... 88 4.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 5: Analyzing Possible Futures and Building Adaptation Pathways .........................94 5.1 Assembling the Parallel Scenario ................................................................................... 94 5.1.1 Choosing the Reference Pathways ........................................................................... 94 5.1.2 Parallel Scenario for the Okanagan Bioregion ......................................................... 95 5.2 Interview Results ............................................................................................................ 96 5.2.1 Building Adaptation Pathways in the Interviews ..................................................... 98 5.2.1.1 Theme 1: Learning and Connection .................................................................. 99 5.2.1.2 Theme 2: Income and Economic Change ....................................................... 102 5.2.1.3 Theme 3: Landscape Management ................................................................. 108 5.2.1.4 Theme 4: Change of Land Use and Species ................................................... 115 5.2.1.5 Theme 5: Political and Institutional Interventions .......................................... 117 5.2.1 Prioritizing Adaptation ........................................................................................... 121 5.3 Building the Pathways Map and Conclusions .............................................................. 124 Chapter 6: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................128 6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 128 6.2 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research ............................................ 131 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................135 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 155 Appendices .................................................................................................................................155 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 155 Appendix B ......................................................................................................................... 157 Appendix C ......................................................................................................................... 169 Appendix D ......................................................................................................................... 171 viii List of Tables Table 1 Global Agricultural Risks and Impacts in the Literature ............................................................... 22 Table 2 Types of Capital ............................................................................................................................. 29 Table 3 A Typology of Adaptation ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 4 Sources used for Phase 1 Desktop Analysis .................................................................................. 44 Table 5 Participant Roles ............................................................................................................................ 77 Table 6 Valued Components of the SES ..................................................................................................... 89 Table 7 Visions for Resilient Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion .............................. 89 Table 8 Integrated Disturbances from the Desktop Analysis and Mapping Survey ................................... 91 Table 9 Learning and Connection Pathways ............................................................................................... 99 Table 10 Income and Economic Change Pathways .................................................................................. 102 Table 11 Landscape Management Pathways ............................................................................................ 109 Table 12 Change of Land Use and Species Pathways .............................................................................. 115 Table 13 Political and Institutional Intervention Pathways ...................................................................... 118 Table 14 Summary of Adaptation Priorities in the Interviews .................................................................. 121 ix List of Figures Figure 1 The Adaptive Renewal Cycle ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2 The Adaptation Pathways Planning Model .................................................................................. 43 Figure 3 An SES Model for the Resilience of Food and Wine Production ................................................ 60 Figure 4 Mapped Disturbances to Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion ....................... 79 Figure 5 Distribution of Disturbance Types in the Survey ......................................................................... 80 Figure 6 Predictions for Different types of Disturbance in the Near-term, Near Future and Long-term Future .......................................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 7 Parallel Scenario for the Adaptation Pathways ............................................................................. 96 Figure 8 Adaptation Pathways Map: Building Adaptive Capacity in the Okanagan Bioregion over the next 50 years (2021-2071) ................................................................................................................................ 125 Figure 9 Example of an Adaptation Pathway Using the Map ................................................................... 126 x Acknowledgements This thesis was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, as well as grants from the College of Graduate Studies at UBC Okanagan. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Land to Table Network, The North Okanagan Organics Association (NOOA), Young Agrarians BC, The South Okanagan Organic Producers Association (SOOPA), Sustainable Winegrowing BC (SWBC), The North Okanagan Beekeepers Association and the Certified Organics Association of BC (COABC), for helping to distribute the mapping survey to their networks. I would also like to thank those who took the time to participate in this research. I hope that the results of this thesis will be used by participants, to inspire different and more flexible ways to think about making adaptation decisions. I would also like to acknowledge my supervisor and mentor, Dr. Donna Senese, for her unwavering support and willingness to show up for me whenever I needed advice. I owe much of what I have accomplished over the last two years to her guidance and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Mary Stockdale, Dr. Lael Parrott and Dr. John Janmaat for your support as my supervisory committee. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Jon Corbett and the SpICE lab at UBC Okanagan for supporting this research by building the mapping survey platform, and for Dr. Corbett’s advice and mentorship in the area of participatory mapping. I also thank Dr. Nicholas Cradock-Henry for introducing me to Adaptation Pathways and getting me started in this area of research. xi Dedication I would like to acknowledge my family, especially Alex, who supported me through my Master’s degree and encouraged me to keep going, even in the moments when the weight of the pandemic seemed too much to bear. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview Change is an inevitable and necessary feature of life. It is what drives new states of equilibrium, new opportunities, and propels all living things to adapt. However, in the Anthropocene, the frequency and intensity of system-altering and threshold-transgressing change are accelerating (Steffen et al., 2018). Humans and other living beings are now facing pressures to adapt to increasingly complex problems for which there are no simple answers, such as climate change, the destabilization and destruction of global ecosystems and habitats, biodiversity loss and food insecurity (Adger et al., 2013; Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). These disturbances potentiate harmful changes such as ecosystem collapse, crop failure, and infrastructure damage (Tomich et al., 2011), and produce deep uncertainties that challenge current and future resilience (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). Food and wine production are particularly vulnerable to changing socio-ecological conditions, particularly climate change (Antle et al., 2018). Agricultural decisions and practices tend to be developed for a stable state that does not exist and is becoming increasingly volatile as the climate changes (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). For instance, global food and wine production rely on relatively favourable socio-ecological conditions, such as predictable weather and access to markets; however, these conditions are constantly changing, requiring flexible and adaptive management to protect quality and yield (Nelson et al., 2010). Agriculture is increasingly exposed to the biophysical impacts of climate change, such as unpredictable rainfall patterns, heat, drought, and indirect effects on ecosystem services, such as soil, air, water quality and quantity, and biodiversity (Adger, 2013; Anderson et al., 2019; Marshall, 2010). However, agricultural systems are also exposed to socio-economic crises that result from climate change, such as political instability, civil unrest, poverty, degradation of human health, mass water shortages and supply chain disruptions (Anderson et al., 2019; Howden et al., 2007; Jamir et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010), as well as black swan events (Taleb, 2010) such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the future of agricultural resilience is unavoidably enmeshed with socio-ecological dynamics and our ability to adapt to the rapidly changing world. Agriculture is an important socio-economic activity in Canada, contributing to the national GDP and supporting Canadian livelihoods and food security and is part of recent, predominantly settler heritage and culture in Canada (Bryant et al., 2000; Government of Canada, 2021). Projections for the economic impact of climate change on Canadian agriculture vary in the literature, from net positive to net negative, and may depend on the region (Boyd & Markandya, 2021). However, the economy and culture 2 of Canadian agriculture are also threatened by interrelated and compounding threats, such as the renegotiation of trade agreements such as NAFTA, transportation disruptions, and pandemics (Gray, 2020). There are few studies that address climate change and these other disruptions simultaneously, and even fewer resilience-based approaches being applied to understand the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on Canadian agriculture (Bizikova, 2019). For Canadian agriculturalists, the burden of adapting to the growing list of disturbances cannot be understated, as they are threatened by increasing deep uncertainties, or uncertainties that become ever more uncertain over time and cannot be eliminated or reduced by further information (Werners et al., 2013). Unknowable variables, such as unpredictable political responses, changing societal values and preferences, changes to technologies, as well as model errors, non-linear changes, parameter uncertainty, natural stochasticity, and chaotic dynamics, limit the usefulness of climate change models and scenarios in predicting future impacts (Kwakkel et al., 2015; Yohe & Leichenko, 2010). Thus, as climate change progresses in the 21st century, deep uncertainties could intensify and models and scenarios will not be able to effectively mitigate agroecological uncertainty, making new strategies for decision making necessary within the next decades (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Butler et al. 2016). It is important to note that where there is disturbance and uncertainty, there is also opportunity: the two are often companions. While the position of food and wine production at the center of social and ecological systems intensifies exposure and vulnerability, it also introduces a wide range of opportunities. For example, climate change has prompted a revitalized interest in food systems and food security issues, inspiring new opportunities for social cooperation, innovation, and transformation (Baker, 2020; Gibbens, 2020; O’Brien et al., 2012). At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed new opportunities for producers to sell their products to consumers in different ways, such as through produce home deliveries (Boyd & Markandya, 2021). As the theory of hormesis suggests, adaptation to absorbable levels of disturbance may condition and strengthen the landscape of production (Schirrmacher, 2021). Applied to the context of food and wine production, disturbance may be a critical type of stress needed to maintain resilience and stimulate innovative and resilience-building behavior. For certain producers with a reduced capacity to adapt, however, this stress could result in them being forced to leave the sector. Overall, the growing complexity of socio-economic forces and the changing climate are weaving additional uncertainty into decision-making, which require new, more flexible, and robust plans and systems (Bloemen et al, 2018). Disturbance is imminent, particularly as climate change progresses. Thus, there is a strong need for local food and wine production landscapes in Canada to plan for and adopt effective adaptation planning methods under uncertainty. There is also a need to understand these 3 systems holistically, as integrated social-ecological systems (SES), which experience complex vulnerabilities (Maru et al., 2014). Many studies are addressing agricultural vulnerability and resilience (e.g., Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Hammond et al., 2013; Jamir et al., 2012; Lawrence et al., 2013; Ruiz Meza, 2015) and different methods such as Robust Options Analysis and Trigger Point Analysis, are being employed and tested to manage and plan for both current and future uncertainty (Haasnoot et al., 2013; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Kwakkel et al., 2016). One of the most promising methods being used to plan for uncertainty is the adaptation pathways (AP) approach. AP is an iterative stepwise approach that explores multiple possible futures and enables flexible and robust decision-making in the face of multiple compounding deep uncertainties, such as the timing, magnitude and frequency of shocks and stressors (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2014). The objective of this research is to explore if AP can enable effective decision-making in the context of wicked problems like climate change, and multiple other deep uncertainties in the form of shocks and stressors. Ultimately, this decision-making should promote socio-ecological resilience for local food producers in the production landscape, now and into the future. 1.2 Research Questions This research applies an SES perspective and AP planning process (Figure 2, Chapter 3) to explore resilience in the context of local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. Guided by a pragmatist epistemology, a branch of humanistic thought that validates multiple ways of knowing through real-world, practical application of theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Denscombe, 2008), this research emphasizes the applied knowledge of stakeholders in the study area to define resilience and assess disturbance, risk, and possible adaptation strategies. In the context of this research, food production is understood as the production aspects in a food system that satisfy food security, including the growing, raising, harvesting, hunting and gathering of food (Porter et al., 2014). The food and wine production landscape is conceptualized in this research as the collective of individual food and wine producers, their activities on the land, and the land itself. This is an appropriate conceptualization, given there are substantial socio-ecological linkages between individual producers, their activities, and the state of their land, influenced by common temporal, physiographic, occupational, and socio-political contexts (Crane, 2010). The adaptation of food and wine production landscapes is influenced substantially by the values and decisions of producers on the land (Busck, 2003), making producers themselves the most meaningful agents of change to study in this research. This research is guided by the following research questions: 4 • What is resilient food and wine production? • Which disturbances are affecting the landscape of food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion? • How and when can local food and wine producers adapt to these disturbances? 1.3 The Study Area This research takes place in the Okanagan Bioregion, historically one of the most important food and wine producing regions in Canada, characterized by an interwoven patchwork of urban and rural land-uses (Bjarnason et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2006), as well as a semi-arid climate and landscape that supports the production of products that are not viable in other Canadian agricultural regions, such as soft fruits like wine grapes, cherries, and peaches (Senese et al., 2011). Bioregions are landscapes that are united by similar cultural and biophysical characteristics, such as flora and fauna, topography, and climate (Grube-Cavers et al., 2018). Thus, bioregions transcend politically defined boundaries, and emphasize the linkages between the human and the environmental in social-ecological systems (SES). This is critical to studying agricultural landscapes, as the production of food and wine depends on place-based human and ecological factors and their interactions (Robert et al., 2018). This is not to undermine the importance of politically defined regions - these still fit into the boundaries of the bioregion and are considered in this research - but to emphasise that regions are not only defined socially and politically, but also ecologically. This is particularly important for agriculture, which is impacted by the local ecology as much as social and political forces. The Okanagan Bioregion is a useful scale to conduct AP research, given that it is large enough to capture some of the regional connections in terms of broader political, social, economic, and ecological trends, but also small enough to explore locally relevant challenges to resilience. 1.3.1 The Physical Landscape and Ecology The Okanagan Bioregion is situated in the southern Interior of British Columbia. It is comprised of 20,817.58km2 of land, spanning from Grindrod in the north, to the Canada-U.S. border just south of Osoyoos (Grube Cavers et al., 2018). The landscape contains upland plateaus, mountains, and valleys, ranging from 270 to 2,300m asl. (Ligett, 2008). The defining feature of the land is a long, narrow north-south trending valley called the Okanagan Valley, which carves its way through the Coastal Mountains to the west and the Cordilleras range to the east (Bjarnason et al., 2016). This landscape was forged by glacial erosion during the retreat of the last ice age over 11,000 years ago, which left alluvial deposits behind along the valley bottoms, gently sloping hills, and benches, and formed sandy and clay-rich soils, suitable soils for agriculture (Senese et al., 2011). 5 Positioned at the northern extent of the Sonoran ecozone, the Okanagan Bioregion enjoys a semiarid, dry continental climate that supports a highly productive agricultural economy since the arrival of European settlers (Senese et al., 2011; Shepherd et al., 2006). Being in the rain shadow of the Coastal Mountains, humidity levels are very low and evapotranspiration high (Royal BC Museum, 1994). This creates serious soil moisture deficits that deepen the dependency of agriculture on irrigation systems, particularly in the south of the bioregion, where precipitation levels are lowest (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Agriculture is supported by long, warm growing seasons, mild winters, springs with frost-free periods and elevated temperatures in summer months. There are also many microclimates, influenced largely by the variable topography and location of lakes (Senese et al., 2011). These climates create opportunities for the cultivation of agricultural products, such as soft fruits, that do not grow well in other Canadian climates (Bjarnason et al., 2016). There are several ecosystems represented in the bioregion, such as wetlands, riparian areas and woodlands, as well as most of the remaining grasslands, shrub-steppe, and dry, low-elevation forests, in British Columbia (Loewen, 2019; Pryce et al., 2006). These ecosystems support a high level of biodiversity and are important providers of ecosystem services, such as pollination, biological pest control, water provision and nutrient cycling, which are critical for healthy agroecosystems (Power, 2010). Biological pest control, for example, has been estimated to save $13.6 billion per year in the U.S. alone (Losey & Vaughan, 2006), highlighting the importance of non-cropped or natural vegetation on and nearby agricultural properties. According to Echeverri et al. (2016), the South Okanagan-Similkameen region is one of the most biodiverse regions in Canada, containing unique, endangered, and threatened species. These species rely on grassland ecosystems, which are threatened by the conversion of these lands for agricultural purposes (Ministry of Environment, 1998). Thus, the ecosystems and biodiversity that have supported the rise of an agriculture landscape and economy in the bioregion, as well as population growth, are being threatened by the very activity that they once supported (Pryce et al., 2006). Prior research has emphasised the capacity for agriculture to both contribute to building ecosystem services, and provide disservices, for example, through changes such as land conversions that deplete biodiversity, or contaminating water with nutrient runoff (Power, 2010). The Okanagan Water Basin includes several lakes and tributaries, most of which drain into Okanagan Lake (Summit Environmental Consulting, 2005). Okanagan Lake is a key influence in human development and ecological function in the region (Robert et al., 2018). Most human settlements were developed along the banks of Okanagan Lake, which provided provisioning ecosystem services, such as water storage and supply for agricultural irrigation, food provision, and acted as a corridor for the transportation of agricultural goods and human capital (Robert et al., 2018). Okanagan Lake also supports 6 rare ecosystems and provides critical habitat for rare and endangered species (Pryce et al., 2006). Most surface water sources in the Okanagan Basin are fully allocated, however increasing demand from urban expansion and agriculture are requiring planners to turn to groundwater, of which little is known in terms of quality and quantity (Ligett, 2008). Combined pressures from growing urban and commercial demand, but especially climate change, are expected to affect water availability for irrigation, which will limit agricultural production in the region before long (Bjarnason et al., 2016). 1.3.2 Land Use and Management in the Okanagan Bioregion The Okanagan Bioregion is a multifunctional landscape comprised of a mixture of natural and protected areas, sprawling agricultural land, urban and industrial areas, linking transportation corridors, and recreational areas (Loewen, 2019). Agriculture covers approximately 199,765 ha., or approximately 10% of the bioregion’s landmass, and is located primarily in lower elevation areas (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Agriculture is not limited to rural areas in the bioregion, however. In Kelowna, the most urban area in the bioregion, agricultural zoning accounts for over 55% of the land base, 40% of which is protected by ALR zoning (City of Kelowna, 2018). As of 2020, the Okanagan included approximately 5% of the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land, or 224,722 ha., which is managed primarily by private landowners, First Nations, and the Crown (ALC, 2021). Decision-making regarding agricultural land use is the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), created by the province of British Columbia to classify the land and zone it for agriculture. The ALC formed the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in the 1970s, as a form of provincial zoning preserve agricultural land, and encourage the farming of this land (ALC, n.d. a). The land protected under ALR zoning was chosen by the ALC based on favourable capability classification, which considers factors such as climate, topography, and soil type. ALR land is classified using a grading system from class 1 (no or slight limitations for agriculture) to class 7 (no capability for arable or sustained grazing) (Grifone, 2017). Approximately 59% of the ALR land in the Okanagan Bioregion is classified between classes 1-4, meaning that it may be suitable for growing crops (ALC, n.d. a). ALR zoning is a major contributing factor in forming the characteristic patchwork of agricultural and urban landscapes, or leap-frog effect, in the bioregion. The types of agricultural products are what distinguish the bioregion from other agricultural landscapes in Canada (City of Kelowna, 2018). The Okanagan is renowned for its fruits and wines, accounting for approximately 95% of vineyards and 90% of fruit orchards in the province (Shepherd et al., 2006). Despite the emphasis on fruit and wine, this landscape produces a wide variety of agricultural 7 products including other fruits, tree nuts, field and greenhouse vegetables, forage, grains, mushrooms, broiler poultry, beef, dairy, eggs, honey and more (Grube Cavers et al., 2018). The type of products varies based on region, according to the agroecological suitability. The South and Central regions support productive tree fruit, grape, and vegetable production (Bjarnason et al., 2016), and in terms of viticulture, the warm climate of the south supports the growth of red grapes, such as Bordeaux, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Merlot (Senese et al., 2011). The North is dominated by cattle ranching, dairying, poultry farming and field and fodder crop production (Crawford & MacNair, 2012), with little grape production. Approximately 39% of the province’s certified organic farms are located in the bioregion, to which the South Okanagan-Similkameen region contributes significantly (Bjarnason et al., 2016). These producers are supported by a strong network of organics societies, such as Organics BC, and the North Okanagan and South Okanagan Organics Societies. There are multiple scales of governance involved in managing agricultural land and activity in the Okanagan Bioregion: from municipal, regional, provincial, and federal bodies. The three major administrative districts at the regional scale that will be most important for this research include the Regional Districts of the North Okanagan (RDNO), Central Okanagan (RDCO) and South Okanagan (RDSO) (Grube-Cavers et al., 2018). Within each of these districts, there are several municipalities and other decision-making bodies that increase the complexity of decision-making, particularly in relation to land use decisions (MDB Insight, 2019). The RDCO is by far the most populous administrative region, incorporating the City of Kelowna, the largest urban center and economy in the bioregion (Robinson, 2020). As a result, it is likely to have greater resources at its disposal for capacity building, and it may hold greater influence over certain aspects of the bioregion, particularly in terms of economic power. 1.3.3 The Socio-cultural and Economic Landscape of the Okanagan Bioregion The land incorporated in the Okanagan Bioregion is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Syilx Okanagan Peoples, who have been stewarding these lands for over 11,000 years (Terbasket, 2019). While the connection of the Syilx Peoples to this land has been greatly disrupted by colonial forces, such as dam construction, forced removals and their exclusion from traditional hunting, fishing and gathering sites, ban on traditional foods, overfishing, logging and more, they still maintain a powerful sense of responsibility for the land, waters, and traditional food systems (Armstrong, 2020). The Syilx Peoples teach that land, food, family, and community are inseparable, and that we humans are here with the sacred responsibility to tend to these four pillars (Terbasket, 2019). Indigenous decision makers in the bioregion are important advocates for sustainable and resilience-building landscape management, based on traditional knowledge, methods, and culture of food production which have survived ecological 8 change, such as the “little ice age” between 800 to 100 calibrated years before present (Walker & Pellat, 2008). Agriculture is woven into the colonial settler history and socio-economic and environmental fabric of the Okanagan Bioregion. To this day, agriculture shapes the physical landscape and remains a major contributor to the regional economy and social heritage (City of Kelowna, 2018). The Okanagan landscape is marked by transition and transformation: from the influence of Indigenous stewardship over thousands of years, to the comparatively newer and shorter regimes of cattle ranching, tree fruit production and viticulture, and the emergent post-subsistence era shaping the landscape today (Hessing, 2010). European settlement began around 1859 and centered around the Catholic Mission of Father Pandosy (Senese et al., 2011). Early settler agriculture in the bioregion appeared primarily in the form of cattle ranching and grain growing, supplying beef to nearby gold-mining communities in the Kootenays, Similkameen and Cariboo Regions (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). In the nineteenth century, the tree fruit industry began to propagate in the Okanagan, driven by the market demand of Canadian and Commonwealth markets and the railways, which allowed perishable tree fruits to be shipped in bulk and in a cost-effective way over great distance (Senese et al., 2011). Orcharding became the economic engine of the bioregion by the early 1900’s, which, in tandem with the newly established transportation networks, opened the region to new markets and rapid immigration, urban expansions and economic growth into the 20th Century (Senese et al., 2020). Grape production in the Okanagan is traced back to the arrival of Catholic missionary Father Pandosy, however, a commercial-scale grape-growing industry did not take form until the late 1920s (Senese et al., 2011). The grape industry expanded in the 1960s and 70s, supported by the provincial government’s protectionist policies, but was shocked by severe winter freezes and the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States in the 1980s, causing a steep decline in the number of vineyards in the bioregion (Crawford & MacNair, 2012; Senese et al., 2011). The reduction of grape acreage also aided in the industry’s resurrection by the Provincial government’s Premium Wine Policy Industry Strategy, which encouraged a government incentivized pullout of hybrid varietals and replanting of European vitis vinifera to produce premium wines (Senese et al., 2011). The Okanagan now accounts for approximately 86% of British Columbia’s vineyards and is known as “BC’s premier grape-growing region” (WBC, n.d. a). It contributes significantly to the BC wine industry, which generates approximately $2.8 billion yearly the provincial economy (WBC, n.d. b). Today, the bioregion has the largest human population concentration in the Interior of British Columbia, introducing rapid rates of urbanization and a quickly diversifying economy based on new 9 industries such as tourism, technology, retail, and construction (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Despite the shift towards post-subsistence, agriculture remains an important contributor to the regional economy, both directly, through sales and exports, and indirectly, through the unique landscape aesthetic it produces, and the growing number of visitors that agritourism attracts to the region each year (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Agriculture in the bioregion is favoured by its proximal position to cities with access to international markets, such as Vancouver and Calgary. Highly developed transportation networks, including roadways, railways, waterways, and an international airport, also promote a relatively dependable exchange of agricultural goods and flows with other domestic and international regions (Bjarnason et al., 2016). These transportation corridors also facilitate access for tourists and visitors who come to the Okanagan to consume the fruits of its landscape, such as its beauty, recreation, and plethora of food and wine tourism opportunities (City of Kelowna, 2018). The Okanagan Bioregion is an ideal study area for this research for several reasons. Food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion faces challenges that are both unique and representative of many other global regions, such as shifting climatic conditions, urban competition for land and resources, and water-related issues (Cohen et al., 2006; Ligett, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2006). This creates opportunities to share the findings with other agricultural regions. This research also has the potential to fill some of the gaps in knowledge regarding agricultural vulnerability and adaptation to disturbances in the study area. For instance, reports prepared by Bjarnason et al. (2016) and Crawford & MacNair (2012) on behalf of the Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative, a provincial program formed by the BC agriculture Council and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC and funded by the provincial and federal governments (CAI, n.d.), have explored the potential impacts of climate change and vulnerabilities of agriculture in the bioregion. These include biophysical risks, such as forest fire and hydrological risks, which appear in the regional literature (e.g., Cohen et al., 2006; Goemans, & Ballamingie, 2013; Hystad & Keller, 2006; Janmaat & Rahimova, 2018; Ligett, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2006; Nitscke & Innes, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2006). What these reports and the regional literature do not cover is comprehensive information regarding adaptation options and timelines, and ultimately, a flexible and robust plan to facilitate the uptake of these strategies. This research builds on this current state of knowledge and addresses the needs of the production community for adaptation research. 1.4 Thesis Structure This thesis is composed of 6 chapters. Chapter 2 explores the some of the existing literature regarding resilience theory, global agricultural disturbances, vulnerability and adaptation, and the use of adaptation pathways as a framework for decision-making under deep uncertainties. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology and methods used in this research. The chapter finishes with a statement of positionality, 10 which positions the author of this document in relation to the research. Chapter 4 discusses the results of phases 1-2 of this research, including the desktop analysis and mapping survey. Chapter 5 presents the findings from phases 3-4, including the preparation of a scenario and the results from the semi-structured interviews. Finally, chapter 6 explores the main findings of this research, provides a synthesized discussion of the results and limitations of the study, including recommendations for further research. 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter explores the scholarly literature related to resilience theory and application, the vulnerability of global agriculture to compounding disturbances, agricultural adaptation, and adaptation pathways (AP), as a method for managing disturbance under deep uncertainty. 2.1 Resilience: From theory to application Resilience is a coincident boundary term, meaning that it is interpreted in different ways and is adapted by various research and professional communities to suit their contextual understanding and objectives (Cradock-Henry, 2021; Linkov & Trump, 2019). As a result, it is neither easily defined, nor conceptualized in a standardized way (Spector et al., 2019; Tanner et al., 2014). In the field of Engineering, for example, resilience is understood as a quantifiable property of the physical and built environment, or the ability to retain or return to “normal” functioning after a disturbance (Cradock-Henry & Fountain, 2019). In contrast, a socio-ecological systems (SES) perspective might characterize resilience as a dynamic and changeable systems property, that involves coping, adjusting, and creating new options to deal with a threat (Allen et al., 2019; Escalera-Reyes, 2020). The diversity of resilience conceptualizations and applications can be problematic. For instance, a lack of conceptual coherence can act as an impediment to multi- and interdisciplinary studies (Star & Griesmer, 1989), given that not all conceptualizations are compatible. Global information authorities, such as the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and Resilience Alliance have sought to establish standardized understandings of resilience, to facilitate multi- and interdisciplinary knowledge formation, which allow us to solve complex and multifaceted problems like climate change. One of the most commonly cited definitions comes from the IPCC, who define resilience as: “… the ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions” (IPCC, 2012). This definition is intentionally broad enough to be applicable in many different situations, and contains two of the three key elements of resilience, which appear virtually ubiquitously across the literature. These are the ability of a system to (1) prepare or anticipate disruption through processes such as building knowledge and self-organization; and (2) adjust to, absorb, or buffer disturbances in a way that preserves 12 the essential functioning and characteristics of the original system (e.g. Adger, 2006; Ifejika et al., 2014; Maru et al., 2014; O’Brien et al., 2012; Spector et al., 2017; Turner, 2010; Wise et al., 2014). The third element will be revealed later, and the end of Section 2.1.1. Understandings of resilience have shifted over time. Resilience theory appeared in the 1960s and 70s in the field of resource ecology; although, as Bourbeau (2018) contends, the concept has multi-disciplinary origins, in psychology, social work and engineering, for example, which are not usually recognized. In the early years of ecological resilience studies, ecosystem resilience was represented by a single stable state, in which flows and resources needed to be controlled, and human-caused disturbances removed, so that the natural system could repair itself and return to a pre-defined state of equilibrium (Folke, 2006). The legacy of this stable-state conceptualization persists today. It was, and continues to be, foundational to many of North America’s conservation management practices and policies, which emphasize the need to protect and “… restore ‘natural’ and ‘pristine’ ecosystems by removing human inputs and extractions and allowing the systems to ‘recover’ to their ‘healthy states’” (Fitzhugh et al., 2019, p. 1078). It also supports the goal of “maximum sustainable yields” in agriculture, where producers aim for consistent harvests year over year, despite changing conditions (Fitzhugh et al., 2019). The number of papers referencing resilience has grown substantially since 2005 (Petersen et al., 2018), and researchers have called attention to some of the flaws inherent to stable-state ecology since then (Cradock-Henry & Fountain, 2019). In particular, the idea of a single stable state makes the implicit assumption that humans are separate from the natural environment, given that human impact is not considered a “natural process” (Folke, 2006). However, human impacts have long legacies that compound into cumulative effects, making it difficult to draw a line between what is “natural” and what is “human” (Escalera-Reyes, 2020; Fitzhugh et al., 2019). This artificial human-environmental dichotomy reproduces itself with the progression of urbanization. As people become increasingly divorced from natural settings, they develop what Duval (2018) describes as a “museum mindscape”, where human perception of the environment is informed by short visits or via technological proxies, rather than through immersion and connection. The imagined security and stability of anthropogenic landscapes and societal structures is juxtaposed by the non-linear, dynamic, and unpredictable nature of the physical environment. Thus, the artificial stable state of agricultural landscapes is regularly disrupted by “natural disasters” such as floods and storms, which reinforces the dominant view of nature as a human adversary and perpetuates entrenched patterns of systemic vulnerability (Hewitt, 1983). While humans might like to think of themselves as separate from or superior to nature, we are in fact unavoidably dependent upon it. Humans 13 are entangled with the natural world through a “unifying theme of ecological dependency” (Lein, 2017, p.7), in which we are obliged to shape and be shaped by our ecology (O’Brien et al., 2012; Marshall, 2010; Rickards & Howden, 2012). This mental separation between humans and the environment ultimately makes it difficult to integrate and manage human and ecological sustainability goals, which may be seen to be at odds, and overall, perpetuates deep vulnerabilities (Folke, 2006; Marshall, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2012; Rickards & Howden, 2012). Later in the 20th Century, a “critical turn” in resilience thinking led scholars to develop the theory of dynamic resilience, as a counter thought to the stable-state paradigm (Cradock-Henry & Fountain, 2019). This new theory acknowledges the need for dynamism, non-linear change, and the need to address uncertainty and surprise, interrelationships between cross-scalar systems and continual adaptation (Folke, 2006; Tanner et al., 2014). It challenges the preceding single equilibrium understanding of resilience in two ways: First, by acknowledging that disturbance is inevitable, imparting both challenges and opportunities onto the system; and second, it demonstrates that multiple domains of stability can and do co-exist, and so the system does not need to return to a reference state after a disturbance (Fitzhugh et al., 2019). Thus, resilience can be seen as a dynamic state, which may shift substantially over time in response to changing conditions, but retains some set of essential functions. SES resilience is an interdisciplinary area of research that emerged from the theory of dynamic resilience. It interprets the world as a complex and dynamic SES, or a functioning unit of necessarily interconnected natural and human subsystems (Escalera-Reyes, 2020; Turner, 2010). In contrast to dominant approaches that assume a primarily utilitarian or dominative posture in relation to the environment, leading to extractive and unsustainable relationships between humans and their environment, the SES lens recognizes the reciprocal relationship and coevolution of interconnected human and environmental subsystems (Cradock-Henry & Fountain, 2019; Fitzhugh et al., 2019). In this way, SES resilience emphasizes the importance of social, economic, and political interventions to enact our role as stewards in the SES. Food systems, and at a smaller scale, individual farms, are complex SES that require dynamic adaptive strategies to manage change and disturbance (Kalaugher et al., 2013). An SES resilience approach is, therefore, one of the most appropriate approaches to understand how the human and environmental sub-systems interact and respond to disturbances, where vulnerabilities exist and how to cultivate resilience to address them. This research applies an SES conceptualization of resilience to understand what resilient local food and wine production is, in chapter 4 of this thesis. 14 2.1.1 Theoretical Models of Resilience There are a few theoretical models that can be used to understand the dynamism of resilience in a SES, including the stability landscape model (Holling, 1973), and the adaptive renewal cycle, which developed from panarchy theory (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Walker et al., 2014). The stability landscape uses the “ball in basin metaphor” to describe the multiple different states of stability or instability that a system might experience (Cradock-Henry & Fountain, 2019). The model depicts a 3-dimensional plane with basins of varying depth and width, which helps researchers understand three attributes of resilience: (1) Latitude (L), which refers to the flexibility of the system or its ability to adapt without systemic collapse or losing its metaphorical “elasticity”. This is represented by the width of the basin; (2) Resistance (R), which characterizes how resistant the system is to disturbance. This corresponds to the topology or depth of the basin; and (3) Precariousness (Pr), which describes the proximity of the system (the ball) to a critical threshold, where it is no longer under the influence of the basin in which it was situated (Walker et al., 2004). Corresponding with the IPCC’s definition of resilience discussed at the beginning of this section, this model suggests that a system in a given domain of stability can be considered “resilient” if it can maintain and recover some essential functioning without crossing a critical threshold, after being exposed to disturbance. Figure 1 The Adaptive Renewal Cycle Note. Created for the purposes of this research, adapted from (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) The adaptive renewal cycle (Figure 1) is a heuristic model emerging form Gunderson and Holling (2002)’s Panarchy Theory. This cycle describes how a system changes in a non-linear and dynamic pattern over time, either enabling or constraining flexibility, self-organization, and adaptive capacity Conservation Phase (k) Release/Creative Destruction (Ω) Alpha Phase (a) Exploitation Phase (r) 15 (Fitzhugh et al., 2019; Folke, 2006; Nelson et al., 2010). Locating a system’s position on this cycle informs management decisions in terms of what adaptations are necessary and when these interventions can be made (Resilience Alliance, 2010). Not all adaptation actions are appropriate in all phases of the cycle, and timing is of the essence as the “windows of opportunity” for adaptive action are often short-lived. According to Gunderson & Holling (2002), there are four key phases that a SES experiences through the adaptive renewal cycle, in which the three attributes of resilience from the stability landscape model (latitude, resilience and precariousness) are embedded. These are: 1. Exploitation Phase (r): A period of growth, where new values and systems of governance materialize. The system exercises its ability to self-organize and cultivates adaptive capacity (increasing latitude and resistance); 2. Conservation Phase (k): A period of growing rigidity and conservatism, supported by a dominant knowledge system and institutional framework. Incremental adaptation is favoured, reducing adaptive capacity and causing fragility in the face of change and disturbance (reduced latitude, increasing precariousness); 3. Release or Creative Destruction Phase (Ω): A crisis period after a critical threshold is breached and the structure and functioning of the system is challenged and possibly altered (precariousness threshold breached); 4. Alpha Phase (a): A period of rapid adaptation, re-organization and/or innovation. During this phase there are two possible trajectories: (a) renew the cycle by looping back; (b) transform by re-organizing or innovating in a way that causes a shift in the fundamental functioning of the system and moves it towards a new domain of stability. The adaptive renewal cycle is useful for understanding a system’s precariousness, or when the system will cross a critical threshold and is no longer under the influence of a domain of stability. In Release Phase (Ω), the system experiences stress to which it might have the capacity to adapt, or not. Therefore, in Alpha Phase (a), if the system can adapt, it will re-organize in a way that retains the essential functioning of the system and re-enter the same loop. If it is not able to adapt, the system will undergo transformation, which brings it over the precariousness threshold and into a new domain and adaptation loop. As defined by Abel et al. (2016), a “transformed” system can be understood as one that is regulated by different stabilizing feedbacks and controlling variables, such as fire regimes or knowledge and institutional systems, and/or have different critical thresholds and produce different outputs. Transformations in Alpha Phase may be either intentional or forced (Rickards & Howden, 2012). Intentional transformations occur when the conditions of the system are no longer socially acceptable, or when decision-makers identify that the current system is maladaptive or not worth recovery if the long-term sustainability of the system is compromised (Abel et al., 2016). For example, in creating the UN SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), global decision-makers established that the current system 16 configuration centered primarily around economic growth is maladaptive in that it promotes negative effects such as anthropogenic climate change and the destruction and degradation of ecological integrity, thus compromising long-term sustainability (Leal Filho et al., 2020). In respect to food and wine production, intentional transformations often take the form of: (1) changes in objective, such as land-use or employment type changes; or (2) location changes, in extreme cases uprooting and moving entire industries to more suitable locations, where the social or physical climate is more favourable (Rickards & Howden, 2012). The aim of intentional transformations is to proactively enter a new state that provides more desirable conditions, by consciously exceeding the system’s boundary of precariousness. Forced transformations are those that are uncontrolled and unsolicited. They occur suddenly, in response to a shock like an earthquake, or in a more gradual way in response to a stressor like drought, if decision-makers ignore the warning-signs and symptoms of an imminent threshold (Rickards & Howden, 2012). For example, if the producers within global agricultural systems do not voluntarily transform their landscapes in response to the threat of climate change, activities such as agriculture will likely be forced to change when temperature thresholds are breached, breaking down stabilizing feedbacks and causing a chain of cascading and possibly irreversible effects on production capacity, the global economy, the wellbeing of humans and other living beings, etc. (Abel et al., 2016). Transformative resilience is the ability for a system not only to prepare, adapt and recover from disturbance, but to intentionally and proactively re-organize and re-structure in a way that leads to new, adaptive states that retain some essential functioning of the system in question. Transformability is often overlooked in resilience literature; however, recent scholarship has recognized the need for transformative resilience thinking (Folke et al., 2010; Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021), particularly in light of the threat of climate change and the need for transformation (Abel et al., 2016; IPCC, 2019; O’Brien et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2014). In the long term, incremental adaptations, such as replanting native vegetation or managing irrigation and water use, are unlikely to cultivate the level of resilience necessary for food and wine production to effectively prepare and adapt to the impending changes (Abel et al., 2016). Adaptation that incrementally leads to transformation needs to begin now, and therefore, resilience strategies must acknowledge and adopt transformability as a key indicator of system performance. Transformative resilience is not a concept that is commonly employed in the resilience literature. This is due to the inherent tension between the goal of resilience, being to maintain a particular systemic configuration, and the objective of transformation, which is to set in motion functional and structural changes (Costa & Kropp, 2013; Ifejika et al., 2014; Spector, 2019; Walker et al., 2004). In recent years, as the impacts of climate change have become more concrete, the SES resilience community has 17 increasingly recognized the need for transformability and shifts form one regime to another, to link sustainability and resilience thinking (e.g., Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Maru et al., 2014). While seemingly counterintuitive, for resilience to be a productive concept over long timelines and in the context of our rapidly changing world and climate, researchers must consider transformation as a key component of resilience. It becomes a growth path in the adaptive renewal cycle, or a bridge between domains of stability. By virtue of the importance of transformation, I argue for the addition of a third essential element of resilience: as discussed, resilience implicates a system’s ability to (1) prepare and (2) adapt, but also to (3) innovate and transform. 2.1.2 Barriers to Applying Theoretical Resilience Conceptual models for understanding resilience, such as the stability landscape model and the adaptive renewal cycle, can be useful models for understanding the structure and patterns of resilience. However, many of these conceptual hypotheses remain untested in real-world settings (Cradock-Henry, 2021). The elevated level of abstraction in resilience research has led to few practical applications and has therefore impeded the implementation of resilience in many cases (Turner, 2010). Multiple resilience indices have been developed. For example, place-based resilience analyses that use contextual proxies of resilience, such as species diversity, microclimate, or social capital in agricultural systems, are attracting interest as a way to better understand the system’s flexibility, adaptive capacity, and overall performance (Cradock-Henry, 2021). However, many scholars argue that the proxies used are inconsistent and over-simplify socio-ecological dynamics that affect resilience, and that resilience cannot be effectively measured given its complex and abstract nature (Obrist et al., 2010). Proxies are often inconsistent given that resilience is place specific, requiring an understanding of the socio-cultural, environmental, economic, political, and geographic characteristics and processes that affect the socio-ecological system in question (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Marshall, 2012; Maru et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand and assess resilience without establishing tangible indicators. Another hotly debated issue in applied resilience research is the question whether resilience should be interpreted as a normative or descriptive concept. Normative resilience implies that resilience is relative to a desirable standard state of being, established by the stakeholders who embed their values and worldviews into the definition (Cradock-Henry, 2021). In contrast, descriptive resilience suggests that resilience is an objective systems property, which can be both desirable, or undesirable, for humans (Folke, 2006; Nelson et al., 2010). 18 Descriptive interpretations are commonly employed in SES studies, given that human and ecological sub-systems are accorded equal importance, and that what is interpreted as a desirable state for humans may not be desirable for the environment (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). In a study exploring the connection between environmental justice and conservation, Martin, McGuire & Sullivan (2013) demonstrate the disparity between human and non-human desires, by arguing that environmental justice is distinct from social justice. They explain that what is desirable for humans is not necessarily a pre-condition or a product of what is good for the environment. Conservation paradigms commonly remove people and industry from natural spaces to reduce anthropocentric impact and allow the “wilderness” to rebound; however, this often comes at a cost for humans whose social, spiritual, physical, and economic subsistence and wellbeing are bound to the dispossessed land (Martin, McGuire & Sullivan, 2013). Thus, the resilience of the environment can, in some instances, be separated from social resilience. However, descriptive resilience can be difficult to define, as humans cannot profess to represent the voice and interests of the “environment”, or even individual species. The best we can do is perhaps understand how to support a system in which our defined human interests are supported, and non-human beings are given the right to exist and thrive. Using descriptive interpretations of resilience does confer certain limitations. Notably, the inclusion of “maladaptive” states, from a normative perspective, and the common lack of consideration for the impact of researcher bias. Since descriptive resilience does not discriminate between positive and negative states, meaning that states that are resilient but not adaptive for human and perhaps non-human beings, “maladaptive” resilient states can exist (Maru et al., 2014). Thus, if an agricultural system is already in an “undesirable” state from the perspective of those who inhabit it, resilience is not the desired objective (Petersen et al., 2018). Descriptive resilience is also not as objective as one might believe. The “system”, or methods and norms of knowledge production often constrains the “science”, or the knowledge produced through inquiry (Knorr Cetina & Reichmann, 2015). This is to say that, because resilience is necessarily interpreted through the lens of an observer (e.g., the researcher, the participants), who unavoidably constructs reality based on their values, interests and biases, interpretations of resilience are necessarily affected by this lens do not necessarily reflect an entirely objective reality. Describing resilience normatively, as a desirable state, raises similar concerns regarding the influence of bias. Researchers have called to attention the fact that those who are often defining a desirable state are not the marginalized and oppressed, and therefore the equity of the decision-making process is called into question (Allen et al., 2019; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). This reinforces the need to ask resilience of what, for whom, and at whose expense (Cutter, 2016). The benefits of actions 19 taken towards a normatively resilient futures are not uniformly distributed; therefore, consideration of who the “winners” and “losers” of adaptation are and representations of both of these groups in the decision-making process is essential (O’Brien et al., 2012; Tanner et al., 2014). Normative resilience may, however, provide an opportunity to represent more diverse voices and lived values in the decision-making process (Nelson et al., 2010; O’Brien et al., 2012). Defining resilience normatively confers opportunities for community participation – for local stakeholders to establish a sense of auto-determination, which establishes the “buy-in” needed to translate resilience knowledge into real-world action (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). A descriptive definition interpreted normatively, meaning that resilience is described as a “desirable” state for all SES stakeholders, is also possible and have been applied in resilience research (Maru et al., 2014). While the challenges of interpretive and decision-making bias remain, normative resilience positions can acknowledge the existence of conflicting values, interests and worldviews, and may omit normatively maladaptive, but resilient states. Given that I am not able to account for the values and interests of all actors (human and non-human) in the socio-ecological system, and that this research centers around the role of humans as agents of adaptation, a normative description of resilience is applied. Resilience is conceptualized from the standpoint of those who participated in this research, those who have written the literature consulted, and my own standpoint, as the person constructing and presenting the knowledge. Standpoint theory, though more commonly employed in feminist scholarship, argues that all knowledge claims are situated – physically, socio-economically, and politically – and, therefore, there are set limits to what one can know and contribute to knowledge formation (Harding, 1992). Thus, resilience in this study does not represent the normative values of those who did not participate or were not involved in the production of the literature reviewed. Other perspectives undoubtedly exist, and further research would be required to seek these out and account for them. 2.2 Disturbance, Vulnerability and Adaptation for Global Food and Wine Production Food and wine production are routinely exposed to a wide array of socio-ecological disturbances. These production systems, developed in the context of stable-state land and resource use paradigms, are also highly dependent on predictable and stable conditions in the SES (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). Thus, the configuration of the system and the threat of multiple disturbances have produced a climate of high vulnerability and risk. For example, even a modest change in climatic conditions, such as rainfall or temperature levels, can be crippling for certain stages of plant development, which has flow-on effects such as decreasing producer profitability (Gitz & Meybeck, 2012; Lunt et al., 2016). Understanding how 20 disturbance interacts with vulnerability is key to understanding impact, and therefore, how agricultural regions can and should adapt. This section explores the key themes of disturbance, vulnerability, and adaptation across global agricultural regions. 