Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD)

The Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework consists of three general management pathways that can be used when responding to climate change. The three pathways were designed to be all-encompassing (e.g. all decisions could fall under Resist, Accept, or Direct) (Lynch et al., 2021; Schuurman et al., 2022; Thompson et al., 2021). While RAD options are mutually exclusive, they can be used in a single landscape on different spatial or temporal scales; for instance, resisting change in the short-term with plans to direct change in the long-term. Additionally, these climate-informed approaches can be used in concert with other decision support tools to incorporate climate trajectories in traditional decision support structures, such as adaptive management (Powell et al., 2017; Schuurman et al., 2022; Lynch et al. 2022). The RAD framework is a unique tool because the focus is on management actions rather than the goal state for an ecosystem (Schuurman et al., 2022).

A figure depicting the Resist-Accept-Direct Framework. A gradient-colored triangle labeled "RAD" with three distinct symbols outside the triangle: a purple hexagon above, an orange triangle to the lower left, and a teal diamond to the lower right. The triangle contains a tricolored gradient of purple, orange and teal until meeting in the middle. The purple portion of the triangle is labeled “R” indicating Resist, the orange part of the triangle is labeled “A” indicating Accept, and the heel portion of the — Figure 4.1. Conceptual diagram depicting the three pathways for the Resist, Accept and Direct (RAD) framework. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/rad-conceptual-figurejpg

The RAD framework was designed to help managers move beyond traditional conservation actions, such as managing for historical baselines, to also consider future conditions in setting action targets (Lynch et al., 2021). The RAD framework encourages managers to consider not just the conventional approach of resisting change, but also the pathways of accepting and directing change. RAD reframes accept as an active decision, rather than a passive one, potentially reducing the taboo of taking no action (Thompson et al., 2021). While climate change is bringing new challenges to managers, researchers have found that, to date, conservation professionals are generally implementing conventional conservation actions (LeDee et al., 2021; Lynch et al., 2022; McLaughlin et al., 2022; Reside et al., 2018).

The RAD approach built from the Resistance-Resilience-Transition typology (see below) to emphasize what managers can control –their actions– rather than what they cannot –i.e., outcomes under changing climate. In practice, RAD is a tool for discussing and categorizing management options and encourages managers to identify their own desired end-states. It is notable that RAD centers on the actions of a natural resource manager, and this represents a particular perspective of engaging with the natural world that may not translate to other viewpoints. For example, many Indigenous people see themselves as in relationship with nonhuman beings, not as external forces developing actions to intervene in the natural world (Shultz et al., 2022). One potential way to identify if RAD is the right framework for a system could be by reflecting on the system and stakeholders central to the adaptation planning process. Clifford et al. (2021) discusses how external influences, such as faith, risk perception, or focal species of concern can shape a manager's decision-making process. Reflecting on these influences could help managers make transparent decisions and consider how others with differing worldviews may react to different actions.

Table 4.2. A list of recent examples of implementing the RAD framework in the Northeast or adjacent regions for natural-resource management.
Topic	Case study	Citation
Invasive species in marine systems	Lionfish in the Caribbean	Rogers-Bennett et al., 2022
Invasive species in freshwater systems	Introduced Brook Trout vs. Native Bull Trout	Dunham et al., 2022
Invasive species in a Tribal context	Ojibwe knowledge holder’s perspectives on terrestrial invasive species	Shultz et al., 2022
Agricultural systems and private landowners	Categorizing coastal farmers and woodlot managers in response to the potential for rapid and irreversible change to the landscape due to SLR in Maryland and Virginia	Sudol et al., 2023
River systems	Understanding management actions along the different areas of the Mississippi River Basin	Ward et al., 2023
Diadromous fishes	Characterizing restoration and recovery actions for Endangered Atlantic Salmon at the southern edge of their range in Maine	Kocik et al. 2022
Fisheries	Categorizing fisheries management interventions in the context of ecological and social goals	Thompson et al., 2023

References

Adapted from

Staudinger, M.D., A.V. Karmalkar, K. Terwilliger, K. Burgio, A. Lubeck, H. Higgins, T. Rice, T.L. Morelli, A. D'Amato. 2024. A regional synthesis of climate data to inform the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plans in the Northeast U.S. DOI Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center Cooperator Report. 406 p. https://doi.org/10.21429/t352-9q86

The Final Report, Appendix, and Webinar can be found here