Resistance Resilience Transformation (RRT)
The RRT framework is a well-established tool to help managers define the highest level of desired future conditions for climate-informed management where resistance, resilience, or transition are three options. As described in Swanston et al. (2016), these three options are:
- To enhance an ecosystem’s ability to resist change
- To enhance an ecosystem’s ability to be resilient and accommodate some degree of change
- To intentionally anticipate or accommodate change and actively facilitate change and transition within the ecosystem
Most managers are trained to manage resources toward desired ecological conditions, and the RRT framework allows for a climate-focused lens through which managers develop their plans, such as silviculture prescription writing (for more examples see Evans et al. 2021). Additionally, the RRT pathways allows managers to define their goals internally, and clearly communicate these goals externally. Much like the RAD framework, the RRT pathways can be used in combination with different options implemented at different spatial and temporal scales (Millar et al., 2007).
The RRT framework was developed to help managers move away from paradigms that rely on historical conditions and instead embrace a flexible approach that “emphasizes ecological processes rather than structure” (Millar et al., 2007, p. 2146). Millar et al. (2007) conceptualized the framework to help develop forest management strategies for managing forested ecosystems in the context of climate change and the associated uncertainties.
The RRT framework has since been adapted by several organizations, such as the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS) and the U.S. Forest Service, to incorporate the resources they created into decision making processes (Swanston et al., 2016).
A limitation of the RRT framework is that the “resilience,” as an adjective, is subject to individual interpretation, which can be loaded with cultural connotations (Fisichelli et al., 2016; Maltby et al., 2023; Meerow & Newell, 2019). A resilient system may not always be a desired end point. For example, a resilient socio-ecological system could perpetuate long-standing inequities (Meerow & Newell, 2019). Meerow and Newell (2019) recommend asking resilience for whom, what, when, where and how as a reflective exercise to create an equitable and clear definition of resilience.
Topic | Case study | Citation |
|---|---|---|
Forestry | Restoring Red Spruce Forests | The Nature Conservancy |
Forestry | Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change | Palik et al., 2022 |
Forestry | Preserving ash in the face of the emerald ash borer and climate change | D’Amato et al., 2023a, 2023b |
Marsh management | Using the Adaptation Workbook to create a resilient marsh and maintain habitat for a suite of birds | Allouez Bay Marsh Bird Habitat Restoration Planning |
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