2.2.1 Disturbance and Vulnerability Harmful disturbances can be categorized as either shocks or stressors, reflecting both their temporal scale and magnitude of influence. Shocks are described as acute drivers of change, which occur suddenly and usually threaten or cause an involuntary regime shift (Abel et al., 2016). To illustrate, earthquakes occur suddenly, with low duration but high magnitude of influence. Like many shocks, earthquakes often trigger “disasters”, where the ability of the system to absorb the shock is breached, and the existing functioning of the system becomes dysfunctional under the new conditions. Correspondingly, stressors imply the opposite. They characterize chronic disruptions, such as climate change, which occur over long temporal scales, sometimes evading human detection due to shifting baselines over generations and involve a lower-grade intensity that builds over time (O’Brien et al., 2012). This slowly erodes systemic adaptive capacity and increases the likelihood of threshold transgressions, by increasing the precariousness of the system. The concept of vulnerability is key to linking these shocks and stressors to their impact on a population at risk. Vulnerability describes how sensitive and susceptible a population is to a source of harm (Adger, 2006). It is often considered the antithesis of resilience, as it is inversely correlated with adaptive capacity (Young et al., 2010). Turner (2010) explains, the net impact of shocks and stressors depends not only on how intense the disturbance is, but on the degree to which the system, and its individuals, are vulnerable to that disturbance. A small amount of stress imposed on a system or individual that is highly vulnerable can have a substantial impact. For example, an early spring frost can kill or severely damage grapevine buds, limiting the season crop quality and yields, and therefore farmer income (Bealliveau et al., 2006). Other crops that are not especially vulnerable to spring frosts, such as beets, are more resistant, and therefore, beet farmers will not be impacted in the same way. The impact of combined disturbance and vulnerability on food and wine production is well documented in the global literature (e.g., Abel et al., 2016; Bryant et al., 2000; Costa et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Cradock-Henry & fountain, 2019; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2013; Jamir et al., 2012; Kenny, 2011; Marshall, 2010; Maru et al., 2014; O’Brien et al., 2012; Ruiz Meza, 2015; Spector et al., 2019; Tanner et al., 2014; Young et al., 2010). Patterns of vulnerability are interwoven into the global geography of food and wine production, reflecting the socio-21 ecological context in which production is situated. For example, “developing” countries in the Global South are often dependent on agricultural incomes derived from a dominant crop such as the soya bean, which reduces their flexibility and adaptive capacity and increases their vulnerability (Maru et al., 2014). They are at the same time disproportionately at risk and impacted by shocks and stressors such as drought, famine, poverty, and ecological degradation, which reflect the human and physical geography of that place, as well as the systemic path dependencies defined by the larger global SES (Adger et al., 2013; Maru et al., 2014; Ruiz Meza, 2015). A number of themes of vulnerability emerge from the academic literature that examines disturbance trends and are illustrated in Table 1 categorized by the nature or origin of the disturbance. As seen in the Table 1, themes in the research include socio-cultural, political, economic, environmental, and biological disturbances and their potential impacts and come from a wide multi-disciplinary group of researchers (Abel et al., 2013; Adger, 2006; Adger et al., 2013; Alebaki & Ioannides, 2018; Belliveau et al., 2006; Bryant et al., 2000; Costa et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Crawford & MacNair, 2012; Fountain, 2019; Forbes & Nelson, 2018; Getz & Brown, 2006; Gillinsky et al., 2020; Hall, 2003; Hammond et al., 2013; Jamir et al., 2012; Kenny, 2011; Lawrence et al., 2013; Lereboulet et al., 2013; Marshall, 2010; Maru et al., 2014; Nygrén, 2019 ; O’Brien et al., 2012 ; Ruiz Meza, 2015; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Spector et al., 2019; Tanner et al., 2014; Young et al., 2009). While these categories do create an artificial distinction between the driving forces of disturbances, categorization is used to capture and represent the complexity of the SES to facilitate understanding of the forces at play within it. For example, climate change is categorized as an environmental risk, however, it is a complex socio-ecological process that is currently being driven by anthropogenic activity, and therefore human decision-making and culture (Adger et al., 2013; Tanner et al., 2014). It is categorized as an environmental risk, given that the way it manifests itself is primarily through climatic and ecological change. 22 Table 1 Global Agricultural Risks and Impacts in the Literature Disturbance Type Disturbances: Risk Factor Impact Institutional/ Political Access to government assistance and subsidy programs Exclusion of producers in decision-making, lack of power and recourse to justice Overdependence on subsidies Uneven and patterned distribution of assistance and subsidies Institutional deficiencies, and poor leadership and political representation Inability to self-organize Reduced adaptive capacity Frequent changes in government leading to barriers posed by inconsistent legislation Lack of coordination and strategic vision among levels of government The values, aspirations and preferences of the community are not represented in decisions, reducing vertical social capital Perceived powerlessness in decision-making process (producers) Core-periphery relationships Disempowerment of local people by distant political and economic forces, often reinforcing rural/urban divides Marginalized groups lack power in decision-making processes Poor or non-existent risk management and land-use planning Reduced adaptive capacity Conflicts between land use, water, and other resource rights Regulatory constraints & disconnect between decision-makers and producer needs Changes in market demand and producer profitability Changes in farm management Peripheralization of smaller producers due to increased costs or reduced access to market etc. Environmental/Climatic Climate change Physical consequences: • Fresh water depletion and reduced carrying capacity • Declining soil moisture • Unpredictable growing seasons/conditions: late spring frosts, early nocturnal cooling, unpredictable winds, heat waves, changing microclimates etc. • Increased frequency and intensity of storms, drought, flood, fire and other climactic variabilities • Sea level rise and salt-water intrusion Socio-economic consequences: • Crop and profit losses for producers • Increased likelihood of conflicts over resources • Increased poverty and reduced food security • Increased emigration • Exacerbated historic and structural global inequities and patterns of exclusion • Deepened socio-economic global north-south divide • Loss of cultural assets Changes in land composition and use (natural and human caused changes and often damage to the ecosystem Environmental degradation Limited water security and availability Biophysical constraints: changing soil type, slope of land etc. Urbanization: reduced availability and affordability of land Conflict over land and resource rights Reduced food security Rapid-onset natural Hazards: e.g., earthquakes, landslides, tsunami etc. Dramatic and often unamendable changes to the landscape and critical infrastructure (e.g., transportation and farm infrastructure) Reduced production and loss of income Seasonal Natural Hazards: forest fire, flood, drought Limited human mobility impacting agritourism – reduced income Damaging some crop varieties, reducing yield and profitability (e.g., wine crops experience smoke taint from forest fires) 23 Table 1 Global Agricultural Risks and Impacts in the Literature Disturbance Type Disturbances: Risk Factor Impact Social/Human Poor access to a) health and well-being services; b) information, knowledge, and learning; c) basic resources (e.g., transportation, food, income) Patterned poverty Reduced livelihood options Poor education outcomes, and high rates of illiteracy Urbanization, intensification of human development and population increases Detachment from local environmental and ecological knowledge, reduced awareness of climate-related issues Environmental degradation and urban sprawl Conflicting land and resource use interests (urban and agricultural uses) Urban interests are better represented and favoured over rural ones in political debates Rural exodus: Rural depopulation, abandonment of farms, loss of young population and reduced social capital. Population aging Loss of accumulated wisdom, local knowledge, and heritage Barriers to social cohesion (e.g., intolerance, lack of opportunity to network, transient population) Limited sharing of strategic transferable skills and knowledge Lack of a culture of reciprocity and sharing Weak place attachment Weak relationships between stakeholders Reduced community support for production Human factors: • Lack of diversity in farmer skillset • Unwillingness to learn and adapt • Cultural rejection of new technologies (values that limit adaptive capacity) • Overconfidence in the ability to adapt Poor risk awareness, capability, and adaptive capacity Inability to resolve dynamic problems that require multiple skillsets on the farm Overconfidence deepens vulnerability, as it provides a false sense of security Profit and production levels may decrease Changing consumer preferences or knowledge Market shocks (e.g., reduced demand for products) Economic Economic growth, development, and material accumulation Exploitation of natural capital: forming a positive feedback cycle that fuels consumerism and worsens climate change Uneven distribution of accumulated wealth Deepened socioeconomic inequities: peripheralization and widening income gap between rural and urban places Low GDP Uneven economic opportunities influenced by historical determinism Dependence on welfare systems High-input production systems Sensitivity to increased energy costs due to market changes Relationship of dependence on external inputs, over which producers have very little control, and may fluctuate in price Exposure to changing national economics (e.g., strength of currency) Volatile market dynamics: changing supply/demand dynamics, recessions, crises etc. Unexpected price shocks, and reduced profit margins Low financial security for farmer Rising land prices Less land converted to agricultural uses Young farmers cannot enter the industry Older farmers are incentivized to sell their land at retirement, rather than pass it on to new farmers Lack of access to credit Reduced flexibility (access to credit increases adaptation options) Labour: shortages and regulation changes Reduced production and processing capacity Reduced profitability High producer debt-to-income ratio Reduced flexibility (e.g., debt may reduce access to financial capital) Interrupted or poor market access (e.g., during COVID-19) Reduced income and spoilage of product Uneven economic opportunity based on geography Lack of pluri-activity and livelihood diversity (dependence on single production type) Reduced flexibility and adaptive capacity (economic diversity buffers the impact) Less resilient local economy 24 Table 1 Global Agricultural Risks and Impacts in the Literature Disturbance Type Disturbances: Risk Factor Impact Technological Serial engineering (technology is believed to be the solution to all problems) – leads to overreliance on and overconfidence in technologies Reduces incentive to develop adaptation strategies and implement preventative measures May reduce flexibility (e.g., long lead times and lock-in, deepens path dependencies that constrain future options) Deepens relationships of dependence on technological corporations High capital costs lead to uneven distribution and exacerbate socio-economic inequities High input production systems Exposure to a larger range of market risks and price shocks Reduced flexibility Irrigation-intensive systems Threatened long-term water security Dependence on specialized labour capable of managing complex systems Reduced water catchment-level resilience High capital costs Biological Biosecurity issues, pest, and disease outbreaks Reduced quality and quantity of agricultural product Human disease outbreaks Barriers to market access Reduced human mobility and labour availability Disruptions to agri-tourism economy Self-reporting biosecurity systems False biosecurity statements: biosecurity outbreaks quarantine costs, income loss, species loss Socio-cultural disturbances to food and wine production revolve primarily around access to different forms of social capital. Studies have demonstrated that a culture of reciprocity, sharing and strong, supportive social networks are strongly correlated with adaptive capacity (e.g., Adger et al., 2013; Ifejika et al., 2014; Marshall, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2012; Spector et al., 2019). High levels of competition, social tension, and fragmentation are often connected to a perceived or real scarcity or inequitable distribution of valued resources – such as money or water – and are connected to environmental, political and economic forces, such as drought, famine, war and global market fluctuations (Jamir et al., 2012; Ruiz Meza, 2015). The aging of farmers is also impacting production, particularly in Western countries where population aging is advanced (Hammond et al., 2013). Coupled with trends of youth exodus, pulling youth out of rural communities with limited opportunity and the process of urbanization, older farmers are unable to execute farm succession plans (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). This translates to the loss of small-scale family-owned farms, and increasing farm size, as well as a loss of accumulated traditional, ecological knowledge and cultural practices, which is significant, given that small-holder agriculture under 2 acres presently contributes 28-31% of global food production, or 30-34% of calories, representing a greater contribution than any other size class (Ricciardi, 2018). Other social factors relate to individual-level decision-making, and the psychological and emotional resilience of farmers. Cradock-Henry and Mortimer (2013) highlight the role of critical awareness of potential risks, positive outcome expectancy and self-efficacy as key indicators of overall 25 resilience of producers. Thus, the lived experiences and health of farmers are critical to maintaining systemic function. Disturbances such as social inequity, poor education, poverty, poor access to food, income and insurance, cultural biases against adopting new knowledge and practices, weak place attachment and access to diverse skillsets, yield negative outcomes for personal resilience, and therefore make food systems, particularly those that rely on small-scale farming, more vulnerable (Adger et al., 2006; Hammond et al., 2013; Jamir et al., 2012; Tanner et al., 2014). Like social disruptions, political forces have the potential to significantly impact production. Food is inherently political, as it is tied to political ideologies and preferences, cultural norms, and ethical standards (Herring, 2015). The fate of production is inevitably entangled with the values and worldviews of politics and society, who influence consumer preferences, access, and distribution. Governments shape agricultural land use in a variety of ways, such as by offering subsidies, financial assistance, and disaster relief compensation for certain products. While these programs reduce production risk in the short term, this blunting of risks can create deeper vulnerabilities by disincentivizing adaptation and innovation in the industry (Bryant et al., 2000). Changes to subsidies and government aid programs over the long-term can also disrupt the current agricultural configuration and land use patterns and create patterns of inequity for those excluded from the benefits. Geopolitical agendas, and pressure from organizations such as the IPCC to change agricultural practices, are also changing consumer demand and putting pressure on producers. For instance, along with many global sustainability champions, the IPCC has recommended a steep reduction in livestock farming in effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2019). The FAO (2013) has also advocated for increased consumption of insects for food security, revitalizing traditional foods in some cultures, and introducing new consumption patterns in others. The advocacy of these groups may have a positive impact on the sustainability of the industry; however, it also imposes challenges for the livelihoods of livestock farmers, their bottom-line, and the sustainability of traditions and cultures that have been raising livestock for millennia. Lastly, in many farming communities, farmers are part of populations who have poor political representation (Tanner et al., 2014). This leads to a disconnect between agricultural regulations and the needs of the farmers themselves (Hammond et al., 2013). Economic disruptions have important consequences for farm profitability, but also food security and global, ecological, and social health. The profitability of farms is highly dependent upon many factors, such as the type of crop grown, dependence on inputs, access to markets, climate, etc. (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). Dependence on externally controlled and volatile global markets deepen producer vulnerabilities through price shocks and disruptions to market access (Hammond et al., 2013; 26 Jamir et al., 2012). Profitability is also affected by climate, highlighting positive feedback loops where economic growth leads to the exploitation of natural capital (Lawrence et al., 2013), which, in turn, is tied to intensified global climate change and reduced farm productivity and profit (Ruiz Meza, 2015). As populations and economies grow and human impact increases, agricultural vulnerability will also increase (Lunt et al., 2016). Uneven distribution of financial capital is also responsible for considerable disturbance to production. Many rural agricultural regions are having to contend not only with continued disinvestment, but economic peripheralization supported by historically determined socio-economic inequities and patterns of exploitation (Adger et al., 2013; Ruiz Meza, 2015). For example, foreign and urban ownership of agricultural land ensures that very little of the capital and products generated from the land stays within and benefit the local community. This reinforces the widening income gap between rural and urban places (Maru et al., 2014). Labour patterns in “developed countries” also tend to rely on foreign human capital, which reinforces entrenched inequities and produces important risks for local economies when disturbances restrict labour access (Costa et al., 2016). Globally, the effects of economic peripheralization are felt most acutely in the most vulnerable primary producing “developing countries”, where GDP is generally low, and rural people are impoverished and exploited for the benefit of highly urbanized, rich “developed countries” (Adger et al., 2013; Ruiz Meza, 2015). Agriculture is also becoming an inaccessible career for young people, given the barriers of rising land values, a lack of access to credit and high debt-to-income ratios for farmers (Hammond et al., 2013). As Cradock-Henry and Mortimer (2013) explain, as property values increase, driven in large part by urbanization and the overlap between prime agricultural land and desirable urban settlement, young farmers are being priced out of the land market. Thus, farmers have become “asset rich”, but cash-flow poor, incentivizing them to sell their land to developers and speculators with cash in hand. High debt-to-income ratios and a lack of access to the credit required to buy land and/or run operations creates land tenure insecurity and restrict overall flexibility and adaptive capacity (Gitz & Meybeck, 2012). Environmental disturbances are prominent in the literature and are linked chiefly to climate change and climatic uncertainty (e.g., Bryant et al., 2000; Hammond et al., 2013; Lawrence et al., 2013). Extreme shock events, such as flood, drought, heatwaves, and intense storms are becoming increasingly frequent (Abel et al., 2016; Adger et al., 2013; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Marshall, 2010), and therefore pose significant risk to food and wine production. Stressors, such as environmental degradation (e.g., eroding soils), changing rainfall patterns and snow cover, saltwater intrusion of land in coastal areas, 27 changes in biodiversity, higher mean temperatures, and compromised water quality, are also threatening ecological balance and agricultural production (Abel et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). The effects of climate change drive vulnerability in two ways: (1) by introducing new risks, and (2) by changing the context of the system (Gitz & Meybeck, 2012). First, climate change has been linked to new and heightened risks, with impacts such as farm profit and productivity losses (Antle et al., 2018; Bryant et al., 2000), increased instances of crop and livestock diseases and pest outbreaks (Abel et al., 2016), threatened local food and water security, increased poverty and reduced employment opportunities (Ruiz Meza, 2015), and a loss of social capital and cultural assets, such as place or cultural or spiritual significance (Adger et al., 2013). Second, climate change affects the stability of production systems by altering agroecological requirements and carrying capacities that affect farm diversity, species selection, and management practices (Ruiz Meza, 2015; Young et al., 2010). It also catalyzes political intervention, such as new climate-regulation policies, which have flow-on effects for global market prices – particularly energy inputs (Abel et al., 2016). In extreme cases, it creates pressures for industry relocation (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020), or mass emigrations as seen in Latin America (Ruiz Meza, 2015). The effects of climate change are not only experienced directly, as interruptions to production yields, quality, and operations, but indirectly as well, in the form of compromised food security and growing food system instability (FAO, 2008). These issues already disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized, including most of the world’s producers; thus, as climate change progresses, global inequities will widen as human and ecological health erodes (FAO, 2008). Overall, climate change is expected to be the most important force driving agricultural adaptation and innovation in the century (Antle et al., 2018). Lastly, biological disturbances are highly related, and therefore considered a subset of environmental change. Biological disturbances may manifest in the form of biosecurity issues, such as pest and disease outbreaks, human disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as self-reporting biosecurity systems. While exposure to pest and disease outbreaks are highly dependent on geography, they are important to consider as the impacts on production quality and quantity can be great. For example, wine producers in North America have identified pests, such as the cutworm and leafhopper, and diseases, such as powdery mildew, as serious conditions that characterize a bad production year (Belliveau, 2006). Human disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, also affect production by restricting free movement, thus interrupting foreign temporary worker programs and the influx of agritourists, on which some producers rely to supplement production-based income (Hall, 2003). 28 This list of disturbances is far from complete and cannot be assumed to be applicable to the study area in this research. However, in conjunction with a survey of the context-specific disturbances occurring in the Okanagan Bioregion, it can inform a deeper understanding of the forces that may affect resilience (as in Chapter 4). It is also important to note that all disturbances confer risk, and all risks involve varying degrees of uncertainty (Wise et al., 2014). Both known and unknown or unknowable uncertainties make it difficult to predict outcomes and analyze the costs and benefits of adaptation (Yohe & Leichenko, 2010). 2.2.2 Adaptation As discussed above, one of the key characteristics of resilience involves the ability of a system to adjust to, absorb or buffer disturbances in a way that preserves the essential functioning of the original system, or allows for an adaptive transformation. In this context, adaptation is the process of implementing strategies that adjust for or absorb "waves of adversity” (Obrist et al., 2010). Adaptation centered around resilient livelihoods, such as agricultural livelihoods, involves adjusting system process, structures, and capital flows, to reduce or minimize exposure and vulnerability (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Howden et al., 2007). As The United Kingdom Department for International Development posits, the ability to adjust for or absorb disturbance is enabled or constrained by access to, but also the ability to mobilize, 5 forms of capital (Obrist et al., 2010): 1. Human Capital- e.g., human health, wellbeing, and ability to work 2. Social Capital – e.g., relationships, social belonging, trust 3. Natural Capital – e.g., water, land, air, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services 4. Physical Capital – e.g., technologies, infrastructure, physical assets 5. Financial Capital – e.g., cash, financial credit, income Overlaying each of these forms of capital is symbolic capital, or the amount of power-related resources, prestige and privilege one has access to (Obrist et al, 2010). Adaptive capacity is therefore both context-specific (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Young et al., 2010) and unevenly distributed across space (Adger, 2006; O’Brien et al., 2012). Adaptation is mediated by the characteristics of place as well as the processes and capacities of the people who live there, which affect the configuration of social, human, physical, natural, and financial (Adger et al., 2013; Bryant et al., 2000). For example, two agricultural communities of a similar size in different places and socio-ecological contexts may differ in their ability to adapt to a threat. In Table 2 below are some of the most important contextual factors that affect adaptive capacity, which appear in the literature (e.g., Adger et al., 2013; Howden et al., 2007; O’Brien et al., 2012; Vermeulen et al., 2013; Wilk et al., 2014; Young et al., 2010). 29 Table 2 Types of Capital Social and Human Capital • Population characteristics (e.g., age structure, personal traits, physical ability, socio-economic status, educational attainment levels, household structure and income, etc.) • Culture (e.g., communal values and structure, cultural practices, and norms) • Access to information • Personal characteristics (e.g., risk perception, critical awareness of risks, positive outcome expectancy, willingness to learn, place attachment, personal values) • Vertical social capital: institutional effectiveness, trust in political and institutional bodies, communication between different levels of government Natural Capital • Common agricultural practices (e.g., tillage, irrigation types, farm diversity) • Types of agricultural products (e.g., crop and animal species) • Physical environment and climate (e.g., type of ecosystem, water security, type of pests and diseases, climatic trends, microclimates) • Ecosystem services (e.g., water, air and soil quality, erosion control, etc.) Physical Capital • State of public infrastructure (e.g., roadways, water infrastructure) • Farm tools, equipment, and infrastructure • Transportation • Level of development and urbanization Financial Capital • Access to financial credit • Income sources (e.g., single activity, pluri-activity) • Level of dependence on externally produced inputs • Profitability of agricultural products and production • Local market dynamics • Global market dynamics (e.g., export economy, global trade agreements) Symbolic capital • Level of power sharing • Historical determinisms and path dependencies (e.g., colonial history, history of poor agricultural practices or extractive industry in the area, etc.). Social inequities are often exacerbated and reproduced in the process of making adaptation decisions. Even in democratic societies, not all voices appear to have an equal stake. Instead, an “illusion of inclusion” (Few et al., 2017) is at play, or an illusion that all voices and values have equal opportunity to be heard and headed (Adger et al., 2013). Institutional and societal structures often create invisible enablers for some voices to be heard, and barriers for other, usually marginalized, voices (Adger et al., 2013). Food and wine producers, particularly in developing contexts, can be located outside of the decision-making sphere, and, in some instances, have poor political representation. Therefore, there can be variable control over the outcomes of adaptation planning (Tanner et al., 2014). While some producers have access to the socio-political status required for their voices to be heard, many others, particularly those that belong to other marginalized groups, do not. Researchers have called attention to the fact that every adaptation that benefits some aspect of the SES comes with inherent trade-offs and potentially negative outcomes for other aspects of the system – and therefore, there are always winners and losers of adaptation (O’Brien et al., 2012; Smit & Skinner, 2002). 30 While variation is important to account for, coordination and integration within the larger adaptation context are also critical. In a study examining New York’s adaptation to hurricane Sandy, Rosenzweig and Solecki (2014) found that the implementation of distinct response plans, developed by the city, New York State and New Jersey, led to a patchwork of disjointed and incompatible strategies that negatively affected the resilience of the region. Thus, attention to the contextual needs of a place must be balanced by attention to larger, regional adaptation strategies and goals. 2.2.2.1 Classifying Adaptation Adaptation strategies are not uniform. Instead, there are multiple types, which can be differentiated by using a typology of adaptation, such as the one produced for this research in the Table 3. Adaptations are normally differentiated is based on temporal duration and magnitude. Short-term actions are known as “tactical” responses, while mid- and long-term ones are identified as “strategic” and “transformational”, respectively (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2019). In respect to magnitude, incremental adaptations are those that are protective and maintain the current systemic configurations, whereas transformational ones shift the systemic equilibrium and introduce fundamental changes in both structure and composition (Bloemen et al., 2018; O’Brien et al., 2012). 31 Table 3 A Typology of Adaptation Factors Adaptation type Source Scale Spatial Global, national, regional, farm, field, plot settings (Meinke et al., 2009 ; Smit & Skinner, 2002) Temporal Timing: • Anticipatory (proactive) • Concurrent (during) • Responsive (reactive) (Kwadijk et al., 2010; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Young et al., 2019) Duration: • Tactical (shorter-term) • Strategic (mid-long term) • Transformational (longer-term, fundamental change) (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020 ; Kwadijk et al., 2010 ; Smit & Skinner, 2002 ; Spector et al., 2019) Magnitude Incremental (protective, maintains equilibrium) Transformational (shifting equilibrium and fundamental change to structure and composition) (Bloemen et al., 2018 ; O’Brien et al., 2012 ; Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014 ; Vermeulen et al., 2013) Agents involved Number Agents involved Individual response (producer/decision-maker) Collective response (system) Farmers, private sector, public agencies … (Nicholas & Durham, 2012) (Smit & Skinner, 2002) Form Type Educational, behavioural, regulatory, infrastructural, legal, administrative, financial, institutional, changes in management practices, changes in varietals and breeds/species, changes in land-use, structural, informational, technical etc. (Bryant et al., 2000; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Young et al., 2009) Intent - Anticipatory- Intentional (consciously pre-planned for a specific risk) Reactive (spontaneous, addresses immediate consequences) (Kwadijk et al., 2010; Nicholas & Durham, 2012; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Young et al., 2019) Classifying adaptation by using these discriminators is important to ensure that the adaptation strategy is an appropriate response for the threat. To illustrate, employing a tactical, incremental adaptation strategy, such as purchasing an irrigation system, would be inappropriate and maladaptive if the threat, a long-term drought, requires transformation. Inappropriate use of tactical strategies may exacerbate risk and vulnerability in the long-term. Using the same example of an irrigation system implemented in reaction to drought, there is potential for long-term water security to be compromised and weakened water basin resilience (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). 32 Adaptation can also be distinguished based on the type of strategy. There are hard and soft strategies, as well as “no-regrets” and reversible/flexible strategies. Hard strategies comprise most modern-day agricultural adaptation action, and include technology and physical and built assets, such as infrastructure (Kenny, 2011). Agricultural technologies have undoubtedly had a critical and positive impact on society; for example, increasing productivity and financial security through the use of technological tools such as forecasting and early-warning systems (Marshall, 2010), or new infrastructure such as irrigation systems (Smit & Skinner, 2002). However, “serial use” of hard strategies has also proven maladaptive (Lawrence et al., 2013), as they can lock producers into a trajectory that reduces flexibility as conditions change, given the long lead times and high capital investments required for implementation (O’Brien et al., 2012). Hard strategies also incur residual risks that cannot be accounted for and that increase over time, when conditions change (Lawrence et al., 2013). Agriculture that is reliant on technological inputs, particularly energy and fossil fuels, is exposed to deepened relationships of dependence on external variables such as market forces and, therefore, path dependencies (Kenny, 2011; Marshall, 2010). This reduces local food sovereignty and control of local peoples over the future of production, which is generally unfavourable from a local perspective. Lastly, overreliance on technology can create a “levee effect” (O’Brien et al., 2012). This occurs when a solution such as technology endows people with a false sense of security, which increases their vulnerability, given their lack of preparation of additional lines of defense (Marshall, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2012). Given these limitations, hard strategies need to be balanced with soft ones, and should be coupled with intelligent policy. Soft strategies are normally institutional or management tools, such as insurance schemes, subsidies, warning systems or land-use management strategies (Hallegatte et al., 2009). Agroecology, as a practice for alternative food production that is founded on the sustainable management of agroecosystems and tied to food sovereignty (Anderson et al., 2019), is another example of a strategy that might be considered “soft”. Soft strategies like agroecology are typically more easily reversed, and therefore more flexible and less likely to incur sunk costs (Hallegatte et al., 2009). This makes soft strategies more suitable for situations where uncertainty is high. “No-regrets” and reversible strategies are adaptation measures that may incorporate soft and hard elements. No regrets strategies are flexible actions that will produce benefits, regardless of whether the disturbance ever occurs (Butler et al., 2016). An example could be planting a high-value, commodity crop that is resistant to drought in place of a low value one that is sensitive (Vermeulen et al., 2013). No-regrets can be expressed as the difference between the total cumulative costs that result from using the 33 strategy and the total benefits (ideal: regret < 0) (Hall et al., 2019). Reversible strategies are, as the name suggests, actions that are easily changed or reversed (Hallegatte et al., 2009). 2.2.2.2 Staged Adaptation Adaptation research has generally focused on tactical adaptation, leading to a poorly developed knowledge base on transformative adaptation (Wise et al., 2014). Producers also tend to favour short-term tactical responses, given that they are often dealing with acute and immediate issues such as budget constraints, food insecurity, water supply, education, healthcare, and poverty (O’Brien et al., 2012). What is not commonly understood, largely due to shifting baselines, is that many of these acute issues are rooted in larger chronic problems, such as climate change, and will inevitably worsen without proactive, long-term, and transformative intervention (O’Brien et al., 2012). Transformation is often assumed to be a governmental responsibility; thus, many producers and general society rely on decision-makers to address systemic issues and are less likely to assume the role of innovators themselves (Bloemen et al., 2018). This undermining of self-reliance and agency of the people is often referred to as the “Samaritan’s Dilemma” (O’Brien et al., 2012). Policymakers and the experts informing them also face challenges to adopting proactive and long-term responses, however. Difficulties understanding complex problems and the political invisibility of reducing risks, where time delays between when the burden of new transformative policies, for instance, climate change policy, and the benefits of implementing them do not always fall under the timeframe of a political mandate or term (O’Brien et al., 2012). Overall, most people and systems, especially when in the conservation phase of the adaptive renewal cycle, are resistant to change and want to maintain the status-quo as long as possible (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). The primary issue with prioritizing short-term tactical responses is that it often compromises long-term sustainability (Meinke et al., 2009), by limiting flexibility and reducing the scope of possible adaptation strategies over the long term. For instance, declines in agricultural productivity in South Asia have been observed and liked to the prioritization of short-term, tactical responses over strategic, long-term, and transformational ones (O’Brien et al., 2012). This has created a precarious situation for already vulnerable populations, increasing rural indebtedness, poverty, gender inequities, and nutritional deprivation. Tactical responses may also increase transfer costs, or the costs incurred from changing from one short-term response to another (Bloemen et al., 2018). That said, transformative adaptation also carries costs. Transformative actions, like industry relocations, have long leads times and often require a great deal of up-front capital investment, which can cause lock-ins, where the decision-makers are unable 34 or unwilling to pivot off the established trajectory, due to sunken costs (O’Brien et al., 2012). Ultimately, this creates path dependencies and makes the system highly susceptible to maladaptation if unexpected changes arise (Rickards & Howden, 2012). Staged adaptation is one way to mediate the shortcomings of both tactical and transformational adaptation. Staged adaptation refers to the use of incremental actions, which lay the foundation for transformations that will eventually be required (Bloemen et al., 2018; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014). This helps to enhance the flexibility and long-term sustainability of adaptation and avoids many of the trade-offs, lock-ins and sunken costs associated with maladaptive transformations. The process of “staging” employs smaller, tactical responses in the short-term to address proximate and urgent symptoms of vulnerability, and in the long-term, transformations to address systematic causes of vulnerability (Butler et al., 2016; O’Brien et al., 2012). There is still significant debate regarding the future of adaptation, particularly in relation to the direction of staged transformations. While some advocate for a top-down technocratic approach, which favours the use of technology and geoengineering (e.g., Artificial Intelligence or GMOs), others firmly support a bottom-up agroecological approach, which emphasizes ecological design, human-environmental synergy and the management of sustainable agroecosystems using practices such as permaculture, or regenerative agriculture (Anderson et al., 2019). The future direction of transformations therefore remains largely uncertain and is likely to vary place to place, shaped by societal values and access to capital and resources needed for the production and diffusion of agricultural technologies. 2.2.2.3 Agricultural Adaptation in Climate Change Studies Over the past two decades, adaptation to climate change has featured prominently in global agricultural research. The table of Adaptation Actions for Global Agriculture in Appendix A summarizes many of the strategies that have been proposed and trialed in different agricultural regions to manage a variety of disturbances. Agriculture is both one of the most important contributors to climate change, and one of the key leverage points for addressing it. Creating resilient food and wine-producing communities therefore hinges on our ability to leverage the climate crisis as an opportunity to implement positive changes. However, while the possible impacts of climate change on agriculture are well documented in studies, there is still not enough known in terms of how to effectively adapt (Smit & Skinner, 2002). Globally, most farmers report being affected by climate change; however, most of them have not adjusted their practice or technology in response (Bryant et al., 2000; Marshall, 2010). This is in part because climate change is a complex, multi-scale problem that is not easily addressed. It involves a 35 profusion of temporal and spatial scales and a seemingly infinite cast of actors (Adger, 2006). Thus, it cannot be addressed based solely on emergent scientific research; it must also incorporate other disciplinary knowledges and the social and lived experiences of stakeholders who account for the issues of politics and justice, economic systems, disproportionate climatic impacts, and asymmetries in decision-making power, which affect the way we propel and respond to climatic change (Adger et al., 2013; Ruiz Meza, 2015; Tanner et al., 2014). Climate change adaptation research appeared in the 1990s, as an element of impact assessment studies (Kalaugher et al., 2013). This early literature was catalyzed by focusing on highly vulnerable places and people, such as “developing” countries, regions with strong exposure to natural disturbances as well as marginalized social groups (Wise et al., 2014). Biophysical risks dominated adaptation research during this time, as climate change was understood as the primary driver of agricultural vulnerability (Antle et al., 2018). However, researchers have come to acknowledge the inseparability of human forces and climate change, as well as the dependence of adaptation on societal values that control capital flows and restrict and enable access to valued resources (Lein, 2017). Methods in climate change adaptation research have also changed significantly. In early years, the emphasis was placed on linear methods, such as the “loading dock approach”, where adaptation planning follows a step-by-step process of generating climate projections, analyzing impacts, and assessing adaptation options (Werners et al., 2013), or the IPCC’s use of standardized criteria to predict future outcomes and choose actions to adapt to those futures (Kenny, 2011). The issue with these methods is the knowledge produced is often not actionable for many communities that lack resources, such as agricultural communities (Lawrence & Haasnoot, 2017). Additionally, even if adaptation plans are technically able to be implemented by an agricultural community, there is no guarantee that farmers will adopt them, given their lack of agency in the decision-making process or a lack of understanding and trust in the process that generated them (Smit & Skinner, 2002). Lastly, climate modeling is highly susceptible to issues related to a lack of data, strong historical determinacies, incorrect diagnosis of the issue, or a mismatch in spatial and temporal scales between climate models and adaptation decisions (Barnett et al., 2014; Kwadijk et al., 2010). For example, long-term climate forecasting at a broader regional scale may not be suitable for the purposes of farmers, making every-day decisions on their land (Howden et al., 2007; Wise et al., 2014). Overall, this approach appears to perpetuate a research-policy-action gap. Recently, research has shifted towards decision-orientated and applied approaches which build adaptive capacity (Obrist et al., 2010). The goal of these approaches is to produce adaptation strategies that work in real-world contexts that are not linear and contain inexorable deep uncertainties and to bridge 36 the research-policy-action gap (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Nelson et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010). However, studies that operationalize adaptation are rare and there is no accepted standard procedure or practices that outline how the process of adaptation should work (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Nicholas & Durham, 2012). Thus far, most adaptation research has failed to consider the interaction of dynamic feedbacks and trade-offs, and their cascading impacts causing stabilizing or destabilizing effects (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). There is also a general lack of attention to the relationship between culture, risk perception, and place attachment in mediating adaptation decision-making (Adger et al., 2013; Spector et al., 2019), as well as the role of stakeholder agency and empowerment (Tanner et al., 2014). 2.3 Adaptation Pathways: A method for managing disturbance under uncertainty Adaptation pathways (AP) planning is an iterative, stepwise approach to making decisions under deeply uncertain circumstances (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; O’Brien et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2014). In its most basic form, building AP proceeds in three key steps: (1) the identification of vulnerabilities; (2) an analysis and evaluation of adaptation options; and (3) the aggregation and sequencing of those options over time, into preferred and actionable pathways (Kwakkel et al., 2015). These pathways, or corridors of sequenced adaptation actions over time (Haasnoot et al., 2013; Wise et al., 2014), are often represented visually in the form of a pathways map, for ease of communication and use (Bloemen et al., 2018). As a descriptive tool, AP is not intended to be used in a predictive capacity, but rather to map out pathways forward in the context of the complex, compounding and/or unpredictable disturbances that constitute reality (Butler et al., 2016). Pathways have two key features: they are designed to be both flexible and robust. Flexibility is inherent to the pathways, given the incrementalism built into them (Barnett et al., 2014; Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Marshall et al., 2014). For instance, AP employ staged adaptation, by staging strategies in a way that supports the use of many low-risk, interchangeable short to medium-term, incremental responses that transition the system overtime to longer-term transformational changes (Bloemen et al., 2018; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Lawrence & Haasnoot, 2017; Marshall et al., 2014; Spector et al., 2019). Adapting to climate change will require transformation, thus, building transformative capacity will be key for the future of food and wine production, and more broadly human life, in the coming century (Abel et al., 2016; Lawrence et al., 2013; O’Brien et al., 2012; Wise et al., 2014). Pathways are designed to allow for multiple trajectory changes or “pivots” off one path and onto another. Pivots are normally made when approaching an adaptation trigger or tipping point (ATP), also known as a pre-defined “point of no return”, where the trajectory is no longer adaptive or viable and must 37 be recalibrated (Kwadijk et al., 2010; Kwakkel et al., 2016). To give an example, the wide use of irrigation to adapt to drought in agriculture can create a positive feedback loop, where water availability and security are compromised by the adaptation itself (Coulter, 2019). Thus, when availability begins to decline and it becomes evident that the capacity of the system to cope with change is nearing a breach (ATP), farmers need to be able to pivot to another strategy that helps them manage drought effectively. The use of incremental adaptation and ATPs helps the user of AP to avoid the risks associated with undertaking transformative actions, such as path-dependencies and lock-ins, which increase the transaction and opportunity costs. Transformative actions, such as land-use changes like replacing fruit trees with wine grapes, or large-scale production methods changes like converting a conventional farm to organic, without incremental lead-in steps, can reduce flexibility by locking the pathway into a trajectory through long lead times and up-front capital investments that may become maladaptive as the world changes (O’Brien et al., 2012; Rickards & Howden, 2012; Vermeulen et al., 2013). Thus, monitoring and iterative reflection are essential for avoiding maladaptation in AP planning (Kwadijk et al., 2010). Pathways are also constructed to be robust. This means that they will perform adequately within society’s acceptable parameter of risk, in multiple possible future circumstances (Abel et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Kwakkel et al., 2016). The idea is to create pathways that are not hypersensitive or dependent on any specific future circumstances, but work across a broad range (Kwakkel et al., 2015). This way, there are adaptive options no matter how the future materializes. Exploring multiple possible futures allows stakeholders and decision-makers to understand the impact of adaptation actions (e.g., trade-offs and synergies), assess transfer costs, and decide when they need to pivot off one course and onto another (Wise et al., 2014). The AP approach has its origins in risk assessment research (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020), which antecedents in environmental management and policy sciences (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019). There are many different approaches to AP studies, including the “route map approach” (Reeder & Ranger, 2011; Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2010), the thresholds and ATP approach (Kwadijk et al., 2010), and lastly, the dynamic adaptive policy pathways approach (Haasnoot et al., 2013). Some of the first applications of AP include The Thames Estuary TE2100 Project (Ranger et al., 2013) and the Dutch Delta Programme (DDP) (Haasnoot et al., 2013). Both of these were large-scale engineering project, which requires a high technical capacity, oversight by strong, higher-order governance with clearly defined goals, a large socio-ecological system and sophisticated computer-generated scenarios (Barnett et al., 2014). 