Groups of stakeholders in each of the six study sites attended workshops to discuss

1. whether they have noticed changes in environmental conditions and/or regime changes, and how they adapted to those changes, over and up to a period of 20 years from the present, and
2. what kind of changes they expect to witness in the future (up to 20 years from the present) as well as what future changes, strategies and adaptation measures they perceive they might make to their land use and management, in order to adapt to those possible future changes.

Who were the stakeholders?

Stakeholders included:

1. land users (farmers, shepherds, transient and sedentary land users, managers and hunters);
2. landscape users (naturalists, photographers, tourist guides);
3. government stakeholders from environment departments, local councils and forestry departments;
4. stakeholders from environmental NGOs;
5. the private sector;
6. researchers.

(NB: Not all sites had the same groups of stakeholders.)

Perceptions of changes in environmental conditions and/or regime shifts

The stakeholders identified a range of different types of regime changes including land use changes, environmental and ecological changes, and climatic events that have taken place in the past.

However, they tended not to clearly differentiate between regime changes and the drivers of those changes. For example, erosion could be seen as both a regime change driven by changes in land use practices, and as a driver of vegetation loss. The fuzziness between changes/drivers was particularly apparent in relation to climate change events, which stakeholders quoted both as a change in themselves, and as a driver of change. As most stakeholders had this ambiguous view across the study sites, and it was clear that they saw drivers and effects/consequences as part of a vicious cycle of use-damage-more intensive uses-more damage.

Another challenge with the data received is that when describing the changes in regime, most stakeholders referred to a period of more than 20 years ago, despite being asked only about the last 20 years. As such, they described the changes in the time frame that they had observed within their memorable lifetime, instead of referring to the time frame that was asked of them. This made it difficult to establish a reference/baseline period, which was deemed necessary to permit comparisons to be made and establish whether stakeholders were talking about the same change(s) as one another, or not. Finally, while stakeholders mentioned the changes taking place and the adaptations undertaken, specific changes were not always linked to specific adaptations. This further complicated the analysis.

Stakeholder adaptations to change

Although there was some overlap between them, four areas into which stakeholders are currently channeling their adaptation efforts were identified.

1. Environmental management adaptations, the main activities that stakeholders undertook in response to regime changes across all study sites (67% of measures across sites). These referred mostly to prevention and management of deleterious environmental changes, and to the recovery of nature and rural practices.
2. Socio-political adaptations, (15%) and consisted of improving land use and environmental management through cross-sector organization, advancing or creating policies for land use and land users, and patrolling to prevent illegal practices.
3. Socio-economic adaptations, stakeholders mentioned economic support, subsidies, and migration.
4. Cultural adaptations.

Environmental management adaptation measures were the main activities that stakeholders undertook in response to regime changes across all study sites. These referred mostly to prevention and management of deleterious environmental changes, and to the recovery of nature and rural practices. (Rural practices are an example of an adaptation that may also be considered in the cultural adaptation category. Given the links to land management, we classified rural practices under environmental management adaptations). Socio-political measures consisted of improving land use and environmental management through cross-sector organization, advancing or creating policies for land use and land users, and patrolling to prevent illegal practices. Under socio-economic measures, stakeholders mentioned economic support, subsidies, and migration.

Future adaptation to change

When answering about the policy/economic support required to facilitate adaptation, stakeholders differed in their needs and visions for future efforts. Responses of wanting/desiring/ needing differed from the measures they are already carrying out, in which they stated what was lacking, or identified better ways of implementing current efforts.

Most areas of support required were directed towards environmental management (30%) and socio-political and cultural measures (22% each).

There were also suggestions for new approaches including a) engagement in new activities/or new practices such as aiming for product certifications, engagement in or promotion of rural tourism, organising cooperatives, and the use of alternative energy sources; and b) other changes, in which there are efforts towards education, engagement of new generations in rural activities, revaluation of rural stakeholders and traditional practices, which, with the exception of two stakeholders (from Italy and Albatera, Spain) who stated that they were devoting efforts to education, was not currently being practised.