38 Applications of AP have since attracted interest across disciplines, branching out into different contexts, sectors, and areas of study unrelated to engineering (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020), however, critical knowledge gaps remain. Applications of AP have been somewhat limited to hypothetical case studies or large-scale industrial or infrastructural projects to manage physical risks such as flooding, which rely on the availability of considerable financial capital, specialized expertise and knowledge, technical skills, time, precision, and governmental cooperation (Barnett et al., 2014). The issue is that these highly specialized and resource-intensive methodologies (e.g., TE2100 or the DDP) are not always feasible for all communities. Most agricultural communities are disproportionately burdened by disturbances caused by exposure to socio-ecological forces such as climate change. Their vulnerability to these forces is compounded by a lack of resources, which makes complex AP methodologies infeasible. The infeasibility of highly technical AP processes in rural communities, therefore, enhances entrenched patterns of inequity. Marginalized populations, such as certain rural communities, often assume disproportional risk and higher impact costs and have very little access to recourse, as outsiders to the political and decision-making circle (Adger, 2006; Ruiz Meza, 2015; Tanner et al., 2014). This highlights the need for local and regionally based, participatory AP planning that works with the abilities, resources, and capacities available to communities (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Falardeau et al., 2019). Many of the existing AP studies have also focused on a single stressor variable (Bloemen et al., 2018), such as climate change, flood risk and sea-level rise (e.g., Haasnoot et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2019; Ranger et al., 2013; Rosenzweig et al., 2014; Yohe & Leichenko, 2010). However, most communities are not facing single shocks and stressors, but multiple, compounding, non-linear and cross-scalar interacting disturbances that are specific to the context in which they are situated (Adger et al., 2006; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; van Vuuren et al., 2012). Additionally, there is a general lack of consideration for “black swan” events (Taleb, 2010), understood as large surprise shock events (Nygrén, 2019), and for transformations and regime shifts to enhance long-term resilience (Bloemen et al., 2018; Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Maru et al., 2014). This narrow framing of AP widens the gap between research, policy and action and impedes the mobilization of the knowledge produced (Bryant et al., 2000; Nelson et al., 2010; Smit & Skinner, 2002; Young et al., 2010). This points to the need to widen the scope and downscale AP, to make them relevant and salient to the everyday lives of the affected population (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). Given that the AP approach does not automatically consider or address the socio-political dimensions of making adaptation decisions (Bloemen et al., 2018), participatory AP methods have risen 39 in interest. Uncertainty is not resolved through the addition of information, instead, it is diluted through stakeholder participation, which sets adaptation decision-making in the context of the diverse values, preferences, and knowledge systems of those making and being affected by adaptation decisions (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019). As O’Brien et al. (2012) convey, the most impactful and successful risk management efforts are those that have been participatory and fostered stakeholder partnerships. Researchers are advocating for participatory AP approaches as an effective way to address deep uncertainties. In a study exploring participatory AP, Cradock-Henry et al. (2020) note that the process of collaboratively building AP with participants in a “safe” and low-stakes setting, allowed for better self-efficacy and promoted improved and shared understandings of the drivers of risk, possible ways to adapt and their flow-on effects, as well as when to implement adaptations. The multi-directional co-learning involved in these processes also promotes inclusivity and integration and appreciation of different knowledge systems and lived values (Falardeau et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2010). Collaborative building AP has also appeared to foster community cohesion and adaptive capacity by creating a platform for researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders to interact and share ideas (Falardeau et al., 2019; O’Brien et al., 2012). When researchers and the community and are brought together by co-creating shared objectives and understandings of risk and adaptation that are relevant to their livelihoods, participants are more likely to develop a sense of ownership over the AP plan and its implementation (Abel et al., 2016; Lawrence et al., 2019; Nicholas & Durham, 2012; Ross et al., 2014; van Aalst et al., 2008). Thus, AP plans are more likely to be translated into action. Lastly, participative AP is also understood to create awareness regarding the way that a choice of near-term adaptation can restrict or broaden the range of long-term adaptation options available (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). This is critical to shifting the emphasis away from quick fixes, towards long-term anticipatory planning that is more effective in the long term. Even though adaptation is context-specific and dependent upon the views and values of community members that are non-transferable, participative AP provide a general framework that facilitates comparability across different communities. This encourages relationship-building, and interdisciplinary knowledge construction in the larger global research community (Coulter, 2019). Participatory AP approaches are challenged by uncertain community response and the process of consensus building. How local communities will respond and adopt AP planning remains unknown, as reports following the implementation stage are rare (Lawrence & Haasnoot, 2017). Participants may feel that the process inadequately addresses the psychological, spiritual, and emotional dimensions of 40 adaptation and therefore be less likely to act on recommendations (Barnett et al., 2014). Additionally, even if local decision-makers are involved, implementation of AP may still be hampered by the lack of mandate for action in many local governments, who often do not have adequate jurisdictional powers to make the necessary policy changes (Lawrence & Haasnoot et al., 2017). Building consensus in collaborative decision making is also difficult, as different perceptions on risk awareness, values, preferences, attachments to place and particular future outcomes may conflict or appear irreconcilable (Barnett et al., 2014). To date, there are no applications of AP in the Okanagan Bioregion, and very few in the broader context of Canada (e.g., Fazey et al, 2016; Tanaka et al., 2015). In 2019, a report prepared for the BC Ministry of Agriculture titled Climate Change Adaptation Pathways Frameworks: supporting sustainable local food in B.C. (Coulter, 2019), outlined how APs could be applied to BC’s agricultural sector and used to prepare and adapt to climate change. Unfortunately, this study was limited to a hypothetical application using an imaginary study area and focuses narrowly on the single variable of climate change. This research intends to bridge the knowledge gaps as specified in this section of the literature review by implementing an applied, participatory AP planning model. The AP process will investigate multiple forms of disturbance, rather than focusing narrowly on a single variable, such as climate change. It will also emphasize staged adaptation and the importance of thinking multiple generations ahead, adhering to the principles of intergenerational justice (Falardeau et al., 2019). Finally, the resulting pathways will be created with the time, capital, and expertise constraints of the region in mind. This is expected to improve the likelihood of operationalization, as well as demonstrate to other similar regions with limited resources that AP planning is a feasible, effective, and worthwhile strategy for them. 41 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods This chapter provides an overview of the methodology, research design, and methods used in this thesis project. It begins by addressing the broader, more philosophical questions, followed by a more technical and applied discussion of the methods involved in the 5 phases of the research process. 3.1 Methodology This research embraces a pragmatist epistemology, which is a philosophical worldview that emerged from the 19th Century works of philosophers Pierce, James, Mean and Dewey, as a branch of humanistic thought (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Pragmatism highlights the importance of the research problem and associated questions, rather than the methods, encouraging ways of knowing that are validated by real-world and practical application (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). It rejects the notion of dichotomist research paradigms, where qualitative and quantitative research methodologies are mutually exclusive, instead, encouraging pluralism in ontology and mixed-methods research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). This affords the researcher the freedom to employ multiple research lenses and methods that work synergistically to provide practical answers to the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Denscombe, 2008). Guided by this epistemology, the purpose of this exploratory case study is to explore if and how AP might facilitate socio-ecological resilience for the landscape of food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. Resilience is conceptualized using the dynamic resilience theory framework (Folke et al., 2010; Kalaugher et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2007). This means it is understood as a non-linear, dynamic and continual process of preparation, self-organization, absorption and adjustment to shocks and stressors, and finally, knowledge building and innovation to support and sustain food and wine production in a place into the future (Adger, 2006; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; O’Brien et al., 2012; Spector et al., 2017; Turner, 2010; Wise et al., 2014). Exploratory case studies are broad investigations that gather information about what is going on, or test a hypothesis, before advancing to more in-depth quantitative studies (Bouma, Ling & Wilkinson, 2012). 3.2 Research Design and Methods This research employs a multi-phase AP planning model, using an integrated, mixed-methods approach to explore the research questions. Integrated, mixed-methods approaches combine qualitative and quantitative methods and data, derived from top-down and bottom-up ways of knowing (Kalaugher et 42 al., 2013). This interdisciplinary approach integrates qualitative and quantitative methods and information processing strategies as equal opposites, to form an understanding that is more than the sum of its parts. This affords the researcher multi-focal vision, rather than binary vision, which helps the researcher form a more complete picture of the object of study (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Decuir-Gunby & Schultz, 2017; Denscombe, 2008). Ultimately, this multi-focal vision presents opportunities for knowledge production not shared by disciplinary approaches. These include the ability to overcome the pitfalls of siloed disciplinary knowledge production (O’Brien et al., 2012) that commonly impede the resolution of wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), as well as the ability to disentangle the complex relationships inherent in socio-ecological systems (Kalaugher et al., 2013). Recent studies employing AP have emphasized the importance of blending bottom-up with top-down strategies to minimize the shortcomings of each (Kalaugher et al., 2013). For example, top-down methods in adaptation research commonly rely on quantitative methods and tools, such as climate models, simulations, and scenarios, which can yield narrow and oversimplified technical responses (Kalaugher et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2010). These responses are often not applicable or relevant to the problems and purposes of stakeholders and decision-makers in their daily lives (Barnett et al., 2014; Hallegatte, 2019; Kwadijk et al, 2010; Nelson et al., 2010). Despite the shortcomings of top-down and quantitative methods, they remain important to this research. These methods produce credible, legitimate, and replicable knowledge (Kalaugher et al., 2013), and are more effective than their counterparts when identifying trends over longer temporal or broader spatial scales (Lawrence et al., 2019; Werners et al., 2013). Bottom-up strategies often employ qualitative methods, which are constrained by multiple invisible factors, such as human memory and shifting baselines, which compromise accuracy (Nicholas & Durham, 2012; van Aalst et al., 2008). That said, qualitative methods also explore system elements that are less easily quantified, such as farmer decision-making (Barnett et al, 2014; Hallegatte, 2019; Kwadijk et al., 2010), and are therefore missed or overlooked by quantitative research. Thus, top-down, qualitative methods and data are more appropriate to approach the technical aspects of this research, such as climate and environmental risk projections. Bottom-up approaches complement top-down ones by drawing out salient issues related to real-world practice, the diverse lived values of stakeholders and local priorities, which improve the “buy in” necessary to mobilize the key actors needed to mobilize research (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018; 2020). Participatory methods are particularly effective for bridging the disconnect between research, policy, and action, as they create collaborative trans-disciplinary knowledge communities, where multi-directional co-learning and inclusive governance can occur – empowering participants and conferring a sense of 43 ownership over the research and the action plan (Falardeau et al, 2019; Marshall et al., 2014; Ross et al., 2015; van Aalst et al., 2018). This is particularly important for climate change resilience studies, as the prioritization of adaptation strategies has historically been led top-down by governments and has failed to engage with the interests and values of citizens, particularly vulnerable and marginalized groups (Menton et al., 2020). Given the fact that the weaknesses of one approach are often mitigated by the strengths of the other (Dencombe, 2008), an integrated, mixed methods approache allow researchers to question which method is most appropriate for the task at hand. This research was intended to be participatory. Blackstock et al. (2007) write that participative research requires “self-reflective community of inquiry” (p.128), where participants are empowered make decisions about things that affect them and are implicated in all phases of the research process. Due to the restrictions imposed on this research by the COVID-19 pandemic, this research neither empowered participants to make decisions or advocate for change, nor included them in all phases of the research. Thus, participation was limited to consultation. This research was conducted over two years, from September 2020 to April 2022, and follows five key phases outlined by the AP model (Figure 2). The model progresses stepwise, as follows: (1) Explore the current situation; (2) Define the objectives and the desired outcomes; (3) Analyze possible futures; (4) Develop and prioritize AP; (5) Implement, monitor, evaluate & adjust. Figure 2 The Adaptation Pathways Planning Model Note. Figure created for the purposes of this research, adapted from (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020) 44 3.2.1 Explore the Current Situation Design In phase 1, I conducted a desktop analysis to explore the resilience of food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. The objective of this desktop analysis was to provide top-down answers to the first two research questions: (1) What is resilient food and wine production? (2) Which disturbances are affecting local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion? Table 4 below summarizes the sub-questions asked to guide this inquiry, the types of sources that were used, and how they were accessed. These sources were identified using key search terms such as “agricultural risks”, “agricultural vulnerabilities”, “agricultural resilience”, “indicators of resilience” and “Okanagan”. Table 4 Sources used for Phase 1 Desktop Analysis Research Question Sub-questions Sources Accessed (1) What is resilient food production? Resilience of what and for whom? What are the characteristics of a resilient food/wine production landscape? What variables can be used to understand the resilience of food/wine landscapes? Scholarly books, articles, theses, and dissertations Reports from industry authorities (e.g., Resilience Alliance) Accessed via: Summons UBCO library collection, Google Scholar. (2) Which disturbances are affecting local food production in the Okanagan Bioregion? What are the key disturbances impacting resilience of food/wine production in the bioregion? What is the impact of these disturbances? Scholarly books, articles and theses, and dissertations Reports from federal and provincial institutions, the regional districts, and regional institutions/organizations (e.g., OBWB, Agri-food Canada, etc.) Climate change projections from: Provincial and Regional reports on climate change Accessed via: Summons UBCO library collection, Google Scholar, Google Search Procedure and Analysis To conceptualize local food and wine production, I first examined the range of ways that agricultural resilience is characterized theoretically, drawing on information from the preliminary literature review, as well as in applied settings, based on relevant scholarly literature written about agricultural regions worldwide, over the past 20 years. From the applied literature, I compiled a list of common variables affecting agricultural resilience. These were compiled using open coding, which is an inductive method that allows the researcher to identify themes by classifying and compiling ideas and expressions into codes or “nodes” of information (Williams & Moser, 2019). Some of the variables selected are conglomerates of several related variables; for example, attitude towards change and willingness to adopt new practices, critical awareness of risks, positive outcome expectancy, self-efficacy, 45 were combined under the variable “producer factors”, as defined below the SES diagram. Once identified, the variables were set into an SES diagram. To produce the SES model of resilient food and wine production, I adapted Resilience Alliance’s (2010) Framework for assessing resilience in SES and Cradock-Henry & Mortimer’s (2013) Conceptual model of a resilient dairy farm, drawing on the variables affecting agricultural resilience identified in relevant scholarly literature. As Young et al. (2010) explain, a SES model is a diagram that describes a socio-ecological system using a holistic lens, as a dynamic functionally interconnected unit, rather than using a reductionist lens, by focusing on parts of the system. It focuses on the interactions and processes acting upon and within the focal system, and therefore, in combination with the variables of resilience for food and wine production identified in the literature review, the model can help to visualize system dynamics, and identify points of potential disturbance that interact with resilience. To identify which disturbances are affecting food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion, I scanned the relevant governmental and institutional reports bodies, scholarly books and literature, and provincial and regional climate projection reports. Guided by the variables of resilience in the SES model, I identified several key themes of disturbance that affect the resilience of production systems. Identifying the range of disturbances affecting local food and wine production is an essential first step to exploring solutions or strategies to support resilience, as it reveals the vulnerabilities that already exist within the system (Cradock-Henry, 2021), which interact with disturbances to destabilize the system. Once selected, they were organized thematically. The resulting themes were later synthesized with the bottom-up answers to the same question, provided by respondents in the phase 2 mapping survey. 3.2.2 Phase 2: SEI, Identify the Objectives and the Desired Outcomes Design In Phase 2, I conducted a Socio-Ecological Inventory (SEI) (Schultz et al., 2007) of disturbances to local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. The SEI is composed of four key sub-phases, including: (1) Identify the relevant stakeholders and the participant sample; (2) Invite the sample to participate in an Internet-based mapping survey; (3) Identify the dominant themes of disturbance; (4) Establish the desired outcome, or a positive future vision for local food and wine production. Participants and Recruitment The study population for the Internet-based mapping survey was selected using an accidental quota sampling procedure, meaning that the participants were chosen haphazardly, based on interest in 46 participating and availability (Bouma, Ling & Wilkinson, 2012). A representative sample was not required for this research. The aim was not to generalize results across the communities of producers. Rather, the purpose of this sample was to explore the experiences and situated knowledge of a group of individuals who participate as stakeholders in food and wine production in the bioregion. Individuals contacted were involved in local food and wine activities, such as horticulture, dairy, livestock, viticulture, arable crop farming, beekeeping, wild food collection. They may also identify as local food or wine experts, agricultural advocacy representatives, members of local government or Indigenous groups. The sample individuals were selected to represent the North, Central and South Okanagan areas. These participants were recruited using publicly available sources, such as farmers’ market directories, food and wine association websites and social media. Third-party organizations also helped to distribute the survey through their e-mail lists and social media channels. Organizations who distributed the mapping survey included: The North Okanagan Organic Association (NOOA), The North Okanagan Land to Table Network, Young Agrarians BC, The South Okanagan Organic Producers Association (SOOPA), Sustainable Winegrowing BC (SWBC), The North Okanagan Beekeepers Association and the Certified Organic Association of BC (COABC). The majority of organizations who agreed to assist in the distribution of the survey were Organic Associations; however, the results from the survey indicated an almost equal representation of organic and non-organic producers. Once identified, participants received an e-mail directly from myself with details concerning the research project, the survey, their participation, and instructions for access (Appendix B). Procedure: The mapping survey The internet-based mapping survey was hosted on two web-based platforms: Qualtrics and Geolive. Qualtrics is a UBCO licensed survey software, and Geolive is a mapping survey software developed by the SpICE lab at UBCO to facilitate participatory research projects. This mapping survey aimed to (1) collect socio-demographic data on the participants; (2) identify the range of disturbances and perceived vulnerabilities and risks impacting food and wine production in the study area; and (3) identify the objectives and desired outcomes for resilient local food and wine production. All maps are artifacts, which represent the ideas, socio-cultural values, and worldviews of its producers, as well as their knowledge of place (Clifford et al., 2016). I chose to employ mapping to understand the landscape of risk in the Okanagan Bioregion, given that risk, and its two components – hazards and vulnerability – represent ideas that evolve and differ across space. This means that they are place-dependent, and hinge upon the socio-economic, political, and environmental dimensions of a 47 community, and the resources available there (Adger, 2006; Peggion et al., 2008). Mapping the different disturbances that affect local food and wine production provides an accessible medium to represent the patterns and relationships between the agricultural landscape, risk, and vulnerability, which affect the priority status of threats and the type of response. The survey was piloted in February 2021 in a UBCO undergraduate class to establish validity and confirm user-friendliness. The pilot participants included a mixture of undergraduate and graduate students and a professor (n=9). Upon completion of the survey, they filled out a Google forms soliciting feedback on the strengths, limitations, flow, organization, and effectiveness of survey. The results of this were primarily positive. Respondents suggested that the survey was very “interactive and user-friendly” and provided lots of choice with its “free nature”. Changes were made to the survey instructions, based on recommendations to add further detail regarding the timeframe of interest for disturbances, and examples of the types of disturbances. Overall, the mapping survey was seen as an effective way to solicit the targeted information, help participants visually understand disturbances, and establish a broader view of what is going on beyond their “little life bubble”. One limitation of this pilot test is that none of the test respondents came from the target demographic of this survey (e.g., they were not food or wine producers). Therefore, they may not have been able to identify some of the key gaps in information. Participants were able to access the live mapping survey starting early February 2021, via an anonymous survey link that directed them to the Qualtrics platform. The survey was open to responses for 12 weeks, to allow for a range of respondents to participate. The respondent was first asked to provide consent to participate and then they were able to access the survey questions and the Geolive mapping interface. The Qualtrics survey consisted of 10 questions (Appendix D). The Geolive portion of the survey was accessed via an embedded link in the Qualtrics survey. In the mapping exercise, participants dropped markers over areas where disturbances have occurred, or they believe will likely occur. For each marker dropped on the map, a survey window popped up, asking them to name, describe, categorize, and identify the likelihood, seriousness, and ways that they, or others, have dealt with the disturbance. Analysis Once the mapping survey was closed, the data were analyzed employing a descriptive statistical analysis. This type of statistical analysis summarizes the data to describe the lived experiences of a particular sample, rather than the general population (Thompson, 2009). This involves calculating the mean, standard deviation and/or range of the responses, as well as describing the association between them. These data were extrapolated into tables, graphs, and a report in the results section of this 48 thesis. The analysis was used to identify the key disturbances affecting the population, determine which they were most concerned about, and to understand what they valued and what the desired future looks like. The data from the mapping survey were synthesized with the data from the desktop analysis (phase 1) to produce an integrated inventory of key disturbances that were relevant to the resilience variables in the SES model. This synthesis was performed given that the synthesis of top-down, bottom-up and qualitative and quantitative data sets often supports stronger conclusions (Bazely, 2011). The lines of inquiry in the desktop analysis and survey were approached as “mutually informing”, meaning that they were complementary, but also “interdependent” and relied on one another to answer the research questions completely. 3.2.3 Phase 3: Analyze Possible Futures Design The third phase involved the creation of one parallel scenario, which described a plausible future for local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. Building AP for climate change has typically involved the use of climate change scenarios (e.g., Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Lawrence et al., 2019; Lawrence & Haasnoot, 2017; Werners et al., 2013; Wise et al., 2013). However, as Dessai and Hulme (2004) argue, climate change models are notoriously complex and inherently uncertain, particularly those that have been downscaled to the local or regional level, which would be of most use for building adaptation pathways (AP). Some researchers even argue against the use of climate change scenarios in adaptation policy and decision-making, as they reveal very little about the underlying vulnerabilities of the system (Dessai & Hulme, 2004). Instead, they advocate for approaches that focus on building adaptive and buffering capacity into the system itself, so that it is better able to prepare, adjust, innovate, and transform, when the need arises. This was considered later in the process of building AP (Phase 4). AP practitioners normally probe a vast space of the future, considering multiple different and contrasting futures, in order to increase the robustness and identify the trade-offs of emerging pathways (Abel et al., 2016; O’Brien et al., 2012). Scenarios can help pathway builders engage with complexity and uncertainty, as well as inspire shifts in perception, creativity, and ideas about how to adapt in the future (Nygrén, 2019). Unlike the majority of AP studies, I have chosen to produce only one scenario to guide the production of the pathways. This decision was made based on the constraints imposed on the research design by the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, having to pivot from a series of workshops with groups 49 to interviews with individuals. This decision was also impacted by the apparent inability of these scenarios to capture local vulnerabilities, as previously stated. I acknowledge that the lack of multiple scenarios is a key limitation of this study. Pathways built on single scenarios often underestimate uncertainty (Hallegatte, 2019) and do not allow for a robust analysis of the trade-offs and synergies of adaptation strategies (O’Brien et al., 2019). The scenario that I chose was intended to be used by participants in the interviews as a referential tool to help them start to explore, imagine, and visualize how they might build a more resilient landscape of production. This means that the scenario was used as a starting point to allow participants to explore a plausible future and its impacts, and to start to think about how they would adapt and build adaptive capacity over a specific timeline. The following paragraphs detail how this scenario was produced. The process of building a future scenario in this research was guided by the parallel scenario framework. This framework was developed by a coalition of researchers from the earth system modeling (ESM), impact, adaptation, and vulnerability (IAV) and integrated assessment modeling (IAM) communities (van Vuuren et al., 2014), with the aim of updating the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), the IPCC’s last iteration of climate change scenario framework released in 2001 (Ebi et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2010). It was also produced to expedite the scenario development process and to build a common framework for interdisciplinary use, to facilitate collaboration across disciplinary boundaries and to improve understanding of climate change in social-ecological systems (Ebi et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2014). The parallel scenario framework simultaneously engages both qualitative and quantitative data to develop a range of socio-economic, enviro-climatic and policy pathways and integrates, robust future scenarios that more accurately represent the reality and complexity of socio-ecological systems (Ebi et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2010; van Vuuren et al., 2014). This parallel scenario framework integrates 3 reference pathways: • RCP: the representative concertation pathway, which represents the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and therefore, the intensity of warming (van Vuuren et al., 2014); • SSP: the shared socio-economic pathway, which describes the socio-economic pathway factors affecting community vulnerability, such as demographics, population growth, urbanization, institutional factors, welfare factors, access to resources and technology, etc. (O’Neil et al., 2014); • SPA: the shared policy assumptions, or the set of assumptions that define mitigation and adaptation policy and response. For instance, carbon taxes, technology standards, budget allocation to support vulnerable populations (van Vuuren et al., 2014). These pathways are called “reference pathways” as they represent incomplete and non-plausible futures on their own (Kriegler et al., 2014). Parallel scenarios combine an RCP, an SSP and an SPA reference 50 pathway to form a comprehensive vision of plausible future developments (O’Neil et al., 2014). It is important that these scenarios are approached as plausible, rather than possible, scenarios, and to acknowledge that they provide a very simplified vision of the climatic variables that are relevant to producers – often leaving out information on microclimates, rainfall distribution, variability extremes, etc. (van Aalst et al., 2008). In this research, the scenario is intended to be used in an exploratory way, to depict a plausible future state, rather than an anticipated or possible one (Nygrén, 2019). It was also used to help guide the interview respondents in identifying low-regrets, flexible and cost-effective adaptation strategies that impose minimal disturbance to food and wine production. The research uses RCP 8.5, which is a worst-case greenhouse gas emissions trajectory, SSP 3, nicknamed the “rocky road” given that it represents challenges for both adaptation and mitigation, and the “reference policy” SPA, which refers to low policy efforts for climate mitigation (Kriegler et al., 2014; O’Neil et al., 2014). Further detail regarding these reference pathways and why they were used appear later in Chapter 4. Qualitative and quantitative data for the parallel scenarios were collected from a variety of scholarly articles, books, Statistics Canada, governmental and regional district reports. The RCP data were drawn from the Okanagan Climate Projections Report, using RCP 8.5 (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region., 2020), and the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium’s (PCIC) Plan2Adapt tool, which uses an RCP 8.5 climate scenario from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) using the Bias Correction with Constructed Analogues and Quantile Mapping Version 2 Method (BCCAQv2) (Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, n.d.). RCP 8.5 describes the 90% percentile (high extreme) interval of climate change projections in the IPCC’s AR5 report (Riahi et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2012). Land use data for RCP 8.5 and the data for SSP 3 and Reference SPA were collected from scholarly articles exploring socio-economic trends at the global scale (e.g., Jiang, 2014; O’Neil et al., 2014; Riahi et al., 2017). These were synthesized with compatible trends of disturbance identified in the desktop analysis and mapping survey (phase 2), as well as projected socio-economic trends from Statistics Canada (2016a; b; c), BC Stats and other relevant reports (e.g., Bjarnason et al., 2016; Climate Projections for the Okanagan, 2020; MDB Insight, 2019; MNP LLP, 2020; Urban Matters, 2020). Black swans, or unpredictable and highly consequential events (Taleb, 2010) such as pandemics, were not included in the scenario but were discussed as possible disturbances in the interviews. 51 Analysis The RCP, SSP and SPA data were collected, tabulated (Appendix C), synthesized with the disturbances found in the desktop analysis and survey, and then presented as a timeline graphic (Section 5.1.1.2, Chapter 5). The graphic was used in effort to make the abundance of data and information involved more accessible and approachable in the interviews. The data from the desktop analysis and survey also played an important role in grounding the scenario in the regional reality of the Okanagan Bioregion, given that some of the data for the SSP projections were only found from global sources (e.g., Riahi et al., 2017). That said, aggregating global and downscaled data in the scenario-creation process does confer some benefits. For instance, Falardeau et al. (2019) note that it can help facilitate coordination among interconnected regions, so that solutions to climate change can be found that will be effective across multiple scales. Not all of the data could be represented in the timeline graphic. The process of selecting which data to represent was strongly influenced by those disturbances survey respondents indicated that they were most concerned about. 3.2.4 Phase 4: Develop and Select Adaptation Pathways Design In this phase, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand how and when local food and wine producers might adapt to disturbance. Interviews are not commonly used in AP studies (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019), however, they are an appropriate method, given that they allow people to explain their experiences and to express complex ideas - such as why an adaptation strategy may or may not be appropriate in every context - in a conversational, low-stakes setting (Flowerdew & Martin, 2008). The interviews were designed to enable participants to consider what the future might look like, using the parallel scenario produced in phase 3, and to explore a range of adaptation options that respond to a range of disturbances. Research has found that the process of using scenarios to probe future states and build AP can empower stakeholders through awareness of their agency, support their decision-making process in the face of uncertainty, and highlight the synergies, trade-offs and the transformative capacity that affects production (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). The purpose of including a scenario in the interview was to provide a structured approach to exploring future states, with real tangible examples of disturbance that were deemed important by producers in the mapping survey (phase 2) and that can support decision-making (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). 52 Using interviews, rather than workshops, as the key method for building AP does impose certain limitations. For instance, the format of an interview does not allow for the same level of collaboration, networking and negotiation of disparate priorities and values, which strengthen the outcomes of AP (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). Instead, the process relies on the best judgement of the researcher in integrating the diverse perspectives of participants. The short timeframe also limits the scope of plausible futures that can be explored, leading participants to underestimate uncertainty (Hallegatte, 2019) and fail to design strategies that work across many different futures (O’Brien et al., 2012). Recruitment and Procedure The sample for the interviews was selected using an accidental quota sampling procedure (Bouma, Ling & Wilkinson, 2012), which was identical to the one used in phase 2 to recruit for the mapping survey (section 3.2.2.2). 12 participants, who fit into the 3 quota (regional) groups, and who were willing and able to be interviewed, were selected. The purpose of the quota groups was to ensure that producers from the different regions, which differ in many ways - including which products are produced, the microclimates and more. Participants were invited to participate via e-mail (Appendix D) and were asked to fill out a form of consent once a time and location was scheduled for the interview. These interviews took place between September to October 2021 via zoom and in-person on their farms and lasted between 1 to 2 hours. The interviews were composed of 3 parts: Part 1: I asked participants questions related to their relationship to local food and wine and the community and production assets that they would like to see in the future. This aim of part 1 was to develop rapport with the participant, and to learn about their experience and values. Part 2: I presented the findings from the mapping survey, highlighting the different disturbances that were important to producers. After this, I introduced the future scenario created in phase 3 as a narrative and provided a visual timescale that depicts the scenario, the disturbances affecting production under the scenario and the desired vision of the future at the end of the timeline (Figure 7 in Chapter 5). After participants were given some context, I asked them to tell me about their experience with some of the disturbance elements in the scenario and asked them how, under the circumstances of the scenario, producers might be able to adapt to reach the desirable future at the end of the timescale. The temporal benchmarks used for this timescale included now (1-5 years), later (6-50 years) and much later (51-100 years). I encouraged participants to think about adaptation strategies that are flexible, cost-effective and impose a minimal amount of disturbance. 53 Part 3: To wrap up the interviews I asked the participants to identify the priority areas for adaptation action and determine how confident they are that producers in the bioregion will be able to meet the impending challenges of this century. This allowed me to determine which pathways on the AP diagram might be preferred by participants and understand what level of self-efficacy and self-reported adaptive capacity exists among participants. For a full breakdown of the interview content, see Appendix F. Analysis of the Interviews Each interview was recorded and transcribed using a UBC-licensed Zoom account, and then cross-checked manually for quality assurance. All personal data were kept strictly confidential and were tabulated only once they were made completely anonymous. The data from the interviews were coded inductively and did not use pre-determined codes or hypotheses. This allowed any theories to emerge out of the patterns and themes derived from participant views identified in the interviews, as per grounded theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For building the adaptation pathways (AP) map, I compiled an inventory of adaptation strategies that emerged through the interviews. These strategies were organized into a table, which indicated when (e.g., now, later or much later) participants suggested they could or should be implemented. Using open coding to analyze the data in these tables, themes of adaptation strategies began to emerge. For example, adaptation strategies related to learning or changes to land use and species. Adaptation strategies were selected based on whether or not they were “no-regrets”, strategic, flexible, and address underlying vulnerabilities, given that these types of strategies are understood to enhance resilience (Butler et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; O’Brien et al., 2012). They were also chosen with the aim to enhance overall adaptive capacity, based on feedback in the interviews. Given that most resilience and adaptation pathways research has focused narrowly on responding to specific threats, this approach has the potential to create new and broader understandings of adaptation, which take into account bigger-picture trade-offs and synergies (Linkov & Trump, 2019). This is not common practice in AP research. Usually, pathways respond to a defined disturbance (e.g., flood) and use tools such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Robust Decision Analysis (RDA) and Adaptation Tipping Points (ATP) to build and refine the pathways (Haasnoot et al., 2011; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Lawrence & Haasnoot, 2017). Building the pathways based on increasing overall adaptive capacity, did allow for a broader scope of disturbances to be considered and addressed in the pathways map. Refining the pathways myself, 54 rather than allowing a group of stakeholders to do so, caused my own values to be embedded into the resulting pathways, and may limit their validity and usefulness to stakeholders as a result. The pathways were drafted using the “Pathways Generator,” which is an open-access software created by Deltares (https://publicwiki.deltares.nl/display/AP/Pathways+Generator). One limitation of the pathways map was that it was not cross-checked and approved by the participants. 3.2.5 Phase 5: Implement, Evaluate, Monitor and Adjust In this final phase, participants were sent an e-mail containing the final version of the AP diagram, and a letter of gratitude for their participation. Due to time constraints, implementation and monitoring were beyond the scope of this research. However, in future research, this should be an essential component of the project. 3.3 Positionality and Critical Reflexivity The term “positionality” describes the worldview and position that a researcher adopts. It pertains to locating the researcher in relation to (1) the research topic; (2) the research participants; and (3) the research process and context (Holmes, 2020). In this section, I discuss my positionality as it relates to these three areas. First, I would like to acknowledge my position as an uninvited visitor living on the unceded, ancestral territory of the Syilx Okanagan Nation Peoples. I also acknowledge that the many benefits I derive from this land and living on it, such as food, shelter, and the ability to study at UBCO, come at the cost of the life ways and food security of the Okanagan Peoples, the original stewards of this land. As Pauline Terbasket, Executive Director of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, explains, ancestral and traditional foods are intimately linked with the physical and spiritual health and well-being of her community (Terbasket, 2019). Thus, the ability to access and care for that land is a “sacred responsibility” (Terbasket, 2019) that has been challenged by the colonial forces which have placed me on this land. In this research, I acknowledge my position as a visitor and honour the rights and ownership of the Syilx Peoples over the lands that constitute the study area and my home for the time being. My chosen approach and way of framing this research also affects my ability to identify and dismantle inequities and the possible outcomes of this research. In any type of research engaging with people, there is a strong potential for reproducing social inequities (Muhammed et al., 2015). In terms of equity, it was important to ask the following questions: “resilience of what type and for whom?” and “who decides, and on the basis of whose value systems?” (Tanner et al., 2014, p.23). Answering these questions provided valuable insight into the values being represented, who the winners and losers of 55 adaptation actions were and whether or not the pathways were reproducing inequities for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Although I cannot say for sure that the pathways in this research would not reproduce inequalities, it was my intention to select strategies that would be as equitable as possible. As a researcher, I understand that my identity, the epistemic culture in which I have placed myself, and my personal values have an important impact on the outcomes of my research. They either facilitate or hinder my ability to engage with participants, and affect the way that I construct, warrant, and use knowledge (Muhammed et al., 2015). As an “outsider” to the food and wine production community, I am not able to fully grasp the reality of what it means to live with the challenges that I am studying. This presents a barrier to my ability to engage and relate to the participants, but also to produce knowledge that responds to their particular needs (Muhammed et al., 2015). I also acknowledge my personal and academic privilege, power and status as a middle-class, visible majority, female master’s student. Given that all knowledge is produced and bound by the lens of the observer, it is important to distinguish the system of knowledge production from the knowledge product itself (Harding, 1992). Reflecting on my identity and epistemic culture is one way in which to do this. As Knorr Cetina and Reichmann (2015) explain, epistemic cultures are knowledge production cultures, which create frames of meaning through different ways of understanding, interpreting, and practicing knowledge: for example, through symbolism, specialized vocabularies or cultural scripts. I have associated myself with an interdisciplinary epistemic culture centering around AP studies. While the interdisciplinary nature of this culture does allow me to mediate empirical and humanist ontologies, it also subjects me to the same trap of cultural scripts and other machineries and standards of knowing that validate certain knowledge over the expense of other forms. Given that AP research is a relatively young area of study in academia, it also limits my perspective to a smaller pool of researchers who have published prolifically on the topic. The way that I framed this research and asked the research questions restricts the range of answers, and therefore results that are possible. As the researcher, I have defined the research questions and design of the project, and I am able to assert an agenda or to reinforce hegemonic discourse by controlling who has the privilege of being heard in the results section of this thesis. I acknowledge that the system of knowledge production that I have established will allow participants, as co-producers of knowledge, to express their values and epistemic realities, but will also inevitably colour the results. My intention for this project is to create a plan that consults the literature, honours the lived experience of local stakeholders, and could potentially be a useful tool to plan for the future. 56 I personally value the ability of people to connect to the land and to have the opportunity to consume their place – whether that be through food, wine, or other experiences that put them in direct connection with their landscape. I think that local food systems play an important role in nurturing this connection to place, as well as social cohesion with others who co-inhabit their place. I see social cohesion a critical aspect of local food systems, and an ingredient in society that seems increasingly rare. As a consumer of local food, I value the transparency of being able to speak to my farmer and know how the story of my food, how it made it from the land to my plate, as well as the ability to form relationships with the people involved. Local food sovereignty, or the ability of local people to define their own food-production systems, in a way that is healthy, culturally appropriate and ecologically-sound (Leventon & Laudan, 2017), is also important to me. This is in part why I have chosen to allow local stakeholders to define resilience from their perspective. I value organic agriculture, particularly from the perspective of ecological impact, although, I understand that many producers who are uncertified, for various reasons, embody these values as well. Certification may not guarantee that production is ecologically responsible, either. Either way, I think it is important to consider the rights of non-humans to live and thrive on the land, and to create agricultural systems that respect this. Lastly, I do believe that small-scale production has a place in the Okanagan Bioregion. Though there are valid criticisms associated with small plot farming, such as the fragmentation of the agricultural land base, I do believe that small-scale production plays an important role in increasing biodiversity in local agricultural landscapes, which is an important tool to buffer the impact of disturbance (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Ifejika et al., 2014; Maru et al., 2014; Turner, 2010). Access to entry level agricultural businesses for young and other aspiring farmers is also known to increase through small lot farming, as is the opportunity for succession planning on farms. These and other benefits of small-scale agriculture are discussed further in section 4.2.1. 57 Chapter 4: Explore the Current Situation and Define the Objectives and the Desired Outcomes This section combines the results of phases 1 and 2 of this research to answer the first two research questions: • What is resilient food and wine production? • Which disturbances are affecting local food production in the Okanagan Bioregion? Section 4.1 of this chapter employs a desktop analysis to explore how socio-ecological resilience theory can be applied to food and wine production, drawing on the results of the literature review in Chapter 2. Section 4.2 reviews relevant literature to identify themes of disturbance, particularly negative disturbances or shocks and stressors, that impact food and wine production in the Okanagan. The chapter concludes with a definition of resilient food and wine production landscapes and a Socio-ecological Systems (SES) model of resilient local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. The SES model highlights some of the key variables affecting resilience that guide the remainder of this research. Section 4.3 also identifies key themes of disturbance, but from a bottom-up perspective, using a mapping survey to engage participants and draw out the place-based knowledge of local food and wine stakeholders. In addition, the survey asks participants to identify the community assets that they value and conceptualize resilient futures for local food and wine production. Lastly, Section 4.4 synthesises the results from the desktop analysis (4.2) and the mapping survey (4.3) to form a top-down, bottom-up inventory of key disturbances to the resilience of food and wine production, and a summary of the desired future state required to guide adaptation trajectories into the future. 4.1 Conceptualizing Resilient Food and Wine Production As noted in the literature reviewed, resilience can be understood and applied in many distinct and overlapping ways. For the purposes of this research, I employ an SES conceptualization of resilience, meaning that it is understood to be a normative property of the system, which emerges from the interactions between different systems and their actors (Cradock-Henry, 2021; O’Brien et al, 2012): 1. Prepare: Proactive action to build adaptive capacity and buffering capacity 2. Adjust: Self organize, exercise adaptation strategies and/or buffer disturbances 3. Innovate or transform: re-organize in a way that improves the system but returns it to a similar domain of stability or re-organize in a way that leads to a functionally different system that is better adapted to the new post-disturbance conditions. 58 Agroecological systems involve complex and reciprocal socio-ecological interactions at multiple levels - including individual households, farms, communities, and regions - and can therefore be studied most easily as socio-ecological systems (Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). In this research, the focal system is the landscape of production in the Okanagan Bioregion, or the collective of farmers and spaces of production (e.g., farms and vineyards). Given that the aim of this research is to identify adaptive futures for agriculture, resilience is defined normatively, as a desirable future state according to the values of those consulted and the stakeholders who participated in this research. However, as Tanner et al. (2014) warn, particularly when resilience is defined normatively, it is important to question “resilience of what type, and for whom? and then consider who decides…” (p. 23). Asking these questions are important to identify certain values embedded in resilience discourse and potentially address unequal power relations created by it (Allen et al., 2019). In this research, I am concerned with the resilience of the local landscape of food and wine production, for producers. The ideas that humans play a pivotal role in SES dynamics (Berkes & Ross, 2013), and that agricultural adaptation is substantially affected by the values and decisions of producers (Busck, 2003), are well established. Thus, I argue that producers are the primary agents of adaptation in the focal system. Following this logic, this research focuses on the ability of producers to prepare, adjust, innovate and transform through adaptation. What resilience means for the landscape of production is largely defined from the perspective of the literature, as well as by the stakeholders who defined what a desirable resilient future looks like in the mapping survey. It is important to note that the perspective of resilience presented in this research is very limited, and certainly does not represent the plurality of producer voices in the bioregion. From a theoretical perspective, food and wine production landscapes are resilient when producers have access to, and are able to, leverage different forms of capital in order to prepare, adjust, innovate or transform in response to wide array of disturbances, in a way that preserves the essential functioning of the landscape of production. This essential functioning can be defined simply as the ability for food and wine production to persist in a way that is perceived as favourable to stakeholders, regardless of changes occurring in the system, and without causing the collapse of other systems on which it relies (Petersen et al., 2018). Producers should also be able to take advantage of the opportunities created by change, to improve the current regime or emerge into a new, normatively adaptive trajectory (Folke, 2006). No SES exists in isolation. Instead, they are inextricably interlinked, or nested within, other SESs in a structure termed panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). The panarchy structure can be likened to a nested matryoshka doll, wherein the focal SES is nested in a hierarchical way within broader and smaller 59 scale systems, for example, the local food system, or a field on a farm. Forces of change emanating from these interlinked systems ripple and flow across time and space at different scales and speeds - ranging from fast to slow variables - and can have stabilizing or destabilizing effects for the focal SES (Abel et al., 2016). For example, food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion have been strongly influenced by broader scale influences such as globalization, climate change, and colonialism, which form strong feedback loops and path dependencies that entrench the system in a particular trajectory (Abel et al., 2016). This means that, when considering the resilience of the focal SES, it is important to consider the systems in which it is embedded (Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003). When making adaptation decisions at the focal scale, it is also important to consider changes that emanate and create ripples of change into other levels as well. The complexity and non-linearity of SES dynamics is not easily captured or assessed employing quantitative indices, as they use simplified proxies that cannot always account for feedbacks, collinearities, and unquantifiable and “irrational” system factors such as decision-making (Cradock-Henry, 2021). Instead, many SES resilience scholars and practitioners advocate for the use of contextual risk and vulnerability analyses and qualitative indices (Cradock-Henry, 2021). Following this logic, I have developed a model to characterize resilient food and wine production systems, in the context of the Okanagan Bioregion that is both qualitative and can be tailored to the context. This model is intended to be used as a referential tool to ground the theoretical understandings of resilient food and wine production systems into observable variables. Figure 3 is a systems diagram that visualizes the panarchy structure, specifically illustrating how the embeddedness of the focal system affects resilience. Within "The Okanagan Bioregion Production Landscape" box, are a set of commonly cited variables, as discussed in the literature review of this thesis, which affect resilience by influencing adaptive capacity (see for instance: Brown et al., 2014; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Cradock-Henry, 2021; Getz & Brown, 2006; Hammond et al., 2013; Ifejika et al., 2014; Jamir et al., 2012; Marshall, 2010; Maru et al., 2014; O’Brien et al., 2012; Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021; Ruiz Meza, 2015; Young et al., 2009). Adaptive capacity is understood to be a function of the system’s flexibility, diversity, and the resource base available (Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). In this model, the food and wine production landscape (focal system) in the Okanagan Bioregion is interlinked with, and affected by, the broader scale provincial, Canadian, and global dynamics. The flows of different forms of capital in these dynamics, including information, culture, market linkages, technology, human capital, as well as the regulatory frameworks imposed by higher-level governments (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013) are evident. The influences of these larger-scale forces are 60 represented in the model by the arrows moving from one scale to the next, for example, the focal scale to the regional scale. Figure 3 An SES Model for the Resilience of Food and Wine Production Note. The focal scale in the model appears as the Okanagan in this model; however, given that the data were pulled from global sources, this model can also be applied in other contexts. * Producer factors include attitude towards change and willingness to adopt new practices, critical awareness of risks, positive outcome expectancy, self-efficacy. ** Vertical social capital involves the cultivation of trust and engagement with political bodies, resulting in a greater degree of political confidence and better representation. *** Local economic diversification includes the diversification of production types, but also the diversification of producer incomes with other on- and off-farm incomes. An example of a diversified on-farm income could come from agritourism or the manufacturing of an added-value The variables affecting producer decision-making, adaptive capacity, and ultimately, resilience of the focal system, were separated into 5 relevant categories of capital. Analyzing stakeholders' access to these forms of capital and their ability to mobilize them can reveal how well they are able to adjust to or absorb disturbance, and often highlights vulnerabilities (Obrist et al., 2010). Thus, I have grouped the variables affecting resilience based on the form of capital that they most directly affect. The variables presented in the focal scale box are by no means exhaustive. They are intended to be used in conjunction with the larger influences of the panarchy structure, as a broad framework to understand place-based resilience in the Okanagan Bioregion and how adaptation occurring at multiple scales might change the landscape of resilience at the focal SES. 61 The SES model (Figure 3) is applied in the following sections, as a framework to understand which disturbances are affecting the resilience local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. Using a desktop analysis and mapping survey, I provide an inventory of the identified disturbances drawing on the variables in Figure 3. The SES model is also applied in the following chapter to explore which adaptation strategies can be used to build resilient futures that address these disturbances. 4.2 Disturbances Affecting Local Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion The resilience of food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion is affected by a range of disturbances that are both unique as well as shared with other global production regions. While resilience is context-specific (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013), agricultural regions do share a set of rural characteristics and vulnerabilities which underpin agricultural activity, relying on similar forms of resources and capital flows. In this section, I employ the SES Model of Resilience (Figure 3) to explore the range of disturbances to the resilience of food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. Disturbances are defined as changing socio-ecological conditions that destabilize or change the structure of the landscape and its dynamics. I draw on the literature, and then the experiential knowledge of local stakeholders in a mapping survey, to explore some of the key disturbances to resilience at the focal scale. 4.2.1 Disturbances in the Desktop Analysis The following section explores the disturbances to agricultural resilience using a desktop analysis. The results of this section are synthesized with the results from the mapping survey in section 4.2.2, to produce an integrated inventory of disturbances that affect the resilience of the landscape of production in the bioregion. Theme 1: Climate Change Climate change is one of the most important drivers of agricultural vulnerability and risk in the Okanagan Bioregion. It drives vulnerability, first, by changing the context of the production landscape, and, second, by introducing new risks (Gitz & Meybeck, 2012). In the Okanagan Bioregion, a range of changes to baseline climatic conditions are expected. These include an overall increase in annual temperatures, drier conditions in the summer months, wetter winter conditions, changes to precipitation patterns, and increasingly unpredictable and unstable weather patterns, which challenge farm management and the timing of operations (Bjarnason et al., 2016; Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020; Crawford & MacNair, 2012). These changes in climate have been linked in the global literature to new risks and capital losses, such as increased instances of pest and disease outbreaks (Abel 62 et al., 2016), threatened local water and food security (Ruiz Meza, 2015), and a loss of social, cultural, physical, financial, and environmental assets (Adger et al., 2013). The following sub-sections explore some of the key disturbances that compromise food and wine production activities, directly and indirectly, by disrupting the healthy functioning, connectivity, and the capacity of the landscape to provide ecosystem services (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Flooding and landslides Flooding and landslides represent a fundamental challenge for producers, given that most food and wine production take place in high-risk areas, such as the valley bottoms and on the benchlands (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Spring floods in the Okanagan are becoming more intense and are occurring earlier, driven by intense rainfall patterns and elevated temperatures that cause rapid melting of the mountain snowpack (Bjarnason et al., 2016). These floods lead to water-saturated soils in agricultural areas, which are detrimental to plant and animal health and can increase the prevalence of pest and disease outbreaks (Bjarnason et al., 2016). They can also affect landscape stability, creating potential for landslides and washouts in high-risk areas, which creates potential for property losses and disruptions to transportation (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Flooding also affects tourism, as impeded access to key amenities, such as Okanagan Lake, limits recreational and leisure opportunities that attract tourists (City of Kelowna, 2017). Flooding reduces opportunities for direct-to-consumer sales and other incomes related to agri-tourism, on which many producers in the bioregion rely (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Finally, flooding adds pressure to municipal storm water systems, which are overwhelmed and lack the capacity to keep up with the sudden flow, exacerbating flooding situations in low-lying areas (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Plans to address flooding and erosion on farms by creating and maintaining riparian buffer zones have been proposed. However, this strategy requires large amounts of land to be set aside, as well as inputs of labour and financial capital, and does not promise adequate benefits to the property owner, since these issues stem from the management practices at the broader watercourse and basin level (Bjarnason et al., 2016). The loss of land, particularly from scale-scale farms, may undermine the viability of their operation, as their land base is already limited. 63 Warming temperatures, heatwaves, and drought Warming temperatures, heatwaves and drought are expected to impact food and wine production in a plethora of ways. For instance, warmer winters, increased heat stress, and fewer frost days are expected to increase the range and prevalence of disease and pest outbreaks, as well as the expansion of invasive species (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). This will decrease biodiversity, compromise the health of crops and animals, and increase production complexity and costs (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Pests of specific concern include the spotted wing drosophila, the codling moth, the Pacific flathead borer, grasshoppers, apple clearwing moth, the apple maggot (Bjarnason et al., 2016) and the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Government of BC, n.d. b). Currently, these pests are primarily managed through programs such as the Okanagan-Kootenay Sterile Insect Release Program (SIR), which targets the coddling moth. Research agencies at all levels of government are involved in pest control including the Federal Agricultural Ministry and Agri-Food Canada at the Summerland Research Development Centre and the Ministry of Agriculture, and Regional Districts across the bioregion. Pests are difficult to manage, and gaps remain in the management plans devised by these programs and institutions. With the influence of climate change, pest outbreaks are expected to persist and intensify into the century. Warming temperatures and drought conditions also compromise water security and quality in the Okanagan. These conditions lead to reduced snow accumulation in the mountains, which compromises water security and increases the need for costly water storage systems (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Warmer summers characterized by drought also deplete water resources and contribute to sub-optimal ecosystem function, and therefore, the loss of ecosystem services (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). For example, impacts of warming temperatures and drought on Okanagan wetlands cause a loss of local aquatic species and negatively impact fisheries. Impacts on the ecosystem have flow-on effects for other areas of the socio-ecological system. For instance, limited water availability and compromised quality will necessitate water restrictions and are likely to produce conflicts over water rights and allocation in the near future (Neale, 2005). Warming temperatures are also increasing irrigation requirements in the Okanagan (Polar Geoscience, 2012). Water security is often threatened by irrigation in the long term, reducing water catchment-level resilience (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Young et al., 2009). This means that the use of irrigation to manage drought is creating a positive feedback loop, which progressively undermines the availability of water. Groundwater will not be a viable substitute for surface water resources being used for irrigation, given that drought conditions create impermeable conditions in the soil, which reduce the ability of aquifers to be replenished (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). The Okanagan Water Basin (n.d.) 64 posits that increasing water storage capacity could help to manage these challenges, using reservoirs, groundwater, and lakes to capture peak flows and allow for distribution in the drier summer months; however, as they note, reducing demand may be favourable, given the costs associated with water storage. Wildfire Elevated wildfire risk in the Okanagan is commonly associated with increasing temperatures, decreasing precipitation in summer, the increasing variability of weather conditions, as well as the growing interface between human development and forest boundaries (Bjarnason et al., 2016). While wildfire regimes are a natural and integral part of the Okanagan’s ecology and occur irrespective of climate change (Gayton, 2011), climate experts have indicated that the intervals of severe wildfire events are decreasing and that the season for these events is being prolonged (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). The ecological impact of these large-scale, intense, and frequent wildfires is vast and has cumulative and far-reaching effects (Nitschke & Innes, 2008). Wildfires provoke changes to soil characteristics and composition, topography, landscape stability and hydrological regimes, and biotic cycles which may not necessarily be favourable for food or wine production (Bjarnason et al., 2016). They can also change plant phenology (Nitschke & Innes, 2008), which directly impacts crop growth. Wildfire events also have more direct impacts on producers in the Okanagan. For instance, the 2003 Okanagan Mountain fire in Kelowna destroyed St. Hubertus winery as well as much of their infrastructure (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Other wildfires have also caused evictions that disrupt production activities and have compromised air quality due to smoke (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Lingering smoke from these fires affects human health, the ability of labourers to work safely, and has negative implications for agritourism and the quality and quantity of livestock and crops, such as wine-grapes, which may be lost due to “smoke taint” or mildew outbreaks (Bjarnason et al., 2016; Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region). Little to no resources exist for agricultural landowners to prepare and mitigate fire-related impacts, which are only expected to increase over the summer months, as the climate warms and the frequency of drought increases (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Increasing weather variability Lastly, weather variability has become an increasingly important issue for producer decision-making. Farmers are incredibly attuned to the weather. However, as temperatures warm and weather patterns and seasons shift, the natural cycles of ecosystems are also shifting, affecting plant phenology, and making it increasingly difficult for producers to time production operations (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). One of the key barriers to managing these shifting patterns for producers, at 65 present, is the inaccessibility of the regional climate change research and knowledge, which are communicated in lay-language or in an accessible format, using tools such as visual aids (MDB Insight, 2019). • The extent to which climate change progresses is not under direct control of local stakeholders and decision-makers; rather, it depends on global decisions and, ultimately, how well the global community is able to cooperate rapidly in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). The goal of regional food and wine production landscapes like the Okanagan Bioregion should therefore not be to control the pace of climate change, but to proactively prepare for impending threats. The more extreme impacts of climate change are expected to materialize within this century, leaving a mere 2-3 decades for humans to build the adaptive capacity required to manage the challenges of global climate change and the collapse of many ecosystem services (Butler et al., 2016). The 2020 Climate Projections Report for the Okanagan Region (2020) was released in order to communicate and address the need to plan for current and future climate change. This report identifies several key impact areas (e.g., ecosystems and biodiversity, health, water quality and quantity, transportation and infrastructure, recreation, economy, land use, and energy, as well as agriculture) that will be impacted heavily by climate change. In terms of agriculture, they indicate that producers must begin to prepare and adapt to flooding, drought, increases in disease, pest and invasive-species prevalence as winters warm, water shortages and quality advisories, heavy rainstorms during harvest season, wind damage, and heat stress. While the literature identifies the challenges imposed by climate change, there is a general paucity of solutions offered. Theme 2: Population growth, urbanization & rising land prices The Okanagan is the most populous region in BC’s Interior Region, and is expected to continue to grow by 77% to 641,176 residents between 2018 to 2031 (Robert et al., 2018). This growth is increasing the demand for urban and commercial development, which competes with agriculture for the same land base (Grifone, 2017). Much of the land in the Okanagan is encumbered by physical limitations, such as restrictive topography, which increases the competition between urban and agricultural land uses (MDB Insight, 2019). The limited arable land base is also located in places that are more easily developed (Noble, 2004) or close to amenities that increase the value of land for urban uses, such as hillsides with views (Grifone, 2017). This competition for land, and the process of urbanization, set limits to the 66 expansion of agriculture in the bioregion and pose an existential threat (MDB Insight, 2019). The economic rent-paying ability (Alonso, 1964) of agricultural land uses often cannot compete with that of the residential market, due to exploding demand and rapidly rising land prices (Hessing, 2010). Rising agricultural land prices are also presenting a barrier to agriculturalists, particularly young and new farmers. Between 2005-2013, agricultural land prices in BC nearly doubled (Nielsen, 2013), and many now lack the means to raise sufficient capital to purchase land, which may change the way that agricultural land tenure is approached, perhaps increasing the number of leasing arrangements. Competition for land is not the only consequence of population growth and urbanization. Another issue that arises when urban and agricultural land uses intermingle is the increased potential for conflict over resources, such as water, and disputes over the incongruences between the sights, smells and sounds associated with production activities and suburban values (MDB Insight, 2019). Conflicts over limited water resources are of particular concern. The Okanagan Bioregion accounts for one of the highest daily domestic water-use rates per capita in Canada (Neale, 2005). In the likely scenario that population growth and domestic water demand continue to increase, the ability of municipalities to balance urban, agricultural, and environmental water needs will be challenged. New demands for water will not be met by finding new supply, but rather by reallocating water from current uses (Janmaat, 2010). Reallocations will need to be executed equitably and efficiently; however, it is unknown whether reallocation will be sufficient as the climate changes, the hydrological cycle shifts, and water supply is threatened. The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) was established in the 1970s and created the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to preserve agricultural land, and to encourage local governments and regulatory bodies to accommodate agricultural uses for ALR zones in terms of planning, bylaws, and policies (Government of BC, n.d. a). However, many have questioned the effectiveness of this protection. Concerns over land speculation, non-farm uses of protected land, and a loss of farmland due to exclusions have surged. In research investigating the state of ALR land in the Okanagan, Grifone (2017) found that the ALC’s control and enforcement over agricultural land may not be sufficient. Speculation of agricultural land is common where developers are led to believe that they may obtain an exclusion from the ALC for a parcel of land, but don't. This land then remains fallow and inactive for years, until it can be developed or sold. This likely accounts for a large amount of the 15-50% of ALR land that is not being farmed in BC (Grifone, 2017). The ALR has also led to a leap-frog development in Okanagan towns and cities (Carrión‐Flores et al., 2004). This creates issues for municipalities, who must deal with the infrastructural and fiscal challenges of dispersed development, such as running power and water to remote areas. Overall, Grifone (2017) finds that, despite common perceptions, there have been negligible losses to agricultural land since the establishment of the ALC over 40 years ago. 67 Theme 3: Consolidation of farmland Agricultural land in the Okanagan Bioregion is becoming increasingly consolidated, meaning that smaller landholdings are being purchased and consolidated to form larger land holdings, often held by larger agri-businesses (MDB Insight, 2019). In 2016, there were a reported 3,693 farms in the Okanagan (Bjarnason et al., 2016), representing a loss of approximately 21%, or 176 farms, since 2006 (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Despite the loss in the total number of farms, the area under production grew steadily between 2001-2011 (Bjarnason et al., 2016). The process of consolidation in the bioregion is part of a larger trend occurring in BC, where, between 1996 to 2006, there was a 23% increase in the average farm size and an 8% decrease in family farms (Katz, 2009). These trends are the result of a complex web of pressures, including rising land prices, and the lack of viable successors as many young people cannot afford to buy land or are uninterested or unwilling to stay on the family farm (MDB Insight, 2019). Consolidation might have a positive effect on farm economics, introducing product specialization, efficiencies related to landscape management and marketing, and, perhaps most importantly, economies of scale, which allow larger producers to make better use of their capital and buffer economic losses (MNP LLP, 2020; Petersen et al., 2018). This is particularly important for accessing new technologies, such as automation, which can be critical to the economic sustainability of agri-businesses. Larger farms cover a larger area, often involving different microclimates and variable topography, which could be a risk spreading mechanism, particularly for climate change. Lastly, consolidating small plots may also decrease the rate of fragmentation in agricultural land, which is important for the ALC’s goal of farmland protection (Grifone, 2015). However, consolidation may also undermine the resilience of the food and wine production landscape, as it introduces risks in the form of more homogenous landscapes, and declining biodiversity (Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021; Ricciardi et al., 2021). Biodiversity is an important risk-spreader in agricultural landscapes and introduces ecosystem services that work to stabilize the system and reduce the amount of external inputs required (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Gitz et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012; Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). Consolidation is also understood to increase the need for farmers to lease land, limiting the possible business models for farmers, and increase absentee land ownership, leading to local farming funds being redistributed from rural communities elsewhere (Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). Consolidation can also lead to the creation of separate agricultural silos, based on activity and/or crop type, which restrict social connectivity between producers (MDB Insight, 2019). 68 Lastly, large-scale farms are typically externally regulated and integrated into larger, fixed, international supply chains, which reduce their flexibility and adaptability when market changes occur, and rely on exogenous inputs to restore a desirable state (Petersen et al., 2018; Petersen-Rockney et al., 2021). For instance, larger-scale producers were particularly vulnerable to market disruptions during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to their longer supply chains, centralized distribution channels, and overall, simplified system, while smaller scale producers were typically able to be more nimble, and pivot their business plans more quickly by, for example, introducing direct-to-consumer boxes and delivery services (Baker, 2020; Eliaz & Murphy, 2020; Heinberg, 2020; Ransom, 2020). Larger agricultural systems appear to be more efficient; however, they are acutely vulnerable to shocks and stressors that interrupt access to external inputs (Petersen et al., 2018). The question of whether large or small-scale farming is more resilient is debated. The findings of my research suggest that small-scale production can be highly resilient and should be maintained in the Okanagan Bioregion for many reasons. First, in a meta-analysis analyzing the relationship between yields and farm size over 118 studies and 51 countries, as well as diversity and farm size over 55 countries and 154 crops, Ricciardi et al. (2021) found that, “smaller farms, on average, have higher yields and harbor greater crop and non-crop biodiversity at the farm and landscape scales than do larger farms” (p.651). They found that smaller farms tend to have greater on-farm biodiversity, given that they are more likely to employ ecological management practices (e.g., no- or low-spray farming), they tend to have more field edge area, which encourages the presence of beneficial arthropods, and they grow a greater diversity of crops, which increases the presence of pollinators and beneficial predators who provide services such as pest control. While the yields of small producers were higher overall, it is important to note that the availability of labour, particularly family labour, was an important determinant in this statistic. The findings of this meta-study are supported by research in British Columbia, which found that small lot agriculture lends itself to intensive farming and the production of specialty crops that greatly improve profits of small-scale farmers (Ministry of Agriculture, n.d.; Mullinix & Falick, 2013). Second, a recent study from the UK found that organic farms under 20 ha. could be as “financially viable as conventional farms”, however, these smaller farms also had the benefit of being less reliant on subsidies (Laughton, 2017 in Nicholls et al., 2020). This is echoed by the findings of research conducted by British Columbia’s Ministry of Agriculture, which found that: “agricultural operations of BC in the $50-$100,000 farm sales range reported more income than those with annual sales over $500,000”. Small-scale farming is also understood to decrease the financial barriers related to accessing farmland, especially for young people who are currently seeking out land matching programs, such as the Young Agrarians (Grifone, 2015). 69 Lastly, small-scale agriculture has significant impacts on interconnected socio-ecological systems, such as local economies, as well as for local food security, and the biodiversity of the landscape (Czekaj et al., 2020). As Cutter (2016) find, the “soft” influences on resilience, such as social capital, are often underexamined, while the “hard” aspects, such as biophysical and economic changes, are highlighted. Social capital, a culture of reciprocity and tightly knit communities are supported by small-scale agriculture and are very important to their functioning (Condon et al., 2010). The economies of scale of larger-scale production do provide these producers with a great deal of flexibility, and new technologies such as automation promise to decouple of the focal system from unreliable labour markets. This could be beneficial for the resilience of production, but could also expose these systems to new risks, such as supply chain disruptions that affect the flow of goods and services required. Local food culture also continues to grow in importance in developed countries such as Canada, as consumers are developing preference for high quality, locally produced and organic foods, commonly associated with small-scale farming (Nicholls et al., 2020). Finally, as urbanization increases, small-scale urban and peri-urban farming is becoming more important. Estimates from Statistics Canada indicate that only 18.9% of the Canadian population live in rural places, with urbanization occurring at a rapid rate (Statistics Canada, 2018). Small-scale, urban agriculture can play an important role in increasing local food security, and benefits from improved access to local markets and higher profits due to shorter supply chains (Nicholls et al., 2020). However, given the competition and price of urban land, urban agriculture is best suited on multi-functional landscapes. This can already be seen in Kelowna, as multi-use agri-businesses, such as Kelowna Urban Farm and RV Park, are becoming more commonplace. The danger with multi-functional land uses such as these, is that producers may end up focusing more on the non-agricultural land uses, at the expense of production. It is possible that small-scale farming may become more feasible in urban rather than rural spaces, however, the benefits of small-scale agriculture for rural communities cannot be ignored. Theme 4: Use of agricultural technologies and innovation There are several agri-technology companies that have grown out of the Okanagan Bioregion, such as Kolibriuas Technology Inc., who uses drones and remote sensing to identify inefficiencies in agricultural production and improve yields, and Penticton Wine Labs, who developed a wine membrane filter to improve the efficiency of wine testing (Schlosser, 2018). Technologies in areas such as automation, monitoring, and sustainability are becoming increasingly commonplace and necessary, largely due to the lack of available labour (MDB Insight, 2019). Seed science and the development of biotechnology and bio-control agents (e.g., viruses, bacteria) at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s 70 Summerland Research Development Centre also supports the development and diffusion of new plant varieties locally (Government of Canada, n.d.). For example, the Centre has developed a new cultivar of sweet cherry, which ripens later in the season and has allowed for the expansion of cherry orcharding (Agriculture & Agri-foods Canada, 2014). Recent accounts of uptake of these technologies in the Okanagan has not been documented; however, is likely to be variable, depending on capacity factors, such as access to capital, and the attitudes of farmers towards these technologies. Businesses producing higher-value products, such as cherries and wine grapes, or larger agribusinesses, likely have a greater capacity to adopt new technologies. This hypothesis is supported by a survey in the 1960’s of agriculture in the Okanagan, which found that most new technologies were adopted by larger-scale producers, who had more valuable crop products, and were more educated than their peers (Millerd, 1965). Use of technology can also be seen today in Okanagan cherry orchards, many of which are using helicopters, which charge thousands of dollars per hour, to dry their cherries after a rainfall and avoid crop spoilage (BC Cherry Association, n.d.). However, “agricultural treadmill theory” tells us that early adopters of these technologies only benefit for a short period of time before others adopt the same technology, driving up competition and causing profits to fall unless they adopt the newest technologies as they emerge (Levins & Cochrane, 1996). Thus, the uptake of technologies appear to entrench producers in a cycle of dependence, which rewards early adopters and drives “laggards” out of the industry. Theme 5: Producer variables: attitude towards change, critical awareness of risks, positive outcome expectancy, self-efficacy Producers are arguably one of the most important variables affecting the resilience of production landscapes. The decisions that they make, their attitudes, level of awareness, the values, and norms they embody, the social capital that they cultivate, their skillsets, education, and knowledge level, and more, enable or constrain their ability to prepare, adapt, innovate, and transform (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Marshall, 2010; O’Brien et al., 2012). In 2016, the average age of producers in the bioregion was 56 (Bjarnason et al., 2016), reflecting a general trend of ageing in BC producers (Beaulieu, 2015). The ageing farmer demographic is a warning sign that the sustainability and longevity, particularly of family farms, may be at risk. Many retiring producers are unable to pass the farm down to children or family members (MDB Insight, 2019), who are leaving rural places in favour of an urbanized life and the promise of urban living standards, and better education and economic opportunity. Older producers represent higher ownership of small, family farms (Beaulieu, 2015); thus, as these producers retire without a succession plan, consolidation is likely to accelerate, changing the agricultural landscape. 71 Access to agricultural education in the Okanagan Bioregion is limited (MDB Insight, 2019). As documented in the literature, this can restrict the ability of producers to adapt (Brown et al., 2015; O’Brien et al., 2012). Farmer education is key to developing diverse skill sets, such as mechanical skills, business skills and the ability to interpret climate predictions, as well as learning how to find accurate information and developing collaborative strategic planning strategies with their peers (Hammond et al., 2013). In addition to the lack of programming available, the BC Ministry of Agriculture’s role in knowledge extension has been significantly reduced in recent years, putting additional pressure on producers to hire consultants to fill knowledge gaps (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). In prior consultations, producers have indicated that communications and collaborations between themselves and post-secondary research institutions have been insufficient, leading to inaccurate representations at times and changing little for them (MDB Insight, 2019). This perceived inefficacy in the relationship between producers and researchers could stem from disparate goals in their interaction, where researchers are driven by institutional expectations, such as publishing literature. Ultimately, this limits future opportunities for research and development partnerships and multi-directional knowledge sharing, which have been highlighted in the literature as an important strategy to enhance resilience (Ifejika et al., 2014; Kenny, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2012). Instead, industry-led, collaborative research initiatives have become key assets for adaptation information in the bioregion (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Little is known in terms of critical risk awareness, positive outcome expectancy and self-efficacy. Theme 6: Access and ability to mobilize financial capital Producers are burdened by increasing costs of operation, such as wages, property taxes, equipment repair, water, fuel, and other inputs, which are increasing far faster than farm revenues (MNP LLP, 2020). In the bioregion, producers generally report insufficient access to capital, particularly for purchasing farm equipment (MDB Insight, 2019). They also tend to exhibit a high degree of dependence on externally produced inputs, such as plastic, rubber, paper, pesticides, and fertilizers (MDB Insight, 2019). This has created issues for producers, given variable market conditions and the rise in input prices. The additional cost for producers is not easily externalized or transferred to consumers, and so must often be absorbed, reducing farmer profitability (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). More recently, between 2020 and 2021, dependence on inputs and disruptions to transportation have also led to disturbed access to processors and markets, and supply chain woes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and catastrophic flooding events in British Columbia (Jackson, 2021). 72 Costs of operation and supply chain disruption are compounded by unstable farm revenues (Crawford & MacNair, 2012), which affect the ability of producers to access and mobilize the financial capital required for operations and to purchase farm equipment and technologies that increase market competitiveness (MDB Insight, 2019). The profitability of orchards had fluctuated over that past century, and orchardists have generally struggled with issues of unstable and insufficient farm revenues. During the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, for example, Okanagan orchardists famously developed the slogan “a cent a pound or on the ground”, indicating that they would rather let their fruit rot than sell them at a loss (Garden of Eden, n.d.). Margins on apples have not improved much over the years. In 2010, apple producers were selling their product at a loss - at 0.13 cents versus their product costs at 0.23 cents per pound (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). This led many apple orchardists to swap out their trees for other niche/commodity crops such as wine grapes, which are much more profitable (MDB Insight, 2019). Theme 7: Accessing qualified and reliable labour Agricultural businesses in British Columbia face one of the largest labour shortages relative to demand in Canada (Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, 2015). In the Okanagan Bioregion, orchards and viticulture have experienced sustained challenges in securing qualified and reliable labour (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Although this also relates to geopolitics and other externally controlled forces, it is intricately linked to the rising unaffordability in the Okanagan and other place-based factors such as seasonality, the location of agricultural jobs in rural communities that lack services, and competition with other primary industries that may pay higher wages (Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, 2015). The Okanagan is a challenging place for agricultural labourers to reside, given the high costs of living and low wages offered by employers (Hessing, 2010). The inability to secure labour domestically means that many producers must turn to the temporary foreign workers program to fill labour gaps. In 2018, for instance, over 21% of BC’s jobs in agriculture were filled by temporary foreign workers (MNP LLP, 2020). This dependence on the temporary foreign worker’s program creates vulnerabilities to disruptions caused by border closures and travel restrictions, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic (Statistics Canada, 2020). Additionally, access to temporary and foreign labour is challenged by the temporal needs, which can span from a couple of weeks to multiple seasons, and capital costs required to procure and house these people (MDB Insight, 2019). Simply put, the temporary foreign workers program is not available to all agricultural businesses. 73 Theme 8: International trade agreements and battles International trade battles and changes to trade agreements also influence farmers’ profitability and sustainability (MDB Insight, 2019). In the wine industry, the establishment of the 1989 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and 1991 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) shocked the competitive production environment, stimulating a wide-spread crisis for growers who produced low-quality wines and were suddenly exposed to tariff-less foreign competition (Kingsbury & Hayter, 2006). In response to these changes, it became common for growers to lose their contacts with wineries, due to force majeure clauses (Kingsbury & Hayter, 2006). While these events did stimulate considerable innovation and improvements in wine quality over the years in the wine industry, they also act as a cautionary tale for local producers, who are impacted by broader market dynamics and geopolitically driven trade agreements. Profitability is, therefore, subservient to a degree to the federal government, and related regulatory bodies such as the CFIA, which regulate trade policies, the import and export, and interprovincial trade and marketing of agricultural products in Canada (City of Kelowna, 2017). Theme 9: Regulatory complexity & inefficiencies Agriculture in the Okanagan Bioregion is embedded in a complex regulatory system, involving multiple levels of government and regulatory bodies. Land use is regulated largely through local (bylaw/municipal/regional districts), provincial, and federal governments (City of Kelowna, 2017), while other government bodies (e.g., Interior Health) and regulatory agencies (e.g., CanadaGAP and CFIA) govern other areas such as harvesting, processing and health standards. Various governmental agencies are responsible for upholding different federal legislation and agricultural Acts, such as the Seeds Act, Fertilizers Act and Farm Product Agencies Act (City of Kelowna, 2017). The fragmentation and complexity of agencies with different and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions make it difficult for producers to find information, communicate with the right regulatory bodies and be included in production decision-making (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Producers in the bioregion have noted that policies are often disconnected from their needs (Crawford & MacNair, 2012), indicating a lack of vertical social capital and inclusive governance. Institutional food safety regulations, for example CanadaGAP and CFIA standards, and insurance requirements can also impose serious impediments to fruit and vegetable, livestock, egg, and dairy farmers. Due to stringent requirements, the cost and the amount of paperwork involved, the CanadaGAP on-farm safety certification is only held by 50 farms in the bioregion, even though it is required for harvesting and packaging fruits and vegetables (Grube Cavers et al., 2018). Similarly, meat producers, particularly beef and pork producers, must often transport their livestock to federally regulated 74 slaughtering and processing facilities in the Lower Mainland, limiting the self-reliance of the industry in the bioregion (Grube Cavers et al., 2018). Egg producers are commonly limited by municipal bylaws, which set restrictive regulations related to allowable flock size. Theme 10: Pressure on public infrastructural systems: regional water supply and infrastructure Two of the most important publicly funded infrastructures for producers relate to water and transportation. Issues with transportation infrastructure were not emphasized in the literature reviewed, although the maintenance of the systems in place are intuitively integral for most food and wine producing operations. Regional water supply and the maintenance of critical infrastructure, on the other hand, are serious issues in the bioregion. Water infrastructure is critical to irrigation systems, and water treatment plants play a role in the health of people, animals, and crops. The demand for municipal water in the bioregion is driven largely by agriculture and landscaping (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Agriculture uses approximately 55% of the bioregion’s water, and access to quality supply is dependent on uninterrupted service and quality of these critical systems (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). Access to water is a concern for agriculture given that systems are currently overloaded systems and there is increasing urban demand (Shepherd et al., 2006). As indicated in the climate change theme, regional water security and supply in the bioregion are threatened by climate change (RDCO et al., 2020). Climate change is reducing water quality and availability, but also causing irrigation requirements to increase, compounding the stress on municipal water infrastructure and management systems (Polar Geoscience, 2012). Stormwater retention in the Okanagan is primarily managed through “natural assets”, such as wetland, ditches, or creeks, as well as some “hard infrastructure” in more developed areas (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). These systems are highly vulnerable to the extreme weather events associated with climate change, such as flooding and intense rainfall events, lacking the capacity to manage sudden high-volume flows. Flooding and water shortages are likely to increase the risk of drainage and wastewater infrastructure failure, leading to costly repairs for municipalities, as well as reduced water quality, water use conflicts and restrictions (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Additionally, these failures could create compounding impacts on food and wine production by damaging transportation infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, interrupting transportation corridors and the flow of products and out of the market. The forces of climate change and population growth are intensifying urban-rural tensions in the form of water rights and allocation, which will need to be addressed by local and regional authorities in 75 the near term. To meet the demand from residential, agricultural, and industrial uses, while also leaving enough water for the ecosystem to remain functional, local, and regional governments will need to work together with the local stakeholders to determine what ethical, equitable and appropriate allocation looks like. 4.2.2 Results from the Survey The following section includes the results from the mapping survey, comprised of a description of the survey sample, and a discussion of the various destabilizing factors, values and definitions of a desirable future articulated by survey participants. The mapping survey (Appendix D) was completed by a total of 53 respondents. This was an appropriate sample size, given that, as indicated in Chapter 3, the sample was not intended to be representative. Rather, it was designed to be exploratory, capturing the key disturbances impacting the landscape of production, and to understand what the objectives and desired outcomes might encompass, from the point of view of stakeholders. The response rate and response bias of this sample cannot be determined, given that the survey was distributed confidentially through third-party channels (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 4.2.2.1 Geographic Distribution of the Sample The sample was distributed relatively evenly across the three Regional Districts in the bioregion. The North Okanagan accounted for 19.61% of the sample, followed by 29.41% for the Central region, 31.37% for the South and Similkameen region, and 19.61% for “other”. Respondents who selected “other” indicated a range of locations within the bioregion; however, most were within the North (e.g., Vernon and Coldstream). This explains why the North appeared to have less representation in the initial distribution statistics. Had these respondents chosen the “North” option, the North Okanagan would have accounted for the same proportion of the sample as the Central Okanagan (29%). Other locations, such as Vancouver Island and Alberta, were also indicated. The responses of those who identified as residing outside of the bioregion were included, based on specifications that they recently lived in the Okanagan. While this sample does not reflect the population density of each of the regions, it does loosely reflect the labour participation rate in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting across the bioregion. The South Okanagan/Similkameen region accounts for the largest number of people employed in occupations related to this category, at 2,900 people or 7.5% of the productive segment (Statistics Canada, 2016c). This is followed by both the North and Central regions, which account for 2,270 and 2,235 people, respectively, or 5% and 2% of the regional productive segment (Statistics Canada 2016a; 2016b). 76 4.2.2.2 Place Attachment Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “I feel a strong attachment to my region”. This was an important question to ask, given that little is known in terms of producer place attachment in the Okanagan Bioregion, and there is research linking higher levels of place-attachment with increased resilience (Adger et al., 2013; Cradock-Henry, 2021; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Marshall, 2010). Place attachment is defined as a psychological or emotional connection to a particular environment, place, or scenario, which often acts as an anchor for identity and sense of belonging (Escalera-Reyes, 2020). It factors heavily in determining how producers will respond to disturbance. For instance, people who feel a stronger attachment to place experience increased emotional investment to their communities and are therefore more likely to collaborate with their neighbours and adapt to changing conditions (Cradock-Henry, 2021). While place attachment is normally supportive of resilience, it is important to note some exceptions to this rule. Given that producer decision-making is influenced by place-attachment, decisions can sometimes be “irrational” (Adger et al., 2013). Place-attachment can be maladaptive, in situations where producers refuse to leave or to deviate from local traditions, even when conditions have become untenable or critical thresholds for adaptation have been exceeded. For example, place-attachment influences whether a producer will stay in place or abandon the farm, in search of a more stable livelihood or more suitable locale for their type of production (Adger et al., 2013; Ruiz Meza, 2015). Place attachment also interacts with risk perception, as the values that bind people to place, such as identities, kinship ties, employability, sacred spaces, environmental attachment, etc., dictate the perceived risk level of disturbances (Bryant et al., 2000). Thus, disturbances that pose less objective risk, but are closer to producer values, might eclipse risks that are more acute but do not affect producer values as directly. Response to this question was overwhelmingly positive. 73% of the sample indicated that they strongly agreed that they felt a strong attachment to their region, and only 1 participant selected the “I disagree” option. While the positive response to this question cannot be interpreted as representative, given the limitations of the sample size, the consistency in response might indicate emotional and physical investment in place. Further research is required, however, to explore how place attachment affects producer adaptation – particularly in terms of how sense of and attachment to place affects economic and lifestyle dependence and/or the flexibility of producers in the region. 77 4.2.2.3 Socio-demographic Profile of the Sample The roles and experience of respondents were diverse. Respondents were first asked to identify their roles in relation to local food and/or wine, by selecting the category that best represented them or by selecting the “other” option and typing in their role. Over half of the respondents (58.7%) were engaged directly in food production (Table 5). Conventional and “non-conventional” food producers were by far the largest groups in the food production category, accounting for 27.4% and 23.5% of the sample, respectively. Urban/rural gardeners and wild food collectors were marginal in the sample, likely reflecting the difficulty of reaching non-public stakeholders. Wine production was the next largest group, accounting for 19.5% of respondents. Interestingly, fewer conventional wine growers/winery staff participated than “non-conventional”. This may be a result of the recruitment strategy, which used Organic Societies as third-party distributors for the survey. It could also relate to the topic of the survey and the language used in recruitment, which focused on “sustainability”, disturbances to land, and stewardship. Table 5 Participant Roles Category % of total Role No. of participants Food production 58.7 Conventional local food producer 15 Non-conventional local food producer 13 Urban or rural gardener 2 Wild food collector 2 Wine production 19.5 Conventional wine grower, maker or winery staff 4 Non-conventional wine grower, wine maker or winery staff 6 Supporters & Gate keepers 11.6 Local food educator or advocate 3 Researcher or scholar studying local food 2 Local government or council 1 Indigenous food knowledge keeper 0 Others 9.9 Specified: Provincial government; land matcher; consultant and independent researcher; chef at a winery; a blend of local food educator, researcher, and local government. 5 Note. Non-conventional was interpreted as organic, regenerative, biodynamic or any other “alternative” production style that does not follow the same systems, inputs, and management practices as conventional production. A key limitation associated with the way that stakeholders were categorized into "roles” was the lack of scale differentiation. There were no questions directly related to the size and capacities of the producers. Given that these factors remain unknown, it was not possible to decipher the possible biases or differences in perspective that might arise because of these different experiences. Another key limitation of the sample is the lack of Indigenous representation. The groups “Indigenous food knowledge keeper” and “wild food collector” were represented extremely poorly. This was likely a result of inadequate 78 outreach supported by the difficulty of reaching this population and the colonized framework of the study, as well as other possible factors such as perceived irrelevance or barriers imposed by time. I acknowledge that the lack of Indigenous representation in this survey constitutes a selection bias and imposes serious limitations to the results of this survey. Indigenous knowledge is underpinned by different methodologies and worldviews that should not be combined out of context with non-Indigenous knowledge (Olmstead et al., 2021). Further research in the form of a community engaged research project, which engages Indigenous knowledge on the terms of the people and maintains the integrity of this knowledge in its context, is recommended. 4.2.2.4 Disturbances Identified in the Mapping Survey The next section of the survey directed respondents to the Geolive web-platform, where they were asked to navigate an interactive map and place pins over areas where they have experienced a disturbance, or where they believe one may occur in the near future (Figure 4). Once a pin was dropped, the questionnaire asked them to describe the disturbance, to categorize it (environmental, socio-cultural, political, economic, biological, or “other”), indicate whether it has happened or not, define the likelihood and consequence, and how serious they perceive it to be. This allowed for a better understanding not only of the range of disturbances that producers might be worried about, but also the risk perceptions and critical risk awareness. The categories of disturbance were drawn from the themes that emerged in the literature review in section 2.2.1, exploring global threats to agriculture. 79 Figure 4 Mapped Disturbances to Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion One limitation of this portion of the survey is that it was not possible to identify the respondent who dropped the pin. This was due to the fact that Geolive is not integrated with Qualtrics, and it was not possible to give each respondent a unique login code. Despite this limitation, there were two login credentials that differentiated pins dropped by those involved in food or wine production. Another limitation was the low number of responses and pins mapped. This limited the ways that the data could be 80 meaningfully analyzed. For instance, I initially planned to perform a quantitative analysis of the map to identify disturbance “hotspots”, for example, using kernel density estimation, which may have highlighted key priority areas for adaptation action (Silverman, 1986). The following sections explore the results of the Geolive portion of the survey, how they relate to the results of the literature review, and what this indicates about the state of the SES. The results are categorized using the same themes that participants used to categorize their submissions. These themes are discussed in order of their importance, which was determined based on the total number of pins categorized under the given theme (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Environmental Disturbance (n = 23) The results from the Geolive survey were largely consistent with the literature in respect to the emphasis on environmental disturbances, particularly those related to climate change. As seen in Figure 5, environmental disturbances were the most frequent category of pin dropped on the map across all geographic regions. Approximately 45% of the total pins dropped in this survey were categorized as “environmental”, or relating to the physical environment. Figure 5 Distribution of Disturbance Types in the Survey The most common environmental disturbance pinned was forest fire (n =7). Participants indicated concern over the localized impacts of forest fire on production, including soil degradation, erosion, as well as disruptions and losses to crops, animals, land, and farming infrastructure, caused by evacuations. They also pointed to the impacts of poor air quality associated with wildfire in the summer months. The North Okanagan / Similkameen Boundary Area Central Okanagan South Okanagan/ Similkameen 81 data reveal that smoke creates challenges for operations and labour, as it is hard on human health. As one respondent commented, "farmers do not have the option to stay inside when it’s smoky". Lastly, respondents also highlighted the impacts of wildfire smoke on agritourism incomes. In smokier years, one respondent reported that they have experienced "lower visitor numbers", which caused them to increase marketing spending and to send their products to different and distant markets. Hydrological risks were another key area of concern for producers. Several pins indicated that respondents had been affected by water pollution, contamination, and issues with water access (n = 5), as well as flood (n=2) and drought (n =3) patterns. The data reveal issues of contamination in both ground and surface water sources. One respondent reported that, like many regions in BC, agricultural wastes and nutrients have contaminated local aquifers, provoking stronger waste-related regulations for producers at the provincial level. At the same time, others reported issues with nutrient leaching in surface water sources, which cause algal blooms and render the water unusable. Research supports this observation, linking livestock waste and the use of fertilizers, among other point sources, to nutrient loading issues in the major Okanagan lakes (Jensen & Epp, n.d.). One respondent also indicated that algal blooms may also be impacting tourism numbers, and therefore agritourism incomes. While plausible, given the number of water-based activities and attractions for tourists in the Okanagan, tourism itself, coupled with the growing population, may also be impacting Okanagan surface water quality (Poitras & Donald, 2006). The future and sustainability of food production is predicated on a reliable source of quality water for irrigation, which is entangled in uncertainties and decision-making that they have little control over. According to the respondents, drought and flood regimes are also becoming increasingly extreme, generating direct consequences, such as crop damage and loss, changes to production operations and timing, as well as indirect consequences on pest and disease prevalence and ecosystem services, as suggested in the literature review. Changes to pest and disease prevalence will be discussed further in the biological disturbance theme. One respondent indicated that elevated temperatures and the lack of moisture associated with drought affects the process of pollination, as plants will not produce nectar and pollinators, such as bees, become stressed and die-off. Another respondent highlighted that, certain regions of the Okanagan may be more vulnerable to drought than others, likely alluding to the South Okanagan, where precipitation levels are generally much lower than in the Central and North Okanagan (Crawford & MacNair, 2012). As they note, "businesses have dealt with [drought] in the past, [and] irrigations systems help. But the climate down south can make [farming] very difficult”. Other environmental disturbances pinned related to unstable and unpredictable weather patterns (e.g., storms, hail and early or late frosts) (n=4) as well as development and poor land management 82 practices (n=1). Respondents linked climate change to higher instances of unpredictable weather, which affects both the quality and yield of food and wine products. Respondents highlighted their experience with untimely frosts, which can have serious, valley-wide consequences for production yields, and possibly for food security and the regional agricultural economy. For instance, one respondent point out that most varieties of wine grapes are vulnerable to frosts after bud-break and before harvest, causing vineyards to be particularly vulnerable to climatic variability. Similarly, another respondent suggested that hail events are causing wide-spread damage to both crops and wine grapes. Lastly, participants suggested that intense storms can also cause interruptions to transportation, which might interrupt supply chains and the movement of agricultural products. As revealed in the literature review, the impacts from the disturbances highlighted in this section are expected to be exacerbated by climate change. Economic Disturbance (n = 11) Economic disturbances were the next most frequent category of disturbance pinned in the mapping exercise. Respondents emphasized the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=3), as well as labour challenges (n=2), the demand for cheap food and pressures from cheap competition (n=2), the transition of farmland to urban uses (n=2) and viticulture (n=1), and supply chain shortages (n=1). Overall, economic disturbance pins appeared in significantly greater density in the South, when compared to the Central and North regions (Figure 5). This might be explained by the COVID-19 market closures, which were reported by a respondent to be longer in Southern centers, such as Penticton, despite farmers’ markets being declared an essential service. It could also be linked to the growth of second home tourism and amenity migration in the southern region, which respondents identified as a key threat to production through rising land values and issues of labour availability. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were not well covered in the desktop analysis, given the recency of this event; thus, participant insights into the effects of the pandemic provided important insight regarding how this event has impacted food and wine producers. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 led to a significant loss of revenue through market closures and bans on tourism enforced by governments, as well as shrinking production, challenges to business growth, and the termination of many of their staff. As one of the respondents highlighted, the impacts of market closures extend far beyond the bottom-line of the producer. They affect the community and the food security of its members, who rely on accessing fresh, nutritious foods from local sources. Another respondent pointed to the impact of COVID-19-related labour shortages and shrinking production on the ability of grape producers to uphold their supply contracts with wineries. They explained that inability to fulfil their contact quotas could result in long-term consequences, including contract termination. Respondents involved in wine production 83 accounted for most of the COVID-19 pins. This likely reveals the dependence of the wine industry on agritourism incomes and their exceptional vulnerability to tourism and human mobility disruptions. As suggested in the results of the desktop analysis (section 4.2.2), respondents noted that reliable and skilled labour is difficult to secure due to the high cost of living in the bioregion, and that the temporary foreign workers program is not available to all producers, for a variety of reasons. They explained that these shortages affect production timelines, the ability to expand and the quality of the product, as they are not able to effectively manage and harvest crops. Lack of access to qualified labour is perceived by one respondent to be more acute for small-scale producers, who do not have access to the foreign labour program, and who have been forced to “downsize” to match labour to production capacity. As per the experience of one respondent, demand for cheap, low-quality food is reflective of a disconnect between consumers and the reality of food production. This was not discussed in the literature review. They argued that food is being sold too cheap compared to the costs associated with production, and indicated that it is difficult for urban people to imagine and appreciate the reality of farming - for instance, the hard work for relatively low pay. If demand for cheap food continues to rise, Okanagan producers will need to innovate to contend with the reality of competing with other regions nationally and internationally, who produce cheap products on a much larger scale. Market pressures can create positive stress on agriculturalists, causing them to adapt or transform, as we have seen with the Okanagan wine industry after NAFTA was renegotiated in 1991, exposing the industry to a competitive environment that forced wine growers and wineries to replant and emphasise quality (Kingsbury & Hayter, 2006). That said, too much stress, coupled with differential vulnerability and adaptive capacity among producers, could create normatively undesirable losses to the producer base. Given that the agricultural landscape of the Okanagan is comprised of a larger share of small holder farms than many other regions in Canada (Crawford & MacNair, 2012), too much stress, in the form of declining profit margins as suggested by this respondent, could lead to the loss of small-scale farms and a massive industry restructuring, for which the potential trade-offs are largely unexamined. Biological Disturbance (n = 9) Biological disturbances were linked with environmental disturbances and overlapped with the topics discussed in the environmental pin theme. This also aligns with the findings of the desktop analysis. Issues highlighted in the biological theme, including increased insect and pest exposure (n=4) and water contamination and algal blooms (n=3), are correlated with climate change and related disturbance regimes, such as wildfire, flood, drought, rising temperatures and intense rainfall events 84 (Bjarnason et al., 2016). Issues related to algal blooms and contamination of drinking water are not explored in this section, as they were discussed previously under the environmental section. This overlap suggests that separating environmental and biological issues may not have been necessary; however, they have been retained as distinct categories to remain true to how respondents categorized the disturbances. Some of the pests of concern identified were common to those from desktop analysis, such as Drosophila. However, others such as the Western Stripped Armyworm (Spodoptera Praefica), Varroa Mites (Varroa Destructor) and Leafhopper (Cicadellidae) were introduced in the mapping exercise as agents of serious crop damage and loss. Respondents suggested that new invasive pests, such as the Western Stripped Armyworm, have been expanding their range into the Okanagan, causing damage to crops. They also highlighted that the spread of pests and diseases is difficult to manage, and often beyond their control. One respondent indicated that pest and disease prevalence depends on good land management practices of their neighbours, since the populations are not stopped by a fence. This may create social tensions between neighbours who have different ideas of how the land should be managed. While pesticides and sprays are available to kill these pests, these are not generally available to organic or spray-free producers and can have profound consequences for environmental and human health, as well as the sustainability of agriculture in the bioregion. Respondents linked pesticide use to degraded ecosystem services, including damaged soils, as well as health issues in people, animals, and beneficial insects, such as pollinators (n=3). Like most of the world, pollinator numbers have been declining in the Okanagan Bioregion, threatening food security (Heron & Sheffield, 2017). As one respondent pointed out, without pollinators, much of the crop production in the Okanagan could fail. Most of the biological pins placed on the map were located in the Central Okanagan region. This might reflect the distribution of the agricultural landscape in this region. As indicated in the desktop analysis, farmland in Kelowna is not concentrated; instead, it is spatially dispersed, seemingly haphazardly, across the city near industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and roadways. This is in part an intended result of ALR protection and zoning, which has preserved some of the original agricultural land in the city, and over time as the city has developed, led to a patchwork of agricultural and urban land uses within the city (Grifone, 2017). The biological disturbance pins in the Central Okanagan were pinned in close proximity to the city and the rural-urban interface (Figure 4). This high degree of interface could be contributing to higher toxic loads and pollution on local farms, as seen in other urban and peri-urban agricultural regions in the world (e.g., Hawrami et al., 2020). While not ideal, the proximity of farmland to population centers could also lend some unique benefits for local food 85 security, particularly in situations where inputs such as fossil fuels or labour might become unavailable and local food sources are required to feed the urban population (Nordahl, 2009). Socio-cultural Disturbance (n= 8) Socio-cultural disturbances noted in the mapping exercise were mostly related to the treatment of labourers (n=5), which was not discussed in the desktop analysis. For certain respondents, exploitation, abuse and racism against farmworkers, particularly migrant workers, is a prominent issue. As one respondent pointed out, farm labourers are critical to the operations of food and wine production and if these individuals refused to work due to the infringement of their human rights, the consequences for farm productivity and profitability would be disastrous. Other socio-cultural disturbances highlighted by respondents included the rising cost of agricultural land (n=1), the lack of social networking (n=1) and limited access to water for households (n=1). Regarding the rising cost of land and living, one respondent recounted the experience of losing young families and youth in their community, attributing these changes to rising unaffordability driven by being located in a “tourist hotspot”. Tourism has helped restructure many post-productivist rural Okanagan communities that relied primarily on primary industries, such as agriculture, and amenity migration has been linked to a proliferation of new housing builds and the preferences of amenity tourists for large homes in desirable, amenity-rich locations (Senese, 2010). However, to suggest that tourism is the primary driver of the increasing cost of living would be a great over-simplification. Costs of living are influenced by global, regional, and local market dynamics, and is influenced by the stability of the environment and climate (Gillings & Hagan-Lawson, 2014). The perception that tourism is the main driver of cost of living does provide insight on the possible attitudes of some local people. It is possible that locals may vilify tourism based on how it changes communities and "traditional” lifeways. Another respondent explained that youth exodus is a big issue in their community. They noted that youth were once the predominant labour force in their community, and soaring living costs have led to youth to leave, causing labour shortages. The lack of youth in the communities may have impacts beyond labour, as this respondent shared that attendance at the elementary schools and the overall vibrancy of their community has plummeted. Another respondent indicated that labourers commonly live and commute to and from other communities that are more affordable, which can have personal economical and collective environmental consequences. Certain respondents also revealed that they felt that their community lacked strong social networks. To one respondent, the importance of social capital cannot be understated for agricultural 86 production. They asserted that “producers are unable to produce local products without the knowledge and help from other producers”. Research confirms that insufficient support and relationships predicated on knowledge sharing are detrimental to resilient production (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013). Lastly, the availability of clean drinking water was also noted as a challenge. Clean drinking water is one of the most important considerations for human health and wellbeing and can have a profound impact on the vulnerability of agriculturalists (Jamir et al., 2012; Maru et al., 2014). As one respondent asserted, “if water for drinking... is contaminated, food production won’t be possible”. Access to clean water was also linked back to climate change, as one respondent noted that year-round access to water is not guaranteed in their community due to unpredictable weather patterns and winter snowpack levels. Political Disturbance (n = 6) Political disturbances accounted for the fewest number of pins and were distributed relatively evenly across the three regions. The most important political issue voiced by respondents was the loose regulations regarding permitted uses of ALR land (n=2). They expressed concern over the replacement of farmland with other permitted and approved uses, including tasting rooms, fruit stands, farm stores, packing houses, and AirBnb rentals. From the point of view of the respondents, loose ALC regulation is contributing to the permanent loss of farmland and the erosion of local food security. This is juxtaposed with the findings of the desktop analysis, which indicated that there have been negligible amounts of land excluded from the ALR since its conception (Grifone, 2017). Activities such as tasting rooms and short-term rentals could also help to supplement and diversify farming incomes, increasing access to different forms of capital. Diversifying farm activities could, however, increase exposure to shocks and stressors. For example, short-term accommodations such as AirBnbs suffered greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Deschamps, 2021), which could have exposed farmers with farm-stays to additional impacts. Restrictive provincial COVID-19 regulations (n=1) appeared under this theme, as well as the economic theme. The respondent who categorized COVID-19 under the political theme articulated that provincial COVID-19 regulations have forced many wineries to absorb the costs of expensive, time-consuming online booking tools, which they felt have increased tourist frustrations and increased operating costs. A general lack of political support for local food production (n=1) was also reported, attributed to inadequate dialogue between decision-makers and producers. This perception in understood to lower vertical social capital, or trust in governance and participation in decision-making that affects local people (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013), and increase the disconnect between regulation and the needs of producers. A lack of vertical social capital has been reported by producers in other global agricultural regions, as reviewed in the literature (section 4.2.2.1). Prohibitive bylaws may reduce 87 opportunities for community members to participate in food production in small ways as well. For instance, one respondent expressed their frustration over bylaws that restrict agricultural activities, such as beekeeping or keeping chickens, in residential areas. Given the decline of pollinators worldwide (Dicks et al., 2021), residential beekeeping could be an important contribution to food security. 4.2.2.5 Perspectives on the Future of Disturbance The next section of the survey asked respondents which themes of disturbance they believe will increase noticeably over the near-term (1-5 years), near future (6-50 years) and long-term future (51-100 years). The results from this question were consistent with the findings from the mapping exercise and the desktop analysis (Figure 6). Overall, respondents perceived environmental risks to be the most important threat to food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. These disturbances relate primarily to the key impacts of climate change. This suggests that climate change is likely the most important threat to resilient local food and wine production in the study area. Thus, in the following phases, this research will focus heavily on adapting food and wine production to the impacts of climate change. Figure 6 Predictions for Different types of Disturbance in the Near-term, Near Future and Long-term Future However, the other categories of disturbance are not inconsequential. Economic disturbances are perceived to be equally as important as environmental disturbances in the near-term (Figure 6). This is consistent with the literature, which finds that producers are normally more concerned with proximal risks that invoke direct consequences for their livelihoods and income (Ruiz Meza, 2015). Interestingly, the perceived importance of this risk does decrease into the future, while environmental threats stay relatively constant. Inversely, the treat of political disturbances is initially low but expected to grow into the future, overtaking biological, economic, and socio-cultural themes in the long-term future. This may highlight 88 the negative experience of many producers who indicated that they felt unsupported during COVID-19, or the growing resentment of regulatory inefficiencies and complexity, as discussed in previous sections. These other categories of disturbance also interact with environmental disturbances both directly and indirectly. For instance, climate change may drive droughts, and is materialized through environmental impacts, for example, increased prevalence of forest fires, as well as human problems and changes, such as the displacement of communities, need for increased regulations, and food insecurity (Adger et al., 2013). Conversely, human activity and cultural norms can have a profound impact on or even induce environmental disturbances. Similarly, we cannot remove human agency from environmental disturbances in the Anthropocene. Environmental disturbances are impacted by the values and norms of the global human population. Thus, while this research focuses on climate adaptation, it is imperative to consider the other human variables that are acting on and within the focal system. 4.2.2.6 Values and Defining a Desirable and Resilient Future for Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion In this final section of the survey, respondents were asked (1) what aspects of their community they value most, and (2) what a desirable future would look like for food and wine production in the Okanagan. The purpose of asking these questions was to determine what assets producers might want to maintain into the future, in addition to the “essential functioning” defined earlier in this chapter. It was also used to define the desired outcomes, or the end state, for the adaptation pathways (AP). One of the key limitations of this section of the survey is that not all survey responses were complete; many respondents chose to skip these last two questions, with only 19 respondents who filled them out. This survey was certainly not able to capture a broad full range of values and desired outcomes, due to the limited response and the inability to capture the full spectrum of stakeholder diversity. Thus, the ability for the results from these questions to guide the pathway trajectories is limited. Further research is required to explore the full range of values and desired outcomes for a normative resilient future. Table 6 summarizes the results of the first question regarding aspects of the community or production landscape that respondents value most. The results of this question are presented as an inventory of components that stakeholders value most and would like to preserve into the future. Using a wordcount, the most frequently used words and phrases by respondents are related to food security, access to land and housing, water security and quality, a sense of community, inclusion and support, and clean air. These valued components were brought forth into the AP interviews, to guide the pathways. 89 Table 6 Valued Components of the SES Valued Components of the SES # of times appeared Key Dimension(s) of relevance Food security 6 Human Capital, Social Capital Access to land and housing 6 Financial Capital, Human Capital, Physical capital Water security and quality 6 Natural Capital Sense of community, inclusion, and support 6 Social Capital Clean Air 4 Natural Capital Climate 2 Natural Capital Biodiversity 2 Natural Capital Profitability and income equality 2 Financial Capital Recreation 1 Social Capital, Human Capital Diversity 1 Social Capital, Natural Capital Property rights 1 Physical Capital Preservation of the “natural” landscape 1 Natural Capital Sustainability 1 Natural Capital, Financial Capital, Social Capital, Human Capital, Physical Capital Organic and “clean” production 1 Natural Capital, Social Capital, Human Capital Ethical labour practices 1 Human Capital Preservation of farmland 1 Natural Capital Strong local economy 1 Financial Capital Several themes emerged in the second question, which asked respondents to envision a resilient and desirable future (Table 7). The most frequently cited vision of the future included the sense of support for local food production and social cohesion, a transition towards more low-input, regenerative, organic, and biodynamic growing/raising methods, increased support from government, diversification in terms of the food system and farm incomes, and finally, availability of quality land and water sources. Table 7 Visions for Resilient Food and Wine Production in the Okanagan Bioregion Theme # of times appeared Key Dimension(s) of Relevance Strong community support for local food production 5 Social Capital Programs to support low input systems, Regenerative agriculture, organics, biodynamic 4 Natural Capital, Social Capital, Financial Capital, Human Capital More governmental supports (e.g., support labour costs, promotion of local food) 4 Social Capital (vertical social capital) Available land and water 3 Natural Capital Diversified food system 3 Natural Capital Diversified farm incomes (e.g., agritourism) 3 Financial Capital “Environmentally sound” 2 Natural Capital Employs local people 1 Financial Capital Limiting urban sprawl 1 Physical Capital Small-scale agricultural entrepreneurs 1 Financial Capital, Social Capital Less regulation and governmental intervention (ALR) 1 Natural Capital, Physical Capital, Social Capital, Human Capital, Financial Capital Sustainable technologies 1 Physical Capital Good agricultural prices 1 Financial Capital 90 Overall, there appears to be a sense of urgency among respondents to protect a variety of assets and values in the bioregion, particularly food security, access to land and housing, water security and quality, air quality, a sense of community inclusion and support, and “alternative” agricultural practices that support ecological health. A desirable and resilient future, defined normatively, should therefore protects these values as essential characteristics, and producers should be able to make use of the various forms of capital they have access to, to prepare, adjust, innovate and transform as conditions change. 4.3 Conclusions This chapter has attempted to answer the first two research questions guiding this thesis: (1) What is resilient food and production? and (2) Which disturbances are affecting local food and wine production landscape in the Okanagan Bioregion? Using the conceptualization of resilient food and wine production developed, I have started to characterize the landscape of the study area as a complex SES with many disturbances influences at play. A resilient food and/or wine production landscape is able to effectively prepare, adjust, innovate, or transform in a way that retains the essential functioning, meaning the sustainability of agriculture, and values defined by the survey respondents. This hinges on the ability of producers to access and mobilize many forms of capital, represented in the SES model of resilience. The survey participants highlighted the importance of all 5 types of capital described in the SES model of resilience. Elements of natural capital, such as availability and quality of land and water, biodiversity and ecologically sound production practices appeared prominently in both the results of the desktop analysis and the survey responses. Additionally, social capital, such as community connection, inclusivity and support, and human capital in the form of education and labor, appeared prominently in both visions of resilience. Lastly, a robust local food economy with sufficient profitability for producers was perceived to be a key element in building a resilient landscape of production. The results of the literature review and the mapping survey revealed several dominant themes of disturbance, which underpin many of the challenges that producers face now and will face in the future. Exposure to these disturbances, coupled with individual levels of vulnerability, impair adaptive capacity and thus, the ability of producers to be resilient, as defined above. Table 8 below highlights the range of disturbances cited in the reviewed literature and by mapping survey participants. Disturbances that appeared in both the desktop analysis and in the mapping survey are left white, while those that appeared only in one of those sources are shaded in grey, highlighting the most frequently cited issues. 91 Table 8 Integrated Disturbances from the Desktop Analysis and Mapping Survey Theme of Disturbance Disturbance Source Impacted capital Extreme Events Flooding D, S NC, FC, PC Drought D, S NC, FC, PC Wildfire D, S NC, HC, FC, PC Extreme, unstable and unpredictable weather patterns: e.g., intense rainfall; early/late frosts; wind; heat waves D, S NC, FC Warming temperatures D NC Water Water security (access to clean water) D, S NC, FC Water quality (water pollution, contamination) D, S NC, FC State and availability of water infrastructure D, S PC, FC Conflicts over water rights and allocation D SC, NC Landscape and land use changes Reduced landscape stability (loss of farmland due to landslides) D, S NC Poor landscape management - Impaired soil quality (e.g., loss of topsoil) S NC, FC Transition of farmland to viticulture (esp. orchards) S NC Consolidation of farmland D NC, SC Decreasing landscape diversity D NC Land use changes growth & urbanization) Rapid population growth & in-migration D NC, FC Transition of farmland to urban uses: driver: loose ALR regulation D, S NC, HC, PC, FC Transition of farmland to urban uses: driver: urban expansion D, S NC, HC, PC, FC Transition of farmland to urban uses: driver: second home tourism. S NC, HC, PC, FC Technology & innovation Low rates of agricultural technology use D PC, FC Low rates of agricultural innovation D PC, FC Insects & Disease Increased pest prevalence D, S NC, FC Increased disease prevalence D NC Decreased pollinator numbers D, S NC Education & Social connection Poor social networking opportunities S SC, HC Limited access to agricultural education D SC, HC Economic challenges Rising land prices & cost of living (related to urbanization) D, S HC, SC, FC Demand for cheap food & cheap foreign competition S FC Increasing costs of agricultural inputs (high dependence) D FC Unstable farm revenues D FC Poor access to financial capital S FC, PC Changes to international trade agreements D FC COVID-19: government regulations, market closures S FC, PC, HC, SC Supply chain shortages S FC, PC Political and institutional support Regulatory complexity and inefficiency D FC, PC, NC Limited political support for food production S PC, SC, FC Municipal by-laws prohibiting agricultural activities in residential areas S NC, PC Loosening ALR regulation D, S NC Labour issues Poor treatment of labourers S HC, SC, FC Limited access to qualified and reliable labour D, S HC, PC, FC Aging of producers D, S HC, NC Note. For the source column “D” stands for desktop analysis and “S” stands for survey. For the impacted capital column, NC is Natural Capital, HC is human capital, SC is Social Capital, FC is Financial Capital, and PC is Physical Capital. 92 The "impacted capital” column in Table 6 lists the different types of capital (e.g., natural, financial...) that are affected by the corresponding disturbance (e.g., water security), as reviewed in the literature, in the desktop analysis and by the survey respondents. Creating a link between the disturbance and the form(s) of capital that they affect allows for a more holistic understanding of how different disturbances are affecting the SES. For instance, categorizing wildfire as an environmental disturbance obscures its complexity. The ramifications of more intense and frequent wildfires extend far beyond their impact on the physical environment. Wildfire has a social, political, and economic impact on communities as well. Using Figure 3 (the SES model of resilience), we can begin to understand which pressure points are negatively affecting resilience in the specific SES. For instance, in Table 6, natural and financial capital are the most frequently cited forms of capital impacted. Using Figure 3, we can begin to determine which areas of natural and financial capital are at highest risk and prioritize where stakeholders might start to build resilience by increasing the status and access of those assets. There was not a significant difference between the disturbances listed in the results of the desktop analysis and those listed by local stakeholders in the survey. That said, combining the situated knowledge of local peoples was an important step to ensure that the disturbances in the literature are those that are most important to the people whose everyday lives are being affected. The survey also provided value in asking local stakeholders to define which disturbances they emphasized and which they believed to pose the greatest risk now and into the future. This can help to set priorities for adaptation action. Using a mapping survey to understand the differences in geographical experiences of disturbance did provide some general trends, for example, the emphasis of biological disturbances in the Central Okanagan Region. However, this approach was limited in this research by the number of respondents in the survey. An analysis of disturbance “hot-spots” and conclusions regarding the spatial distribution of disturbances would not provide meaningful conclusions in this case. A mapping project that engages a representative sample of the population would be required for this. Many of the disturbances listed in Table 6 relate closely to climate change. Recent experience with the impacts of climate change appears to have had some impact on the disturbances mentioned by survey participants. While warming temperatures were not mentioned by participants in the survey, this does not mean that they are not having a significant impact. For instance, months after the survey closed, British Columbia experienced a severe heat dome which caused the death of hundreds of thousands of livestock and massive crop losses (Ryan, 2021). Had the survey taken place months later, heat would likely have been one of the most common disturbances mapped by participants. The impacts of climate change, though highly uncertain, are expected to have cascading consequences for natural, physical, 93 social, human, and financial capital (Nelson et al., 2010). Cultivating the necessary adaptive and buffering capacity to manage the impacts of climate change will require a comprehensive approach, which pays equal attention to supporting the so-called "natural” world and nurturing the human environment, in particular human livelihoods, and welfare (Obrist et al., 2010). The following phases of this research build upon the findings from this chapter. In the following chapter, I use the results from the desktop analysis and mapping survey to build a parallel climate change scenario. I then use this scenario as a visual tool to communicate a worst-case plausible climate change future to interview participants, who can then attempt to address the challenges and build pathways towards a desirable and resilient future. The desirable end-state of the pathways reflects the visions of a resilient future shared by the survey participants, as well as the descriptive definition established at the very beginning of this chapter. 94 Chapter 5: Analyzing Possible Futures and Building Adaptation Pathways This chapter presents the results of phase 4, the analysis of possible futures, and phase 5, the development of adaptation pathways (AP). In this chapter, I attempt to answer the following research question: How and when can local food and wine producers adapt to the disturbances highlighted in chapter 4? Section 5.1 of this chapter explores the process of assembling the parallel climate change scenario, which was used in the interview process. Section 5.2 provides an overview of the results of 11 semi-structured interviews with local food and wine producers. This section is further broken down into several themes of adaptation, which are explored at length, and a discussion of how participants organized these adaptations over time and which actions they believed should be prioritized. Finally, section 5.3 presents the AP diagram and provides a brief conclusion. 5.1 Assembling the Parallel Scenario As discussed in Chapter 3, this research uses a parallel scenario approach. This means creating one parallel scenario by combining three reference pathways: a representative concentration pathway (RCP), a Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) and a Shared Policy Assumption pathway (SPA). The following section describes the three reference pathways that were chosen to form the final parallel scenario. This is followed by a visual timeline of the scenario, which was used in the interviews. 5.1.1 Choosing the Reference Pathways RCP 8.5, or a worst-case climate change pathway, was chosen for the parallel scenario in this research. This pathway is the most common greenhouse gas concentration pathway used for climate change planning in British Columbia (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). It represents a scenario with minimal reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, and low political cooperation with global climate mitigation targets, leading to dangerous levels of warming, well above the 2-degree Paris agreement target (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). While admittedly very pessimistic, this pathway was chosen for a variety of reasons: firstly, due to the availability of data for downscaled climate change projections specific to the Okanagan; and secondly, because of the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the study design. A series of workshops were initially planned for this phase of the research, which would have provided participants with the time to review multiple scenarios and assess their options. The format of a 1-hour interview, which was used when the pandemic made workshop administration impossible, simply did not allow for this type of analysis. Lastly, using a worst-case scenario like RCP 8.5 may better prepare producers for more extreme consequences. This 95 could arguably lead to over-adaptation or maladaptation. However, this can be mitigated with a focus on flexible, no-regrets strategies, or strategies that yield positive results regardless of whether the disturbance occurs and do not create lock-ins (O’Brien et al., 2012; Rickards & Howden, 2012). SSP 3 was the Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) chosen. This SSP is a rough analogue to SRES A2, a commonly used climate scenario conceptualized by the IPCC (2000). SSP3 is the socio-economic pathway nicknamed the “rocky road”, based on high challenges for both adaptation and mitigation (O’Neil et al., 2014). Like RCP 8.5, it presents an extremely challenging future and, therefore, maintains the “worst case” theme. As O’Neil et al. (2014) describe, in an SSP 3 future, the population continues to grow, economic growth is moderate, technological change is slow, inequality is high and investment in human capital is low (Appendix E). The forces of regionalization are strong, reducing flows of goods and capital between regions and increasing vulnerability to climate change. The “Reference Policy” SPA was chosen to align with both RCP 8.5 and SSP3, as it maintains the theme of low mitigation efforts. The Reference Policy SPA represents low amounts of mitigation policy with very little global cooperation, with very small amounts of adaptation and capacity building (Kriegler et al., 2014). 5.1.2 Parallel Scenario for the Okanagan Bioregion Once the RCP-SSP-SPA (parallel scenario) framework was established, I began to investigate how to build a downscaled scenario narrative that would help interview participants identify ways to adapt and build resilience. To facilitate discussion and allow interview participants to think about future impacts and how they might adjust, I decided to create a visual narrative of the proposed future. Figure 7 presents the final scenario narrative that was presented to participants in the interview process. At the bottom of the figure, the series of three boxes contain the RCP data that were considered most relevant to food and wine producers. The RCP data show an overall trend of warming temperatures, more days above 30 degrees, where the photosynthesis shuts down and plant growth cannot occur, reduced summer precipitation, but also an increase in frost-free days and a longer growing season. The dark blue boxes at the top left of Figure 7 depict the themes of disturbance presented in Figure 7, which would affect the trajectory of the SSP. These themes affect the ability of producers to access and mobilize social, economic, physical, natural, and human capital, therefore reducing their resilience. Below these boxes is a timeline, which has been separated into 3 decision-making timeframes: (1) now - timeframe between now and 5 years from now; (2) later – between 6 to 50 years; and (3) much later – between 51 to 100 years. These time frames allowed interview participants to visualize and loosely indicate the most appropriate time for an adaptation strategy to be employed. At the end of the timeline is 96 a box with some of the words used by the mapping survey participants in phase 2 to define what a desirable future might look like. The purpose of this was to encourage interview participants to think about what strategies they could employ along the timeline to reach a “desirable” future, or a normative vision of resilience. Lastly, the bottom blue boxes contain climate projections (RCP 8.5) that are likely relevant to producers and could help them understand the changes more concretely. Figure 7 Parallel Scenario for the Adaptation Pathways Note. RCP 8.5 climate projections for the Okanagan drawn from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium’s Plan2Adapt tool (https://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/plan2adapt) as well as the regional projections for climate change in the Okanagan Climate Projections Report (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). 5.2 Interview Results A total of 11 interviews with 12 participants were completed to build the AP. These producers ranged from vegetable and tree-fruit farmers, wine grape growers, chicken, pork and other types of 97 livestock farming, horticulturalists, as well as beekeepers. They also held a range of experience, from a couple of years to multiple decades, from no family history in food or wine, to those who grew up growing, raising, fishing, hunting, or foraging their own food. Although small-scale producers were not targeted in the recruitment of this sample, all the participants could be classified as small-scale producers. The landholding size of interviewees ranged from just a couple of acres up to 650 acres. Most of the sample were on the lower end of this range. This imbalanced representation could be attributed to the fact that 53% of Okanagan farms are under 10 acres, making small-scale farms the majority (Bjarnason et al., 2016). As a result of who participated in these interviews, the resulting pathways should be understood to support specifically small-scale food and wine producers in the Okanagan Bioregion. The interviews were semi-structured, and were divided into 3 main parts, as demonstrated in the interview guide (Appendix F). The aim of part one was to develop rapport with the participant and to identify some of their values related to food and wine production. I asked them (1) about their relationship with food and wine; (2) how they got involved; and (3) what they loved about food/wine production, their land, and their community that they wanted to hold onto into the future. The second part of the interview was used to create the AP. In this part, I gave the participant an overview of some of the disturbances that I found in the prior phases of this research, and then proceeded to explain the future scenario produced in the previous phase of this research (Figure 7 above). I asked the participant to imagine that this was how the future would unfold, and to choose from the themes of disturbance (e.g. the dark blue boxes) on Figure 7 and tell me (1) if and how this disturbance has affected them; (2) how they would adapt over the given timeline of now, later, and much later in order to reach the desired future state in the scenario; and (3) what the barriers and opportunities are for those adaptation strategies chosen. In the third section, once they had explored at least 3 of these themes of disturbance, I asked them to prioritize the which of the themes were most important to address now and then later. Given that it is not possible to implement all the suggested adaptation strategies simultaneously, this helped to identify which strategies participants thought should take priority and when would be best to adopt them. Lastly, I asked them to tell me about their prognosis for the future, particularly in terms of whether they were optimistic or pessimistic regarding the ability of producers to adapt to a worst-case scenario future. In this section, I will explore the results of parts 2 and 3 of the interviews, given that the aim of part 1 was primarily to build rapport and the values identified did not vary significantly from those already expressed in the mapping survey in Chapter 4. 98 5.2.1 Building Adaptation Pathways in the Interviews As indicated in chapter 2, most adaptation pathways (AP) research has focused on building pathways that respond to a single, bounded disturbance, for example, flooding risk, coastal erosion, or sea-level rise, and identify several trajectories of specific and often technical responses (Bosomworth & Gaillard, 2019; Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). This research took a different approach, taking multiple, overlapping disturbances into consideration, in attempt to better represent reality. It attempts to build AP that respond to the various disturbances presented in the future scenario (Figure 7). However, building a single adaptation pathway map that responds to a diverse set of disturbances has not yielded meaningful results. The pathways map that was originally drafted was extremely large, lacked coherence, and included highly specialized actions that did not connect to any others in the diagram. It did not encourage an incremental approach towards a transformative future, was scattered, and difficult to read. I quickly understood that this diagram was not going to be useful for mobilizing the knowledge acquired in the interviews and for helping producers understand how they might be able to adapt. Instead, I decided to use inductive coding to understand and categorize the actions suggested by interview participants by the “type” of strategy. The resulting themes included: • Theme 1 Learning & Connection • Theme 2 Income & Economic change • Theme 3 Landscape Management • Theme 4 Change of Land Use and Species • Theme 5 Political & Institutional Intervention In the following sections, I explore each of these themes in depth and provide tabulated “pathways” or action corridors organized over time, which could inform how producers might be able to implement to increase their resilience to a many different disturbances. Though participants were asked to organize these adaptation strategies over the periods of now (0-5 years), later (6-50 years) and much later (51-100 years), the “much later” temporal category was removed after noting that participants preferred not to speculate that far into the future. Based on the identity of the interview participants, these pathways are also targeted towards small-scale agricultural production. However, not all actions suggested will be appropriate for all small-scale producers. There are considerable differences between horticulture, viticulture and livestock farming systems, which require targeted response, for example. Nonetheless, many of the strategies are general enough for all producer types to benefit. 99 5.2.1.1 Theme 1: Learning and Connection Rather than technical strategies used to increase system efficiency, learning and connection are the key factors in the resilience of production landscapes (Spector et al., 2019). Soft strategies (Chapter 2), such as the ability of producers to learn, to mobilize that knowledge, and then to transfer it to others is central to the processes underpinning resilience. Social connectivity works similarly to landscape connectivity. For instance, ecosystems that are connected to one another via corridors and are not fragmented are more resilient to change, whereas isolated ecosystems, such as islands, are more vulnerable due to their lack of connectivity (Dearden & Rollins, 2009). Similarly, social systems that are connected via metaphorical and physical “corridors”, for instance, social circles, community groups, internet groups, and transportation networks, generally have more social and human capital at their disposal and are therefore better able to adapt. Learning and connection were pervasive themes that appeared in every interview. Table 9 below provides an overview of the strategies related to learning and connection suggested by participants, and the timeframe they proposed they be implemented. In the following paragraphs, I discuss some of the key adaptation strategies that emerged in the interviews, paying close attention to the opportunities and limitations of these actions. Table 9 Learning and Connection Pathways Path theme Now (0-5 years) Later (6-50 years) Learning Improve consumer education Improve farmer education: access and building diverse producer skillsets Investment in agricultural research & development of agricultural technologies Connection Begin developing relationships with community (e.g., attend events, join networks, etc.) Develop relationships with: (a) relevant experts or practitioners (e.g., entomologists); (b) other producers Develop collaborative and complementary business partnerships and agreements (e.g., bulk buying with other producers) Engage in knowledge-sharing, support groups, networks, events, and activities Learning In the interviews, multiple participants highlighted the importance of consumer education as a strategy that producers could employ to connect consumers with the source of their food, provide information on how the local food system supports their community, and familiarizes them with the reality of the hard work and resources that goes into getting food onto their plates. For some respondents, providing education on-farm, through community events, and online via websites, was an important strategy to combat the pressures of cheap food and foreign competition. For instance, Participant 11 noted the importance of events, such as farmers’ markets, in providing a platform for producers to tell their stories, share their passion, and cultivate support and social capital. Consumer education also was 100 perceived to help sensitize consumers to the demanding realities of farm work and local ecological issues related to production. Lastly, participant 8 suggested that the strongest form of food security is making sure that people understand and support our local food system. While the disruptive nature of the COVID-19 pandemic on producers was highlighted in media, Participant 1 suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic may have provided opportunities for consumer education, since many producers could access the BC “Launch Online Grant” to build a website and an online sales platform, while the pandemic itself also drove greater consumer traffic on these platforms. However, for many producers with limited time, money, and commitment for maintaining an online presence, the day-to-day operations of the farm must take precedence over consumer education. According to participants, the producers and their knowledge are one of the most, if not the most, important asset of production. The education that a farmer receives, whether formal or experiential, is critical to the success of the farm. As Participant 5 suggested, producers should have a diverse skillset and have knowledge of multiple farming systems in order to increase their adaptive capacity. This was seen to be of particular importance to viticulturalists. If food security is threatened in the Okanagan, for example, by border closures, viticultural land may need to be converted back to food-growing, and viticulturalists will need to be prepared with the knowledge and the skills to do this. Participants suggested that one way to build capacity for quick and smooth transformations would be to increase the diversity of vineyards, to incorporate cropping and integrate livestock onto the land. The education of farmers is challenged by the distance between farms and learning institutions and the reliability of rural internet for online learning. However, as Participant 8 notes, during the pandemic, there has been more governmental learning support than they have seen “in a long agricultural career”. Continued institutional support and the development of telecommunications networks in rural areas could help to facilitate better learning opportunities for producers in the Okanagan. Connection The currency of connection that a farmer brings to a production landscape is also critical to its survival. As Participant 1 asserted, “I know that one of our biggest assets in the... industry is my dad himself and the decades of networking that he’s done in those relationships and connections that he has with other producers”. Building relationships has allowed Participant 1’s father to increase tangible aspects of farm operations, such as purchasing power and the ability to negotiate prices to buffer some of the risk of price shocks. However, building relationships has also contributed to “getting you those 101 opportunities you wouldn’t normally have”. For instance, developing relationships with community and other local businesses was seen to: 1. Facilitate knowledge transfers between producers 2. Increase access to resources and improve business longevity 3. Increase business through exposure to other social networks, for example, via a restaurant partnership 4. Improve the chances of securing reliable local labour, and 5. Improve the personal resilience of farmers, by fulfilling their need for social connection and making them feel valued. Participant 10 noted that their relationship with a local restaurant has led to innumerable and unexpected benefits. They recounted a time when the restaurant staff showed up and they had beers and a salsa tasting competition at the farm, or another time when they unexpectedly showed up to help out with labour around the farm, without expectation of anything in return. These relationships between small-scale producers and restaurants appear to be critical for the sustainably of small-scale food production in the Okanagan. As Participant 10 concludes, “You know, these relationships with these chefs who come into the farm or the household customers who come into the farm, it just adds to my pride about what I’m doing and it reinforces that what I'm doing, at least to some people, is valued and important”. The element of knowledge transferal is particularly important. Learning can take place individually, through experience and experimentation. However, as per social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977), learning also takes place through contact with others, who often bring perspectives and knowledge that producers would not otherwise have access to. While participants agreed that more multi-directional learning, in partnership with institutions and research and development partnerships, is needed, they also indicated that producers learn best when they learn from other producers. As Participants 3 and 5 conveyed, not all producers have the resources and flexibility to innovate. For instance, a farmer just starting out whose main concern is keeping their business running is not likely to risk planting a quarter acre in a new and experimental crop. Whereas a more established producer with greater financial flexibility may not be in a position to manage this risk. Thus, knowledge sharing becomes critical in giving producers with less capacity the ability to access lessons learned and innovate. Participants shared that knowledge sharing is facilitated in social settings, during organized events such as farm walks, farmers’ markets, or seed swaps, within programs and organizations designed for sharing best practices such as Biosphere, Farmers for Climate Solutions, the Young Agrarians, etc. Knowledge can also be transferred in between regions via “armchair traveling” or connecting with producers in other regions of the world. 102 The literature clearly supports the positions expressed above, that the ability and willingness to learn and to connect with other producers is critical to living with uncertainty and change (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Wilk et al., 2014). That said, learning must be enabled by supportive environments, such as social groups, producer support groups and networks and institutions that welcome and facilitate the negotiation of diverse knowledge systems, values, and worldviews (O’Brien et al., 2012). This is echoed by the participants themselves, who expressed a need for more producer support groups to organize events and help cultivate knowledge transferal and relationship building. 5.2.1.2 Theme 2: Income and Economic Change The local food economy and how farmers derive their income is central to farm sustainability and resilience. Addressing income and economic changes requires coordination among many actors, including multiple levels of government, institutions, organizations, and producer and consumer communities. Table 10 shows some of the key adaptation strategies that interview participants identified over time, in relation to this theme. These are discussed in further detail in the sections below. Table 10 Income and Economic Change Pathways Path Theme Now (0-5 years) Later (6-50 years) Developing a circular food economy Develop relationships with other producers/local businesses Source/purchase inputs almost entirely from local farms/businesses Sell waste from farm to other businesses (no waste) Sales/marketing Farm-gate and direct-to-consumer sales Increase the cost of goods and transfer the costs to consumers Shift to online sales Marketing the “family farm” image Streamline production: produce fewer products better Income diversification Supplement income with off-farm incomes Diversify on-farm activities and incomes Labour Access government labour access programs Access the temporary foreign labour program Develop local relationships to find labour Build on-site accommodations for workers Automation (e.g., robotic labour) Work with export companies to secure labour Realize a market niche Begin investigating and experimenting with new “niche” products Switch to producing: Value-added products; Novel products; Shelf-stable products Investment in infrastructure Invest in cheap infrastructure: e.g., polytunnels for cropping systems or temporary livestock shelters Self-sustaining infrastructure (e.g., solar, wells, etc.) Invest in more durable and permanent structures (e.g., greenhouses, grain silos, buildings, sheds, green infrastructure, etc.) Trial and invest in automation technologies Land access & ownership Lease land or access land matching programs Agricultural co-ops Sub-divide agricultural land Community farms Multi-family or multi-generation land occupation model Land reform and recognition of Indigenous land ownership 103 Circular food economy Over half of the participants mentioned building a circular food economy as a way to build agricultural resilience. They defined this system as a “self-contained" system that “turns wastes into inputs”. However, the scale of the circular economy was not explicitly defined. Reflecting on the responses, and the fact that the scenario included increased regionalization, it appears that interviewees focused on circular economies at the regional scale. Circular economies were understood to confer multiple benefits to local farms, such as reducing waste, the cost of inputs, and the relationship of dependence on externally controlled input systems, creating new jobs for local people, supporting local businesses, and increasing social capital. As the participants pointed out, creating a circular food economy is predicated on connection. This reinforces the need to establish relationships and build social capital as a “first step”. Once relationships are secured, producers can begin developing reciprocal trade agreements. Participant 11 gave an example of how they engage in a circular economy. They donate their B-grade apples to a local cattle and pork producer, who then turns the apples into manure that is re-distributed to Participant 11 and applied as fertilizer on the orchard. These kinds of relationships are perceived to be highly sustainable and may be reproduced at larger scales over time as social capital increases. There are multiple opportunities that support the formation of a larger scale, coordinated local food economy in the Okanagan Bioregion. For example, Participant 2 highlighted that there is a growing consumer demand for “sustainably-produced” food products, allowing producers to leverage circular economies for marketing. While circular economies require social capital to function, they also amplify it, creating new opportunities for connection and a thriving local economy. Developing a circular food economy may also provide opportunities for bridging Indigenous and western knowledge systems, as Indigenous food systems have traditionally been founded on circular and sustainable systems. Currently, however, producers often lack the technology and infrastructure to make these economies function at a larger scale. Participant 2 explained that the development of these technological and infrastructural inputs can be very research-intensive and time-consuming, as well as very costly, and that system efficiency is often compromised for sustainability. They also pointed to current gaps in providers for different types of inputs, for example packaging materials. Local demand for these types of inputs will be needed to establish a self-contained local food economy. Sales & marketing Participants noted that direct and online sales strategies play an important role in increasing agricultural profit margins. This is also predicated on the ability of producers to connect with consumers through messages and stories shared in-person, online or through smart labeling. Some participants noted 104 that online farm sales have seen an increase since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants credited the pandemic with orientating consumers toward online sales models, such as home delivery and farm-gate pick-ups. However, as Participant 10 reflects, there is an inherent tension between the convenience that consumers are demanding and the connection that both farmers and consumers seek: “It’s like an existential crisis I’m going through as a farmer. I can’t decide how I want to sell and what relationships I want to cultivate”. While Participant 10 increased their household sales by almost 10 times in 2020, the majority of those sales came from home delivery. Thus, while income was increasing, Participant 10 had no idea who their customer base was and was not able to cultivate any connection with them: “I never met them, I never saw them. I just go these orders from them on the Internet. And so, you know, what kind of connection is that? It’s not the one I’m ultimately after”. Thus, there is inherent value in farm-gate sales that extends beyond the financial benefits of cutting out the middleman and increasing profit margins. However, changing trends in consumption and consumer expectations threaten to tip the scales in favour of online sales rather than in-person farm gate sales. In the post-pandemic world, participants expect that small-scale producers will be forced to adapt quickly to consumer preferences and learn to use online marketing tools such as social media to remain competitive. On- and off-farm diversification Other methods of generating farm income included diversifying incomes both off- and on-farm. Participants noted that it is very common for at least one person in the farming family to work off-farm. This is supported by research, which suggests that in 2005, approximately 55% of BC farming households relied on off-farm incomes (Grifone, 2017). Off-farm incomes help increase the family income and is a risk spreading mechanism. For instance, Respondent 4 and their partner are fairly new to farming. They work full-time jobs, which provided the income to purchase and to start up and quickly grow and diversify their chicken egg farm. A few other respondents have partners who work off-farm, in unrelated industries such as firefighting and construction. These incomes provide a buffer to the family income, in the case of a financial shock to the farm income and allow farming families to sustain their farming business. Despite these benefits, Respondent 8 calls attention to the fact that it is harder for producers to invest time and energy into the farm when they are worried about off-farm jobs. For this reason, it was considered a temporary and sometimes necessary strategy best employed in the short-term. On-farm diversification works similarly as a risk-spreading mechanism, but was considered a long-term strategy. On-farm diversification involves introducing new agricultural land uses, for example, 105 new crops or animals. It also includes introducing non-primary production activities, such as hosting weddings, agri-tourism tours, on-farm dinners, subletting to other ALR-approved businesses that need land, such as doggy daycares, as well as the production of value-added or processed foods, such as jams or fudge. ALR restrictions can come into tension between on-farm diversification activities, since they are limited by ALR approval (ALC, n.d. b) and there are many non-approved land-uses that could increase the profitability of farms, particularly small-scale ones who rely on off-farm incomes. Even though participants saw on-farm diversification as a way to spread risk, they also indicated that it can introduce new and unintended vulnerabilities. For example, introducing agri-tourism exposes producers to downturns in tourism, as experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and during “smokey years” attributed to severe wildfire seasons. Lastly, many producers are reluctant to invite visitors to their farms. As Respondent 11 concludes, “…we farmers like our solitude”. As a strategy, on-farm diversification may require a shift in producer expectations. Realizing a market niche Realizing a market niche was the third and final adaptation strategy stream to address farm incomes. Participants indicated that exploiting a market niche provided opportunities to differentiate their business, attracting new customers and allowing them to sell their products at higher prices. Examples of different ways participants have realized a niche include: 1. Producing a novel, high-value variety/species: For example, a unique apple variety that very few producers are growing. 2. Creating new value-added products: For example, CBD honey. 3. Unique, shelf-stable products: For example, dried beans and corn, which increase producer flexibility, given that they can be stored for long times and therefore reduce waste and the pressure of marketing the products. The issue with producing some of these less common, and often more expensive, products is that it can create additional vulnerabilities. For example, as Respondent 7 indicates, if there is a downturn in the economy, consumers may not be seeking out “luxury” food items. Respondents 9 and 11 add that marketing new products that consumers are unfamiliar with requires a lot of time, effort, and money to increase awareness and, sometimes, shift consumer preferences. Lastly, unique shelf-stable products are usually “staple” foods that do not fetch higher prices in the market. The effort to create a new market for a product is mostly short-term. Therefore, if a producer is willing to invest in growing and building a niche in the short-term, the benefits will often outweigh the investment in the long-term 106 Labour Labour was simultaneously one of the most acute challenges for producers and the challenge that participants perceived to have the fewest useful solutions. For instance, Respondent 11 illustrated how labour issues impose limits to grow and produce economic losses for producers: “It’s really, really defeating when we don't have the staffing. Like, we let 30,000 pounds of cherries drop this year because we did not have the staffing to get them off because we were late picking our previous variety.” Access to government labour programs, such as Agriculture Canada’s Youth Employment and Skills Program, were seen as ways to connect with the local labour force. However, local people often need higher wages than producers can pay for due to the rising costs of living and local people, especially youth, are no longer interested in doing manual labour on farms. As Participant 7 highlighted, “to be sustainable a farm needs, you know, to stay in business. In order to stay in business, we cannot afford to spend higher wages. And without high wages, people cannot make a living. So, it’s kind of a vicious cycle.” This “vicious cycle” will need to be addressed at a systemic level, involving multiple levels of decision makers and society at large. Participants noted that accessing the temporary foreign workers program was an option, though not for many small-scale producers without the necessary resources. The temporary foreign worker program was also seen as highly vulnerable to changes in foreign relationships and border restrictions. Other longer-term strategies suggested hinged on social capital, such as developing relationships and agreements with export companies who have the capacity to do the fruit packing or leveraging local relationships to find people to do the labour. Participant 8’s suggestion to build on-site accommodations for labourers was seen to improve the chances of securing labourers, given the lack of affordable housing in the Okanagan Bioregion. Temporary labourer accommodations have been approved by local councils Okanagan, for example, to help farmers with the labour crisis (Lorraine, 2022). However, this solution is not available to many small-scale producers who lack the financial capital to invest in such a venture and many others are restricted by the regulations of the ALR, which restrict the number of structures able to be built on a property. Automation was only suggested by one participant, who noted that the Government of British Columbia is currently pushing to fill the labour gap, created by farmer aging and the disinterest in farming as a career among general society, with automated labour. As respondent 2 points out, the process of replacing human labour with automated labour has been successful in many global agriculture regions worldwide, such as fruit and vegetable production in the Salinas Valley in California, or aquaculture in Norway. Automation could have implications for the potential restructuring and transformation of the 107 food production landscape in the Okanagan Bioregion, in a way that favours larger agri-business and consolidation. Small-scale farmers, who make up 53% of Okanagan farms (Bjarnason et al., 2012), will likely be the last to be able to access these costly technologies. This could increase the competitive gap between large- and small-scale producers and accelerate the consolidation of small-scale farms due to an inability to compete with larger producers. It could also produce a “lock-in” trap for small-scale producers, where they over-invest in a single strategy that will take a long time to pay off and may constrain the amount of free capital they have to mobilize for other issues. One issue with automation is the type of crops that are grown in the Okanagan. Respondent 2 explained that current automated technologies are not suitable for tasks that require a high-level dexterity, such as picking apples, grapes, and other soft fruit, which make up the bulk of the Okanagan’s production. While problematic, automation will likely be introduced in the Okanagan at some point in the future, and producers will need to be prepared to make an individualized and informed decision to adopt it or not. Land access & ownership Like labour, access to land and ownership were perceived as deeply troubling issues with very little recourse as the producer-level. Participants suggested that the best thing that aspiring farmers without land could do would be to lease land or to access land-matching programs through organizations such as the Young Agrarians. Leasing agricultural land is a growing strategy for agriculturalists in BC, where land prices are high. Between 1986 and 2006, the amount of leased agricultural land in BC increased over 35% (Katz, 2009). In the longer-term, participants indicated that if pressure on land prices continues to rise, small-scale farmers may be forced to develop alternative land tenure schemes, such as applying to subdivide ALR land so that multiple families can farm a single plot together, agricultural co-ops, community farms and multi-generational land tenure situations. Participants noted significant limitations to these strategies, such as North American societal norms, which usually favour nuclear family living situations, rather than joint and intergenerational ones. There is also the issue of resource allocation. For instance, Respondent 10 leases land on a co-operative style farm and indicated that there are issues with water allocation, which may become more serious as climate change progresses. Lastly, Respondent 9 noted that many of their colleagues who have gone to community farms have left due to an inability to accumulate financial equity off the land. As Respondent 8 suggests, for many farmers who own their land, the land becomes their “RRSP”, meaning that, when a farmer retires, it can be sold or leased and become income for retirement. Thus, an inability to sell the land leaves producers financially vulnerable when they reach retirement age. Participant 8 also indicated that a land reform to recognize the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Okanagan would be needed as a part of 108 reconciliation. As a farmer close to retirement, participant 8 struggles with the tension of needing their land “RRSP” to make sure to secure their livelihood into old age and the knowledge that they are living on stolen land, which in their view, should not ethically be sold. Indigenous land reform would change invoke a transformative change for how land is used and distributed in the Okanagan, which would have unknown effects on food and wine production. Investing in technologies & infrastructure In the face of an increasingly unpredictable climate with greater extremes, participants acknowledged the value of infrastructure and technologies in helping to buffer and mitigate these threats. In the short term, participants suggested investing in lower-cost, more temporary forms of infrastructure such as polytunnels or temporary structures to protect animals from the elements. In the long-term, however, these structures should be replaced by permanent infrastructures, such as greenhouses, grain silos, shelter buildings such as barns and sheds, and green infrastructure. Sustainable infrastructure that promotes self-sufficiency, such as solar power, were considered an important part of increasing resilience in the longer term. Lastly, in the long term, participants also suggested trialing automation technologies, as discussed in the labour theme of this section. The most important limitations to implementing permanent structures are the cost and the possibilities for lock-in. The investments required for a lot of the physical infrastructure inhibit flexibility, as producers often lack the financial capital required to address other issues. To add to this, if the future unfolds in an unexpected way and the infrastructure is not provide a benefit to the farmer, this investment can become maladaptive (Adger et al., 2013). 5.2.1.3 Theme 3: Landscape Management Landscape management primarily addresses natural and physical capital on the landscape of production. It includes a variety of strategies that address how natural capital and physical capital can be managed and mobilized to increase the adaptive capacity of producers. Table 11 illustrates the key strategies proposed by participants in the interviews. The strategies presented in this theme are extremely practical and actionable for producers, and in many cases, do not rely on external actors, such as government. Like all the other themes, however, they are predicated upon good access to and willingness to learn and connect with others (Theme 1). 109 Table 11 Landscape Management Pathways Path Theme Now (0-5 years) Later (6-50 years) Tactical Strategies Leave the land fallow (downsize production- response to labour challenges); Continue or switch to a more strategic strategy Use traps/mesh against pests; Use tactical technologies (e.g., foliar sprays, shade cloth, paper mulch, etc.) Regenerative farming transition Improve soil: • Reduce pesticide use • Keep plants in the ground as long as possible • Produce and use on-farm soil amendments (e.g., mulches, compost) or source locally produced alternatives (e.g., biochar) Establish healthy soils: • Minimal physical and chemical disturbance to soil (e.g., no-till system, no pesticides used) Begin Diversification: • Research species diversification opportunities and experiment • Cover cropping: Plant in the dry row (e.g., root crops, native and pollinator-attracting plants) Establish a biodiverse farm: • Increase plant and animal biodiversity • Agroforestry (food forests) • Plant flowering trees • Crop rotation (annual cropping) • Plant different varieties of the same plant that have different ripening windows • Plant interspersed rows of different crops • Allocate a less suitable section of the property to wildlife habitat • Restore riparian areas Livestock integration: • Free-range animals Livestock integration: • Silvopasture system • Rotational grazing Input management Selective seed saving for more resilient plants Develop a local input economy (on-farm and within the Okanagan) (synergy with circular economy strategy) Order input: in advance, in bulk quantities; with other producers Begin to reduce inputs Irrigation & water storage Overhead sprinklers- crops and dry row Switch to micro or drip irrigation Combined overhead and micro or drip irrigation Use “clean” greywater from the house to water plants and trees Invest in on-farm water capture infrastructure Adjust the timing of operations Track data on: • Water use and other inputs for soil moisture • Plant phenology /animal physiology and behviour • pest cycles • weather patterns Compare data to historical norms. Optimize the timing of operations, based on observation (e.g., delay planting to avoid pest outbreak) Use forecasting technologies and software to adjust operations Adjust the timing of labour and practices (e.g., spray early morning and late evening to reduce impact on pollinators) 110 Tactical strategies The tactical strategies suggested by participants were intended to be used in the shorter-term and should bridge into longer-term, more permanent strategies. In the “now” timeframe, participant suggested strategies such as alternate fallowing, if labour is uncertain, in order to reduce economic losses. This strategy is not applicable to all producers, such as tree fruit orchardists, for example. Using mesh and traps was the most common strategy suggested for managing pest numbers. However, the efficacy of this strategy is often limited. Pheromone-baited traps have also been identified as having some potentially serious limitations. Participant 9, for example, worked with entomologists to manage a pest infestation using pheromone baited traps. They suggested that, although these traps caught a lot of insects, they also think that they may have attracted many more insects from nearby properties, given that insect pressure has not been reduced in the long-term. Shade cloth, foliar sprays and paper mulches were seen as useful strategies to promote soil moisture retention and heat protection. Participant 3 suggested that shade cloth can help to reduce irrigation requirements, while foliar spray protects crops from heat and sun damage, which are increasingly prominent issues as climate change progresses. Participant 9 used paper mulch for the first time this year and found that, like shade cloth, it helped to protect soil moisture and resulted in cost savings from reduced irrigation inputs and labour costs associated with weeding. Regenerative farming Most participants suggested using regenerative agricultural methods to increase resilience in the face of the scenario disturbances. Not all participants called them “regenerative”, however the strategies they proposed would fit into regenerative management. Though a standard definition of regenerative agriculture does not exist, it is commonly defined as an “alternative” agricultural paradigm that aims to enhance ecosystem services, especially those that are soil-related (Newton et al., 2020). In the literature, regenerative agriculture is normally proposed as a climate change mitigation strategy (Newton et al., 2020); however, participants in this study indicated that regenerative farming is and will be an important part of adaptation as well. They provided anecdotal evidence that regenerative farming practices improve production resilience, making them better equipped to deal with unpredictable climate and non-climate related disturbances. This position is supported by the IPCC, who suggest that regenerative agriculture can be used as a “sustainable land management practice” that builds agroecological resilience (IPCC, 2019, p.389; Newton et al., 2020). 111 Participants emphasized the importance of three areas of regenerative farming: soil, biodiversity, and livestock integration. Firstly, for improving soil participant 5 suggested that producers need to begin by rebuilding the natural “communication that the plants have with the soil”. In the “now” timeframe, this involves strategies such as reducing pesticides, keeping plants in the ground as long as possible to reduce soil erosion and runoff, and producing soil amendments, preferably on-farm. These soil inputs include naturally derived products such as mulches and composts, which can increase the resilience of soil to threats related to climate, insects and disease and water requirements, and reduce the need for more costly inputs later. Soil amendments should be used as a proactive, rather than tactical strategy in response to threats, however. For instance, Participant 9 indicated that if compost is applied during high heats, the application will not be as effective given the vaporization that occurs. Producers may also like to investigate other locally produced input options, which relates back to the circular food economy strategy and community connections. The use of locally sourced biochar was a strategy that elicited some contention. While Participant 9 conveyed much enthusiasm for the use of biochar in soils, as a way to increase moisture retention, capture carbon, and improve soil biodiversity, Participant 3 remained unconvinced that this would be a suitable strategy here in the Okanagan. As Bezerra et al. (2019) explain, biochar is the product of taking woody biomass and burning it in an environment that has little to no oxygen. It is an ancient practice derived from an extremely fertile basin in the Amazon region, where it is believed that ancient peoples produced and used biochar to condition the soils for agricultural activity. Participant 3 highlighted the trade-offs of using such as system for agriculture in the Okanagan, including unintended consequences of removing carbon out of forests and decreasing wildlife habitat and food. Overall, they suggested that there are lots of good alternatives for soil amendments available locally that we should look to before biochar. In the long-term, participants suggested that, in order to establish healthy soils, there should be minimal physical and chemical disturbance to them. This would mean adopting “no-till” practices, removing center pivot irrigation systems, as they cause damage to soils, and minimizing pesticide use as much as possible. Undisturbed soils were considered to be more resilient and to promote biodiversity. As Participants 3, 5 and 10 establish, undisturbed soils have synergistic benefits for biodiversity, as they create beneficial habitat for insects such as wasps and beetles, which have flow-on effects for the entire agroecological system. Increasing diversity, particularly biodiversity, was suggested by every participant interviewed and appeared as a core value for them when asked what they would like the future of farming in the Okanagan to look like. Increasing biodiversity on the farm was perceived to be a risk-spreader, and a “no-regrets” 112 strategy, meaning that, regardless of whether disturbances did occur, this strategy would be beneficial. This is supported by previous research, which found that increased crop diversity works to stabilize yield variability, decreasing vulnerability to disturbance (Tacconi, 2021). Biodiversity was also understood as a tool to facilitate “nature’s checks and balances”, by, for example, encouraging predators such as birds back onto the landscape, to keep insects and rodents in check. Participants suggested that producers begin by researching opportunities to diversify the species on their farm and to beginning to experiment with them, switching, in many, cases from simplified or mono-cropping systems to diverse ones. However, participant 9 warned that this kind of experimentation is often challenged by the fact that a farm is an open and living system, full of uncontrolled variables and confounding factors that make it difficult to ascertain a causative relationship between increasing biodiversity and any form of impact. Participants also suggested that a simple place to start to enhance biodiversity would be to plant cover crops in the dry rows. These could include root crops, such as beets or parsnips, which are beneficial for soil health and could be sold as an additional revenue stream or to feed the family, as well as fodder crops to feed livestock, or pollinator plants to encourage beneficial insect activity and biodiversity. Overall, participants envisioned a landscape of intermixed vineyards, orchard, cropping, livestock, and pollinator plants. In the longer-term, participants suggested that farms should be as diverse as possible, to buffer risk from any one form of disturbance, such as a pest outbreak or unfavourable weather conditions. This might entail planting different varieties of the same plant, planting more trees, introducing agroforestry, or introducing rotational cropping practices. Planting trees or implementing agroforestry introduce multiple benefits, such as shading, cooling, and shelter for crops and animals, and drawing water up elevation when planted on hilltops. Participant 9 has created a mushroom and food forest out of an old Christmas tree farm, which allowed them to generate income in the short-term and increase biodiversity over the longer term. As respondent 3 pointed out, increasing biodiversity is an agroecological strategy that has attracted attention in many countries, as a way to reduce the impacts of pest exposure. Agricultural landscapes that have higher biodiversity, and include alternating rows of different plants may reduce the concentration of food that attract a specific species, and therefore, their impact. Participants also emphasised that allocating sections of their property that have poor agricultural capabilities for wildlife habitat, or repairing riparian areas, often have beneficial effects on improving biodiversity. Lastly, it was suggested that livestock integration is an important part of establishing regenerative systems. As Participant 5 said, livestock are the “turbocharger” of agroecological systems. Having livestock on properties increases biodiversity, and the wastes produced can be used to amend soil in a closed-loop system. Over the longer-term participants suggested that including silvopasture, or integrated systems of 113 trees, forage, and livestock, as well as rotational grazing practices in areas that are unsuitable for cropping could help to mitigate some of the harmful effects of ruminant animals in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as provide benefits to the farming landscapes. The carbon sequestration potential of these types of systems have been documented in the literature, however, it may take decades for the lands to become carbon sinks (Wang et al., 2015). As a key component of regenerative strategies, increasing crop diversity also confers certain limitations. For instance, in a systematic literature review, Tacconi et al. (2021) found that on-farm diversity is constrained by multiple factors. These include demand dynamics, local climate and biophysical characteristics, contextual variables such as whether or not the farmer is producing for subsistence, whether market opportunities favour specialization, the availability and diversity of technologies, and the impact of policies that could either encourage or discourage on-farm diversification. Participants also articulated several limitations associated with converting “conventional” farming systems to regenerative systems. These included the specific and technical knowledge inputs for farmers to be able to establish and manage complex agroecological systems, the need for a high-risk threshold, and therefore, income flexibility, as well as the high up-front costs in terms of time and money, which require farmers to exercise persistence. Overall, regenerative methods provide significant promise as an adaptation strategy. However, regenerative farming is likely much more accessible to farmers who already have a lot of accumulated capital, in many forms. Thus, industry-wide transitions would likely need to be supported by organizational, institutional, and governmental programs. Input management Inputs are typically an area where producers experience a high degree of exposure to risks, such as price shocks and disruptions to the global procurement system (See Chapter 4). The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have reminded consumers and producers alike of the fragility of global trade systems and the importance of local production. Participants recounted experiences where they were not able to access specific inputs, which caused their production to suffer in terms of yields and distribution capability. To create more resilient and self-sustainable input systems in the near-term, producers suggested beginning to produce their own inputs or sourcing them locally, as discussed previously, but also beginning to reduce the amount of inputs needed to sustain their practices, or ordering inputs in advance, or in bulk quantities jointly with other producers. Participant 9 also suggested seed saving to improve access to and sovereignty over the seed system, which has become a highly controlled and regulated industry with the rise of large agri-corporations. They also explained that selecting seeds from plants that fared well in drought, heat and other conditions that are increasing with climate change, can 114 “breed” resilience into plants. In the longer-term, participants suggested developing a strategic local input economy, which, again, reinforces the idea of the circular economy. Irrigation & water storage Discussions regarding water management were impassioned. This was one area of adaptation that was evidently very important to all participants. As Participant 10 postured, “we are so profoundly wasteful of water because it feels infinite. But the good news is that it shouldn’t be hard to make great gains in water conservation, once we’re all forced to start thinking about it”. They go on to characterise the water situation in the Okanagan as a “Wild, Wild West of Water”, which is highly unregulated and does not encourage producers to look at the “bigger picture”. As they explained, producers are interested in producing the healthiest, most bountiful crop possible, using as much water as required to make that happen. However, as climate change progresses, pressures on water will continue to become more pronounced and producers will be forced to consider water usage. At the moment, participants considered overhead sprinklers to be the best irrigation strategy, despite the inherent wastefulness and likelihood of reducing watershed resilience. From the point of view of most participants, overhead sprinklers are the most effective strategy for crop cooling and increasing soil moisture and health. Micro and drip irrigation systems are much more efficient water-use systems and can confer some cost savings for producers; However, multiple participants suggested that it would be best to use these systems in the future, in tandem with overhead sprinkler systems, depending on the application. Participant 9 explained that micro and drip irrigation are costly and require excellent water quality with very little turbidity, otherwise they become clogged and are not effective. These systems also do not provide similar cooling and moisture benefits as overhead sprinklers. Thus, producers will likely need to use both. The tipping point at which new water-saving irrigation technologies will likely become favourable over overhead systems will be triggered when new regulations are introduced to constrict or monetize water heavily, such as new groundwater regulations. If this were to occur, producers could consider investing in on-farm water capture infrastructure or grey-water recycling systems. Adjust the timing of operations To manage the high level of uncertainty and variability associated with climate change and its impacts, participants suggested adjusting the timing of farming operations. In the short-term this involved beginning to track data on water use and soil inputs, plant phenology and/or animal physiology and behavior, as well as pest cycles and weather patterns. Participant 7 suggested that tracking this data and comparing it to historical norms has helped them navigate change and optimize the timing of operations 115 based on those observations, for example, delaying planting to avoid a seasonal pest outbreak. In relation to pressures such as heat and smoke in the summer months, producers suggested that the best thing that they can do now is to adjust the timing of labour what is going on at the moment, to take advantage of the best conditions possible. To reduce the impacts of pesticides on beneficial insect populations, such as bees, participants also suggested adjusting the timing of spray applications to the times that these insects are least active (e.g., early at night or late in the evening). In the long-term, forecasting technologies and software may be useful tools to help mechanize and automate adjustments to variable weather conditions. 5.2.1.4 Theme 4: Change of Land Use and Species Landscapes are inherently fluid. In ecosystems, successions allow forests to become meadows without human interference. In agricultural landscapes, humans mold land-use to accommodate eco-climatic, economic, social, and political pressures. Most participants agreed that the agricultural landscape in the Okanagan is undergoing an inconspicuous transformation. Once a stronghold of tree fruits such as apples, peaches, and apricots (Bjarnason et al., 2012), interview participants have noted that the South and Central Okanagan have increasingly become landscapes dominated by high-value commodity crops, such as wine and cherries. These perpetrators are slowly creeping northwards, as the climate changes and allows for favourable growing conditions (Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region, 2020). Participants also discussed many ways that the agricultural landscape is shifting under the pressures of market prices, urban expansion, land availability, and climate change. Table 12 presents some of the key adaptation strategies identified in the interviews, which will be discussed in this section. Table 12 Change of Land Use and Species Pathways Path Theme Now (0-5 years) Later (6-50 years) Change of species Begin investigating and experimenting with new varietals Re-plant land/introduce new species: (a) species that already exist in the Okanagan but are now better suited to a new area, based on the changing climate, and changing land capabilities; (b) an entirely new species that does not currently exist in the Okanagan Research to identify opportunity species based on climate change projections Replace orchards with vineyards Expand viticulture northwards into the North Okanagan Farm relocation None suggested Deglomeration of farms growing/raising the same products (reduce pest and disease pressure) Farm relocation: (a) outside of urban centers; (b) move up in elevation Industry relocation (e.g., viticulture dominant in the south, crops move northwards) Land-use optimization Change zoning to allow prohibited urban agriculture uses (e.g., urban beekeeping, chicken coops, etc.) Expand urban agriculture (e.g., back yards, rooftops, community gardens, etc.) 116 Change of Species The conversion of orchards to high-value commodity crops was understood to be supported by the contrast in profit between apples and wine grapes, for example. Participant 10 also noted that climate change may be providing opportunities for producers in the South Okanagan to plant new varieties of wine grape that have not traditionally been able to grow in the Okanagan, such as Sangiovese and Zinfandel and other longer-ripening grapes. While the temporal and financial costs of ripping out grapes are significant, as Participant 5 pointed out, grape vines have a lifespan and will need to be ripped out eventually. This creates an opportunity for a phased approach to replanting these new varietals. The warming climate is also allowing for a new frontier of wine production, as producers in the north of the Okanagan are beginning to experiment with growing white wine grape varietals. Like viticulture, the changing climate is also creating opportunities for novel crops and the expansion of crops into new areas of the Okanagan. According to the participants, producers are already thinking longer-term regarding what they might be able to plant in the 10-to-30-year window. Participant 10 indicated that they are researching the Mediterranean region to inspire the introduction of new and experimental crops or cultivars. Other participants said that they are considering experimenting with new crops such as pistachios, almonds, citrus, and olives. The introduction of these species could introduce opportunities for establishing market niches. However, what grows well in the new conditions may not always be congruent with consumer preferences. Phasing in these new crops will, inevitably, lead to a transformation where some of the traditional crops that do not do as well in warmer, drier summers, such as plums or greens, are ripped out and replaced. Participants also suggested that crops that exist already in the Okanagan that do well in these new conditions, such as tomatoes, eggplants and peppers, or other plants with a longer ripening window, may begin to replace those that are not as well suited. While the gradual phasing out of apples, as a low-value crop, appears imminent, these fruits do have certain redeeming characteristics that could stabilize their presence in the Okanagan. For instance, Participant 11 explained that wildfire seasons can actually be beneficial for apple orchards. The smoke helps to prevent sunburn, and therefore, reduces the amount of calcium they apply as a “sunscreen” on their apples. This saves apple producers a lot of money, and there are energy-use savings, given that the tractor is out on the land less often. Farm relocation Farm relocation was not suggested as a short-term strategy, but rather, as a strategic and last-resort strategy to be used in the future. In its mildest form, participants suggested that it could be 117 advantageous for farms to position themselves strategically. This could mean isolation, or not having any neighbours at all. Participant 5 suggested that being isolation could be advantageous for farmers, as it reduces peer pressure and the ability of neighbours to “call you out” on your innovations, particularly if they fail. Strategic positioning could also involve staggered positioning of farms so that the neighboring farm would not be producing the same crops/animals. This was understood to reduce pest and disease pressures. More extreme relocations involved moving out of urban centers, to manage the pressures imposed by urban expansion, or moving up in elevation to take advantage of different eco-climatic zones. Though there is the obvious limitation of the mountainous topography, there is a precedent for food production at different elevations in the Okanagan. For instance, as Dr. J. Armstrong, a member of the Syilx Okanagan Nation and professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of British Columbia Okanagan writes, Syilx annual harvests were traditionally vertical (2020). Spring foraging occurred in the valley bottoms, followed by summers in the benchlands in fall in the sub-alpine zone. In the distant future, participants also considered mass industry relocations where certain cropping systems are pushed out of the Okanagan’s boundaries and new industries are established in their place. Land-use optimization Finally, Participants 2 and 3 suggested thinking about how we might optimize land in urban spaces to make room for agriculture. This, of course would require the cooperation and innovation from municipal governments and by-law, which currently prohibit most animal agriculture or beekeeping. However, currently, there are opportunities to re-think our urban green spaces to include edible landscaping, introduce community and personal back-yard gardens, and utilize the space on rooftops for rooftop gardens. As Respondent 2 suggested, urban agriculture could act synergistically with tourism, by reinforcing the agricultural image of the Okanagan and bolstering the tourism economy. There is also considerable opportunity, particularly in the downtown core of cities such as Kelowna, where there are lots of empty rooftops, to introduce gardens. Research has suggested that urban green infrastructure, like urban gardens, can have important contributions to climate resilience, for example, through temperature regulation, runoff attenuation, improving human health and well-being by ameliorating air quality, and providing protection from extreme weather events (Cavan et al., 2021; Ricciardi et al., 2021). 5.2.1.5 Theme 5: Political and Institutional Interventions The last pathway theme that emerged from the interviews related to political and institutional interventions and was generally considered to involve decisions and action that was “out of the hands” of the producers themselves. Table 13 below provides a summary of some of the strategies participants would like to see policymakers, local and regional governments, semi-governmental bodies, and 118 institutions implement to support food and wine producers in the Okanagan Bioregion. Many participants indicated a reluctancy to get policymakers and institutions involved in adaptation, due to firsthand experiences in which they felt marginalized, unheard, or the interventions implemented caused “more harm than good”. This indicates that vertical social capital and inclusive governance could be low. Table 13 Political and Institutional Intervention Pathways Path Theme Now (0-5 years) Later (6-50 years) Loans New low-cost or interest-free loans for producers Create more banks that cater specifically to producers (e.g., Farm Development Bank) Grants Continue providing grants for the development of online sales platforms and agricultural recovery (COVID) Create new grants only for small-scale producers (e.g., to access sustainable infrastructure and technologies) Decrease the complexity and wait times for accessing grants Create a “feedback” program for unsuccessful grant applicants Infrastructure (water) Address the aging water infrastructure Increase the capacity of dams and other large-scale water infrastructure Invest in separate water infrastructure (e.g., water lines) for agricultural water Invest in new water quality infrastructure for rural water (e.g., settling ponds) Policy & regulation Allow urban agriculture (zoning) Ban pesticide use – particularly neonicotinoids Reassess agricultural land valuation Introduce comprehensive community/government extension programs for agriculture Remove succession and transfer taxes to support farm succession plans Begin a consultation process for an agricultural water reserve Establish the agricultural water reserve if the results of the consultation are supportive Put a higher price on water (like a carbon tax) Set water-use goals, based on future projections (like carbon emission goals) Reassess land use zoning based on ecologically sensitive area surveys Improve enforcement and compliance of water regulations Decrease ALR exclusions Convert non-agricultural land uses (e.g., golf courses) on ALR back to farmland ALR reform: require property owners to have a larger % of land in production; require farms to have a certain % of land in habitat Loans and grants Agricultural subsidy, grant and loan programs have been scrutinized in the literature for promoting relationships of dependence, disempowering farmers, and dis-incentivizing adaptation (Bryant et al., 2000). However, as participants suggested in the interviews, they can also play a role in increasing the adaptive capacity of producers and helping to create a faster transition towards more sustainable agricultural practices. Participants 4, 6 and 9 expressed a desire for new low-cost or interest free loans specifically for producers, and, over time, the creation of more banks that cater specifically to producers, such as the Farm Development Bank. 119 Participants also indicated a desire for government to continue providing grants for producer website development, as seen during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as more general grants open only to small-scale producers. Multiple respondents indicated that the granting system is extremely complex and time-consuming. Participant 8 brought attention to the fact that most producers are not aware of the range of grants available and lack the resources to be able to complete these complicated applications. Multiple participants indicated that they no longer apply for grants because they have never been successful in securing one. The perception was that success rates for small-scale producers is very low, and that there is a lack of feedback for improving submissions. Overall, participants felt as though a focus on creating better loaning systems for farmers and granting programs specifically for small-scale farmers would help to ensure that they have access to the financial capital that they will need to manage current and future disturbances. Water infrastructure In terms of critical infrastructural improvements, participants agreed unanimously that public water infrastructure needs an overhaul. In the short-term, the more immediate needs relate to repairing the existing water infrastructure, such as leaky pipes. In the long-term, participants suggested increasing the capacity of dams, to increase storage capacity and capture more of the spring freshet. Participants also proposed that municipalities may want to consider investing in better and more efficient water quality infrastructure for rural water. For example, Participant 9 recounted their frustrations with the local municipality, who ran a water line from Okanagan Lake up to their farm instead of building a settling pond to utilize the high-quality mountain water sources just up the hill. Not only were the water lines installed very costly, but Participant 9 expressed their frustration with the waste of energy required to pump the water up to their location as well as the degradation in quality. The mountain water that they used prior was actually better quality than the water they were now receiving, which was clogging up their sensitive irrigation systems with turbidity. Policy & regulation In the near-term, participants indicated that they would like governments and institutions to revisit how they value and manage agricultural land. Participant 6, a new farmer with no family background in agriculture, expressed their surprise when they realized that ALR land is currently valued far under the market value. In terms of managing agricultural land, most producers expressed concern for the amount of ALR exclusions and the land uses that were being granted access to these lands. For instance, Participant 6 indicated that a skate park had recently been granted a productive piece of ALR land in their community. Participants felt that food security is highly threatened in the Okanagan, and that 120 a stop to the exclusions and, eventually, reversal of some of the allowable activities on ALR land that are not food-related, such as golf courses, should be reversed. Given that agriculture is impossible without land, but also without water, one participant also suggested that, in the future, British Columbia could consider implementing an agricultural water reserve. Water allocation and rights is a highly contentious issue in the Okanagan, like much of the world (Neale, 2005). As noted in Chapter 4, there are tensions that exist between water needs for urban, agricultural, and environmental flow needs (Bjarnason et al., 2016); however, establishing an agricultural water reserve could be a necessary counterpart to the ALR, to safeguard food security. As participant 3 highlighted, an agricultural water reserve would encounter several limitations, such as inertia from the provincial government, the need to engage and form a consensus between a huge number of parties with different motivations and interests, including BC Indigenous Groups - who, in accordance with UNDRIP and as per Goal 2 of the Draft Action Plan on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2021), are equal decision makers in resource allocation. Participant 10 also pointed out that the pushback from civil society would likely be significant, given the limits to urban growth and economy that such a system could impose. Increased regulation for water use was seen as both a threat and a necessary strategy to ensure the sustainability of water for agricultural purposes. For instance, Participant 4 does not plan to register their well water with the province, based on the new groundwater regulations, which require non-domestic ground water users to obtain a license and pay water fees for water under the 2016 Water Sustainability Act (Government of BC, n.d. c). Other participants, including those whose production would be threatened by water use restriction and monetization, suggested that water regulations do not go far enough. Participant 10 suggested that, putting a price on water, like a carbon tax but for water, would be the best way to see producers change their water use behaviours. However, as soon as peoples’ own interests are threatened, generally, they panic and begin to do whatever they can to secure the resources they think they need, leading to a tragedy of the commons. Participant 8, on the other hand, suggested that the municipal level is where most of the water waste occurs, and that government should focus their efforts on imposing taxes or restrictions there. In the long-term, Participant 10 proposed that the government establish sustainable water use goals, like carbon emission goals, which account for and negotiate competing needs. Participant 8 suggested better enforcement of water regulations to ensure that violators are responsible for their actions and that incompatible agricultural land uses, for example, cattle “flush lots” are not located on environmentally sensitive places, for example, shallow aquifers. 121 Lastly, government extension programs were proposed as a long-term solution to support farmers in areas such as education, community connection, mentorship, accessing resources and grants and more. The purpose of these programs is to ensure that the farmer has access to all the resources that they need to succeed. According to Participant 8, exemplars of extraordinarily successful agricultural extension programs can be found in Alberta and in Germany. However, types of programs require a high degree of collaboration between governments and communities. Communities have long social memories are the gatekeepers of the currency of connection and often have strong place attachments, while politicians change with different mandates. Thus, the most successful agricultural extension programs are a product of community and governmental cooperation and partnerships. 5.2.1 Prioritizing Adaptation In the third part of the interview, I asked participants to prioritize which themes of disturbance they thought would be most important to address now, and then later. They were allowed a maximum of 2 selections for both the “now” and “later” timeframes. Table 14 summarizes the findings of this exercise. Table 14 Summary of Adaptation Priorities in the Interviews Rank Disturbance Now Later Total Preferred time to address the disturbance 1 Extreme & Unpredictable Events 3 4 7 Later Water 5 2 7 Now 2 Insects & Disease 1 2 3 Later Landscape Changes 1 2 3 Later Urbanization & Land Prices 3 0 3 Now Political Support 2 1 3 Now Labour 2 1 3 Now 3 Inequality 2 0 2 Now Education 0 2 2 Later - Regional Connectivity 0 0 0 None The findings of Table 14 provide a way to begin to understand which adaptation strategies to prioritize under a worst-case scenario. Given that participants were not able to negotiate, build consensus around what is important and build the pathways themselves, as originally planned using workshops, this table acts as a kind of proxy to the decision or prioritization process. Unsurprisingly, environmental threats such as water and weather ranked as the most important disturbances to begin to address now and later, respectively. However, what was surprising was that, certain issues, such as connectivity, education, and inequality, were ranked consistently low. As indicated in the section above, these areas are critical to resilience. However, they are “softer” strategies, where the impacts of implementing them may not be as readily recognized or even attributed to them. For instance, poor education can manifest itself in countless 122 ways, such as poor landscape management, a lack of support for local growers, and more. At the same time, other issues, such as water, appear more pressing and have more immediate consequences that deemphasize the importance of “softer” issues that require overhauls of social systems and are often more complicated to solve than improving infrastructure. After participants prioritized their actions, I asked them to tell me about their prognosis for the future. Most of the interview participants indicated that they are optimistic. For those who were pessimistic, the primary reasons were worry over how climate change would change the feasibility of agriculture in the valley, and other disturbances that have already been covered in chapter 4. The general attitude of the optimistic segment was that you simply have to be optimistic, or else, as Participant 9 put it, “you’ll end up being really depressed”. There were several reasons why these individuals felt optimistic about the future, such as the inherent resilience of humans, the growing strength and support for local food systems in the Okanagan Bioregion, the fact that people are beginning to recognize the value of sustainability and a stewardship ethic of care for the land, and the promise shown by the “new generation” of farmers. Participant 7 indicated a degree of high confidence in the self-efficacy of farmers and the resilience of human beings. They advised that there appears to be some sort of innate resilience baked into humanity, time-tested through the changes that have threatened our existence since time immemorial. As they conclude “50 years ago, it was very different, but everybody's still happy if you want to be. It’s a matter of doing our best to be kind to each other, coming together on our land and moving together into a good place.” Participant 1 echoed this confidence in the ability of producers and added that the Okanagan is privileged by a “great reservoir of knowledge" held by institutions, producers, and the Syilx, the original caretakers of this land, which will help producer communities meet the coming challenges. According to the participants, more and more consumers and producers are beginning to value working with the land and using production methods that are environmentally sustainable. Respondent 5 reflects on the expansion of organic agriculture in the valley, for instance: “I am encouraged by kind of the adoption of organic agriculture throughout the viticulture industry... Mission hill is helping to move the needle on organics and more people are starting to recognize the value of organics and regenerative farming, even corporate agriculture”. Lastly, multiple respondents reported feeling inspired and hopeful watching the entry of the “new generation” of farmers. Participant 9 recounts that “35 years ago people were getting off the land. But in the last 10 years, there’s been a surge of back-to-the-landers: young people who are ‘thirsty for 123 knowledge’ and engaged in local food”. Participant 8 adds that this new wave of producers is more educated and seems to be more willing to “do the right thing” by taking care of the land. Respondent 9 (b) added that, for young producers, there is a lot of support and a willingness to share and transfer knowledge, with no expectation of anything in return. They recount attending a young farmers’ event with producers of great renown in attendance: “[p]eople that have paid their dues, that don't really need to be there, don't really need to be paying attention to these young guys. They’ll sit beside me and talk with me and have this incredible conversation. And then I realized afterwards that he is the owner of, you know, a huge seed company or something, that always thought highly of. It's like, oh well, he didn't need to be sitting there talking to me.” The future conditions that these young producers will face are of concern to participants; however, the passion and perseverance of the new generation as well as their creativity and willingness to tend to the land, gives them hope. In the future, participants emphasized that they believed that the Okanagan would see a continued expansion of viticulture and consolidation of farmland. The emergence of a food desert seems to be a likely outcome of the continued conversion of orchards and other food-producing land uses to viticulture. As participants pointed out, this makes the Okanagan more vulnerable to food insecurity, as we’ve seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, or during the atmospheric river event in Southern BC in November 2021, both of which interrupted the flow of goods to and from the Okanagan Bioregion and caused a flurry of “panic buying” that emptied grocery shelves. While there was no official shortage in this region, only supply issues due to panic buying (Hayward, 2021a), other agricultural regions in southern British Columbia, such as the Sumas Prairie, where the majority of British Columbia’s chickens and cows are raised, were devastated by flooding that led to significant production losses (Hayward, 2021b). The conversion of food producing lands to viticulture may be better than urban development, as Respondent 9 suggested, as “[these] lands can always be converted back, if need be”. Thus, viticulture does not create a “lock-in" state for land use in the same way that building a new suburban development might. Respondent 5 also emphasized that the Okanagan Bioregion can and should leverage the opportunities presented by climate change for viticulture, as an adaptation. Climate change is “putting the pinch” on traditional wine-growing regions, such as the Napa Valley (Jones, 2007), where participant 5 recounts that friends have been experiencing challenging climatic conditions, issues acquiring fire insurance, and have experienced substantial power outages due to the prevalence of devastating wildfire. As they put it, the “goldilocks zone for wine production is moving into higher latitude regions in North America”, such as the Okanagan. However, the land-base is so small in the Okanagan, that high-value crops such as the wine grape is likely to dominate it. One way to improve the outlook of the ominous and looming desertification of our Okanagan food system would be to integrate crop growing in the dry row 124 and livestock onto the land on vineyards. Beginning to think differently about how vineyard systems are set up may be the key to maximizing diversity without having to “fight” the invasion of viticulture. 5.3 Building the Pathways Map and Conclusions As participants pointed out in the interviews, human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. Precariousness is an inherent characteristic of agroecological landscapes, which no producer or society can escape. Uncertainty is baked into the fiber of our world and unpredictable shocks, or “black swans” (Taleb, 2010), such as pandemics, are unavoidable. As two participants articulated, the COVID-19 pandemic has simply unveiled and brought uncertainty to the surface, dismantling the illusion of security that society has created through “progress” and development. At the same time, despite the development and improvements of climate change scenarios, the impacts of climate change remain unpredictable (Nelson et al., 2010). This means that traditional, linear, and highly technical responses predicated on scenarios aren’t viable strategies on their own (Nelson et al., 2010). What I have concluded from the survey participants and the literature, is that producers do not only need pathways of technical responses that address specific disturbances to the predicted impacts of climate change. As Participant 3 suggested, what they need is a string of actions that focus on building adaptive capacity in the face of disturbance. As indicated in Chapter 3, choosing strategies that build overall adaptive capacity, rather than using uncertain climate projections to produce a set of specific strategies, is preferred by some climate experts (Dessai & Hulme, 2004). Increasing adaptive capacity allows producers both to adapt to or buffer disturbances, uncertain or otherwise, and, therefore, build general resilience (O’Brien et al., 2012). Thus, when building the AP map (Figure 8), I selected the actions suggested by participants in the interviews that were: • No-regrets actions, or actions that are beneficial for producers and the landscape of production, regardless of the future circumstances (Butler et al., 2016); • Strategic actions, in that they allow for short-term incremental responses to build into more innovative and transformative responses in the future as needed (O’Brien et al., 2012); • Flexible actions, which do not lock the producer into a relationship of dependency or a lock-in trap, where producers are unable to change strategies due to the large amount of time, money or other forms of sunken investments that have locked themselves into (Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013); • Actions that address vulnerability or root causes, for example, those that give producers access to and the ability to mobilize the five forms of capital (O’Brien et al., 2012). 125 Legend for the Pathways Map Symbol Description Pivot point: A point where producers may want to reconsider the adaptation strategy, and pivot onto another “line” Possible point in time when the adaptation strategy may need to be changed Blue line: adaptations related to the learning and connection theme Green line: adaptations related to the income and economic change theme Orange line: adaptations related to the landscape management theme Purple line: adaptations related to the change of land use and species theme Figure 8 Adaptation Pathways Map: Building Adaptive Capacity in the Okanagan Bioregion over the next 50 years (2021-2071) This pathways map illustrates some of the key adaptation strategies that may be implemented by producers themselves, to increase their adaptive capacity. Although very important, governmental, and institutional interventions were excluded from this map, given that the stakeholders responsible for these actions are not producers. Another map should be created to inform policy pathways instead. The easiest way to understand the pathways map is to use the metaphor of a railway map. Each of the railway “lines” are colour coded and represent a different category of adaptation, for instance, landscape management is orange while learning and connection in the blue line. This allows the users of 126 the pathways map to easily identify which “line” they’re on, or what kind of adaptation strategy they are implementing. The circles on the map represent the “train stops” or decision points, where the user of the map can hop off their current strategy “line” and onto another connecting one. This allows users to think of their strategy flexibly. These decision points occur at 5-year intervals, which, while an arbitrary number, encourages users to reflect and adjust their strategy regularly. Most AP maps require the user to select one strategy to start at 0 years. However, because this pathway focuses on building adaptive capacity rather than responding to a specific threat, this pathways map allows for and encourages users to select multiple strategies, ideally one from each colour-coded category and line. As the future unfolds, and new or additional strategies are required to ensure resilience, the map user can pivot, change course, or add strategies. Figure 9 Example of an Adaptation Pathway Using the Map Figure 9 provides an example of how a map user might draw a pathway onto the map. This user started by implementing 1 strategy from each adaptation category. They then began to pivot their course over time, with the goals of developing a circular economy and a regenerative farming strategy. Notice 127 that the “Learning & Connection”, “Income & Economic Change” and “Landscape Management” lines all coalesced around 20 years at the circular food economy line. This illustrates how users can use this map to think incrementally about how to build a strategic and long-term plan towards their, sometimes overwhelming, goals. In sum, this pathways map is a road map that helps producers visualize how to get from A to B in a flexible way that promotes resilience. Given the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic on research, participants in this study were not able to meet in a workshop setting and were not given the opportunity to draw their preferred pathways onto the pathway map. Further research is required to explore different pathway options and to assess whether producers found the pathways map to be useful. I would propose a series of workshops that present this map to producers and invite them to add, refine and draw on the maps. AP workshops are understood to provide “safe space” for participants to deliberate different visions of the future, identify opportunities, unpack the complexities of adaptation, and work together towards a common goal (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). This research approach was not successful in evaluating pathways, and more specifically, in identifying a broad range of trade-offs and synergies between adaptation strategies and pathways. Participant deliberation in workshops could also help to understand these interactions at the bioregion scale. Lastly, this study did not identify trigger or tipping points, or the "shelf life” of an adaptation strategy (Kwakkel, 2016; Haasnoot et al., 2012). Identifying adaptation tipping points is an important part of sequencing pathways; however, at the same time, many strategies that are ultra-flexible, such as those listed under the “Learning & Connection” category of the pathways map in this research, do not require adaptation tipping points (Bloemen et al., 2018). Overall, there is a need for more research to understand if AP can effectively enable adaptative capacity for food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion. The idea of creating pathways for adaptive capacity, rather than adapting to a specific threat, is relatively novel and requires further experimentation with producers themselves to determine the viability of this strategy. 128 Chapter 6: Conclusion 6.1 Conclusions This research set out to conceptualize resilient food and wine production, determine which socks and stressors are affecting local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion, and identify which adaptation strategies Okanagan producers could employ, and when, to increase their resilience in the face of these disturbances. Based on a literature review and desktop analysis this research concluded that food and wine production landscapes can be conceptualized as a socio-ecological system (SES) that is able to effectively prepare, adjust, and innovate or transform in the face of adversity, in a way protects the sustainability of the industry and the values identified by stakeholders. This hinges on the ability of producers to access and mobilize 5 forms of capital: social, cultural, financial, environmental, and physical. When asked what a resilient and desirable future looked like, participants in the mapping survey indicated that food security, access to land and housing, water security and quality, air quality, a sense of community inclusion and support, and “alternative” agricultural practices that support ecological health, were important values to preserve. Based on the results of desktop analysis, this research found that using an SES model is an effective way to visualize the way that SES are exposed and impacted by disturbances. The SES model also proved to be a useful tool to translate resilience theory into variables that could guide the desktop analysis and investigation of disturbances to resilience. The translation of resilience theory into practice was emphasised as a key challenge for resilience research in the literature reviewed (Cradock-Henry, 2021; Turner, 2010). This research therefore contributes to the small but growing body of literature exploring applied, place-based resilience and proposes SES models as one way to bridge the gap between theory and applied studies. The desktop analysis and mapping survey also contributed to understanding which disturbances are affecting food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion, from the point of view of both experts in the available literature and local food and wine stakeholders. The results of the desktop analysis and mapping survey were integrated to form an inventory of disturbances, which highlighted several themes, including extreme and unpredictable events, water issues, insects and disease pressures, landscape and land-use changes, issues with technology and innovation, poor education and social connection, economic challenges, labour issues and poor political and institutional support. The disturbances found in the desktop analysis and mapping survey did not differ significantly and often overlapped. Instead of being redundant, this overlap, as well as the inclusion of local stakeholders, who hold situated knowledge and 129 whose daily lives are affected by these issues, may increase the credibility, legitimacy and salience of the findings. Credibility, legitimacy, and saliency are important for translating knowledge into policy and action (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). Credibility and legitimacy could be increased in the future by completing a systematic review of regional disturbances to Okanagan agriculture and increasing the number of participants in the mapping survey. Asking survey respondents which disturbances they thought would pose the greatest risk over time also helped to prioritize adaptation response. The use of a mapping survey to differentiate how disturbances are experienced across space revealed a few spatial trends. For instance, socio-cultural and political disturbances appeared prominently in the Central Okanagan, and economic disturbances in the South. However, the number of participants limited the usefulness of these spatial data in identifying where disturbance “hotspots” occurred and why. This will be discussed further in the limitations and recommendations sections of this chapter. Across all regions, environmental disturbances were the most common type of pin dropped on the map, and mostly related to climate change. This was supported by the results of the question asking which disturbances respondents thought would pose the greatest risk over time, which also emphasized environmental disturbances. That said, the reason why respondents emphasized environmental threats remains unexamined. I might speculate that it is because environmental systems are the life support of all other systems, and so disturbances to this system create disturbance in all other systems (Lien, 2017). However, further research is required to understand why participants in this research consider environmental disturbances to be more concerning than other types, and whether this is representative of all producers. Based on the results of the interviews, it can be concluded that the best way to plan for deeply uncertain futures is to build general adaptive capacity. This way, no matter the disturbance, the collective of producers are able to absorb, buffer or adjust to disturbance and retain essential functioning (O’Brien et al., 2012). Resilience does not mean controlling all variables and ensuring that disturbances do not occur; as indicated above, it means being ready and able to absorb and buffer the impacts when they materialize. Considering the range of disturbances found in previous stages of this research, interview participants identified a broad range of adaptation strategies, which were categorized into 5 themes: • Theme #1 Learning & Connection • Theme #2 Income & Economic change • Theme #3 Landscape Management • Theme #4 Change of Land Use and Species • Theme #5 Political & Institutional Intervention Interview participants were able to organize these adaptation strategies into pathways over time, including now (1-5 years) and later (5-50 years) slots on the timeline. Participants were apprehensive about 130 speculating into the “much later” future (61-100 years), largely due to the deepening uncertainty. Therefore, the pathways were limited to 50 years into the future. Most of the adaptation pathways (AP) literature up to this point has focused on addressing a single disturbance, such as climate change, flood risk and sea-level rise (e.g., Haasnoot et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2019; Ranger et al., 2013; Rosenzweig et al., 2014; Yohe & Leichenko, 2010). Using the results of the interviews, this research attempted to create AP that responds to the many disturbances identified in chapter 3. Using multiple disturbances to build the AP allowed for a more holistic view of threats to the SES, as well as the trade-offs and synergies between adaptation strategies. For instance, this research found that building social and human capital, through relationship building, learning and knowledge sharing, helped to address many different challenges, and was often needed as a pre-requisite for other adaptation strategies to work optimally. Considering multiple disturbances also more closely reflects reality, where communities face multiple, compounding and interacting challenges. Approaching these challenges independently from one another could lead to inequitable trade-offs and maladaptations for others who that were not consulted. The multiple disturbance approach to building AP did present numerous challenges - for instance, the difficulty of presenting the AP on one coherent and clean pathways map. This research found that it was more effective to split the adaptation strategies into “themes”, and to create a pathway for each of those themes. In the end, it was possible to use these theme AP to create one adaptation pathway that aimed to enhance overall adaptive capacity, rather than respond to a specific threat. Adaptation strategies were chosen based on if they were “no-regrets”, strategic, flexible, and addressed vulnerability, and used in the final pathways map at the end of Chapter 5. The results of this research indicate the potential for building AP that address multiple disturbances, with the aim of increasing adaptive capacity. Since AP have not been built this way, this research contributes to a new understanding of how AP can be built. This research also focused on building AP without the need for high technical capacity and sophisticated computer-generated scenarios, which was highlighted in the literature as a gap in AP studies (Barnett et al., 2014). Overall, this research contributes to building a better understanding of what resilience means for food and wine production, the challenges to food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion, and how and when producers in the bioregion can adapt to current and uncertain future disturbances. AP may offer stakeholders in the SES an opportunity to create proactive adaptation strategies that build adaptive capacity and can help to facilitate “intentional”, rather than “forced” transformations (Rickards & Howden, 2012) over time. While resilience is context-specific (Cradock-Henry, 202), and some of the 131 adaptation strategies represented in the pathways may work better in certain places than others, the potential for these pathways to transfer to and be used by other agricultural communities, especially those with small family farms, is considerable. At the very least, a similar pathways process could be replicated and refined by other communities, using this research as a framework. Translating this knowledge into policy and action is beyond the scope of this research. However, given that the pathways have been built with consideration to experts in the literature and local people, increasing credibility, legitimacy, and salience, it likely that the results would be of use to regional bodies, such as agricultural departments and societies, as well as to individual producers themselves. However, since AP are not inherently intuitive to interpret and use, some training would need to take place to orientate users. 6.2 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research Several limitations emerged in the process of planning and completing this research, which have been compiled into lists and discussed below. Limited response in the mapping survey: The spatial analysis of disturbance “hotspots” was not feasible and would not have yielded meaningful results, given the limited response rate for the survey. Kernel density analysis is a common method of analysis used in empirical participatory mapping studies to determine “hotspots” of mapped phenomena (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015), and could have been useful in determining if there were differences in exposure to disturbances across space, and where the most exposed places exist. These places could have been prioritized for further adaptation study. • Recommendation for further research: Use kernel density analysis to determine if and where disturbance hotspots for food and wine production in the Okanagan exist. Explore if and why certain categories of disturbance appear more than others (e.g., environmental) by examining the stakeholders’ perceptions of risk. Indigenous representation: Both the mapping survey and interviews failed to adequately engage the Syilx stakeholders. The lack of Indigenous representation in this research imposes serious limitations on the results, as the Syilx Okanagan Peoples are important stewards of their traditional and ancestral lands, which make up the study area (Terbasket, 2019). While the intention to was to build AP that build resilience for the SES and all its stakeholders, not all stakeholders had a voice in expressing what disturbances were significant for them, or an opportunity to suggest adaptation strategies that would help them build adaptive capacity. If the AP plan were implemented, there is no guarantee that the proposed actions would benefit Indigenous food production, and may even impose challenges. 132 • Recommendation for further research: Further research is required to explore the threats and potential adaptation solutions for Indigenous food systems. The most meaningful way to engage Syilx Okanagan Peoples in AP research would likely be using a community-based participatory action research approach. This approach emphasizes bottom-up knowledge and building meaningful relationships between researchers and the community, so that community members become co-producers of research, involved at each step of the research process (Caine & Mill, 2018). Using this approach, Indigenous groups will have greater control over the research process and how research products are shared. Narrow perspective of the sample in the interviews: All the interview participants were classified as small-scale producers and were often family farms. This meant that the perspectives of larger local food and wine were not included, potentially limiting the usefulness of the resulting pathways for them. Cattle ranchers, who also typically have larger land holdings, were also not included in the sample. It is important that larger-scale producers are included in the future because they hold major swathes of land and the decisions that they make may have significant impacts for the larger socio-ecological system. • Recommendations for further research: Future AP studies exploring food and wine production in the Okanagan may consider examining if and how the adaptation needs of large- and small-scale producers differ and how. Impacts of COVID-19 on the study design: Given that this research took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, the original participatory study design, which included workshops to collaboratively build the AP with stakeholders, had to be altered. A survey and interviews were chosen instead, and the resulting design was not participative, but better described as consultative. As discussed in Chapter 2, AP project are often designed to be participatory, as participation can often help to unpack uncertainty, by considering a broader range of possibilities, and has documented benefits for participants, such as improving self-efficacy, developing shared understandings of different drivers of risk and possible ways to adapt, building capacity to recognize trade-offs and synergies, and developing ownership over the pathways plan, which improves the change of knowledge mobilization (Cradock-Henry et al, 2020). In contrast to workshops, the format of interviews did not allow for rich discussions, multi-directional learning, the negotiation of diverse values and interests, or working together towards a common goal and building consensus to occur. Participants were also not afforded the opportunity to build the pathways themselves as originally planned, which left the pathways diagram without preferred pathways drawn onto it. They were also not given the opportunity to deliberate and make changes to the pathways draft, which is common in other participatory AP studies (e.g., Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). 133 • Recommendations for further research: Future research should build from this study by employing 3-4 community workshops with local food and wine stakeholders, with the aim to collaboratively build new AP, or to refine and draw preferred pathways onto the pathways map produced in this research. After the researcher(s) draft the pathways, it is recommended that participants are given the opportunity to view and make changes to the draft before it is finalized. Single Scenario: This study only used one worst-case scenario to produce the AP. AP built on single scenarios underestimate uncertainty, as the future is very unlikely to unfold like the scenario used (Hallegatte, 2019). It also limits the robustness of the analysis and the ability to test the flexibility of adaptation strategies across many different futures to ensure their quality (O’Brien et al., 2019). • Recommendations for further research: A variety of future scenarios should be used in future AP workshops, to increase the robustness of results. These could be participatory scenarios, meaning that they have been created by participants themselves in a workshop (e.g., Falardeau et al., 2019), or created by researchers, as in this study. Lack of precision and timing of the AP: This research did not identify adaptation trigger points (ATP), or “sell-by dates” where an adaptation strategy is no longer viable (Kwadijk et al., 2010; Kwakkel et al., 2016). ATPs are very important for sequencing adaptation strategies in pathways. Many of the strategies on the AP map produced would not have an ATP, such as developing community relationships; however, for those that do, there is no indication of when the adaptation strategy would no longer be useful, and therefore, use of the map as is could encourage maladaptations. • Recommendations for further research: To better understand the timing of adaptations and adaptation trajectories, it is recommended that future studies use investigate when ATPs will occur and represent them on the AP map. Inability to evaluate the effectiveness of AP as a decision-making mechanism for uncertainty: Evaluation was beyond the scope of this research due to constraints imposed by time and the lack of participation and inclusion of stakeholders in creating and implementing the pathways plan. • Recommendations for further research: Further research which takes place over several years and includes the implement, monitor, evaluate and adjust phase of the AP Planning Model (Figure 3) is needed to understand and evaluate if and how AP that emphasize adaptive capacity can lead to meaningful changes by increasing resilience. Many of the impacts of AP processes 134 documented in the literature relate to the process of building pathways and the benefits that participants receive as a result (e.g., Cradock-Henry et al., 2020). Longer-term research that explores if and how this changes the landscape is needed to fill this gap. • Ultimately, these recommendations are intended to provide opportunities for future research, drawing on the limitations and lessons learned from this research. It is my hope that this research, and the strategies and pathways presented within it, will benefit the Okanagan community and beyond. Producers in the Okanagan Bioregion may benefit by taking inspiration from the inventory of adaptation strategies or using the AP map to create their own flexible roadmap to resilience. Researchers in the Okanagan and beyond may also be inspired to apply AP that focus on multiple disturbances and increasing adaptive capacity, instead of single disturbances. Food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion, and globally, will inevitably continue to be challenged into the coming century, and adaptation research will only become more important. Even after the data were collected for this thesis project, severe fall storms devastated southern British Columbia. Learning how producers were impacted by, buffered, and recovered from these storms would have likely added a lot of richness to this research. This is why pathways are iterative – they are intended to be revisited and revised over time as conditions inevitably change. Landscapes of production in the Okanagan Bioregion are vulnerable and exposed to a plethora of disturbances. Still, they do show encouraging signs of resilience. Most of the producers interviewed remain optimistic about the future of food and wine production in their region, citing the inherent adaptivity and resilience of humans, a growing interest in sustainability and land stewardship ethics, the growing strength and support for local food producers in the Okanagan, and the promise of a savvy new generation of farmers. In the future, resilience will depend on the ability of producers to balance this optimism with caution for the challenges that lay ahead, whatever they may be. They will need adequate resources to prepare, adjust and innovate or transform. Times of crisis can be windows of opportunity, learning, and change, and it is not yet too late for producers to build strategies that will allow them to plan for voluntary transformations. Click or tap here to enter text. 135 Bibliography Abel, N., Wise, R.M., Colloff, M.J., Walker, B.H., Butler, J.R., Ryan, P., . . ., & O’Connell. (2016). Building resilient pathways to transformation when “no one is in charge”: insights from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Ecology and Society, 21(2):23. doi:10.5751/ES-08422-201223 Adger, N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O'Brien, K. (2013). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 112-117. doi:10.1038/nclimate1666 Agricultural Land Commission. (2021). Provincial agricultural land commission yearly report 2020-2021. ALC. https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/library/commission-reports/annual_report_2020-2021.pdf Agricultural Land Commission. (n.d. a). About the ALC. https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/about-the-alc Agricultural Land Commission. (n.d. b). Permitted uses in the ALR. https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/alr-maps/living-in-the-alr/permitted-uses-in-the-alr Agriculture & Agri-Foods Canada. (2014). Summerland Research and Development Centre. https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/scientific-collaboration-and-research-in-agriculture/agriculture-and-agri-food-research-centres-and-collections/british-columbia/summerland-research-and-development-centre/?id=1180620561099 Allen, C. R., Angeler, D. G., Chaffin, B. C., Twidwell, D., Garmestani, A., & Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. (2019). Resilience reconciled. Nature Sustainability, 2(10), 898-900. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0401-4 Almalki, S. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research- Challenges and benefits. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 288. doi:10.5539/jel.v5n3p288 Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Harvard U.P. Anderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., & Pimbert, M. P. (2019). From transition to domains of transformation: Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability, 11(19), 5272. doi:10.3390/su11195272 Antle, J.M., Zhang, H., Abatzogloi, J., & Stöckle, C. (2018). Methods to assess between-system adaptations to climate change: Dryland wheat systems in the Pacific Northwest United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 253, 195-207. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.017 Armstong, J. (2020). Living from the Land: Food Security and Food Sovereignty Today and into the Future. In Tuner N.J. (Ed.), Plants, people, and places: The roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in indigenous peoples' land rights in Canada and beyond. McGill-Queen's University Press. 136 Baker, R. (2020). Small farmers are big players in food security during pandemic. Canada’s National Observer. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/05/14/news/small-farmers-are-big-players-food-security-during-pandemic Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs. Barnett, L., Graham, S., Mortreux, c., Fincher, R., Waters, E., & Hurlimann, A. (2014). A local coastal adaptation pathway. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1103-1008. doi:10.1038/nclimate2383 Barnett, J., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 211-213. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004 Bazeley, P. (2011). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. The American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814-828. doi:10.1177/0002764211426330 BC Cherry Association. (n.d.). Helicopter Use. https://www.bccherry.com/helicopter/ British Columbia Statistics. (2020). People 2020: BC sub-provincial population projections. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/data/statistics/people-population-community/population/people_population_projections_highlights.pdf Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007 Beaulieu, M.S. (2015). Demographic changes in Canadian agriculture. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11905-eng.htm#a5 Belliveau, S., Smit, B., & Bradshaw, B. (2006). Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: Evidence from the grape industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 16(4), 364-378. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.003 Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5-20. doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Bezerra, J., Turnhout, E., Vasquez, I. M., Rittl, T. F., Arts, B., & Kuyper, T. W. (2019). The promises of the Amazonian soil: Shifts in discourses of terra preta and biochar. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 623-635. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2016.1269644 Bizikova, L., Larkin, P., Mitchell, S., & Waldick, R. (2019). An indicator set to track resilience to climate change in agriculture: A policy-maker’s perspective. Land use Policy, 82, 444-456. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.057 Bjarnason, H., Burnett, C., Charlton, S.& MacNair, E. (2016). Okanagan: BC Agriculture & Climate Change Regional Adaptation Strategies Series. Report prepared for the BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjq1sHnkZnrAhWUKH0KHd0OD7EQFjACegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcagclimateaction.ca%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fmedia%2FAdaptROseries-Okanagan.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1l-P6cP-yf_RkFrIObtEh4 137 Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726-742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014 Bloemen, P., Reeder, T., Zevenbergen, C., Rijke, j., & Kingsborough, A. (2018). Lessons learned from applying adaptation pathways in flood risk management and challenges for the further development of this approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23(7), 1083-1108. doi:10.1007/s11027-017-9773-9 Bosomworth, K., & Gaillard, E. (2019). Engaging with uncertainty and ambiguity through participatory ‘Adaptive pathways’ approaches: Scoping the literature. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 093007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab3095 Bourbeau, P. (2018). A genealogy of resilience. International Political Sociology, 12(1), 19-35. doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx026 Bouma, G.D., Ling, R., & Wilkinson, L. (2012). The research process (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press. Boyd, R. and Markandya, A. (2021). Costs and benefits of climate change impacts and adaptation; Chapter 6 in Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues Report, (Eds.) F.J. Warren and N. Lulham; Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Brown, P. R., Hochman, Z., Bridle, K. L., & Huth, N. I. (2015). Participatory approaches to address climate change: Perceived issues affecting the ability of south East Queensland graziers to adapt to future climates. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 689-703. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9584-0 Bryant, C. R., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, T. R., Smithers, J., Chjotti, Q., & Singh, B. (2000). Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. Climatic Change, 45(1), 181-201. doi:10.1023/A:1005653320241 Busck, A. G. (2002). Farmers' landscape decisions: Relationships between farmers' values and landscape practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(3), 233-249. doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00213 Butler, J. R. A., Bohensky, E. L., Suadnya, W., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., . . . Sutaryono, Y. (2016). Scenario planning to leap-frog the sustainable development goals: An adaptation pathways approach. Climate Risk Management, 12, 83-99. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2015.11.003 Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council. (2015). British Columbia Agricultural Labour Market Forecast to 2025. https://cahrc-ccrha.ca/sites/default/files/files/Labour-Employment/factsheet_BC_E.pdf Carrión‐Flores, C., & Irwin, E. G. (2004). Determinants of residential land-use conversion and sprawl at the rural-urban fringe. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 889-904. doi:10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00641.x Cavan, G., Baker, F., Tzoulas, K., & Smith, C. L. (2021). Manchester: The Role of Urban Domestic Gardens in Climate Adaptation and Resilience. In Urban Climate Science for Planning Healthy Cities (pp. 99-118). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87598-5_5 138 Chrzan, J. (2004). Slow Food: What, why, and to where? Food, Culture & Society, 7:2, 117-132. doi: 10.2752/155280104786577798%2Fmedia%2FAdaptROseries-Okanagan.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1l-P6cP-yf_RkFrIObtEh4 City of Kelowna. (2017). Agriculture Plan Background Report. https://www.kelowna.ca/sites/files/1/docs/related/agriculture_plan_background_report_august_2017.pdf City of Kelowna. (2018). Facts in Focus. https://www.kelowna.ca/sites/files/1/ff-agriculture.pdf Clifford, N. J., Cope, M., Gillespie, T., & French, S. (2016). Key methods in geography (Third ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Climate and Agriculture Initiative BC (CAI). (n.d.). About us. https://www.climateagriculturebc.ca/about-us/ Climate Projections for the Okanagan Region. (2020). https://www.rdos.bc.ca/assets/PLANNING/AreaX/2020/ClimateProjections/FinalReport.pdf Cohen, S., Neilsen, D., Smith, S., Neale, T., Taylor, B., Barton, M., . . . Langsdale, S. (2006). Learning with local help: Expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan region, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change, 75(3), 331-358. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-6336-6 Condon, P. M., Mullinix, K., Fallick, A., & Harcourt, M. (2010). Agriculture on the edge: Strategies to abate urban encroachment onto agricultural lands by promoting viable human-scale agriculture as an integral element of urbanization. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(1-2), 104-115. doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0465 Costa, L., & Kropp, J. P. (2013). Linking components of vulnerability in theoretic frameworks and case studies. Sustainability Science, 8(1), 1-9. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0158-4 Costa, J. M., Vaz, M, Escalona, J., Egipto, R., Lopes, C., Medrano, H., & Chaves, M. M. (2016). Modern viticulture in Southern Europe: Vulnerabilities and strategies for adaptation to water scarcity. Agricultural Water Management, 164, 5-18. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2015.08.021 Coulter, L. (2019). Climate Change Adaptation Pathways Framework: supporting sustainable local food in B.C. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture through the 2018-19 Mitacs Science Policy Fellowship. Victoria. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/climate-action/climate-change-adaptation-pathways Cradock-Henry, N., Blackett, P., Hall, M., Johnstone, P., Teixera, E., & Wreford, A. (2019). Applying adaptation pathways with Hawke’s Bay primary industries. Landcare Research Policy Brief, prepared for the Ministry of Primary industries. Landcare Research, Lincoln, NZ. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339569557_Applying_adaptation_pathways_with_Hawke%27s_Bay_primary_industries 139 Cradock-Henry, N., Blackett, P., Hall, M., Johnstone, P., Teixera, E., & Wreford, A. (2020). Climate adaptation pathways for agriculture: Insights from a participatory process. Environmental Science and Policy, 107, 66-79. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.020 Cradock-Henry, N. A., & Fountain, J. (2019). Characterising resilience in the wine industry: Insights and evidence from Marlborough, New Zealand. Environmental Science and Policy, 94, 182-190. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.015 Cradock-Henry, N., Frame, B., Preston, B.L., Reisinger, A., & Rothman, D.S. (2018). Dynamic adaptive pathways in downscaled climate change scenarios. Climatic Change, 150(3), 333-341. doi: 10.10007/s10584-018-2270-7 Cradock-Henry, N., & Mortimer, C. (2013). Operationalising resilience in New Zealand’s dairy agroecosystems. Landcare research contact report, prepared for the Ministry for Primary Industries. Landcare Research, Lincoln, NZ. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx Cradock-Henry, N. A. (2021). Linking the social, economic, and agroecological: A resilience framework for dairy farming. Ecology and Society, 26(1), 3. doi:10.5751/ES-12122-260103 Crane, T. A. (2010). Of models and meanings: Cultural resilience in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 19. doi.org/10.5751/ES-03683-150419 Crawford & MacNair. (2012). Wine grape & tree fruit production: Okanagan region snapshot report. Report prepared for the British Columbia Agriculture & food Climate Action Initiative. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjtgcDlxJjrAhVXvZ4KHRxUBX4QFjACegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcagclimateaction.ca%2Fwp%2Fwp-content Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Fifth Edition. Sage publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Choosing a mixed-methods design. In Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp.62-79). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Cutter, S. L. (2016). Resilience to what? resilience for whom? The Geographical Journal, 182(2), 110-113. doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12174 Czekaj, M., Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Tyran, E., & Kilis, E. (2020). Small farms’ resilience strategies to face economic, social, and environmental disturbances in selected regions in Poland and Latvia. Global Food Security, 26, 100416. doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100416 Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2009). Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Decuir-Gunby, J. T. & Schutz, P. A. (2017). Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical guide for beginning researchers (First ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. 140 Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. doi:10.1177/1558689808316807 Deschamps. (2021). Airbnb sees promise in rural Canada as company slowly rebuilds from pandemic lull. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/airbnb-sees-promise-in-rural-canada-as-company-slowly-rebuilds-from-pandemic-lull-1.5407507 Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 4(2), 107-128. doi:10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515 Dicks, L. V., Breeze, T. D., Ngo, H. T., Senapathi, D., An, J., Aizen, M. A., Basu, P., Buchori, D., Galetto, L., Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Howlett, B. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L., Johnson, S. D., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Kwon, Y. J., Lattorff, H. M. G., Lungharwo, T., Seymour, C. L., . . . Potts, S. G. (2021). A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(10), 1453-1461. doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01534-9 Draft action plan on the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. (2021). Government of British Columbia. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/667/2021/06/Declaration_Act_-_Draft_Action_Plan_for_consultation.pdf Duval, D. T. (2018). Mobile migrants: Travel to second homes. Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground (pp. 87-96). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781873150825-008 Ebi, K., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Arnell, N., Carter, T., Edmonds, J., . . . Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: Background, process, and future directions. Climatic Change, 122(3), 363-372. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0912-3 Echeverri Ochoa, A., McGlenn, S., Mill, S., & Wong, J. (2016). Ecosystem services in the proposed national park reserve for the South Okanagan: Lower Similkameen region (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). Eliaz, S., & Murphy, L. (2020). A Shock to the Food System: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Consumer-Business/gx-cb-a-shock-to-the-food-system.pdf Escalera-Reyes, J. (2020). Place attachment, feeling of belonging and collective identity in socio-ecological systems: Study case of Pegalajar (Andalusia- Spain). Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(8), 3388. doi.org/10.3390/su12083388 Falardeau, M., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., & Bennett, E. M. (2019). A novel approach for co-producing positive scenarios that explore agency: Case study from the Canadian Arctic. Sustainability Science, 14(1), 205-220. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0620-z FAO. (2008). Climate change and food security: a framework document. http://www.fao.org/3/k2595e/k2595e00.pdf 141 FAO. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Edible_Insects/BLYgnQEACAAJ?hl=en Fazey, I., Wise, R. M., Lyon, C., Câmpeanu, C., Moug, P., & Davies, T. E. (2016). Past and future adaptation pathways. Climate and Development, 8(1), 26-44. doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.989192 Few, R., Morchain, D., Spear, D., Mensah, A., & Bendapudi, R. (2017). Transformation, adaptation and development: relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-9. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.92 Fitzhugh, B., Butler, V.L., Bovy, K.M., Etnier, M.A. (2019). Human eco-dynamics: A perspective for the study of long-term change in socioecological systems. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23, 1077-1094. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.03.016 Flowerdew, R. & Martin, D. (2008). Methods in human geography: A guide for students doing a research project (Second ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315837277 Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrom, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420 Garden of Eden: the history of apple orchards in the Okanagan Valley. (n.d). Copian. http://www.en.copian.ca/library/learning/okanagan/history/6garden.pdf Gayton, D. (2011). Okanagan odyssey: Journeys through terrain, terroir, and culture (Electronic ed.). Rocky Mountain Books. Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006). Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a demand analysis. Tourism Management, 27(1), 146–158. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.08.002 Gibbens, S. (2020). These 5 foods show how coronavirus has disrupted supply chains. National Geographic.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/covid-19-disrupts-complex-food-chains-beef-milk-eggs-produce/ Gillings, M. R., & Hagan-Lawson, E. L. (2014). The cost of living in the Anthropocene. Earth Perspectives, 1(1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/2194-6434-1-2 Gitz, V., & Meybeck, A. (2012). Risks, vulnerabilities and resilience in a context of climate change. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector, 23, 19. Goemans, M., & Ballamingie, P. (2013). Forest as hazard, forest as victim: Community perspectives and disaster mitigation in the aftermath of Kelowna's 2003 wildfires. The Canadian Geographer, 57(1), 56-71. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00447.x 142 Government of British Columbia. (n.d.a). Agricultural Land Reserve. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/agricultural-land-reserve/the-agricultural-land-reserve Government of British Columbia (n.d.b). Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Pest Alert. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/animals-and-crops/plant-health/insects-and-plant-diseases/tree-fruits/brown-marmorated-stink-bug Government of British Columbia. (n.d.c). New Requirements for Groundwater Users. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-licensing-rights/water-licences-approvals/new-requirements-for-groundwater-users Government of Canada. (2021). Overview of Canada’s Agriculture and Agri-food Sector. Government of Canada. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/canadas-agriculture-sectors/overview-canadas-agriculture-and-agri-food-sector Government of Canada. (n.d.). Summerland Research and Development Centre. https://profils-profiles.science.gc.ca/en/research-centre/summerland-research-and-development-centre Gray, R. S. (2020). Agriculture, transportation, and the COVID‐19 crisis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(2), 239-243. doi:10.1111/cjag.12235 Grifone, E. (2015). Agricultural land preservation and the rising demand for small plot farms: are small farms at odds with farmland protection? (Literature Review prepared for the University of British Columbia). Grifone, E. (2017). Agricultural land preservation and urban development in the new fringe: a case study of small lot farming in Kelowna, British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). Grube-Cavers, A., Tatebe, K., Polasub, W., Augustinowicz, G., & Mullinix, K. (2018). Okanagan Bioregional institutional procurement study: Summary report. Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Institute for Sustainable food Systems, Surrey BC, prepared for Feed BC (Government of British Columbia). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/growbc-feedbc-buybc/feed-bc Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decision for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485-498. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006 Hall, M.C. (2003). Biosecurity and wine tourism: is a vineyard a farm? Journal of Wine Research, 14(2-3), 121–126.doi:10.1080/09571260410001678012 Hall, J. W., Harvey, H., & Manning, L. J. (2019). Adaptation thresholds and pathways for tidal flood risk management in London. Climate Risk Management, 24, 42-58. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2019.04.001 143 Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 240-247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003 Hammond, B., Berardi, G., & Green, R. (2013). Resilience in agriculture: small- and medium-sized farms in Northwest Washington State. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37, 316-339. doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.746251 Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is "strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437-470. Hawrami, K. A. M., Crout, N. M. J., Shaw, G., & Bailey, E. H. (2020). Assessment of potentially toxic elements in vegetables cultivated in urban and peri-urban sites in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and implications for human health. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 42(5), 1359-1385. doi:10.1007/s10653-019-00426-z Hayward, J. (2021 a). B.C. floods reveal fragile food supply chains – 4 ways to manage the crisis now and into the future. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/b-c-floods-reveal-fragile-food-supply-chains-4-ways-to-manage-the-crisis-now-and-in-the-future-172220 Hayward, J. (2021 b). Farm animals suffered in B.C. flood despite existing disaster management guidelines. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/farm-animals-suffered-in-b-c-floods-despite-existing-disaster-management-guidelines-172353 Heinberg, H. (2020). Fraying food systems may be our next crisis. Resilience.org. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-04-23/fraying-food-system-may-be-our-next-crisis/ Heron, J. & Sheffied, C.S. (2017). Proceedings of the pollination science and stewardship symposium: Okanagan College campus, Penticton, British Columbia, March 17, 2016. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 113, 92. Herring, R. J. (2015). How is food political? market, state, and knowledge. In R. J. Herring (Ed.), The oxford handbook of food, politics, and society (). Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195397772.013.35 Hessing, M. (2010). Commentary: After the harvest: Towards a sustainable Okanagan? BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly, (168), 81-94. http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/1865/1985 Hewitt, K. (1983). Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology. Allen & Unwin. Boston. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality -- A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research: A new researcher guide. International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1-10. doi: 10.34293/education.v8i4.3232 144 Howden, S.M., Soussana, J., Tubiello, F.N., Chetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H. (2007). Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19691-196969. doi:10.1073/pnas.070189104 Hystad, P., & Keller, P. (2006). Disaster management: Kelowna tourism industry's preparedness, impact and response to a 2003 major forest fire. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(1), 44-58. doi:10.1375/jhtm.13.1.44 Ifejika Speranza, C., Wiesmann, U., & Rist, S. (2014). An indicator framework for assessing livelihood resilience in the context of social–ecological dynamics. Global Environmental Change, 28, 109-119. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.005 IPCC. (2000). IPCC special report emissions scenarios: Summary for policy-makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf IPCC. (2012). Glossary of terms. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 555-564. IPCC. (2019). Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate Change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food Security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, eds P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi and J. Malley. 345–436. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/76618/2/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf Jackson, H. (2021). Produce industry warns of a potential shortage as supply chain issues mount. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/produce-industry-warns-of-potential-shortages-as-supply-chain-issues-mount-1.5662337 Jamir, C., Sharma, N., Sengupta, A., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2013). Farmers’ vulnerability to climate variability in Dimapur district of Nagaland, India. Regional Environmental Change, 13(1), 153-164. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0324-3 Janmaat, J. A. (2010). Parrying water conflicts in the Okanagan: The potential of a water market. BC Studies, (168), 21. Janmaat, J., & Rahimova, N. (2018). Managing drought risk in the Okanagan: A role for dry-year option contracts? Canadian Public Policy, 44(2), 112-125. doi:10.3138/cpp.2017-003 Jensen, E.V., & Epp, P.F. (n.d.). Quarter quality trends in Okanagan, Shaka, and Osoyoos Lakes in response to nutrient reductions and hydrological variation. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. https://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/docs/EBMpapermain2.pdf 145 Jiang, L. (2014). Internal consistency of demographic assumptions in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Population and Environment, 35(3), 261-285. doi:10.1007/s11111-014-0206-3 Jones, G. V. (2007). Climate change and the global wine industry. In Proceedings of the 13 Annual Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, Adelaide. http://www. sou. edu/Geography/JONES/AWITC% 20GJones Kalaugher, E., Bornman, J.F., Clark, A., & Beukes, P. (2013). An integrated biophysical and socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: The case of a New Zealand dairy farming system. Environmental Modelling and Software, 39, 176-187. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.018 Katz, D. (2009). The BC agricultural land reserve: A critical assessment. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/BCAgriculturalLandReserve.pdf Kenny, G. (2011). Adaptation in agriculture: Lessons for resilience from eastern regions of New Zealand. Climatic Change, 106(3), 441-462. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9948-9 Kingsbury, A., & Hayter, R. (2006). Business associations and local development: The Okanagan wine industry’s response to NAFTA. Geoforum, 37(4), 596-609. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.12.001 Knorr Cetina, K., & Reichmann, W. (2015). Epistemic cultures. (Second ed., pp. 873-880) Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10454-4 Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Ebi, K. L., Kram, T., Riahi, K., . . . van Vuuren, D. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change, 122(3), 401-414. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0971-5 Kwadijk, J., Haasnoot M., Mulder, J.P.M., Hoogvleit, M.M.C., Jeuken, A.B.M, van der Krogt, ..., & de Wit, M.J.M. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 1(5), 729-740. doi:10.1002/wcc.64 Kwakkel, J.H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W.E. (2015). Developing dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A computer-assisted approach for developing adaptive strategies for a deeply uncertain world. Climatic Change, 132(3), 373-386. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1210-4 Kwakkel, J. H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W. E. (2016). Comparing robust decision-making and dynamic adaptive policy pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environmental Modelling and Software, 86, 168-183. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017 Lawrence, J., & Haasnoot, M. (2017). What it took to catalyze uptake of dynamic adaptive pathways planning to address climate change uncertainty. Environmental Science and Policy, 68, 47-57. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.003 Lawrence, J., Reisinger, A., Mullan, B., & Jackson, B. (2013). Exploring climate change uncertainties to support adaptive management of changing flood-risk. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 133-142. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.008 146 Leal Filho, W., Wolf, F., Lange Salvia, A., Beynaghi, A., Shulla, K., Kovaleva, M., & Vasconcelos, C. R. P. (2020). Heading towards an unsustainable world: Some of the implications of not achieving the SDGs. Discover Sustainability, 1(1). doi:10.1007/s43621-020-020-00002-x Lein, J. K. (2017). Environmental sustainability: The art and science. In Futures research and environmental sustainability: Theory and method (pp.1-20). Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL. doi:10.1201/9781315371139 Leventon, J., & Laudan, J. (2017). Local food sovereignty for global food security? Highlighting interplay challenges. Geoforum, 85, 23-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.002 Liggett, J. E. (2008). Comparison of approaches for aquifer vulnerability mapping and recharge modelling at regional and local scales, Okanagan basin, British Columbia. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/304354741?accountid=14656 Linkov, I., Trump, B. D. (2019). The science and practice of resilience (1st 2019. ed.). Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4 Loewen, T. M. (2019). Integrating ecosystem services and biodiversity in landscape management for multifunctional agroecosystems: A case study in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia (T). University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0389751 Lorraine, C. (2022). Council approves additional temporary farm worker housing for orchard in southeast Kelowna. Kelowna Now. https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/news/news/Kelowna/Council_approve_additional_temporary_farm_worker_housing_for_orchard_in_southeast_Kelowna/ Losey, J. E., & Vaughan, M. (2006). The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience, 56(4), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:TEVOES]2.0.CO;2 Lunt, T., Jones, A. W., Mulhern, W. S., Lezaks, D. P. M., & Jahn, M. M. (2016). Vulnerabilities to agricultural production shocks: An extreme, plausible scenario for assessment of risk for the insurance sector. Climate Risk Management, 13(C), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2016.04.001 Marshall, N.A. (2010). Understanding social resilience to climate variability in primary enterprises and industries. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 36-43. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.003 Marshall, N.A., Dowd, A., Fleming, A., Gambley, C., Howden, M., Jakku, E., . . ., & Thorburn, J.P. (2014). Transformational capacity in Australian peanut farmers for better climate adaptation. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(3), 583-591. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0186-1 Martin, A., McGuire, S., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), 122-131. doi:10.1111/geoj.12018 Maru, Y.T., Stafford Smith, M., Sparrow, A., Pinho, P.F., & Dube, O.P. (2014). A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Global Environmental Change, 28, 337-350. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.007 147 Meinke, H., Howden, S. M., Struik, P. C., Nelson, R., Rodriguez, D., & Chapman, S. C. (2009). Adaptation science for agriculture and natural resource management—urgency and theoretical basis. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 69-76. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.007 Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., Temper, L., & Walter, M. (2020). Environmental justice and the SDGs: From synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustainability Science, 15(6), 1621-1636. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8 MDB Insight. (2019). Central Okanagan Agricultural Sector Report. Report prepared for the Regional District of Central Okanagan’s Economic Development Commission. https://www.investkelowna.com/application/files/8515/7687/0019/Central_Okanagan_Agricultural_Sector_Report_.pdf Milestad, R., & Darnhofer, I. (2003). Building farm resilience: The prospects and challenges of organic farming. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 81-97. doi:10.1300/J064v22n03_09 Millerd, F. W. (1965). An analysis of the adoption of innovations by Okanagan orchardists. (Dissertation prepared for the University of British Columbia). Ministry of Agriculture. (n.d.). Small lot agriculture: The role of small lot agriculture in the South Coastal Region. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/strengthening-farming/planning-for-agriculture/825400-2_small_lot_agric_in_south_coastal_region.pdf Ministry of Environment. (1998). Habitat Atlas for Wildlife at Risk. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/okanagan/esd/atlas/forest.html MNP LLP. (2020). British Columbia Agriculture Sector. Report prepared for the BC Agriculture Council and The Investment Agriculture Foundation. https://iafbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Study-of-the-BC-Ag-Sector-FINAL.pdf Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., Stouffer, R. J., Thomson, A. M., Weyant, J. P., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature (London), 463(7282), 747-756. doi:0.1038/nature08823 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7-8), 1045-1063. doi:10.1177/0896920513516025 Mullinix, K. & Fallick, A. (2013). Surrey’s Underutilized ALR Lands: An analysis of their economic, job creation, and food potential in direct market agriculture. Kwantlen Polytechnic University. https://kpu.ca/sites/default/files/ISFS/Surrey%20Report_2013.05.23.pdf Neale, T. L. (2005). Impacts of climate change and population growth on residential water demand in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia. Library and Archives Canada, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, Ottawa. 148 Nelson, R., Kokic, P., Crimp, S., Meinke, H., & Howden, S. M. (2010). The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate variability and change: Part I—Conceptualizing and measuring vulnerability. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(1), 8-17. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.09.006 Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K., & Johns, C. (2020). What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723 Nicholas, K.A., & Durham, W.H. (2012). Farm-scale adaptation and vulnerability to environmental stresses: Insights from winegrowing in northern California. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 483-494. doi: 10.1016/j.gloevcha.2012.01.001 Nicholls, E., Ely, A., Birkin, L., Basu, P., & Goulson, D. (2020). The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: A review and case study. Sustainability Science, 15(6), 1585-1599. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00792-z Nielsen, R. (2013). The rapid consolidation of BC agricultural land. Input, 41(2). https://www.reibc.org/_Library/Input_Magazine/Input_Spring_2013_web.pdf Neilsen, D., Smith, C. A. S., Frank, G., Koch, W., Alila, Y., Merritt, W. S., . . . Cohen, S. J. (2006). Potential impacts of climate change on water availability for crops in the Okanagan basin, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 86(5), 921-936. doi:10.4141/S05-113 Nitschke, C. R., & Innes, J. L. (2008). Integrating climate change into forest management in south-central British Columbia: An assessment of landscape vulnerability and development of a climate-smart framework. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(3), 313-327. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.026 Noble, D. H. (2004). Regional planning and British Columbia's agricultural land reserve: A case study of land use, development and policy impacts in the Central Okanagan Valley. https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.ca/&httpsredir=1&article=1455&context=etd Nordahl, D. (2009). Public produce: The new urban agriculture. Island Press, Washington DC. Nygrén, N. A. (2019). Scenario workshops as a tool for participatory planning in a case of lake management. Futures, 107, 29-44. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.004 O’Brien, K., Pelling, M., Patwardhan, A., Hallegatte, S., Maskrey, A., Oki, T., . . ., & P.Z. Yanda. (2012). Toward a sustainable and resilient future. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Maach, G.K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.Tignor and P.M. Midgley (eds.]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 439- 486. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139177245.011 Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi‐layered social resilience: A new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies, 10(4), 283-293. doi:10.1177/146499340901000402 149 Okanagan Basin Water Board. (n.d.). Implications for the future. https://www.obwb.ca/wsd/implications-for-the-future Olmstead, P., Molnar, M., Mitchell, M., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., & Anielski, M. (2021). Ecosystem services. Chapter 5 in Canada in a changing climate: Nationali issues report, (eds) F.J. Warren and N. Lulham. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/nrcan/files/pdf/National_Issues_Report_Final_EN.pdf O'Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., . . . van Vuuren, D. P. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122(3), 387-400. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 Pacific Impacts Climate Consortium. (n.d.). Plan2Adapt. PCIC. https://pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/plan2adapt Peggion, M., Bernardini, A., & Maser, M. (2008). Geographic information systems and risk assessment. JRC European Commission. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC42503/gis_risk_assessment_jan%2007%202008.pdf Petersen-Rockney, M., Baur, P., Guzman, A., Bender, S. F., Calo, A., Castillo, F., De Master, K., Dumont, A., Esquivel, K., Kremen, C., LaChance, J., Mooshammer, M., Ory, J., Price, M. J., Socolar, Y., Stanley, P., Iles, A., & Bowles, T. (2021). Narrow and brittle or broad and nimble? comparing adaptive capacity in simplifying and diversifying farming systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.564900 Peterson, C. A., Eviner, V. T., & Gaudin, A. C. M. (2018). Ways forward for resilience research in agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, 162, 19-27. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.011 Poitras, L., & Donald, G. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism: The host community perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 425-448. doi:10.2167/jost587.0 Polar Geoscience. (2012). Phase 3 Okanagan Basin water supply and demand project: Projected water supply and use in the Okanagan Basin (2011-2040) – Okanagan Basin water accounting results. Report prepared for the Okanagan Basin Water Board. https://obwb.ca/wsd/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OWSD_Phase3_Scenarios.pdf Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, (2014). Food security and food production systems. In Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (pp. 485-533). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions. Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2959-2971. doi;10.1098/rstb.2010.0143 150 Pryce, B., Iachetti, P., Wilhere, G., Ciruna, K., Floberg, J., Crawford, R. Dye, R., Fairbarns, M., Farone, S. Ford, S., Goering, M. Heiner, M., Kittel, G., Lewis, J., Nicolson, D., & Warner, N. (2006). Okanagan ecoregional assessment, Volume 1 – Report. Prepared by Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature Conservancy of Washington, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife with support from the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, and NatureServe. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Victoria, British Columbia. Ranger, N., Reeder, T., & Lowe, J. (2013). Addressing ‘deep’ uncertainty over long-term climate in major infrastructure projects: Four innovations of the Thames Estuary 2100 project. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 1(3-4), 233-262. doi:10.1007/s40070-013-0014-5 Ransom, E., DuPuis, M., & Worosz, M.R. (2020). Why farmers are dumping milk down the drain and letting produce rot in the field. The Conversation (NY, NY: Routledge). https://theconversation.com/why-farmers-are-dumping-milk-down-the-drain-and-letting-produce-rot-in-fields-136567 Resilience Alliance. (2010). Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0. http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php Robert, N., Garcia, G., Tatebe, K., & Mullinix, K. (n.d.). Delineating the Okanagan Bioregion for Food System Study. Kwantlen Polytechnic University. https://www.kpu.ca/isfs/okanagan-bioregion Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., KC, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J., . . . Tavoni, M. (2017). The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42 (January 2017), 153-168. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 Ricciardi, V., Mehrabi, Z., Wittman, H., James, D., & Ramankutty, N. (2021). Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nature Sustainability, 4(7), 651-657. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00699-2 Ricciardi, V., Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L., & Chookolingo, B. (2018). How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security, 17, 64-72. doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002 Rickards, L., & Howden, S.M. (2012). Transformational adaptation: Agriculture and climate change. Crop and Pasture Science, 63(3), 240-250. doi:10.1071/CP11172 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730 Robinson, D. M. (2020). Cultural sustainability and rural food tourism in two Canadian wine regions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/18051 Rosenzweig, C., & Solecki, W. (2014). Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: Lessons from a first-responder city. Global Environmental Change, 28, 395-408. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.003 151 Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W. (2018). Action pathways for transforming cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(9), 756-759. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0267-x Royal BC Museum. (1994). Living landscapes Thompson Okanagan: Past, present & future. https://royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/exhibits/living-landscapes/thomp-ok/irrigating-of-okanagan/chapter/wilch1.html Ross, H., Shaw, S., Rissik, D., Cliffe, N., Chapman, S., Hounsell, V., . . ., & Schoeman, J. (2014). A participatory systems approach to understanding climate adaptation needs. Climatic Change, 129(1), 27-42. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1318-6 Ruiz Meza, L. E. (2015). Adaptive capacity of small-scale coffee farmers to climate change impacts in the Soconusco region of Chiapas, Mexico. Climate and Development, 7(2), 100-109. doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.900472 Ryan, D. (2021). Heat dome caused heat-breaking losses for B.C. livestock farmers, documents show. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/heatwave-animal-deaths Schirrmacher, V. (2021). Less can be more: The hormesis theory of stress adaptation in the global biosphere and its implications. Biomedicines, 9(3), 293. doi:10.3390/biomedicines9030293 Schlosser, J. (2018). Innovation by Sector. Accelerate Okanagan. https://accelerateokanagan.com/blog/innovation-sector/ Schultz, L., Folke, C. & Olsson, P. (2007). Enhancing ecosystem management through social-ecological inventories: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environmental Conservation, 34(2), 140-152. doi:10.1017/S0376892907003876 Senese, D. (2010). Amenity resources and rural change in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. The rural-urban fringe in Canada: Conflict and controversy. Brandon, Manitoba, Canada: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University, 158-175. Senese, D. M., Hull, J. S., & McNicol, B. J. (2020). Ecotopian mobilities: Terroir-driven tourism and migration in British Columbia, Canada. In J. Dutton & P.J. Howland (1st Eds.), Wine, Terrioir and Utopia: Making New Worlds. (pp. 126-144) Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429492471-8 Senese, D. M., Wilson, W., & Momer, B. (2011). The Okanagan wine region of British Columbia, Canada. In: Dougherty P. (eds) The Geography of Wine (pp. 81-91). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0464-0_5 Shepherd, P., Tansey, J., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2006). Context matters: What shapes adaptation to water stress in the Okanagan? Climatic Change, 78(1), 31-62. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9093-7 Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall. doi:10.1201/9781315140919 Smit, B., & Skinner, M. W. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: A typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7(1), 85-114. doi:10.1023/A:1015862228270 152 Spector, S., Cradock-Henry, N.A., Beaven, S., Orchiston, C. (2019). Characterising rural resilience in Aotearoa-New Zealand: a systematic review. Regional Environmental Change, 19(2), 543-557. doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1418-3 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 Statistics Canada. (2016a). Central Okanagan regional district census profile, 2016 census. Statistics Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5935&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&SearchText=Central%20Okanagan&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=5935&TABID=1&type=0 Statistics Canada. (2016b). North Okanagan regional district census profile, 2016 census. Statistics Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5937&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&SearchText=North%20Okanagan&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=5937&TABID=1&type=0 Statistics Canada. (2016c). Okanagan-Similkameen regional district census profile, 2016 census. Statistics Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5907&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&SearchText=Okanagan-Similkameen&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=5907&TABID=1&type=0 Statistics Canada. (2018). Canada goes urban. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015004-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2020). COVID-19 disruptions and agriculture: Temporary foreign workers. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00002-eng.htm Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., ... & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the earth System in the anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252-8259. Summit Environmental Consulting. (2005). Final report: Okanagan Basin Water supply and demand study – Phase 1. Prepared for Land and Water B.C. https://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/docs/Supply_Demand_Phase1.pdf Tacconi, F., Waha, K., Ojeda, J. J., & Leith, P. (2022). Drivers and constraints of on-farm diversity: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00736-6 Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable (2nd, Random trade pbk. ed.). New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. 153 Tanaka, A., Takahashi, K., Masutomi, Y., Hanasaki, N., Hijioka, Y., Shiogama, H., & Yamanaka, Y. (2015). Adaptation pathways of global wheat production: Importance of strategic adaptation to climate change. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 14312. doi:10.1038/srep14312 Tanner, T., Lewis, D., Wrathall, D., Bronen, R., Cradock-Henry, N., Huq, S., . . ., & Stockholm Environment Institute. (2014). Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(1), 23-26. doi:10.1038/nclimate2431 Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Terbasket, P & Shields, S. (2019). Syilx perspective on original foods: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(1), 1-6. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2019.091.016 Thompson, C.B. (2009). Descriptive data analysis. Air Medical Journal, 28(2), 56-59. doi:10.1016/j.amj.2008.12.001 Tomich, T. P., Brodt, S., Ferris, H., Galt, R., Horwath, W. R., Kebreab, E., Leveau, J. H. J., Liptzin, D., Lubell, M., Merel, P., Michelmore, R., Rosenstock, T., Scow, K., Six, J., Williams, N., & Yang, L. (2011). Agroecology: A review from a global-change perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 193-222. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012110-121302 Turner, B. L. (2010). Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 570-576. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003 Urban Matters. (2020). Central Okanagan community wellness analysis. Report received June 28 from https://pub-rdco.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=2050 van Aalst, M.K., Cannot, T., & Burton, I. (2008). Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change, 18(2), 165-179. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.002 van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., O'Neill, B. C., Ebi, K. L., Riahi, K., Carter, T. R., . . . Winkler, H. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: Scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change, 122(3), 373-386. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0906-1 van Vuuren, D. P., Riahi, K., Moss, R., Edmonds, J., Thomson, A., Nakicenovic, N., . . . Arnell, N. (2012). A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 21-35. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.002 Vermeulen, S. J., Challinor, A. J., Thornton, P. K., Campbell, B. M., Eriyagama, N., Vervoort, J. M., . . ., & Smith, D. R. (2013). Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(21), 8357-8362. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219441110 154 Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. doi:10.5751/ES-00650-090205 Walker, I. R., & Pellatt, M. G. (2008). Climate change and ecosystem response in the northern Columbia River basin — A paleoenvironmental perspective. Environmental Reviews, 16(NA), 113-140. doi.org/10.1139/A08-004 Wang, T., Teague, W., Park, S., & Bevers, S. (2015). GHG mitigation potential of different grazing strategies in the United States southern great plains. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 7(10), 13500-13521. doi:10.3390/su71013500 Wines of BC (WBC). (n.d. a). The Okanagan Valley. https://winebc.com/discover-bc-wine-country/okanagan-valley/ Wine of BC (WBC). (n.d. b). Quick facts. https://winebc.com/industry/media/quick-facts/ Werners, S. E., Pfenninger, S., Slobbe, E. J. J., van, Haasnoot, M., kwakkel, J. H., & Swart, R. J. (2013). Thresholds, tipping and turning points for sustainability under climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 334-340. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.005 Wilk, J., Hjerpe, M., Yang, W., Fan, H. (2015). Farm-scale adaptation under extreme climate and rapid economic transition. Environment, Development & Sustainability, 17, 393-407. doi:10.1007/s10668-014-9549-2 Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-72. Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S.E., Eakin, H.C., Archer Van Garderen, E.R.M., & Campbell B. (2014). Reconceptualizing adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325-336. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002 Yohe, G., & Leichenko, R. (2010). Chapter 2: Adopting a risk-based approach. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196(1), 29-40. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05310.x Young, G., Zavala, H., Wandel, J., Smit, B., Salas, S., Jimenez, E., . . ., & Cepeda, J. (2010). Vulnerability and adaptation in a dryland community of the Elqui Valley, Chile. Climatic Change, 98(1), 245-276. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9665-4 155 Appendices Appendix A Adaptation Actions for Global Agricultural Production in the Literature Type of Adaptation Adaptation Practice Scale of Application Institutional/ Political Government Assistance Crop insurance System Income stabilization System Compensation and assistance programs System Governance and procedural restructuring Community-engaged decision making System Decentralization of power and power sharing System Policies Policies to: a) Address socio-economic risks (e.g. poverty and food insecurity; agricultural labour and unemployment; equitable reallocation, redistribution and protection of sovereignty over resources) System b) Improve access to land (agriculture land zoning, improve the accessibility of land for producers) System c) Trade policies that protect the interests of producers. System Partnerships Research and development community partnerships System Funding Sustainable resource management, conservation and education System Environmental/Agro ecological Irrigation Centre-pivot Production-level Sprinkler Production-level Gravity-fed Production-level Drip Production-level Crop/breed choice and distribution Crop diversity Practice-level Indigenous/ climate adapted crops Practice-level GMOs System, Production-level Land use and integration Agroforestry Production-level Silvopasture Production-level Aquaculture Production-level Permaculture Production-level Cover cropping Production-level Holistic grazing management Production-level Mixed livestock/crop systems Production-level Other regenerative farming methods Production-level Agritourism and farm stay Production-level Land and topographic management (e.g., contouring, terracing and diversions to maximize water storage) System, Production-level Greenhouses and hydroponics Production-level Change of farm type System, Production-level Tillage Till Production-level Alternative fallow tillage Production-level No till Production-level Fertilization Organic Production-level Low input Production-level Clover and legumes Production-level 156 Adaptation Actions for Global Agricultural Production in the Literature1 Type of Adaptation Adaptation Practice Scale of Application Pest control and biosecurity Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Production-level Biological Pest Control Production-level Diversify species (Plant/raise pest-resistant species ) Production-level Ecosystem management Matching the timing of key operations to changing growing season Production-level Ecosystem conservation (encourage functionally diverse ecosystems: e.g. riparian and wetland conservation) System, Production-level Prescribed burning System, Production-level Water storage System, Production-level Watershed management System Waste/effluent management System, Production-level Relocation Farm relocation Production-level Industry relocation System, Production-level Social/ Human Education Social learning opportunities System, Production-level Community learning, teaching pro-environmental behaviour founded in an understanding of ecology. System, Production-level Programs that connect people to nature and the reality of food production (e.g., foraging walks, farm visits, networking through farmers’ markets) System, Production-level Farmer internships (connecting older farmers with young, aspiring farmers) System, Production-level Education to promote food production as a career path System, Production-level Producer education: transitioning off high input systems to low input systems with high knowledge inputs System, Production-level Human well-being Improve food security, poverty alleviation System Psychological support programs System Access to essential services System Enhancing social capital Farmers’ markets System, Production-level Networking opportunities for producers, or ommunity events centered around production (e.g., seed swaps) System, Production-level Economic Labour Automation and mechanization System Markets Purchasing in bulk during favourable market conditions Production-level Low-input system Production-level Raise/grow/collect a product with low price variability Production-level Exploit a market niche Production-level Expand into new markets, diversify market base (e.g., e-commerce) Production-level Risk sharing/spreading Co-operative farming System, Production-level Crop share programs (CSA) Production-level Diversify supply sources Production-level Farming incomes Horizontal on-farm and off-farm integration Production-level Alternative livelihood options and retraining local producers System, Production-level Technological Tools to reduce vulnerability Forecasting and early warning systems System Energy sources Renewable energy sources System Infrastructure Investment in low-maintenance, efficient infrastructure System Investment in public infrastructure System 1 Note. Data from (Adger et al., 2013; Bartels et al., 2018; Belliveau et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2014; Bryant et al., 2000; Costa et al., 2016; Cradock-Henry & Mortimer, 2013; Falardeau et al., 2019; Folke, 2006; Gilinsky et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2013; Howden et al., 200 ; Ifejika et al., 2014 ; Jamir et al., 2012 ; Jones & Web, 2010 ; Kalaugher et al., 2013 ; Kenny, 2011 ; Lereboulet et al., 2013 ; Marshall, 2010 ; Maru et al., 2013 ; Meinke et al., 2009 ; Nicholas & Durham, 2012l O’Brien et al., 2012 ; Ruiz Meza, 2015 ; Smit & Skinner, 2002 ; Spector et al., 2019 ; Tanner et al., 2014 ; Turner, 2012 ; Smit & Skinner, 2002 ; van Aalst et al., 2008 ; Werners et al., 2013 ; Wilk et al., 2014 ; Wise et al., 2014 ; Yohe & Leichenko, 2012). 157 Appendix B Survey materials: Letter of initial contact, letter of consent and survey contents 1) Letter of Initial contact Letter of Initial Contact Building adaptation pathways for local food and wine production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach Dear prospective participant: My name is Ayla De Grandpre-Brown, and I am a master’s student enrolled in Sustainability studies at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO). I am the Co-Investigator working on a research project titled: Building adaptation pathways for local food and wine production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach, under the supervision of Dr. Donna Senese, Associate Dean of the Department of Community, Culture and Global Studies. Both Dr. Senese and I are interested in uncovering ways to help local food and wine production in the Okanagan adapt to socio-economic and environmental changes, and have successfully completed research projects exploring the resilience of the industry in the past. The purpose of this research is to collaboratively build adaptation pathways that address change in the form of both current and future shocks (e.g. pandemics) and stressors (e.g. climate change) affecting local food production in the Okanagan. Adaptation pathways are a set of adaptation actions, sequenced over time to respond to risks posed by shocks and stressors. This research aims to identify if and how adaptation pathways can be used to build resilience, or the ability to prepare, adapt and innovate for the eventuality of shocks and stressors. You have been identified as a stakeholder or expert involved in local food or wine production, and are someone who may have important knowledge that will contribute to the development and implementation of the future of local food production in the valley. We would like to invite you to participate in a virtual mapping survey, where we will ask you questions about: (1) Yourself and your connection to food or wine production; 158 (2) What kind of hazards, vulnerabilities and risks to local food or wine production you may have experienced; (3) Your views and hopes for the future of food or wine production in the Okanagan. This survey will take place on Qualtrics and the Geolive platform, which is a mapping survey software developed by UBCO. Your participation is entirely voluntary through all stages of this research, and you may contact the researchers to revoke your consent at any time. Should you choose to withdraw from the study, you will receive an e-mail from the co-investigator within a week’s time, confirming your withdrawal. If you choose to participate in this survey, you can follow the survey link provided to the Qualtircs site, where you will (1) be asked to read through the letter of consent and signal your consent, and then (2) fill out the survey questionnaire. Please be sure to use a computer or tablet (not your cellphone) to complete this survey. Should you have any questions or require further information, you may contact the researcher via e-mail or request a meeting via your preferred means of telephone or zoom call. We are not aware of any physical, cultural or privacy risks to you as a result of your participation in this research. The questions asked in the survey focus primarily on community-level issues, however, they may draw on personal experiences related to the impacts of stressful events such as COVID-19. As a participant, you may choose whether or not to answer any questions, based on your comfort level with the topic, and you are free to withdraw at any time. A list of free mental health services will also be made available to you, should the need arise. Any documents resulting from this survey will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet in a secure office at UBCO. You will not be identified in the reports coming from this research. All electronic data will be kept on a computer hard disk and will be protected by password. Access to these passwords will be limited to the Principal and Co-Investigators. The results of the study will be used in a master’s thesis as well as other academic publications, and will be sent to you once made publicly available. If you have any further questions or require more information, please feel free to contact the Co-investigator any time [contact information removed]. Yours sincerely, Ayla De Grandpre-Brown (Co-investigator) Master’s student Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies (IGS) – Sustainability University of British Columbia Okanagan 159 2) Letter of Consent Consent Form: Mapping Survey Building adaptation pathways for local food production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach Study Team: Principal Investigator: Donna M. Senese PhD, Associate Professor Geography, Community, Culture and Global Studies [contact information removed]. Co-Investigator: Ayla D Brown, Master’s student, Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies- Sustainability, [contact information removed]. Invitation and Study Purpose: The purpose of this research is to collaboratively build adaptation pathways that address both current and future shocks (e.g. pandemics) and stressors (e.g. climate change) affecting local food production here in the Okanagan. Adaptation pathways are a set of adaptation actions, sequenced over time to respond to risks posed by shocks and stressors. You are being invited to take part in this research because you have been identified as a stakeholder or expert involved in local food production and are someone who may have important knowledge to contribute to the pathways plan. Study Procedures: What happens if you say yes to participate in this study? Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to engage and to revoke your consent whenever you so choose. If you choose to participate in this research, you will be asked to sign this letter of consent virtually by selecting the “I consent” option. If you would like additional information to outline the purpose of this research, your role in it and expectations for participation and to answer any of your questions, you may request that the co-investigator contact you via your preferred method, either by e-mail, phone or zoom. Participants who wish to participate will be invited to complete a 15-20 minute virtual mapping survey, where we will ask you questions about (a) yourself and your connection to food production, (b) what kind of hazards, vulnerabilities and risks to local food production you may have experienced, and (c) your views and hopes for the future of food production in the Okanagan. This survey will take place on Qualtrics and the Geolive platform, which is a mapping survey software developed by UBCO. All the data from this survey will be stored on secure UBC servers. Your participation is entirely voluntary through all stages of this research, and you may contact the researchers to revoke your consent at any time. Study Results: The results of this study will be reported in a graduate thesis and may also be 160 published in journal articles and books. They will be made available to you after they are published in the form of an electronic copy of the final report. The accumulated data and results will be used for a master’s thesis and other academic publication(s). Potential Risks: We are not aware of any physical, cultural or privacy risks to you as a result of your participation in this research. The questions asked in the survey focus primarily on community-level issues, however, they may draw on personal experiences related to the impacts of stressful events such as COVID-19. As a participant, you may choose whether or not to answer any questions, based on your comfort level with the topic, and you are free to withdraw at any time. Potential Benefits: The resulting community adaptation pathways plan is intended to be a tool for your use to improve decision making when facing uncertainty about future shocks and stressors and their impact on food production. It is anticipated that you will find value in the results of the study, which will highlight the risks and vulnerabilities to local food production in your region. Confidentiality: Your identity in the research and all resulting documents will remain entirely confidential. Data obtained from your survey will be assigned code number and will be stored on a secure computer hard-disk, which will be password protected and stored and kept for 5 years after publication, in the primary investigator's office at UBC Okanagan. You will not be identified by name or any individual quality in the reports coming from this research. All electronic data will be kept on a computer hard disk and will be protected by password. Access to these passwords will be limited to the Principal and Co-Investigators. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions or would like further information concerning this study, please contact either Ayla Brown, co-investigator at [contact information removed] or Dr. Donna Senese [contact information removed] Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics toll free at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca ). Please reference the study number H20-02626 when calling so the Complaint Line staff can better assist you. Consent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If at any time you wish to withdraw from the study, you will not be penalized or put at risk in any way – including from an employment, business or community reputation standpoint. Should you choose to withdraw from the study, you will receive an e-mail from the co-investigator within a week’s time, confirming your withdrawal. Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form, and that you consent to participate in this study. 161 ___________________________________________________________ Participant Signature Date __________________________________________________________ Printed Name of the Participant __________________________________________________________ Co-Investigator Signature Date __________________________________________________________ Printed Name of Co-Investigator Yours sincerely, Ayla De Grandpre-Brown (Co-Investigator) Master’s Student Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies (IGS) – Sustainability University of British Columbia Okanagan 162 3) Qualtrics and Geolive Survey Contents Qualtrics Survey: Q1: Thank you for participating in our study. Please carefully read over the form of consent before proceeding. You will be asked to confirm your consent in order to move forward in the survey. Click to download: Letter of consent mapping survey By completing the questionnaire below, you are consenting to participate in this research and indicating that you have received and read the consent form. • I consent • I do not consent Q2: In which of the following regions do you currently reside? • North Okanagan/Shuswap • Central Okanagan • South Okanagan/Similkameen • Other Q3: Please read the following statement and indicate whether you agree: Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree I feel a strong attachment to my region Q4: Which of the following categories best describes your role in local food or wine production? • Local food producer: (fruit/vegetable producer, livestock producer or rancher, egg farmer, producer of other products such as honey, flour etc.) • "Non-conventional" producer (Organic/ biodynamic/ permacultural/ regenerative etc.) • Wild food collector (hunter, forager, angler, trapper etc.) • Indigenous food knowledge keeper • Wine grower, maker or winery staff • "Non-conventional" wine grower, maker or winery staff (Organic/ biodynamic/ permacultural/ regenerative etc.) • Urban or rural gardener • Local food educator or advocate • Researcher/ scholar who studies local food • Local government or council • Other: Specify below: 163 Q5: How long have you been involved in food or wine production • 1-4 years • 5-9 years • 10-14 years • 15-20 years • More than 20 years Q6: Please enter your e-mail address: (this will only be used to contact you if you are interested in participating in the workshop phase of this research) Q7: This next question is a mapping exercise, which will take place on the Geolive mapping platform. Once you click the link provided below, you will be asked to place markers over current and potential disturbance (a potential or experienced source of harm - a shock or a stressor impacting food or wine production), and to provide some information about it. Instructions: (1) Click on the following link to access the interactive map: hazard.geolive.ca (2) Enter the username and password For those involved in local food production: username (author) and password (geolive) For those involved in local wine production: username (mountain) and password (geolive) (3) Follow the instructions on the mapping survey (4) Once you finish with the interactive map, please return to this survey and advance to the next question by clicking the arrow at the bottom of the page. ***What are some examples of disturbances? *** - Environmental Disturbances (e.g., landslides, flooding, drought, severe storms, late spring frosts etc.) - Socio-cultural Disturbances (e.g., inability to pass down the family farm, social inequity, lack of access to resources and information, poor social relationships, health and well-being, loss of culture etc.) - Economic Disturbances (e.g., recessions, market interruptions, labour shortages, etc.) - Political Disturbances (e.g., regulatory constraints, lack of regional planning, lack of support programs and subsidies etc.) - Biological Disturbances (e.g., pest and disease outbreaks, the introduction of new or invasive species, pandemics etc.) - Other Disturbances (e.g., technological issues and crashes, transportation interruptions, any other type of disturbance...) 164 Q8: Which disturbances do you see noticeably increasing into the future? (select multiple answers for each row) Environmental disturbances Socio-cultural disturbances Economic disturbances Biological disturbances Political disturbances Other Which disturbances do you see noticeably increasing in the near term (1-5 years)? Which disturbances do you see noticeably increasing later in the future (6-50 years)? Which disturbances do you see noticeably increasing in the much later future (51-100 years)? Q9: On a scale of 1-5, which disturbances are you MOST concerned about? (1 = lowest concern, 5= highest concern) 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental Disturbances Socio-cultural disturbances Economic Disturbances Biological Disturbances Other: please specify below Q10: When thinking about the future of local food or wine production in your community, please indicate if you believe the following will increase or decrease over the long term (up to 100 years): Strongly increase Increase Neither increase nor decrease decrease Strongly decrease Population size in the Okanagan Economic development (local GDP) Human welfare standards (e.g. access to healthcare, essential services, education) Availability of water resources for food production Inclusive governance (public participation in local governance) Availability of land for food production purposes 165 Diversification of food production in the Okanagan (e.g. lots of different varieties and species) Replacement of conventional methods for regenerative, mixed-use or organic production methods Adoption of new food-production technologies Frequency of pest and disease outbreaks Market and supply chain disruptions Availability of labour resources for local food production Loss of traditions, heritage and culture related to local food production Community cooperation, support and trust Q11: What aspects of your community do you value most? (answer in point form) Q12: What would a desirable future would look like for local food or wine production in the Okanagan? (answer in point form) End of Qualtrics survey 166 GeoLive Survey Screenshots Survey respondents navigated to the GeoLive survey, via the link in the Qualtrics survey. They were then directed to the following page: After entering the login credentials given in the Qualtrics survey instructions, they were able to navigate to a specific place using the search bar at the top of the screen and place a pin by dragging the grey pin icon (bottom right side of the screen) onto the map. Once they placed a pin, a survey popped up, prompting the respondent to share details about the disturbance. The screenshot below shows an example of what this survey window looked like. 167 For each pin dropped, respondents were asked to fill in and answer the following sections and questions: 1. Disturbance name 2. Disturbance description 3. Disturbance type • Environmental • Socio-cultural • Economic • Political • Biological • Other 4. How likely is it that local food and wine production will be exposed to this disturbance • Very likely • Likely • Unlikely • Very unlikely 5. What are the consequences for local food and wine production if it is exposed to this disturbance? 6. How serious could the impacts of this disturbance be on food production 168 • Very serious • Serious • Negligible effects • Not serious 7. This disturbance is something that... • Has happened • May happen in the future 8. How have (or might) you, or someone that you know, deal with this disturbance? End of the GeoLive survey 169 Appendix C Data collection sheets for the Parallel Scenario RCP 8.5: Worst-case scenario, possible climate change impacts data SSP 3: Key characteristics (O’Neil et al., 2014) • Challenges to adaptation and mitigation • Moderate economic growth • Rapidly growing population • Slow technological change in the energy sector • Low investment in human capital • High inequality • Regionalized trade flows (challenges to extra-regional trade) • Low institutional development Reference SPA: • Little to no change to climate change policies and mitigation efforts remain low. Possible future projections for RCP 8.5 (land use data), SSP 3, and Reference SPA 170 171 Appendix D Interview invitations, consent form and interview guide 1) Letter of initial contact for interviews Letter of Initial Contact – Interviews Building adaptation pathways for local food production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach Dear participant: Date: August 27, 2021 My name is Ayla Brown, and I am a master’s student enrolled in Sustainability studies at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO). I am the Co-Investigator working on a research project titled: Building adaptation pathways for local food and wine production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach, under the supervision of the Primary Investigator, Dr. Donna Senese, Associate Dean of the Department of Community, Culture and Global Studies. Both Dr. Senese and I are interested in uncovering ways to help local food production in the Okanagan adapt to socio-economic and environmental changes and have successfully completed research projects exploring the resilience of the industry in the past. The purpose of this research is to collaboratively build adaptation pathways that address change in the form of both current and future shocks (e.g. pandemics) and stressors (e.g. climate change) affecting local food production in the Okanagan. Adaptation pathways are a set of adaptation actions, sequenced over time to respond to risks posed by shocks and stressors. This research aims to identify if and how adaptation pathways can be used to build resilience, or the ability to prepare, adapt and innovate for the eventuality of shocks and stressors. You have been identified as a stakeholder or expert involved in local food production, and are someone who may have important knowledge that will contribute to the development and implementation of the future of local food production in the valley. We would like invite you to participate in an in-person or zoom interview, which will last between 1-1.5 hours. Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to engage and to revoke your consent whenever you so choose. If you choose to participate in this research, you will be asked to sign a letter of consent. If you would like additional information to outline the purpose of this research, your role in it and expectations for participation and to answer any of your questions, you may request that the co-investigator contact you via your preferred method, either by e-mail, phone or zoom. 172 If you indicate your wish to participate, you will be invited to attend a zoom interview, which will last between 1-1.5 hours. In this interview, I will ask you questions regarding your relationship to local food/wine and the assets of food/wine production that you’d like to bring into the future. We will then go over the results of the survey, which explored the range of disturbances affecting production in the bioregion, and then we will discuss how you, or those you know, have adapted to these types of disturbances in the past, and how we might adapt into the future. The interviews will result in an inventory of adaptation strategies, which will be organized into actions that can be taken now, later, and much later. This will help to create the pathways. Once the inventory and pathways are complete and the report is drafted, I will be distributing the results to you. Confidentiality: Your identity in the research and all resulting documents will remain entirely confidential. Data obtained from your interview will be transcribed and assigned code number and will be stored on a secure computer hard-disk, which will be password protected and stored and kept for 5 years after publication, in the primary investigator's office at UBC Okanagan. You will not be identified by name or any individual quality in the reports coming from this research. All electronic data will be kept on a computer hard disk and will be protected by password. Access to these passwords will be limited to the Principal and Co-Investigators. Potential Risks: We are not aware of any physical, cultural or privacy risks to you as a result of your participation in this research. The questions asked touch on issues such as the wildfires, which may be currently affecting you and causing you stress. As a participant, you may choose whether or not to answer any questions, based on your comfort level with the topic, and you are free to withdraw at any time. If you select an in-person interview, it is important that you read over the Notice of COVID-related Risk attached to this letter. The risks of contracting COVID-19 is low, and will be mitigated by asking all participants to complete a COVID-19 Health Check prior to our meeting. Should you have any concerns, we welcome you to reach out to us. It is expected that the you and the researcher will adhere to COVID-19 safety protocols as outlined by UBC Okanagan, including: • Physical distancing measures: The participant and the research will maintain 6 feet of physical distance to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19. • Wearing a mask: is encouraged but not required in the interview. Potential Benefits: The resulting community adaptation pathways plan is intended to be a tool for your use to improve decision making when facing uncertainty about future shocks and stressors and their impact on food production. It is anticipated that you will find value in the process of identifying practical and actionable opportunities to adapt. You will also likely find value in the final report, which will put all of the ideas of participants together in one place. Should you like to participate, we would ask you to contact the co-investigator within a month’s time so that she might contact you via your preferred method, either e-mail, phone or zoom, to 173 outline the purpose of this research, your role in it and expectations for participation and to answer any of your questions. If you have any further questions or require more information, please feel free to contact the Co-investigator any time (e. ayla11@mail.ubc.ca Or tel. 778-214-0650). Yours sincerely, Ayla De Grandpre-Brown (Co-investigator) Master’s student Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies (IGS) – Sustainability University of British Columbia Okanagan 2) Letter of consent for interviews Consent Form: Adaptation Pathways Interviews Building adaptation pathways for local food production in the Okanagan bioregion: An applied participative approach Study Team: Principal Investigator: Donna M. Senese PhD, Associate Professor Geography, Community, Culture and Global Studies [contact information removed] Co-Investigator: Ayla D Brown, Master’s student, Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies- Sustainability, [contact information removed] Invitation and Study Purpose: The purpose of this research is to collaboratively build adaptation pathways that address both current and future shocks (e.g. pandemics) and stressors (e.g. climate change) affecting local food production here in the Okanagan. Adaptation pathways are a set of adaptation actions, sequenced over time to respond to risks posed by shocks and stressors. You are being invited to take part in this research because you have been identified as a stakeholder or expert involved in local food production and are someone who may have important knowledge to contribute to the pathways plan. Study Procedures: What happens if you say yes to participate in this study? Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to engage and to revoke your consent whenever you so choose. If you choose to 174 participate in this research, you will be asked to sign a letter of consent. If you would like additional information to outline the purpose of this research, your role in it and expectations for participation and to answer any of your questions, you may request that the co-investigator contact you via your preferred method, either by e-mail, phone or zoom. If you indicate your wish to participate, you will be invited to attend an in-person or zoom interview, which will last between 1-1.5 hours. In this interview, I will ask you questions regarding your relationship to local food/wine and the assets of food/wine production that you’d like to bring into the future. We will then go over the results of the survey, which explored the range of disturbances affecting production in the bioregion, and then we will discuss how you, or those you know, have adapted to these types of disturbances in the past, and how we might adapt into the future. The interviews will result in an inventory of adaptation strategies, which will be organized into actions that can be taken now, later, and much later. This will help to create the pathways. Once the inventory and pathways are complete and the report is drafted, I will be distributing the results to you. Study Results: The results of this study will be reported in a graduate thesis and may also be published in journal articles and books. They will be made available to you after they are published in the form of an electronic copy of the final report. The accumulated data and results will be used for a master’s thesis and other academic publication(s). Potential Risks: We are not aware of any physical, cultural or privacy risks to you as a result of your participation in this research. The questions asked touch on issues such as the wildfires, which may be currently affecting you and causing you stress. As a participant, you may choose whether or not to answer any questions, based on your comfort level with the topic, and you are free to withdraw at any time. If you select an in-person interview, it is important that you read over the Notice of COVID-related Risk attached to this letter. The risks of contracting COVID-19 is low, and will be mitigated by asking all participants to complete a COVID-19 Health Check prior to our meeting. Should you have any concerns, we welcome you to reach out to us. It is expected that the you and the researcher will adhere to COVID-19 safety protocols as outlined by UBC Okanagan, including: • Physical distancing measures: The participant and the research will maintain 6 feet of physical distance to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19. • Wearing a mask: is encouraged but not required in the interview. Potential Benefits: The resulting community adaptation pathways plan is intended to be a tool for your use to improve decision making when facing uncertainty about future shocks and stressors and their impact on food production. It is anticipated that you will find value in the 175 process of identifying practical and actionable opportunities to adapt. You will also likely find value in the final report, which will put all of the ideas of participants together in one place. Confidentiality: Your identity in the research and all resulting documents will remain entirely confidential. Data obtained from your interview will be transcribed and assigned code number and will be stored on a secure computer hard-disk, which will be password protected and stored and kept for 5 years after publication, in the primary investigator's office at UBC Okanagan. You will not be identified by name or any individual quality in the reports coming from this research. All electronic data will be kept on a computer hard disk and will be protected by password. Access to these passwords will be limited to the Principal and Co-Investigators. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions or would like further information concerning this study, please contact either Ayla Brown, co-investigator at [contact information removed], or Dr. Donna Senese [contact information removed] Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics toll free at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca ). Please reference the study # H20-02751 when making inquiries when calling so the complaint line staff can better assist you. Consent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If at any time you wish to withdraw from the study, you will not be penalized or put at risk in any way – including from an employment, business or community reputation standpoint. Should you choose to withdraw from the study, you will receive an e-mail from the co-investigator within a week’s time, confirming your withdrawal. Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form, and that you consent to participate in this study. ___________________________________________________________ Participant Signature Date __________________________________________________________ Printed Name of the Participant __________________________________________________________ Co-Investigator Signature Date 176 __________________________________________________________ Printed Name of Co-Investigator Yours sincerely, Ayla De Grandpre-Brown (Co-Investigator) Master’s Student Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies (IGS) – Sustainability University of British Columbia Okanagan 3) Interview Guide Part 1 : Introductions/ values (Aim : to develop rapport and identify participant values) Q1: Tell me about your relationship to local food/wine? • Probe: How long have you been involved in this capacity? • Probe: Have you done this anywhere else? • Probe: Tell me about the kind of products do you produce? • Probe: Tell me about the primary farming practices that you use? • Probe: Tell me about the core values of your farm? Q2: Icebreaker: How did you initially get involved and why? • Probe: Did you grow up on a farm/vineyard? • Probe: Tell me what drew you to [insert type of farming]? Q3: Tell me about the values/assets that you think [insert producer group] should hold onto into the future? • Probe: What are the things you love most about [your community, food/wine production] that you hope will still be there in the future? • Probe: Why are these things important to you? Do you think that they are important to your peers? • Probe: In your own words, can you tell me what a resilient farm looks like? 177 Part 2: Backcasting & brainstorming adaptation pathways (aim: identify adaptation strategies and possible timing of these strategies) Introduce the results of the survey: disturbances and visions of a desirable future. Talk about the scenario and future climate change projections. Talk about adaptation strategies that have been used in other regions of the world to give the respondent examples to draw from (see below). For each disturbance that the participant chooses to talk about, ask: Q4: Has X disturbance affected you in the past 10 years? If so, walk me through how this unfolded for you… • Probe: How did you deal with this disturbance? What kind of strategies did you use to get over this obstacle? • Probe: When did this happen? Q5: What can we do now… later… much later… to adapt to X disturbance? • Probe: Who are the actors that can contribute to making this happen? • Probe: What events or actions are necessary for the desired end state to become a reality? Q6: What are the key barriers to adopting these strategies? • Probe: Why might this strategy be hard to implement? § Does it cause major disruption to your current operations? Is it costly? Does it require a long lead time? • Probe: Would this strategy be easy to change over time if things change? • Probe: How might this strategy affect other aspects of your farm? § Will it be beneficial overall, or does it have trade-offs? Part 3: Closing (wrap up and prioritize the actions) Q7: What are the most important things that need to change in order for the food/wine industry to navigate these disturbances and reach the desired outcomes? Q8: Prognosis for the future: How confident are you that producers in the region will be able to adapt to changes in the coming years?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Senese, Donna
Pathways to resilience : building adaptation pathways for local food and wine production in the Okanagan Bioregion
Text